bill0mates

Perhaps the double is irrelevant to the correct defence, although it should help to find it. As Eric Jannersten points out in "The Only Chance" (great book), at IMP anyway you need to assume that partner has the cards (if credible) to beat the contract, even without a double. I think it also interesting that if North had held ♣xx and either♠AT8 or ♠AT9, and East had NOT held ♠9, then a ♠ switch by South is still required to beat the contract before cashing a second ♣, so as to provide North with a ♣ entry to South to repeat a ♠ through declarer's remaining ♠Qx.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj652ht6dacakqj94&w=s874hkqj874dj94c6&n=saqth932dk852ct85&e=sk93ha5dqt763c732&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1c1hp2h3c3hdppp&p=h2hah6h4h5hthkh3hqh9c2c4djd2d3dacac6c5]399|300[/hv] So, of those who voted, they unanimously let it through (sorry). Maybe they envisage a different lie of the cards where a club continuation gains. At the moment I cannot picture it. Inquiry got it spot on, but ironically didn't cast a vote :P My thoughts: West and North are doing a lot of bidding here. West has gone out on a limb to contest the partscore vulnerable, and North has gone out on a limb to double them into game. In cases like this I tend to assume that if one of them has not got their bid, I trust partner to have his. In any case, partner needs to have the cards for his double for this to have a prayer of going down, so we have to assume that he has it, even if we have doubts. Perhaps, from South's perspective, there remains an outside chance that North still has the ♥J. However, it seems unlikely that he would lead a ♥ at trick 1 from such a holding, and even if he did, (1) declarer may have played low from dummy at trick 1, and (2) I still cannot picture a remaining distribution where a ♣ continuation gains over a ♠ switch. One occasion in which a ♣ continuation might gain is if North started with a singleton ♣. However, it seems to me vanishingly unlikely that he would lead a ♥ at trick 1 with such a hand, and in any case South could protect against that possibility by switching to ♠ immediately when in with the ♦A before even cashing a first ♣ So, for North to have his Double, it seems that he must have the ♠A and ♦K, and either the ♠Q or doubleton ♣. In either scenario a ♠ switch beats it. But if, as Inquiry notes, declarer has at most 1 ♣, a ♠ switch is critical. It is a bit unfortunate that dummy has ♠9, but that is how the cards were dealt. With a lower ♠spot, North would only require ♠AT8 as sufficient for a ♠ switch to beat it. For the pedants, South might have discarded ♣A on the third trump, or led a lower ♣ than the Ace on the first round of that suit, and yes North's opening lead is the only one to give South a problem. But I thought it quite interesting, and it seems to have challenged the voters.

Thanks for the edit. I did use <enter> first time. I did not try Control+Enter. Will bear that in mind in future It is a pickup partnership with whom you have no agreements on carding. Sorry, not helpful, I know. I am intrigued to know if it makes a difference to your action. BTW I forgot to mention that it is IMPs, if that makes a difference.

BTW, how do you insert a line break in the Comments section of a hand insertion?

[hv=pc=n&s=sj652ht6dacakqj94&e=sk93ha5dqt763c732&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1c1hp2h3c3hdppp]266|200|1) Heart 2, A, 6, 4 2) Heart 5, T, K, 3 3) Heart Q, 9, Club 2, Club 4 4) Diamond J, 2, 3, A 5) Club A, 6, 5, 3 6) ? Over to you[/hv]

Thanks again. I agree. And yet he (that is I) still would not have held those extras with the Heart/Club shape reversed or had East's Club King been in Diamonds. Just replace one of East's small diamonds with the 10 and slam is just slightly below 50% despite the club wastage. Had I simply bid 6S over 4D (which is effectively what I did) then I would not be accused of "finding extras three times". There may be other, justified criticisms, but it rather hangs on whether East's one cooperation is enough on its own to justify West concluding that slam is sound. The purpose of my post is to find the good slams as well as to stay out of the bad. If West is aware that East's values are concentrated in Clubs then there is no question in my mind that West is not worth even a single slam try. On the other side of the coin I have difficulty constructing many hands in which slam is bad if East has no values in Clubs. As I see it, the problem with this hand is not the number of slam tries made by either side but the fact that none of the bids elicits this most important feature.

Thanks for the help. Would East have reason to bid differently if his King of Clubs had been in Diamonds? Or if West had held 5-0-4-4 shape instead of 5-4-4-0, and similar values and controls (obviously not identical as East as some of them), how would the (then) good slam be reached?

[hv=pc=n&w=skjt32hakj2dqj32c&e=sq954h43da654ckj2]266|100[/hv] Uncontested (until final double) auction at IMP 1S..3S 4C..4D 4H..4S 5C..5S 6S(X).P XX Hands possibly rotated for convenience (I forget) and any cards below 9 are just Xs. I (West) opened 1S East responded with a full value NF invitational limit raise to 3S Probably without justification I decided to slam force if partner cooperated with any slam try. I cue'd 4C, heard 4D (which effectively catapulted me to slam). It continued with more cue bids as shown. The 5C clue was for the practice, I guess, as I should not really be interested in the Granny (although I can construct hands where it is good). Even so perhaps I should have heard the vibe with the 5S bid. The key, to my mind, is for opener to show the Club shortage, opposite which responder should (I think) put on the brakes and not cue the Ace of diamonds. You may feel that a cue below game is forced if you have one available and that 4D does not show any particular enthusiasm. The problem was that 4C was just a general cue so responder cannot be blamed for the 4D cue in context. Perhaps playing a serious or nonserious 3N would keep us out, but on this hand I feel that use of 3N as a desire to show (or deny) a shortage may be more useful (other cues denying a 3N-suitable bid). No doubt you will advise that another key is not to play full value limit raises. Feel free to suggest how you think it should go. Turned out the doubler just had two black bullets. As he was the only one at the table (apart from me) who knew for certain that I had a Club void I feel justified in the XX. At that time (given the double) I thought that the odds of making were poor, but I thought that the IMP swing for making v going one off justified it.