FelicityR

Lucky you weren't doubled in 1NT, Pete, then you would have got a 'bottom bottom' instead of a 'joint bottom'. I think you got off lightly :)

I could see the world class women's player Rixi Markus answering this forum question along these lines. Keep it simple. Without any obvious inferences or reverse peters to show specific holdings it is obvious that declarer has a singleton ♣J and your partner ♣KQ. So what's the point of signalling to show a doubleton by petering? A switched on partner should interpret a small ♣ followed by a higher one as to lead the lower suit ♦s next. By doing the opposite to what is usual is signifying something. A partnership that is consistent with their signals and defensive discards should be able to work out what's going on here, in my humble opinion.

I didn't know this except that BBO had been sold in some form. This saddens me. If I were as rich as Bill Gates who helped develop BBO, or equally Warren Buffett who is also an avid bridge player - combined wealth of approx. $197 billion - I would throw some small change at BBO to keep and make it into the best bridge site in the world. But, that is the problem with sport generally, and bridge is a mind sport: it's all about money these days. Nobody does anything out of love for the game, any game, any more. The next thing BBO will be doing, I say tongue firmly in my cheek, is sell advertising space to all and sundry. Celebrate your slam with a Big Mac, etc. :(

4♠ is a LUDICROUS bid because it is 95% of the time a stop bid. If you were opening the bidding instead of partner with 1♠, your partner would be bidding 2NT here, n'est-ce pas? Both Cyberyeti and Mike (miamijd) are right. Bid 2NT and then put the brakes on. Why have Jacoby 2NT as a convention and then not use it? In my humble opinion, there is nothing more to discuss on this thread :)

The definite answer care of the maestro, Larry Cohen, reads: Most tournament players use "JACOBY 2NT" in conjunction with their 5-card major system. After an opening of 1-MAJ, a jump to 2NT is conventional. It promises a GF hand and at least 4-card support. This convention should not be used by a passed hand and should not be used if there is interference by the opponents. I guess GIB agrees with him :)

From the title, Helene, I am visualising a situation where both ♥s and ♣s don't break, but where a defender with ♥Jxxx is thrown in with either the fourth club ♣ or the ♠A to lead into or up to or into the ♥Q10. It needs good timing and card-reading. I would start by leading up to the ♠Q. When that (presumably) holds, cash three rounds of ♣s, four rounds of ♦s, two rounds of ♥ and then make a decision who to throw in. Maybe there is a better line but I have only looked at this quickly.

You are playing Fantunes with this bidding structure, so the opponents would have pulled 1NT if partner has 5♠/4♥. I dislike leading singletons of my partner's suit against a no-trump contract, so I would opt for either the ♥5 or ♥3 depending on your leads. Partner could turn up with any of 4 possible cards in the ♥s suit that would help you establish tricks. However, if you have a partner who insists that you always lead his/her suit, then it's a ♠.

I personally don't like North's 1♠ bid. Just bid 1NT here. Easy to reach 3NT after that. Edit (after posts 4,5,6 have been added to this thread): Whilst I come from an Acol background of bidding 4 card suits up the line, I feel rebidding 1NT here (in 2/1) is preferable to 1♠ for the simple reason that West has indicated a ♠ suit by the Dbl. Yes, there will be times where you may miss a ♠ fit by bypassing bidding 1♠,but you already know that if you end up in a ♠ contract that trumps are going to break badly. Furthermore, as Vampyr has indicated, you are giving the impression to your partner that your hand is a two suiter with ♦/♠ or 4144 shape. I feel rebidding 1NT is preferable, too, as you have a maximum 14HCP count to rebid 1NT in 2/1 together with some indication from West's Dbl. that your black suit points are very well-placed.

Another Ealing comedy with Alec Guinness (and Peter Sellers) that you should seek out, Ken, is The Ladykillers (1955). It was remade with Tom Hanks in 2004 by the Coen brothers, and whilst the American version is funny in places, it does not match the dark humour of the original (just my opinion.)

I have to admit a few afternoons ago I watched once again the wonderfully dark and humorous Ealing comedy, Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949) where the excellent Sir Alec Guinness plays no fewer than eight different roles (members of the aristocratic D'Ascoyne family.) The film rates 8 out of 10 on the Internet Movie Database, and 100% on the Rotten Tomatoes movie database, with an audience rating of 94%. It is wonderfully stylish British black and white movie about class, manners, revenge, murder and societal adultery. Darky funny in places, utterly charming in others, I doubt if any actor will better Sir Alec's varied character acting here. Are there any other movies where one actor has played eight separate roles, including one female, with such aplomb? I doubt it. Just enjoy :)

As far as I am aware - please correct me if I'm wrong - a 3♥ bid here is known as a Western Cue Bid, and is searching for a stopper or half-stopper in ♥s to play 3NT (as described above.) Whether it is forcing to game is another matter entirely. Surely that is by agreement. Give responder ♠Q ♥Jxx ♦Qx ♣KQxxxxx and I would still bid 3♣ in response to a Dbl. If partner now bids 3♥ you end up in 4♣ going one down - unlucky - instead of 3NT going two down. East's hand shape 43♥42 isn't quite suitable for a Dbl. but I expect most players would bid this way given that you have 15HCPs, no ♥ stopper, and a 4 card ♠ suit. With just 12HCPs only I would pass though.

Soap, alcohol-based sanitisers and now a derivative of lemon eucalyptus oil https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/26/citriodiol-based-spray-can-help-protect-against-covid-19-says-mod-lab No doubt there's already a run of citriodiol products as I write...

With not much to go on I work on the principle of leading the longest unbid suit against no-trumps here. So it's a ♣. Whether it is the best lead is another matter...

It looks absolutely lovely, but I think it's important when getting older to have an outdoor area with a property, either a garden with a house or bungalow, or a balcony with a flat/apartment. I realise that the original building probably prohibits that, together with the additional cost of erecting a balcony which needs further supports and struts. Maybe it is possible to have windows that open fully (bi-folding) on the sunny side of the building and have a Juliet balcony incorporated into the design. That way you will be able to sit direct in sunlight in an easy chair and drink coffee or a nice glass of wine in the open air. Anyway, whatever you decide, I truly hope you enjoy your retirement home.

Words fail me. I had a similar experience at my club a few years ago with a pick-up partner, an elderly lady with hearing problems. I opened an Acol strong two bid - forcing - pulling the bidding card from the box. LHO passed, so did my partner, and RHO passed, too. Before the opening lead I gently suggested to my partner that the bid was forcing. "Sorry" she replied, "I didn't hear your bid." I missed a slam, too.

Just bad luck as opposed to a bad decision. I would have raised to 3NT but that doesn't mean it would make. Partner is more likely to have 20HCPs than 21HCPs. I'm not disagreeing with the other commentators that bidding vulnerable games is paramount, but occasionally at MPs you will gain by taking a view as you did here. Unfortunately on this board you lost as opposed to gained. C'est la vie. Next board.

I would have called the director. North's hand doesn't warrant a Dbl. of a Weak No Trump, let alone a Strong No Trump whatsoever. Irrespective of your agreements, which you honestly admit were lacking to deal with the opponents' intervention, I would have kicked up a fuss here. Something doesn't feel quite right here.

It also depends how your evening/afternoon session at MPs has gone thus far? If you know it is going well you lead the ♦K. However, if you get the feeling it has gone badly up to this board, you lead the ♥A. Finishing bottom of the field by trying novel bids and leads (if your partner agrees to this action) is no more disgraceful as being placed in the bottom half of the field by playing sensibly. But at least you made an effort to improve your score by playing against the field :) Many a time my regular partner and myself have won at MPs by adopting such tactics. Aggressive bidding and leads sometimes pay off.

The only reason for West not to bid 4♦ is that you know there's a misfit and you're vulnerable. Showing us all 4 hands makes it easy for me (and others) to discuss. It would have been perhaps better to have presented the problem just with West's hand only asking a) Do you pass North's 3♥ bid; b) Do you bid 4♦; Do you bid 5♦; and, if you bid 4♦ only is that forcing or non-forcing? To be honest, even with the vulnerability and misfit, it's so tempting to mention that 8 card ♦ suit again after partner's opened but discretion is perhaps the better part of valour.

Perhaps all the suits offer a reasonable lead - find partner with the right cards and the contract goes down - however as for a devastating lead that's another matter. With my regular partner I'd hope he'd open with something like ♠KQxxx and out with a 5431 shape third seat at favourable vulnerability, but here it's adverse vulnerability so less likely to happen. Though there's room for partner to have ♥KJ10x or similar here and put declarer under pressure from trick one. I'm leading a small ♥, the ♥6, too.

Your reasoning is good, Simon. 1♦ doesn't necessarily indicate short ♣s and a three-suited hand. (Nor does Dbl. on some occasions convey that precise message but more often than not it does convey shortness in the opponent's bid suit.) If the ensuring auction gets competitive, your partner will be in a better position to judge whether to 'stick or twist'. As you say, the ♣K is likely a dead card so with a passed partner (and an opponent who has bid the suit) I am downgrading the hand slightly. Dbl looks best.

Have to be a silver bullet given the competitor's name :) Easy to miss 7♠ here, even assuming the ♣ finesse is working, but with my luck I would be in 7♠ as East after South's 3♣ pre-empt and have ♣J10x myself and see the first round ruffed by North when South holds a 7 card ♣ suit :( And it just proves how difficult it is to bid big, big hands (especially balanced) opposite a near Yarborough, too. Without South's pre-empt the bidding goes 2♣ - 2♦ and then what?

Even though I agree with the other commentators here, I don't necessarily agree that it's your fault (100%) entirely. Yes, raising to 3♥ was overwhelmingly preferable to bidding 2NT, but partner has an unbalanced hand and should have pulled you to 3♣. West is in a far better position to see the danger in the ♦ suit as your 2NT bid promised some sort of stopper in ♠s and he/she has the ♠K. So what suit is possibly a danger here in no-trumps: ♦s obviously. That's not rocket science. Yes, you could have ended up in a 4-3 fit if partner is 4333 shape precisely and minimum, but then isn't partner now going to bid 3♥ here? After 1♣ - (1♠) - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♣, you then bid 3♥ and arrive in the same contract. However, if we do open 1♣ only promising 2+ as some players do, partner bidding like this isn't an option.

The only problem with not bidding is that it allows them space to explore the slam. Think I would bid 5♣ all the time here. It'll be interesting to see the whole hand and evaluate whether your opponents bid it correctly. Just because you got a good result by your (in)action doesn't necessarily mean that your (in)action was right. (My apologies for sounding negative here but are you able to provide the whole hand?)

1. Captain 2. Use Soloway Jump. Set Trump Suit. Totally solid even for 5-0 break. 3. Let's see how the bidding goes. I don't agree with setting ♥s as trumps and then cue bidding ♣s three times. There are other bids available. Exclusion/Voidwood Admittedly agreeing ♦s as the trump suit might make it easier to locate the ♦ honours but to me that is anti-bridge. You have a solid suit and you have to take control here. Partner could well have a three card ♦ suit: you will only find these things out as the bidding progresses. What partner needs to know first is that you have a game going hand with a solid suit - if that's the way you play Soloway.