FelicityR

I agree in principle with most of what David says, and I was going to post similarly though I thought I'll wait until someone replied to the post before posting myself. So 3♥ shows 3-card ♥ support with a shapely hand and is forcing to game is agreed. Though both players have already limited their hands somewhat with opener rebidding 2♣ and responder supporting to 3♣. However, with a 5♣3♥41 opener I would prefer to raise 1♥ to 2♥ with 3-card support than rebid 2♣. And with 5332 shape rebid 1NT with a good 14 count. And since both hands have bypassed bidding in no-trumps or enquiring about a no-trump contract by bidding ♦s or ♠s thus far, then a game contract in ♥s or ♣s looks the most likely outcome though 3NT cannot be ruled out. On this bidding I would expect opener to have a 6 card ♣ suit and a 3 card ♥ suit giving responder the choice of game options.

Andrew Robson has been playing at the top level for many years so it goes without saying that questioning the reason behind it is acceptable but questioning the logic is perhaps not. He has played 100s, perhaps 1000s of similar hands and deduced that on a hand such as this the ♠A is the safest. That is not to say that the ♠A might not work out well on certain distributions, but it will work out ok or better on the majority of distributions. Leading an unsupported ace against an opponent's suit contract where your partner has supported your suit indicating a nine card fit suggests that the suit is only going to be good for one trick at the most. A 3-1 split is approximately 20% more likely than a 2-2 one, and you will not loose out on the 2-2 ones where partner has the ♠K either. The bonus of leading the ♠A that holds (approximately 90%) allows you a chance to see dummy and plan the play from there. It also gives partner a chance to signal, too, which may be the key to defeating the contract.

Asymptomatic coronavirus carriers are contagious, but perhaps less contagious as their own immune systems are coping better with the covid-19 virus thus decreasing the viral load that can be transmitted to other people. With a smaller viral load available to infect, contagion is not as severe - this has been proved with other respiratory diseases such as SARS. In turn, many people who are relatively healthy can perhaps cope with this level of covid-19 and become asymptomatic themselves with few signs of the illness, and they will also have smaller viral loads to infect other people, etc. Unfortunately the problems probably occur when viral load exposure is high, by being around many asymptomatic people who also have the virus or by being in contact with one person (or a few) who have high viral loads themselves.

I enjoy reading your comments on this forum, David, but if the opponents do bid 7♥ - unlikely vulnerable, but this is an extremely distributional hand so anything presumably can happen - partner will not have any direction what to lead if you end up as defenders. And a Lightner Double could well be interpreted the wrong way, too, partner leading ♦s (for a non-existent ruff) instead of ♣s. At least mentioning the ♣s en route to 6♠ takes the confusion away, I feel.

Pass, if you play it as forcing in this type of auction at the five level - and that's not a given - even by agreement looks silly because this hand is offensive, not defensive. Partner has bid 4♠ direct over 2♥ and that feels more pre-emptive than constructive. There's probably no right answer here because it all depends on whether partner turns up with ♦A and/or ♣K. A wimpy 5♠ or an optimistic 6♣ I personally feel are the only bids available. I don't think there's any point of bidding 6♠ without bidding 6♣ first. So, I go with akwoo here, too, I'll bid 6♣ now. There's no point having distributional hands and not mentioning the distribution.

I cannot believe that the probability of finding South with just ♣Ax precisely - North may duck with ♣Ax but doesn't look quite right admittedly - beats my 'kitchen table bridge play' of establishing two ♣ winners, guessing the ♠ finesse and finding ♠3-3. My line looks about 18%. Not sophisticated but practical and we may or may not arrive at nine tricks dependent on how lucky we are.

Here in the UK there are strict rules for pubs and restaurants - nightclubs are still closed as I write - and most have been following procedure. (Safety screens, app ordering, being seated at one table for the duration, no socialising within the pub, hand sanitation stations, disinfecting tables after every customer, etc.) The problem is that whilst the owners and managers of these establishments are making a sterling effort to apply safety guidelines and keep their businesses running with greatly-reduced capacities, some of the people visiting them are straying from social distancing guidelines, etc. It is summer in the UK and many people can socialise - drink and eat - al fresco, and indoor establishments can have their windows open and have good ventilation. However, their is a train of thought that any second coronavirus wave will happen in the UK during the winter months when everyone will have to go inside and windows will be closed. Time will tell.

I couldn't agree more. Though I do have a very small amount of sympathy for South as West's hand is hardly penalty double material with the singleton ♥. But as we all know, if South had clocked up the doubled contract, nothing more would have been discussed. Though I also find it strange that South asked West about the second double only but not the first double, too. Surely, as declarer, before embarking on a contract, where someone has doubled an artificial bid, you'd want to know what that meaning was also.

1. Don't open except playing 10-15 1M Precision. The hand is a measly 9.85 on the Kaplan and Rubens evaluator. 2. NEVER pass a forcing bid by partner as partner could be unlimited. 3. Re-assess your own online profile level from 'Advanced' downwards. Apologies to be blunt. You say you don't play RKC and passing a forcing bid by partner is as Stephen Tu says, is absurd, even with a poor hand. 4. As to what to bid next, I agree entirely with Nigel. Rebidding a poor ♠ suit is horrible. 3♦ might excite partner. Pass is absurd. So take the least ghastly option having opened light and bid 2NT here.

From your online BBO profile I see that you play 2/1. This discussion on BBO took place a few years back. https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/48773-bidding-the-dreaded-4441-hand-pattern/page__st__20 There are few heavyweight forum contributors discussing the pros and cons of what to do. In answer to your question generally, many 4441 hands, even up to and above 20 HCPs would be opened at the one level in a minor. It is usually responder that has to 'lie' here, sometimes responding in a major suit with as little as Kxxxx. 4441 hands are notoriously awkward to bid as you could have a fit in any of the three suits: add extra HCPs to the hand and they are a nightmare except if you incorporate a Multi or Roman Two Diamonds bid into your repertoire.

Welcome to the forum. There's nothing boring with defending hands. Actually far too much emphasis is made of bidding and declarer play. But I do realise how frustrating it must feel having a series of hands where 'No bid' turns up a bit more often than usual. Always when I am playing rubber bridge against competent opposition, it seems :) There's a flip side to this, too. Experienced and seasoned bridge players would not let the (apparent) lack of high card points get in their way. Just because the cards seem to be going the opposition's way, it doesn't mean you should lose concentration yourself.

If West cashes ♦AK and ♣A on the first three tricks - unlikely but it's possible - thinking that West then has ♠Qx alone and is now hoping for a fatal finesse to put the contract down is playing against the odds, I feel. The probability of East turning up with 2 HCPs as opposed to zero HCPs I would guess would be in the order of 20-1 in favour. Any good player would try to delay the decision how to play the trump suit until a partial count of the hand could be made, and as johnu says, we need to know what cards have been played before making any decision.

The Jacoby 2NT response is a great convention until you have a hand like this. A 6♥ contract should be there on a dummy reversal if required. The problem I have found with the Jacoby 2NT is that it does take away bidding space; the responses don't necessarily fit comfortably; and, sometimes opener and responder find themselves at odds with each other who's in control of the auction. It easy to say looking at the two hands but responder with the ace controls and the singleton ♦ should be in control of the auction here. Perhaps a 2♣ response then agreeing ♥s later is actually better than 2NT. But only the luxury of seeing both hands makes this suggestion viable. Most players (including myself, I'll be honest) would bid 2NT without batting an eyelid.

It's easy to talk yourself of opening 2♣ here, and whilst the hand is only four and a half quick tricks and comes out at a tad over 21 on the Kaplan and Rubens evaluator, those two Jacks in ♠s and ♦s adjacent to another honour give it more body. However, even though I agree with shyams, it is a borderline case. I'm not so convinced though opening 2♣ and rebidding 2♠ is the best way to treat this hand. Maybe opening 2♣ and rebidding 2NT is better because that is the only 2♣ opening sequence that can be passed if partner has a Yarborough. Puppet Stayman after 2NT will find the 5-4 ♠ fit on the two hands shown if you are using that convention.

The problem with journalists, especially female journalists, even here in the UK, is that some have a grandiose opinion of their self-importance. They think their opinions count above all and that everyone else should bow to their perceived intellectualism and academic upbringing. Hence this loquacious spiel of a resignation letter...it about sums it up. Can't people resign with dignity and without whinging these days? Having worked in the medical/scientific community for virtually all of my life, I just cannot take seriously these arty-history-literature types who moan about their lot. Try working in a real job, at the coal face, instead of being just a keyboard tapper. The only journalists I have any respect for are those that go into war zones or the like. Sitting behind a desk scribing slanted polemic articles is one reason why the general public have lost confidence in the press.

Bidding combined 23 HCP super fit small slams doesn't come easy, even with the opponents not intervening. Precision in the hands of Meckstroth and Rodwell might get there but for us mere bridge mortals I really cannot see an easy path to 6♣. You can guess your way to 6♣, but anyone can do that and claim credit afterwards. Bidding it constructively to 6♣ is another matter.

If it's any consolation at least the robots haven't taken over our favourite game - yet :) I remember world champion Gary Kasparov - my son was into chess at the time - losing his first chess game against a computer in the mid 1990s. Then another computer beat him fairly and squarely in a series of matches as I recall. I thought at the time 'Bridge will be next.' How wrong I was. I realise it must be annoying for those players playing with and against robots, but bridge essentially is a social game. Long may it continue.

I might have got this wrong admittedly, but on best play South can never make two tricks in ♠s. The small cards matter.

Well, taking the ♠ suit in isolation, I believe many East's would have doubled a 6♠ contract with ♠KQx after partner has opened the bidding although, as said previously, an experienced one may decide against it as explained in post #15 on this thread. But playing for a 1-2 break in ♠s with East holding two cards justifying the one no trump response on the first round of bidding works out at three-and-a-half times (39% (78/2) vs. 11% (22/2) better than East having ♠KQx so you were playing (at very favourable odds) for West to have a singleton. I was a tad surprised with the actual layout expecting West to be weaker with less robust ♦s, but when partner supports them on the second round of bidding, West has enough, especially with 1471 shape, to justify bidding 5♦ even with a weaker hand, I feel. So there would be a few hands, to my mind, that would automatically justify the bidding given the exceptional distribution.

Yes, I agree. It certainly got me thinking - for hours :) It's one of those hands where you 'take a view' and if you get it right then the contract can be made. But I am also in agreement with mikeh and Nigel that the winning line is obscure, and the bidding is a bit off the radar, too. However, it certainly generated an interesting debate.

It actually goes one off if West leads a ♦ in 3♥ (though a ♦ lead is highly unlikely) so either North was either clairvoyant or had a case of the 'match point yips' knowing that 3♥X may have resulted in that dreaded match point score of -200 :)

I haven't entered the discussion here yet, but given the OP is from the USA so presumably playing a strong no trump, opener may only have three diamonds and a weak 4432 (or a 3442) hand here. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the 3♠ pre-emptor could well be playing opposite a void or singleton. Double is the only bid - as long as it is seen as competitive with game values but not necessarily a ♥ suit - that will either result in us arriving in 3NT, bidding beyond 3NT, or collecting a 500+ penalty when West has stretched their meagre values pre-empting 3♠ opposite a passed partner on a rubbish suit such as ♠Q876542 with an outside K and some shape. Some players take extreme liberties here :) So presumably what you eventually bid here is a matter of style, partnership agreements, and sizing up how the opposition bid pre-empts. I don't disagree with bidding 5♦ with a pick-up partner, but X seems the most flexible bid that doesn't lose bidding space and conveys some information to partner.

I'm ready to see the hand. I'm a bit surprised no-one else - better than me - tried to establish the distribution and the play that succeeded. I have looked at this again, but just can't see a solution that quite works without knowing the exact distribution and position of some cards at the table. Please enlighten me, and others, nullve :)

The only addition I can make to this thorough reply from David is that when leading the ♠Q from an internal sequence like this, declarer will possibly not have any indication who has the ace. Declarer with ♠Kxx may well duck the first trick hoping to sever communications. On this lead, however, any self-respecting South who's holding the ace should cover and return the suit but not all players would do that, especially with a doubleton Ax covering an honour with an honour. If West decides to duck for any reason, this may well provide you with a tempo and information what to do next.

Here's my honest answer: "Was North's first pass brilliant?" Well, as for 'brilliant' I find it completely 'absurd' if looking at it on the basis of a 'trap pass'. It is hardly marvellous, exceptional or outstanding, but asking whether it was 'sound' is another matter entirely. To me, you only have two bids at you disposal: Pass, a complete understatement of your values or where you haven't got a suitable bid at your disposal, or 2NT showing your values of a stop in ♣ with approximately 11-12 HCPs. As other commentators have already stated, you need a better ♣ suit to try for a penalty against the opponents; and equally, your ♣ suit is so anaemic - and partner is unlikely to provide any help - that it's only providing one stop against a suit where the opponents will undoubtedly establish four or five winners on the opening lead. However, 2NT seems right as you are stating your values, no more, no less. As for passing and hoping a penalty double comes your way, well few hands are played at the two level on a penalty basis, but passing as you haven't got a suitable bid at your disposal is also a bid that is entirely feasible given the unsuitability of your hand. That's what is called 'taking a view'. However, passing and partner re-opening with 2♦, let's say, would still leave you with a dilemma of what to bid next. So over the opponent's 2♣ intervention I bid 2NT straightaway. At least partner won't be in any doubt of your values even though it might lead to the wrong contract, but at least partner still has a level of bidding available to explore game options.