PhilKing

No. You first have to establish that the BIT demonstrably suggests the chosen action over less successful choices. LA's are not relevant until then. Besides, only a lunatic would bid a grand slam here.

The reason for the BIT may have been that which you suggest, but to adjust we would need to demonstrate that the BIT suggests a grand slam try over other explanations. IMO the bit in itself does not really suggest anything at all. To quote GGWhizz, "there was a hesitation but no thinking was involved."

No doubt signing off in Four Hearts would have been an even stronger grand slam try for the hang 'em high posse.

This I don't agree with. If change of suit is NF, then a jump in a new suit should be strong and game forcing rather than a fit jump.

Who was declarer (don't be shy)?

It looks like all four players and the director erred here at least once. I have no idea how master points are gathered in Canada, but if you never ever bid on a hand, how on earth does one amass 5300mp?

Over 3♠ West should jump to 5♦. This is simply descriptive, showing a good suit and a reasonable hand for the bidding so far.

Showing count just because the queen is in dummy is a really horrible agreement. There are too many situations where you can't tell if partner has two or four. Here, partner asked for count, so I suppose I have to obey, although if partner has AKxxx, he really should have led the ace to get attitude, imo. And it shouldn't matter since partner should not have an empty five-card suit here - declarer is ruffing unless partner is a non-expert. Anyway, I show count at trick zero by raising 2♦ to 3.

I have seen the hand, so it's an easy raise to six. B-)

4NT does not exist on this auction unless 3♦ was forcing (it shouldn't be).

It's entirely possible that just counting your Milton high card points and opening the bidding when they come to 11 is not a winning tactic. Not all 11 counts are created equal. On the occasions that one player opened and the other passed (in the Pavlicek data), there is a significant chance that judgement and not system was the reason, so going by the raw stats is not the way to go, although the stats prove that opening a marginal 11 can be a winning tactic. It might be interesting to see the effect of vulnerability on the data, but it's hardly rocket science to suggest that non-vul is the way to go.

But in the ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE, my chances of slipping through the heart nine are not that bad. B-)

They can play a second diamond before we have severed communications in spades. I intend to play West for the queen because he has more points, but I may be wrong. At trick 6 I may get more information when (if) he plays a club. If by this time I am certain West has the queen and is good enough to cover, I will play ♥K and a ♥ to the ace, which requires him to be 5233 or 5224.

Why not duck in hand and win the diamond in dummy? THe critical situation is when West has something like KJTxx Qx Kx Kxxx or similar. A spade at trick three now kills their communications for the ruff. Things may get ugly if West has the wit to cover the heart nine at the crucial moment, but I don't expect that to happen. To recap: trick 2 - diamond ace 3 - spade 4 - spade (say) 5 - diamond to the nine 6 - club 7 - club ruff 8 - heart nine ...

Most of the play problems are actually reproduced from Kelsey/Jannersten/Rubens etc - few are original.

How do you define heart guard? ♥Qxx is perfectly normal, for instance, and they may misguess with QTx.

You should flip 1♠ and 1NT in this situation - use 1♠ as a puppet to 1NT and 1NT as non-forcing with spades. This has another spin-off benefit, since you have an extra layer of bidding via the puppet. Basically, after opener bids 1NT you use your usual kit, but direct bids are now free for a few small pick-ups: 2♣ to play 2♦ 5♥4+♦ weak 2♥ 4♠5♥, weak etc And it also gives you an easy way of choosing who plays 3NT.

♥

Nigel's example of ♠ x x ♥ K Q x ♦ J T 9 x ♣ K Q J x is worth a 2 out of 10, since slam is probably cold unless trumps are 5-0 (and may make when they are). Never forget to do a couple of simple hand constructions before deciding whether or not to bid a slam. The real hand for this auction is about a trick worse.

Sorry, my meta rule is not complete. 54M is an exception because we can bid spades then hearts. On this I could double and bid spades showing significant extras (or maybe double again since the hand is so strong). Without extras, I would overcall a spade and then bid hearts (not double on the next, which would strongly suggest three hearts). With 45M I would double even with a minimum, and then use ELC.With a very strong 45 I would have to double twice and try to survive. I am in a minority on how to treat 45M, but the company is very strong.

"Always" might be a bit strong - if you double and remove a major to a major, it tends to show extra strength, unless we are already at the game level. For example: 3♣-x-p-3♥-p-3♠ shows extras. And it's easy to see why this has to be the case if you follow through how a flexi-no-extra treatment would fall down here. but: 4♣-x-p-4♥-p-4♠ just brings diamonds into the frame - you are already committed to game and strain takes precedence over level.. And of course: 3♣-x-p-3♦-p-3♥ should not show extras - just 45M, and I have posted hands from top-level competition that illustrate the point.

I might be being a bit thick, but surely double shows interest in sacrificing. We can hardly be asking for the lead. Pretty close between double and 4♠ - pass seems pretty unilateral.

I would double and pull 4♥ to 4♠ if the spades were AKxxx to show the flexi hand. But here I go for the one-basket approach.

Declarer showed his true class by rising with the spade king at trick 1.

If you can somehowe magic an extra two tricks to make 2NT with hands like this, I assume most of your partner's are sufficiently dazzled by your skills to raise to three if they have a queen or a few jacks. Where there's eight there's nine, right? :P