Upon carefully re-reading the Phillip Martin article, I realized that there was no talk of switching the choice of the door at all.
"Showman that he is, he intentionally showed you a booby prize to heighten the suspense. Since you already knew that at least one of the other two ...
I once played this lead agreement with one partner. Under this lead agreement, the second card played by East would be the ♦6. Now, seeing the ♦3 still out, West should find the shift to the ♣K.
On this hand, all is well. But if declarer played this way from ...
I have played both precision variants described in the OP:
-> 14-16 1NT
-> 1♦-1M-1NT is 11-13 balanced and 2+ ♦
-> 12-15 1NT
-> 1♦ is unbalanced with 4+ ♦
The main problem with the latter is the loss of accuracy in auctions starting with 1NT, which ...
Agreed, but I would venture to add: a hand that has something going for it on offense.
A 3433 minimum with wasted values in spades for example, should be passed.
On this hand I voted 3♥ but it was close.
I would have liked to make a stronger bid the last round in order to set up a forcing pass and bring partner into the decision.
On this sequence, pass would not be forcing and I need to make a decision on my own. I choose X because the declarer ...
At the table, I might well have done exactly the same things the declarer did so far.
My next step would be to play hearts from the top and hope for 4-4 or queen dropping on the third round so that there are only two heart losers. Whoever wins the ...
Declarer's hand wasn't good enough to make a jump shift on the earlier turn. Somehow the combination of the spade bid and heart tolerance with dummy has improved his hand, to justify the leap to game. I would expect spade honours in declarer's hand for this sequence ...