The_Badger

Only if I were chasing a top at MPs or a swing in an IMP game would I bid a grand here. I like the way that you have tried to explore every option scientifically with your bidding sequence, but sometimes not telling the opposition about your hand, or giving them an opportunity to double a cue bid or an RKCB response to show a lead works best. Here you could be looking at two ♥ losers irrespective of whether North or South plays the hand. If 2NT shows 10-11(12) here, I'm inclined to just take a leap of faith and bid 6NT as South and trust that partner has either the ♥A or K. Partner may not have the ♥A or K and still 6NT could be made if another suit is led. But the opposition has to find that lead first. Grand slams should be bid where the distributional odds are or exceed 75% generally.

East has opened, admittedly in 3rd at favourable vulnerability, but partner has passed, so trying 1NT with the South cards is a definite no-no for me. The auction is unlikely to die in 1♣ so I'm prepared to pass. See what happens next. Maybe double or mention the ♣s on the next round depending on the subsequent bidding.

A good rule of thumb, though it doesn't work on every occasion, is to (try to) keep the same shape as dummy if you are over the dummy. (And try to anticipate declarer's discards if you are under the dummy.) Easier said than done sometimes. And yes, defence is so overlooked in favour of bidding and declarer play, I feel. I think the magic moments in bridge are not when you and your partner bid a good contract, but where you cooperate fully and pull out of the bag an amazing and winning defence.

When a fit has been found you bid to the level of the fit, except if you can manufacture a forcing bid that shows the strength of your hand and can then show the fit later. Many players would see 2♥ by East as non-forcing here. Being in slam here is nonsense.

At this vulnerability I would be doubling 3♠ as North. Yes you read that right. Not totally ideal admittedly. Though I wouldn't be doubling if West had opened 4♠ which is what he's worth.

2NT ok. 4♠ lazy bid. 4♦ if not recognised as an advanced cue bid (by agreement) should show a second suit ♦s and at least 6♠s as willing to play opposite a doubleton.

Nope.

I have played 2♥ Flannery in this structure:- 2♦Multi (usually weak 2M); 2♥ Flannery; 2♠ Weak 5m/5m

There's a tad too much negativity on this thread. BBO held prices for 15 years! I'd like my grocery bill to be what it was in 2004/5 and stay the same for 15 years. On the surface the prices look similar to playing a session in a club, and its a heck more convenient playing online than wading through snow to play bridge on a winter's night. Or driving on a round trip of 10-40 miles to play at a club. I have to eat but I can choose if I want to pay for bridge on here.

Of course, it does show 29+ HCP according to the bot system. I do have decent spot cards, so 29 seems a good assessment of the hand. 23.6 on K&R evaluator. That North bot certainly trusted you bidding 6♥ :)

Without the whole hand, or the results, it's perhaps difficult to judge whether the bidding is incorrect generally - the opponent's bidding comes into the equation, too. Having played the Multi myself many moons ago, I personally don't agree with the inquiry bids on both auctions, but then again you may play the responses and the range differently. On the first auction the reasonable assumption is partner's suit is ♠s: I'd rather bid 3♦ as a one round force initially. On auction two, there is a reasonable prospect of slam, and I'd rather make it obvious from the start with a 3♠ splinter, asking partner if he has any features beyond the ♥ suit. That's my take on it: others may see if differently. And as gszes said, opener is bonkers bidding 6♥ without knowing what partner has.

Un-imagination is usually the right way to play a contract, too :) I can't see any line that is better except if you peek at your opponent's cards, and we all know that's not allowed :(

East bidding 2♠ is a bit stupid with his point count. Not a tournament director or a tournament player these days, but do players have to describe their hands in infinite detail before every bid? 1NT with a 5 card major, whether weak or strong no trump, has been around for more than a few years now. However, whatever way the bidding pans out by another route, except if South opens 1♠, I still think East will say something in ♠s at some point.

There's that interpretation, too, I agree Nigel, to try to get that magic +200 on your scorecard in MPs given the opponents vulnerability, but the opponents' 3♠ bid isn't looking for a 3NT contract surely? Or maybe it is and East has a minimum for his 2♥ bid and West thinks that North/South are hustling them out of a forlorn contract? I would take the 3♠ here as a splinter knowing that West has quite a few other bids at his disposal. Which also begs the point, how would other players interpret West's 3♠ bid here too? Interesting post.

The reason why I added "...Or Is It" in the post is because the distribution you have suggested, Nigel, here could be replicated with North having ♣7 instead of the ♣4. And tie that in with Cyberyeti's comment, that most modern players (including myself) would signal with the ♣7 with four small cards too - though they are some who still use the traditional third lowest followed by fourth lowest peter/echo to denote four cards in a suit - and you could be presented with a dilemma. Obviously, the probabilities of East's exact hand distribution come into the equation as well here too.

The only sensible interpretation I can come up here (and this is straight off the cuff after a contemplation of the bidding sequence) is that the double means I have first round control of ♠s, nothing more than that. Or perhaps, thinking about it further, this was the bid I would have made but the opponents have beaten me to it. The opener has a strong hand bidding 3♠, so white on red, maybe the overcaller is looking towards a sacrifice in ♠s against their final contract. If anyone can come up with a better explanation, I am all ears, as I too had to have a doubletake on this sequence too,

Again aimed at the intermediate level players here (Advanced/Expert if solved please use a spoiler. Thanks) You lead the ♣A against the rather unwieldy contract of 5♠, partner plays the ♣4 (count) and declarer the ♣2. You have a decision to make at trick 2. The clues are there. What card do you lead next? IMPs [hv=pc=n&s=s5ht982dt98cak865&w=sk732hakjdakjcqjt&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=3sp4d(Agree%20spade.%20Slam%3F)p4s(Sign-off)p4n(I%20feel%20optimistic)p5c(Zero%20aces)p5s(4NT%20was%20stupid)ppp]266|200[/hv]

The second splinter of 4♠ is not just saying void, and let's bid game, it is saying slam is in the offing, though how they then reach 6♦ is open to question. Though it is up to South to envisage that his partner has some 10-15 HCPs (or something like that) to splinter in a minor in the first place, and work out where those points are likely to be. He has an extra ♦, useful cards in the unbid suit ♣s and a singleton ♥. 5♦ is a lazy bid. Both 4NT and 5♣ seem much better. And yes, there are plenty of hands that you can give North where 6♦ will never make, but I believe South is at fault here for not trusting his partner and making some forward gesture, even with his aceless hand.

None that I can think of, though I have played against Canape rarely. In many 2/1. SAYC, Acol, etc. hands opener is likely to have a second suit that is just as long as the opening suit and won't be disclosed until the second round of bidding. Does it stop us doubling, overcalling, and the like on the first round? As Craig Biddle says on BW, Canape is a neat system but with players nowadays aggressively overcalling and raising, the Canape player is more at a disadvantage than the overcaller.

Well done Ranmit. Here's the whole hand. And as you say... [hv=pc=n&s=s32hat5dak63cak87&w=st4hkqj98dj9cjt96&n=sakq95h43d842c532&e=sj876h762dqt75cq4]399|300[/hv] ...*IF* I know this When the hand was played, West played the ♠10 when declarer led towards dummy. Declarer cashed the ♠AK and was about to play a third round of ♠s when East made an ill-timed compliment at the table to West "You're my favourite partner" in a voice that carried as much gloat as it did tribute. Declarer stopped in his tracks, didn't play the third round of ♠s, and then proceeded to endplay East as you said in your post. Poetic justice I think it's called :)

Well done, Ken. Hope you've had a good day.

You do not need anything as sophisticated as a cannibal/suicide squeeze or a defensive error to make this contract. If you try to construct the East/West hands with the hints given above, it's a lot easier to find your way to the ninth trick.

There are similarities, John, but that's where the similarity ends :) Cyberyeti's on the right track. I purposely left out whether it is MPs or IMPs. It's easy peasy for 10 tricks if ♠ break 3-3, but that aren't going to happen Hint for solvers: the breaks are not favourable, but not extreme either.

More for intermediate/intermediate plus players, I feel, than advanced/expert. (If advanced/expert solve this please use a 'spoiler'. Thanks) Again from a 1960s magazine. I have amended the bidding to reflect modern trends. Hint for solvers: the breaks are not favourable, but not extreme either. West leads ♥K, East follows with the ♥2, and West will continue on trick 2 with ♥Q if you duck the lead as declarer. [hv=pc=n&s=s32hat5dak63cak87&n=sakq95h43d842c532&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1d1h1s2h2np3nppp]266|200[/hv]

The probability of a 8-5-0-0 hand is 0.000031 (and Badger had to look that one up). The probability of 9-2-1-1 (your opponent's hand) is 0.00018. As others have said, there is no right way or wrong way of bidding extreme distribution or goulash hands. Cyberyeti's suggestion is as sensible as it gets on this hand. You'll win some lose some on these types of boards. After 5♦ by South it's automatic pilot for North to bid 6♣, a guesstimate if 7♣ is on. Better to register a plus score than a minus one, and remember that the opposition have to bid/guess these extreme distribution boards too.