PhilKing

Looks like they just valued well - 3NT is excellent.

To be fair, there was no "stand out" awful bid. I can sort of understand it all. 5♥ - I understand it. I would prefer 4NT followed by 5♦(reds) which would suggest to West his clubs were no use or 4NT followed by 5♥ as my weaker 5♥ bid (not available to pick up partnership). 6♥ - reasonable. Pass - wrong, and definitely the worst call, but people feel impelled do this in order to show the spade control. However, if partner held ♥AKQ ♦A ♣AK he would have bid 5NT as a grand slam try lacking a spade control. I guess this was not available in a pick-up partnership of course. 7♣ - wrong, but not ridiculous. Grand is bound to have some play.

This auction, but with East passing 5♥ for sure. West can't have more. I don't hate double by West over 2♥. Over the nightmare sequence, I would adopt "operation scramble" - X-2N-3♣-3♦-3♥, should show this pattern and approximate point count. I am not putting this hand down in 3♦! Double might get me to the bad 6♥: X 4♥ 5♥(asking East for spade control AND a decent hand) 6♥

Ax ????xxx (7 hearts) x Kxx As soon as the question marks become suitably high for the suit to be worth a preempt, surely I have a 1♥ opening. There are reasons why second at hand at Red is almost universally regarded as the worst position to preempt, and I can't think of a construction that even comes close to meeting the brief.

So the answer is Fredin didn't lead anything, because he wasn't even there. And if he had been there, he - or was it it she? - got a different lead. Now I'm confused.

Oops! No longer unanimous. B-)

Errrrrr. Didn't he get the 7♣ lead?

I have still yet to see any hand constructions that justify a pass by North - only preconceptions. But here's one to think about: ♠xx ♥x ♦xx ♣KTxxxxxx Come on South, make a slam try - you know it makes sense!

If I pick up a sick read that righty is the kind of numpty who passes over 5♦ but will sac over 6♦, I'll go for it. Otherwise Pass.

It's an anagram of "sermon tabler", but I doubt the sermon will end soon. Anyway, I, for one, am appalled - South should have run the ♦T at trick two, while the chances of slipping past West's putative Jxxxx are at their highest. Perhaps it's no worse than playing someone for 14 cards, so I might take pity and give our imaginary declarer his contract.

It's a shame OP did not pass over 2♠, which was, after all, a game try. Lefty would have jumped to 4♥ and we would all have lived happily ever after. The end.

I can't think of many South hands that offer no play for slam. My guess is that North did not even bother thinking about it, and then blamed partner for not exploring!

100% 0% or 0% 100%. Impossible to tell which without knowing whether they play fast arrival. I don't, for a couple of reasons, but obviously most people do. If they had no agreement, I blame them both - not just for having no agreement, but for their choice of actions.

FWIW, rubber bridge was not legally considered gambling in the UK after the 1968 Gaming Act. I started playing at Pinner Bridge Club with my father when I was 16. The Tuesday partnership rubber game was my first hunting ground, but for much higher stakes - 2p per 100. B-)

I think when Mike said partner "should jumpshift" with x KQxxx KQxxx KQ, he meant to type "shouldn't". But I agree opener needs more than just a maximum. So 55 only with very good suits, but frequently 65 or 56.

Partner shouldn't be mucking around, but just in case he is, I shall content myself with 4♦. Luckily I am a passed hand, so I don't have to worry if this is forcing.

Defence is hard. Make it harder - cash four rounds of clubs. This is a great option when they do not know our shape. We force a total of two discards, which may be directly fatal, or at least provide clues as to what to do next. One attractive scenario is that West throws a spade from Jxx. Now we play three rounds of spades endplaying East, making the contract without any red finesses. Anyway, we don't have to see round corners to cash some winners - this should be ingrained as our default play when entries permit.

The winning line only caters for clubs 4-1 onside, and hearts 3-3 onside (you can't sensibly play restricted choice), so it is a bit dubious. Both black nines appearing early make it far from absurd, though.

Nope. I was thinking, wrongly, that I needed to duck the spade immediately to prevent having to find wo premature discards. Put it down to my self-inflicted bout of food poisoning from a badly defrosted fish pie. :(

Yes - I get that bit and definitely agree with you that West did not have a legitimate tank.

Well you never find out if you don't ask - and the same goes for the spade carding. My main point is, South was not really thinking at all. But that's OK, because as long as they do not play lefty for 15 or 16 cards, they can get an adjustment!

Presumably, if declarer had not stopped playing bridge, they could have asked East about their threshold for using Michaels.

Thanks. Yuck! but thanks. I particularly like the bit where playing someone for 14 cards is not a serious error.

That's not really a plan as such. It's more about how (or rather when) you establish them in order to preserve multitudinous prospects.

Could you please link me to the guidelines regarding "serious error unrelated to the infraction."