PhilKing

In other words, a hand that has forgotten to open a strong no trump. :P

I would strongly suggest passing. Within a strong no trump context bidding is pretty crazy imo.

Their first language is probably Australian. ;)

But 2NT shows a 3523 14 count. :ph34r:

I like redouble as any 8+ with no clear bid (forcing to 1NT, next double is for take-out). This helps give greater definition to other bids: 1♦ = 5+♥ 1♥ = 5+♠ 1♠ = 4+ clubs 1NT = 4+♦ NF 2♣ = 5+♦F1 2♦♥♠ = fit jumps, NF With 5-7 points and no decent suit, I think it is best to just pass over the double.

I pretty much agree with your assessment of the pros and cons of various leads in a vacuum - a low heart or high spade would be clear contenders in a rubber bridge game, for instance. However, I think the silver bullet is that there is a significant non-zero chance that they will not double in the other room (as evidenced by the early votes - if MrAce forgets to double, then it could happen to almost anyone). This must tilt the imp analysis towards the low spade.

Forget squeezes with phantom menaces and a misdefence - concentrate on not mangling the diamonds. Unblock the second heart, cross to a spade and cash hearts (throwing one of each). Now run the diamond queen. You make it 100% of the time the king is onside plus any time the ten drops. The same cannot be said of a diamond to the queen unless we can see all four hands. And this line maximises the chances of a misdefence if they do not know North's distribution. And a note to OP - the auction matters. If North has never mentioned diamonds, it may affect whether we go for a genuine or psychological line, since a player with ♦Txxx may be pseudo squeezed.

We are told the player who opened 7NT is a top expert. We are not given any indication that he is on tilt, so there is no reason to assume he does not have his bid. That makes his possible hands: ♠A ♥A ♦AK ♣AKQTxxxxx or ♠A ♥AK ♦A ♣AKQTxxxxx or ♠A ♥AK ♦AK ♣AKQTxxxx or ♠A ♥A ♦AKJTxxxxxx ♣A Double is clear. Teammates will presumably get to 7NT (or 7m) as well (the correct technique is to open 2♣, show spades and hearts and THEN bid 7NT, but not even all top experts know that), so if you don't double, you are just conceding IMPs through timidness. Don't kid yourself that beating 7NT undoubled is a good score and that doubling is a risk - neither of those contentions is valid. Doubling and leading a low spade basically guarantees 300. Doubling and leading a heart is 100-1100, depending on who has the heart king. This is a lead problem, not a bidding problem, and I lead a low spade.

Unless he had the original facts wrong. ;)

Living the dream. B-)

It borders on mindless to play with someone that would not recognise this as a 2NT bid (they have at least nine spades and you have a guaranteed minor suit fit, but what is really mindless is that NO ONE HAS EVER HAD THIS HAND ON THIS AUCTION, for reasons that should be pretty obvious). Whether your partners can spot a penalty double is not relevant.

I don't understand your point - were you expecting a solution to bridge?

This brings back fond memories from Beijing in 2008 when we played them in the Rosenblum semi-finals. It's fair to say we were on their case from the start - in fact I approached the TDs with a few concerns and was told that they were being closely watched even then. They made one unusual lead early on (after 1NT p p p, they led a club rather than a diamond from ♠AQJ4 ♥AT72 ♦952 ♣73, and obviously partner held good clubs) but it made no difference. Somewhat inhibited, they played with little of their usual flair, even before the infamous last set (where they cracked and gave up after 8 boards). This board caught my eye, and proves that things can go wrong even in the most well-oiled partnerships (Wladow N, Elinescu S). [hv=pc=n&s=sat9864hj62d8ca94&w=sqhk954dkqj93ckt8&n=skj732ht87dt7cj73&e=s5haq3da6542cq652&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1d1s3s4spp5d5sdppp]399|300[/hv] -1100 did not compare well with -100 in 5♦ :(

I would double. This is partly because I don't play lebenshohl after a balancing double, so partner can bid a natural 2NT over it, meaning I am unlikely to stew in a 4-2 fit. Look at it this way - when we have a takeout double (usually with 2 or fewer hearts) and there has been no raise, what kind of hand do we expect partner to have? One of his most likely hand types is a fairly balanced hand with about 9 or 10 points and something in their suit, yet most of us blithely continue to treat this as a lebensohl position. I did a quick trawl through my database for this sequence, and I don't really have time to conduct and present a full analysis, but this hand caught my eye for obvious reasons (Brink/Drijver N/S Mihov/Karakolev E/W):[hv=pc=n&s=sk8642hqdat95cq32&w=saq95h832dkj62ca8&n=sthkj9765d4cj9765&e=sj73hat4dq873ckt4&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2hppdp3dppp]399|300[/hv] 3♦ made in some comfort, but you have to concede that this was a lucky outcome for E/W.

When someone wanders in with 2♠ on an auction like this they must be punished. Well, maybe not "must", but I certainly feel unhappy if I can not do so. Opener's double suggests a 3514 (or 4505 yum yum) with about 15 points. If we have take-out double shape, we can bid 2NT. Don't worry that we are under the bidder - they usually have a terrible hand, a bad suit and bad shape.

The database shows what happened when the auciton actually occurred at the table.

Well, if he had access to my database he might change his mind.

4♠ for sure.

And if partner is bad enough to pass 2NT, then they were probably going to misplay 4♠ anyway. :ph34r:

Hand 1 - win the second diamond, cash the trump and the heart and exit with a diamond. The contract is solid even lacking the ♣9. Elimination 101. Hand 2 - no one is immune to tilt, and I think you have to accept that was the case here. You see it in every sport however good the player. After a bad board, maybe you should have a routine for mental regrouping (eg the Meckwell bathroom break).

It isn't. The maths is only "true" if the 5♦ bidder is basing his call on the possession of some diamond length, but no regard for any other factors.

I would pass.

♠x ♥Ax ♦Axxxxxx ♣Axx is enough.

♠KQx ♥AQxxxx ♦xxx ♣x or ♠KQxx ♥AQxxxx ♦xx ♣x

FWIW I do not agree with this premise. Maybe 78%+, since I will pass with some xx and xxx holdings if otherwise amenable to playing the five level.