PhilKing

OK - I will enter the hand into my database. :)

I think you should be looking for a more generic solution to situations such as this. Mine would start with "double (t/o) promises reasonable defence and sets up a force when doubler bids again". In this situation you define double followed by 3♠ as weaker than 3♠ direct. That is certainly non-standard, which is fine as long as you have equivalent positions where you use the same principle, but the appearance is one of someone who is trying to redesign the wheel in order to go down a particular alleyway. Second would be "cue can be any GF that does not want partner to sit for penalties". Then partner always has the option of leaving in the double with no clear bid. By doubling on all your good and medium multi-directional hands, but never on shapely ones, makes it easier for partner to pass on 1345 hands with four average diamonds, for instance, so you will never have to bid a suicidal three-card suit ...

Don't need to flick the pages - the hands are all in my 4000 hand play database. I am waiting to see if this is a contender for 4001. Some information for contender hands has to be included. For instance, what did West discard on the second trump? Or did he follow, having led from two small? Some critical pieces of the jigsaw are missing. I am still missing a sense of significance here. The Qx thing doesn't really resonate.

I am baffled as to why you have created this thread - but I have faith it will turn out to be a fruitful and informative one.

But what did partner have?

FWIW if they hitch and play low I am running the ten - they were thinking of covering with the queen. After hesitating they will not play low with the ace unless they are dodgy or a novice. If they play low smoothly I have a problem ... It seems rather unlikely that we will have had an auction where leading the ♥A is credible (don't be shy - give us the auction when presenting any play problem), and if the king holds I am home regardless of breaks (I have four outside winners and eight trump tricks). If it loses, the queen may still drop in three. Oh, and there's no squeeze when West has ♥Axxxx and the ♠K regardless of what East plays when in with the queen, since you only have 10 winners (I assume that's what's known as a squeeze without the count :rolleyes: ).

I am pretty sure Jeff Rubens does not bid 3♣ on this hand. (Jeffs Elixir). It's by starting low on 5431 shapes that he is able to use 3♣ as a thee way bid without butchering the club suit. He has spent over 40 years trying to get Bridge World readers to rebid 2♣ on this hand pattern and strength. You could make it a point stronger and I am pretty sure he still recommends it. I strongly agree. On this hand, partner raises to 3♣, you bid 3♥ and partner bids 3NT. You are well placed over everything other than pass: over 2♦ you bid 2NT non-forcing, over 2♥ you can bid 4♦ (splinter) and over 2♠ or 2NT you bid 3♥ describing your exact shape. And if partner passes 2♣ that may not be so bad. Opposite a misfit with usually one spade, you will often not make game, since partner is typically 1453, 1444 or 2344 and very weak when he passes. If he is 1543, well that's just too bad.

The reason I don't like sacrificing is that even when it makes it's often not 1100 against 1430, it's 1100 versus 680 or 500 or even a ridiculous 300 (as Simpson/Price got on this hand, I believe). We just do not know teammates are likely to get to slam, in which case sacrificing produces a guaranteed loss. Take the actual hand - some pairs did not reach Six Hearts because not everyone found the "enterprising" Five Heart bid (although obviously Forrester was one). Yes, you can still reach slam if South double and North bids 5NT, but that was not happening. I would not have bid Five Diamonds (Four Clubs has a weird appeal), so I may not have had the problem. But as bid, with a few bits and pieces I take my chances on defence. I don't accept that a fifth diamond necessarily reduces our defensive prospect - the diamond was never really cashing anyway, and holding Qxx of spades is better. I'm not saying we will beat slam more than half the time - probably under 40% I would guess, but passing is often our only chance. It's irrelevant what I would do though. The point is how many Easts would sit with the 4441 hand and sac with the 5431 hand? Thee are plenty of people who would sacrifice with both or neither and relatively few, I would suggest, that would sacrifice with the second but not the first.

That sounds like Matthew Upson when he was at West Ham.

I presume this will get moved to the "rulings" section in due course. 3♦ was pretty dubious imo - partner could be 5332.

I assume you are joking: ♠Qxx ♥T ♦KJxxx ♣Kxxx. Why would you save on this auction? The hand that did NOT save was: Qxxx T KQJT Kxxx - not much difference really, except that on the actual hand the save is one trick cheaper. ♠Qxx is better for defence and worse for offence.

And no one has ever led from three to an honour in the fourth suit before.

East can put you to a guess by coming down to Qx of spades in the ending you came to. After SJ to the ace and two rounds of clubs you do not have a sure line. You will know West was 3361 or 2371, but not which. After the CQ held, the advantage of the second club after cashing two hearts, is that West will usually ruff (as Nicola did) and now the ending becomes automatic.

Win second club, cross to a diamond and exit with a club as suggested by gszes. If they cash clubs, you get to see if the suit is 35 or 44. If they don't cash clubs, and righty is the only one who can realistically have five on the lead, a heart to the nine is now a "safe" extra chance.

If East has ♠QJTx ♥JTx ♦xx ♣Qjxx he plays a heart after winning the second club. No squeeze.

Indeed. 1444 is possible in that he will probably throw a diamond rather than a heart from J9xx Txxx, since his diamonds could be picked up when you have 4 anyway. It would be pretty hilarious to lose a trick to Jx after East pitches from Txxx. It's a lot less likely from JTxx. Anyway, OP played it fine. Everyone except Helgemo misanalyses hands now and again (as evidenced by one of England's finest flooring this hand on vugraph).

Why can't he be 1534? I'm pretty sure he would pitch a diamond from that, particularly with three small ...

Standard splinter where I come from with 2♥ forcing or 2♦ to set up a force if you prefer. But even if partner has the majors, I prefer to bid 4♦. Anyway, once partner bids 3♥ I am playing slam. Maybe I should bid Five Diamonds.

If one bids on, I think the call is 3NT. For me this is still natural, even though I did not bid it on the previous round and it pretty much shows this hand. Partner only leaves it in when suitable, and bids a confident 4♦ when he has seaweed. I think South generally has 7 hearts here, and partner will often have Qxx and enough bits and pieces to bring 3NT home. I did a one-hand mental simulation and it produced the following: ♠Axx ♥Qxx ♦Kxx ♣Kxxx Opposite that, you might well sneak home 3NT, go down in Four Diamonds and conceded 140 against Three Hearts.

Sorry, I don't like any of the suggested lines at all. Trick 1 - ♠J Trick 2 - ♦8, East will cover with JTx, and if really weak my cover with JTxx, but we must give him the chance to err. If East covers with Jxx and TXX, that also helps us build two tricks. If East ducks, rise queen. Trick 3 - if still on play, low club, intending to play low from dummy against these guys (catering for Kx or Ax off, discounting AKx on, which leftie might lead, rise with or give off a tell). I would hate to go with the manglers and find out that West started with AJ or KJ tight! If they just plug away passively with spades, great. If they switch to hearts, I will need the finesse, or maybe my first "horse" - inducing the diamond cover - will have come home.

There's no need to look too deeply into this one. Presumably the defence starts with three rounds of clubs, ruffed with the seven and overruffed with the ten (best). To make 8 tricks you have to drop the stiff queen in the North hand. Deeep finesse is good at this sort of thing, because it looks at all four hands.

Grand slam opposite xx Axx Axx Akxxx. Can't I just jump to 4♣? The trouble with checkback is that if partner bids 3♥ or 3♠, 4♣ will sound like a cue bid. From the options you give, I choose 4♣ natural!

I like the 2♣ bid, but please be aware this is a massive underbid. It's a tactical underbid, since the bidding will never stop in 2♣ and by raising spades later we show good clubs. 3♥ is a splinter, surely. But whatever it means, we have a 4♦ bid, even with wasted heart values. Opposite a splinter my spade holding is terrible as well, but 4♦ is still indicated since partner has a minimum of Akxx x qxxx kxxx. And if partner has hearts (which I doubt), 4♦ is still best, even though it agrees hearts. Over 4♠ I bid 6♣ and over 4♥ I will scratch my head, probably concluding a wheel has fallen off since we are a scratch partnership.

I did a fairly short simulation for this scenario (holding ♥J9xxx, which for me is the pivotal hand), and the results were pretty close. In a vacuum pass was fine and avoided quite a few disasters. However, when partner reopened with a double we had an insoluble problem (4♥ and miss slam or 5♥ and go down trying and sometimes still miss slam opposite decent minimums). 3♥ slightly edged out 3NT. We could sometimes shut out the preempt and score nine tricks but more often we needed to be in hearts. Double worked best - it occasionally led to an inferior spot when partner was 43 in the majors, but on the whole I think it came out ahead. Our hand is pretty flexible and double reflects that. For instance, if partner responds 4♣ that will often be the best spot other than passing.

It sounds as though the mistake is teaching them this treatment in the first place. They need a solid grasp of fundamentals (ie 3♥ shows a hand too good for 2♥ but not strong enough for 4♥) before you turn their world on it's head.