FelicityR

Yes, I had worked out the distributions of South and West here myself, but didn't take into consideration the pin of the ♠J in the West hand if partner has ♠Q10xx only, instead of ♠QJ10x. That's what happens when you try to answer these forum posts quickly...

Hello AL78. I realise you want to improve and many of your posts are instructional, but I cannot take this hand seriously when the opposition gift you an opening trick in ♠s with ♠KQ1098 between them. Someone didn't lead an honour from ♠KQ or put up their honour on the opening lead is plain amateurish. Better to be honest.

Just on the principle "Lead through strength as opposed up to strength" I would lead a small ♠ as North at trick 3. There's just enough room for partner to have ♠QJ10x and ♥AK here. If West has one trick in ♥s it looks like the contract is always there.

This is enjoyable torture - if such a thing exists. I've just spent another hour trying to solve it. Better let the real experts take over and see if they can work it out. I might have another look at the problem later. Thanks for posting, nullve

I think the key to this hand (as has been demonstrated so far) is to construct a hand where the bidding for E/W looks reasonably sound. This layout looks kind of plausible but doesn't because surely East would double 6♠? But a quality East player might be thinking along the lines that the ♠s under declarer are only worth one trick, the opponents are void in ♦s, and any finesse for declarer in ♥a and ♣s is favourable. I would be grateful for other's comments here. The key probably for this hand is to make an assumption whether the opponent's ♠s are 2-1 or 3-0 from the outset. Or is it possible to combine both chances? Interesting hand. [hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=shkj6dat876532cq5&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&e=skq3ht95dqj4ct832&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp]399|300[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=skht5daqj6532ct82&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&e=sq3hkj96dt874cq53&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp&p=das5d4d9c4c3cac2h2h5hah6c6c5s2c8sasks9s3dkd2sjd7ckcqh4ct]399|300[/hv] I still agree with mikeh that the bidding looks nonsense for expert level but you can make the contract on the following layout. Small hint: the ♦K is actually a useless card that you can't discard anything on so what must you do instead?

That made me smile this morning, David :) Thank you.

As sensible reply as you're going to get here. Just think about the bidding? What sort of hand usually opens 1♣ and raises partner's 1♠ reply to 2♠? Answer: weak. Now if your opponents are playing (I assume) a weak no-trump, what does that tell us about opener's hand. Probably 4(3/1)5 or 4225 or 4414 shape, although that's not a given. So thinking about the choice of the unbid suits to lead, it would incredibly stupid to lead away from an ace, or lead the ace, so low from ♦J75 is the best option.

Yes, that could be true. But let's say the opponents remain silent and partner opens 1♠. Where does that leave you? Partner's open in 3rd so 2♣ would be Drury if you use that convention. 3♣ would be Bergen if you use that convention. And 4♣ would be seen a splinter. But you can't bid any of these. So, the only bid left is 5♣. I agree it's an extreme example but many advanced players could be using these conventions.

LOL. I almost got it right :) Small hint - I hope you don't mind: Before embarking on any contract take a deep breath and do what? Edit: I did actually get this right. I can hardly call myself an advanced player if I messed up here. That's why I posted a hint.

Answer to 1. The opponents, possibly partner, but odds of 2-1 in favour Answer to 2. Any pre-empt makes life difficult for the opponents, including ♣s. A 4♣ bid especially as if the hand in 4th is strong, the hand in 2nd won't know exactly whether partner is balancing or has a good hand. Answer to 3. I take that chance, though if we have a slam in ♣s or ♥s the opponents are more than likely to be stacked in ♦s or the top suit ♠s. Rarely is there one distributional hand around the table when one hand has 8410 shape. Answer to Precision: Yes, it's an ideal system for this hand. I also thought of a 2♣ Precision bid here. Answer to Pass: I don't disagree with Pass here either. But it does allow the opponents two bids to state their values. Answer to Suicide (Hara-kiri): On normal breaks the hand has 8 tricks with ♣s as trumps. We're not doing anything suicidal here, but I agree it's not-run-of-the-mill either. Both Pass and pre-empting in ♣s could work here. It's a view.

4♣ in first, (if not using the Namyats convention) vulnerable or non-vulnerable as it makes it so difficult for the opponents to get their act together. Even vulnerable vs. non-vulnerable although it could result in a large penalty. Even at IMPs. I might be pre-empting partner, but I'm also pre-empting two opponents if I bid. Passing in first position may allow the opponents to find their fit before I can do anything. Get in first, Felicity, is my motto. It's not your normal pre-emptive hand with potentially two ♥ tricks available but passing an eight card suit just looks wussy, or as Nigel says, very timid, pusillanimous.

I don't know how true this is but this type of director call probably occurs when a better player is playing lesser opponents and gets a bad result. It is a sort of intimidation that if practised frequently could result in players giving up the game. Thankfully there are rules and regulations in place, but the biggest asset for all Directors is using common sense. Thank goodness I wasn't the opponent this player tried to intimidate because I would have told him where to go. Edit: The name for this type of Director call? (Pardon my language) How about 'I f***** up now sort it out' director call?

It is an interesting hand. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than me explain why the squeeze may be preferable to the ♥ finesse? With virtually no information to go on, shouldn't one go for the most straightforward option than try to conjure some clever play that succeeds when the finesse fails (as much as I like Cyberyeti's and Nigel's analysis)? It is perhaps worthy of a discussion by itself. I realise that if you can combine both chances at the same time that would be the perfect scenario, but aren't squeeze situations primarily where you are one or two tricks short of making a contract by no other means available. Here a simple finesse suffices. Is the squeeze better than a 50% chance?

Both 3NT and 5♣ are hopeless (except if you can engineer a ruff and discard endplay by throwing an opponent in with the second ♠). It's one of those awkward hands to bid where game is probably unavoidable given the combined HCP count. Bidding 3♣ on the second round gives the impression that the ♣s are longer than the ♠s. I would have punted 3NT hoping that partner has a decent ♥ stopper rather than 3♣ myself. As for 3♥ being fourth suit forcing well that normally occurs when all four suits are bid without a 1NT rebid inbetween. 3♥ is obviously forcing. I'm unsure if I'd interpret it "asking for a stopper/half-stopper" or possibly "an advance cue bid agreeing ♣s". Seeing the two hands lend itself to asking for a stopper of sorts (as KingCovert suggested.)

Couldn't agree more. What's the point of having the Multi in your bidding armoury if you don't understand its pre-emptive value with South wimping out with 2♥. Any respectable N/S pair would be bidding to the four level on the first round, I feel, and then sacrificing at the five level later on. The only slight downside being is that it could potentially push E/W into a makeable small slam (as the cards lie.) Maybe South got the jitters that for once North had a big hand, a variant of most Multis, and didn't want to commit. However, even if you somehow arrive in a 3NT contract as E/W, a competent South will always be bidding 4♥

The state of the match is also a factor to take into consideration. I remember a hand where Benito Garozzo lead away for KJx against a small slam and his side collected the first two tricks. It wasn't an obvious lead on the bidding for the slam had been bid direct and quick but Garozzo advocates aggressive leads against freely bid slams, I believe, so there's probably also a case for aggressive leads against freely bid games, too. One other fact about an unusual lead is that it sometimes wrongfoots a declarer immediately - but it could also wrongfoot your partner also - as declarer would never believe that you would have lead small from KJx

Wayne's sequence looks right, though I can imagine that once an optimistic East has found the 4-4♠ fit advancing one level more and ending in 5♠ here, too. 4-4-4-1 hands, whatever their strength, generally tend to give headaches to bridge players whatever system they play.

With due respect gentlemen - Cyberyeti and Zelandakh - the poster, Wainfleet, has posted this in the Novice and Beginner Forum. So whilst your answers are both intriguing and can be used in good competition, they are probably, in my humble view, for the more intermediate plus/advanced player. If indeed the auction has gone 1NT - Pass - 2♣ - 2♦ it still behoves the NT opener to mention a 4 or 5 card major suit at the two level and ignore the 2♦ interference. What new(ish) players need to understand is that responder is invariably in control of the auction here. Responder has asked a question through Stayman and opener must bid accordingly. Opener by opening 1NT has already limited their hand somewhat. Assigning specific sequences for passing and doubling here is perhaps confusing the matter as, I believe, many players, even intermediates wouldn't have come across this topic at this level, and furthermore they would need a partner in tune with these specific bids and sequences, too. So, to clarify, opener ignores the 2♦ bid and bids their major suit if they have one, and if they have 4♥/4♠ bids 2♥, the lower suit, here. And without a 4 or 5 card major, just passes.

My motto is (for what its worth) at IMPs is to always lead safe except when that option is not available. The opponents may be stretching to 4♥ so I'd always lead the ♠J (Boring, I know, but my teammates won't be impressed if I lead the ♣K and it lets the opponents make the contract.)

I think there are lots of silly bids to consider, and just a few sensible ones. It looks like the opponents have ♠s or ♥s here. Partner could well be 4315, 4423 or 4414 shape, and perhaps a bare minimum. I'm taking that partner hasn't got 5♣/5♠ as most players now open 1♠ with 2/1 on this hand. Therefore, except if you have anything in your bidding armoury (as per Cyberyeti's reply) to confirm the ♣ fit, too, I would plump for 2♦ as the most sensible bid available, especially vulnerable. The hand has a lot of playing strength but virtually no defence. Not bidding the 8 card ♦ suit on the first round is just not in my equation. You know the auction could well get very frisky very quickly but you're be in a better position to judge it next time round. Most players advocate '2/1 system off' when the opponents intervene. (With my regular partner we quantify 2♦ further as a negative free bid with 8-11 HCPs specifically and a reasonable 6+ ♦ suit.) Given the distribution the auction is hardly going to stop there.

Yes, I have amended my original post, Stephen. Thank you for pointing that out: I meant to say: Reversing at the two level is forcing for one round but not game.

I agree. Reversing at the two level is non-forcing (amended) forcing for one round but not to game, whilst jump shifting 1♥ - 1♠ - 3♦ is a GF, but in the UK and Acol-land it's also called a High Level Reverse (just to confuse things :() The basic thing with the North hand is that as soon as partner responds it's going to be difficult to stop below game. It's hardly a bare minimum. Edit: As per Stephen Tu's comment below. Apologies for the mistake all.

How many times does a James Bond Moonraker Duke of Cumberland type of hand come up in normal bridge as this hand seems to be? When the opponents XX at the 6 level on such a direct and quick auction. The way I look at this psychologically (or in my case probably psycho-illogically :)) is the opponents would get a good score with 6♠X making so why provide the opponents an opportunity to sacrifice in 7♥X if the hands are that distributional. It's not Bluff or Bluster, in my humble opinion, but knowing that 6XX has a better than average chance of making, and perhaps XX'ing is being a bit greedy. I bid 7♥.

Personally I think the 2♦ reverse bid a bit shabby but then again I am looking at the two hands. Yes, I know it saves space rather than bidding 3♣ or even contemplating 3NT with the North hand as the rebid, but if the hand was ♠K ♥AKQ1094 ♦K532 ♣K6 and the bidding had gone 1♥ - 1♠ I certainly wouldn't be reversing with 3♦. Suit quality is a factor when making bids, and that ♦K532 just looks a trifle anaemic to consider as a forcing second suit bid when you have a suit headed by AKQ1094 as an alternative.