mfa1010

Ok :) One needs to be pretty far-sighted, though, to count in the possibility that it might go XX-slow pass-pass- back to us, if we double 5♥, and therefore we'd better not double.

Down 1 in 5♥R is no big deal. If you think the redouble is out of line on the actual west hand with so little offense then I wonder what you were hoping/expecting west to have, when you passed 5♥R as south. If west tends to be even better (like ♦-void also) then passing 5♥R looks suicidal.

In my opinion are 5♥ and XX both very normal bids with the west hand.

You tell us. We still don't know if we had that problem in your case, or if we just made up a hypothetical. All we know for sure is South put himself in the position for it to be a problem. Edit: If North is alive, there would have been some figiting, however slight in this case...no matter what he held. My question was hypothetical. So many were discussing break-of-tempo without having heard, if there even was any. So I was wondering what "normal tempo" would be here and how much fidgety it would take to constitute relevant UI. Since many seem to expect there will be fidgiting even before having heard about it. A strong TD from around here stated that it would be good bridge always to take just a few seconds over XX, and that a very fast pass would be unusual indeed.

I disagree. I think 6♦ would be a pretty lucky make, and I prefer to play 3NT.

An interesting question is what would constitute UI fidgety after a five-level redouble.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq9872h63daq82c62&w=sajt6ha952d3ct943&n=sk543hdkjt654ckq7&e=shkqjt874d97caj85]399|300[/hv] The winning action was to run to 5♠X-2. -300 instead of -1000 in 5♥R. I wouldn't expect W's XX to be an attempt to get us to run as such, rather that he will be prepared for 5♠. But a bad split in spades also means no tricks in spades against 5♥.

That reminds of stories from Donald Duck and the Minus Four Digits.

I agree I can't know, and pass will concede 790 with a significant frequency. On the other hand if both sides go down pass is not just a small but a huge imp-winner. +200 at both tables = 9 imps etc. It probably matters a great deal how aggressive the opponents are (= how often we will catch them with flattish hands). It is a very tough problem in my view. I could see myself double 4♥ with 5233 16-17 if the values are sharp (aces etc.) as a battlefield decision. With 6-0 in the majors partner should be willing to guess 4♠ himself a lot, if his suit is just reasonably good. So there are not that many voids in his range. 5044 is possible, but 5530-hands would have bid Michaels.

I would try pass, but I'm very much in doubt. I take the sure plus (famous last words). Phil, why would partner X 1♥ with 16+ 5233? I would need more with that shape, somethng like maybe 18+.

The link doesn't work for me. Edit: I use internet explorer 10.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq9872h63daq82c62&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d4hppdp4s5hppdrpp]133|200[/hv] 1♦ was precision style (unbal 10-15 with diamonds or 11-13 bal). So X of 4♥ was a shape takeout. Comments?

4♥ on the first and D on the second. Both actions are clear, but we are more likely to hit a making contract on the first hand.

We could try a low diamond off dummy. If W has ♥K+♦Q83 then leading diamonds twice from dummy is the only way to make it. If they return a club which makes us believe the suit is 3-4 with east having 4, we could exit a third diamond. Playing this way we'll get full count for the end position and can play the longer hearts hand for ♥K by either leding towards the Q or endplaying E with the fourth club.

Linczmayer calls it Reese Count. I haven't tried it yet but I looks to me to have a lot of merit instead of UDCA count in a count situation.

If you get ill that easily then bridge is perhaps not the thing. :) There will be many situations where one has to make a practical but ugly bid that may work out badly. This situation is a guess, we can't avoid that. My judgement is as I stated. I realize that partner has more of a preference to diamonds if he bids 6♦ than if he bids 6♣. No reason to talk down to me. 5N then 6♠ shows my hand well imo, because partner can still bid. 5N shows flexibility, and 6♠ is not cancelling that. But obviously there is a risk that we get too high, such is life. If you have a good set of agreements in this situation I would like to hear about them.

I agree if playing 2/1.

I don't see why we should choose anything else but 4N. Here we want to play slam opposite 2 key Cards and stay in 5 opposite 1 key Card. Anyway, partner's hesitation doesn't suggest that 4N is better than some other slam move, so the discussion of which move to make/is a LA is not important.

I would double. Selling to a 2♠ eight-card fit is feeble with this goodish hand.

1♦ then 3♦. Two stiff kings are extremely ugly for a 5♦ opening bid. I don't see the point in bidding more than 3♦ the second time. We won't preempt them out of anything. We surely can't make more than 9 tricks at the very most. And partner might have many major suit cards so that 3♦ will buy the contract or they will go down in whatever they bid.

No, imo is pass not a LA. We have a perfekt hand to blackwood, I wouldn't expect many players not to do so.

I would try 5N with the intention of passing 6♥ and correcting 6♦ to 6♠. Since 5N implies a flexible hand, partner will have a chance to get us to 7red if he can't stand spades. I feel lucky. I think double is too feeble. Partner takes it out too rarely. If he does take it out we would just about have a leap to 7 in his suit. 5♠ gets the worst of it, since we'll usually be stuck there. We have all the controls so partner won't raise. We'll miss a ton of slams, have the risk of going minus, and never get a 800/1100 penalty. It's a good problem. Too bad the layout is already posted, because it might be easier to be brave when one knows what partner had :).

Thanks for comments. The committee ruled (not unanimously) 'result stands' on the basis that the UI didn't suggest anything in particular for S after N's 5♦ bid.

West had Kxxx, Kxx, Qxx, Kxx so if they persist in diamonds, we duck once more and make it easily with clubs coming in for 5 tricks.

Thanks for your thoughts. :) It is not entirely clear to me what your suggested solution is. If 2♣ could be a good 3-card raise or a good 4-card raise, but also a good hand with no fit, then it seems to me that it will be hard for overcaller to proceed or judge a competitive auction.