GrahamJson

Please save me from partner's who would even consider removing the double. If 5H makes, unlucky, but in such cases 5S is probably going down plenty.

Somebody beat me to it.

Presumably 4S went off because declarer played E for the DQ, maybe after E switched to a small diamond when in with the HK. I can't see how 4C failed though.

Can't say that I'm impressed with north's bidding. Having opened 1C on a three card suit and 4333 he doesn't have any more to say. Certainly competing with 3C should guarantee at least a four card suit. But then I normally play 12-14 NT so never have to open three card suits so what do I know.

I think it is close, and your partner was wrong to criticise you if you passed or bid 4C. I voted for Pass, just, as I feared that 4S might be on or, on the other hand, bidding could be exchanging a plus for a minus.Yes, I know these are contrary considerations but in an Individual almost anything could be going on, unless you know the field to be strong, which is unlikely on BBO. And yes, I would have bid 3C or 2S earlier although I understand why that wasn't done.

Even playing 5CM the west hand is surely a 1H opener. The bidding no can then proceed along the lines 1H-2C-2D-2NT-3C... after which you should reach 6C. East migh prefer 2S to 2NT, or 3NT, depending whether 2C is GF or not.

Not bidding a suit because partner has already denied it is not a good argument. By bidding 2S you are showing your shape, perhaps allowing partner to bid more confidently knowing spades are well stopped. In fact you often can often bid a suit because you know partner can't hold it and therefore won't get carried away raising you to a high level. The argument against 2S on this hand is simply that you aren't strong enough, although personally I think it is borderline.

You should never pass a forcing bid just because you don't like the options available. You just have to make the least worse bid. In this case I'd be inclined to overstate my strength a little rather than give the wrong idea about my distribution. Hence my think I would reluctantly opt for 2S. It is a five loser hand with all the strength in the long suits, but it would be nice to have another king. I guess the other option is 2C which might work well if partner passes or bids 2D or... Hmmm, maybe 2C is better......

In my view opening 2C on this sort of hand is asking for disaster. Too often partner will add his ten or more points, holding say AQJxx x xxx KQxx, to the assumed 23 in our hand and will end up bidding 6NT, or worse. And if you have an agreement that a 2C opening can include this sort of extreme distributional hand you make "normal" 2C openers unbiddable. In practice this hand is a good advert for Acol twos. If you don't play those then there is little option but to open 1H, unless you play transfer 4C or some other suitable toy. Actually, in third or fourth position I think 4H is a fair bid which I wouldn't criticise too much.

Blue Blub? I meant Blue Club.

The Blue Blub, used by the Italian teams of the 60s and 70s, used a 2D bid to show 4441 and 17-23 Pts. The Roman club used it to show 4441 or 5440, with an opening 2C to show the same but weaker, 12-16 I think. Crowhurst in Precision Bidding in Acol proposed a two way 2D bid showing either a one suited or a three suited, if I remember correctly. And yes, I don't think it really caught on. What did catch on was the Multi 2D showing two or three hand types. In the original version these were a weak 2H or 2S, a balanced 20-22 or 4441 17-23. It's still quite popular, although I'm not sure the 4441 option is used much.

I didn't say it was not strong enough for an Acol 2, I said it was not good enough, which is slightly different. In brief, 2C show points whilst an Acol 2 shows tricks. This hand has enough points for 2C but not enough tricks for 2H. An Acol 2 is also used for distributional hands where an oppo pre-empt after a 2C would make it difficult for you to show your suits. In such cases you might have enough for 2C but for tactical reasons choose to open an Acol 2. Reese gives a good example in "Play These Hands With Me". "With hands like this I like to start with one of my suits..."

This may sound odd, but although I believe this hand is good enough for 2C, just, it is not good enough for an Acol 2H. That is because an Acol 2 requires at least 8 playing tricks when played in its own suit or suits. A better 2H bid would be Ax AKQxx x KQJxx. Fewer points but more tricks. More critically, showing a hand that needs to be played in its own strain. Here if you open 2H and rebid 3C you are showing a hand with no interest in the black suits, so responder should not be looking to play in spades unless he has a virtually self supporting suit. By contrast a 2C opener is usually a more all round hand, playable in several places. Also sounding odd, I think that you stand less chance of getting too high if you open 2C rather than 1H. True, a 1H opener might get passed out when no game is on. However what happens if partner drags up a 1S response. Presumably you rebid a forcing 3C. Then what? Maybe partner will show preference by bidding 3H. You look far to good just to bid 4, so 3S? Whatever you do you will find it hard to get over the strength of your hand without taking the bidding past 4H. By contrast if it goes 2C-2D-2H-2S-3C-3H-3S you will be happy to pass either 4H or 4S from partner knowing you have already shown your hand.

I note that opening 2C would result in contracts of 4S, 5C and 3NT opposite these three hands. All look reasonable to me.

I seem to be a lone voice here as I would open 2C. I don't like 2NT on this shape and I don't see how you can ever catch up after a one level opening. True, 2C could end badly if you have no fit but it might b the only way to get to a good game when partner has one or two useful cards such as JC or QH. I'm not saying that 2C is a great bid but all the alternatives look worse.

Perhaps I have missed something here. We are missing the 54 of hearts and either east has them both or south does. They cannot be split. Others have invoked arguments about East having 13 cards etc. It seems to me that any such argument that applies to east could equally well apply to south. The only factor that can be taken into account is that as S has opened 1NT he must hold at least four honour cards, probably more. East may not hold any (the honours held by west and north will indicate how many east might hold). This leaves move vacant spaces for spot cards in East's hand compared with south. Hence east is more likely to hold the outstanding hearts than is south. Added to this is the factor that holding K542 of hearts S may have played the 5 or 4. This may not be the best strategy, but players don't always follow the best strategy.

If I've got this right ruffling low only loses if east has precisely 4234 distribution with one spade honour. If he has three hearts you can still make the contract by way of a trump coup. This assumes the heart ace is on the left of course.

Does it show 5-6? Couldn't 3H just be looking for 3NT, on say xx A109 AKJxxx xx ? Obviously when 3NT is taken out it is clear that 3H was not a NT probe hence the 4H bid looks like suggesting a place to play.

I think four of partner's major should always be natural unless that is clearly impossible. Here you look like having a huge misfit so I would pass, hoping it makes.

This looks to me like a hand where you just have to accept a poor score and move on. No partnership or system will reach the optimum contract every hand. In this case both players have made reasonable bids so there is no real blame. Of course it may be possible to have advanced agreements that would help in this particular situation, as has been suggested, but they often lead to problems elsewhere.

Not quite. You can play clubs from dummy. If the first or second round is covered your problems are over, barring a 4-0 trump split. After the second round of clubs, having discarded two hearts, you can play K and A of diamonds discarding a third heart. You can then finish drawing trumps and claim, conceding one heart. There are other factors to be considered in deciding the best line. If opponents are not strong and play small on the king of clubs without a thought you may decide that east is unlikely to hold the ace and playing to ruff a heart is a better option. Also, how do oppo lead? The H8 looks like from one or two, do they play mud or top of three as that will give a clue as to whether hearts are likely to split evenly. Note that as west did not lead a club he has S unlikely to hold a singleton.

Looking again at the hands presumably west led the S3. This could be from J73 or similar, making your line of player even more reasonable as it only loses on the actual distribution, I.e. Doubletons in both spades and diamonds. Still, as another has pointed out I guess that there is no harm in trying a small club first, hoping for a misdefence.

On the bidding leading a club does not look a good idea as you would expect east to hold the ace. Plus of course it still won't make even if west has the ace provided there isn't a misdefence. Trying to ruff a spade looks reasonable. The only alternative is to run all your diamonds, coming down to a four card ending. The hope is that east has all the outstanding high cards, reasonable on the bidding, and comes down to Kx A - A. Then exiting with a club forces a spade return. This of course doesn't work as the cards lie, but does if east has KJxxxx AKQ X Axx or similar. (It also works if east is missing K or Q of hearts and doesn't discard the ace.)

I see that Bridge World Standard uses a return to opener's minor as forcing. http://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/readingroom/bws/bwscompletesystem.html#IVH

Hm, not so sure about this. The system used by Bridge Magazine for its bidding competition is 2/1 and supposed to be based on best current expert practice. It clearly states "When responder's suit is raised a return to opener's suit is forcing." The panel includes Bobby Wolff and Mike Lawrence amongst others, who presumably know their stuff.