GrahamJson

Presumably west has seven clubs and shifted to the king in the hope that east would ruff the ace. I’m also guessing that west has a singleton diamond and that the winning line is to finess against the ten. So, I’m guessing west has J109 Qx K KJ10xxxx. He can see the hearts lie well for declarer, hence the desperate shift at trick two.

RKCB. Of course it is. Goodness knows where I found the extra K.

Looking again at the bidding I think I now understand it. 3C was presumably puppet Stayman, after which 3D showed at least one four card major. North’s 4C bid showed both majors and asked south to bid his major, which he did with his 4S bid. Thus it was established that they have a 4-4 fit in spades, making 4NT unambiguously KKRB (or is it RKKB? I can never remember which.) Incidentally I disagree with the comment that it should be the hand with most of the controls who should do the asking. In general it is the hand without the controls who has the filler cards and would benefit most by control asking. Taking the current hand as an example, what useful information would South gain by using RKKB? North on the other hand will find out that his two KQs are worth four tricks and should allow him to bid the grand.

The bidding so far doesn’t correspond to any methods that I have come across before, but I’m assuming that somehow spades are agreed. If so I don’t see a problem with making the agreed method bid of 5S. Clearly if you held the two key card option then 5S would be one off in top tricks, in which case partner shouldn’t have gone beyond 4S in the first place. If you really are concerned about being passed out in 5S then there can’t be much wrong with just bidding 7S direct. It’s difficult to picture a hand in which partner is going slamming and seven isn’t a good contract opposite AKQ A A A. What more could you possibly have?

That’s true Cyber. It’s a reminder that the words never should never be used in Bridge. Of course if the play or defence is not straightforward, and perhaps there are many options, then several contracts could be going one or more down. However as the initial question talked about safety plays then I, and I guess others, assumed that the play was straightforward with no other factors to be taken into account.

I’m afraid your fix is clearly wrong and the original quote was correct. If the game makes you will always lose to those that have bid it. If the game goes off you will always beat those that bid it; if they are one off you will be making, if they are two off you will be one off. hence you will never ties with anyone bidding game.

As several have pointed out, there is no point in a safety play if you are in 3H and most will be in four. This may not be the case if you are in a different denomination. Suppose, example, you miss the heart fit altogether and end up in 2NT. Now it may make sense to ensure you +120 in the hope that 4H goes off. What you don’t want is to go off in 2NT when others are going off in 4H.

Forget the safety play, go out to make the maximum tricks, just as if you were in game. If you go one off then those in game will be two off, so you don’t need a safety play to beat them. If ten tricks is there you will lose to those in game, but then there’s nothing you can do about that. All that would happen if you took the safety play would be that you would lose to those others who have stayed out of game too. The time for safety plays at MPs is when you are in a good contract that you judge few others will be in, such as a slam on a well fitting combined 25 count. In such cases your good bidding has already won you the lions share of the MPs, so you just have to be careful that your play doesn’t throw them away. (I guess another time for a safety play might be when you have sacrificed over a clearly making game. In this case you might want to make sure that your loss stays within the value of the opponent’s game contract.)

I think that any call that requires partner to trust the opponents’ bidding rather than your own in order to deduce it’s meaning is not a good one. Here you have made a take out double of one suit, implying strength in the others. You then double one of these suits. This must be showing willingness to defend, although in this particular sequence it also implies willingness to play in partner’s suit. Something like Axx x AQ10xx KQJx

I think that any call that requires partner to trust the opponents’ bidding rather than your own in order to deduce it’s meaning is not a good one. Here you have made a take out double of one suit, implying strength in the others. You then double one of these suits. This must be showing willingness to defend, although in this particular sequence it also implies willingness to play in partner’s suit. Something like Axx x AQ10xx KQJx

Is it really necessary to have an agreement? Surely partner can work out that 3S is stronger than 2S but weaker than 4S.

What would you bid with a 5332 18/19 count? Presumably 3NT. In which case how is partner supposed to know whether to pass or bid 4S if you also bid 3NT with the example hand?

Again, I have to agree with eagles, 2H is completely bonkers. The actual north hand is just about the best dummy you could possibly hope for, and 2H only makes because of favourable distribution. Consider what would happen if the north and east Hands were swapped; 2H would be a massacre. Just because you play four card majors does not mean that partner won’t find a raise with three trumps. In fact if the north hand had a ruffing value (e.g 4342 distribution) it would be worth a raise. Some players might have scraped a raise as it is. To put it another way, south has shown 12+ points and 5 hearts (unless 15+) so what does she have that she has not already shown? Answer; nothing.

I have to agree with eagles. Both the 2H bid and the double were truly awful bids. I must say that I don’t particularly like the approach that all doubles are for take out. I normally play that doubles are for take out unless; a) one partner has inferred values in the doubler suit, e.g by making a take out double of another suit or by bidding NT, or b) a Pass wo7ld be forcing. With this agreement the double is for penalties. Ok, this may not come up very often, but then using it as a takeout double is really just asking partner to chose his poison. You have already shown a good hand with something in the other suits, yet partner has passed. Why wo7ld you expect him to be able to make a three level contract when he wasn’t even willing to bid att the two level?

As others have pointed out there are also squeeze possibilities, quite good ones in fact. Assuming clubs aren’t 4-4, if the defender with the long clubs also has three or more diamonds he can be squeezed in the minors. If the partner of the defender with the long clubs has the diamond length then a double squeeze operates, with neither defender being able to guard spades. The problem is, I think, that you can’t play for both possibilities, although you can delay your final decision until the last four cards are played. So you ruff clubs, draw trumps etc (obviously they need to be favourably places) and come down to A6 void 2 4 opposite 8 void AK10 void. At this point you either cross to the spade ace, hopefully executing a minor suit squeeze, or you cash the top diamonds squeezing LHO in the black suits (I don’t think a squeeze works if east guards the blacks and west diamonds). You should get some good clues as to how to play the end game from watching the discards.

A mini splinter is usually taken to mean a jump to the three level below the agreed suit, so that partner can sign off at the three level if he has an unsuitable hand. A splinter jump to the four level is, well, a splinter. https://www.bridgehands.com/M/Mini-Splinter.htm

For me, the north hand is clearly well below strength for a splinter, as the outcome indicates. Also, I don’t see how it can be read as anything other than a slam try; if you are just showing shape in a competitive situation it’s helping oppo more than partner. In addition, if oppo go to 5C over 4S it shouldn’t be too difficult for partner to deduce that you are probably short in clubs.

As is the case with many BBO bidding questions there are several answers, depending on your partner. It is fairly normal amongst good partnerships for a 4D rebid to show a 4-6 hand, and that is what you would expect the bid to mean If playing with a good pick up partner who recognised you as also being experienced. Playing with a decent partner, but one with whom you don’t haven’t established mutual confidence, it might be best to use a splinter bid with a 4-6 hand, as this is pretty unambiguous. Playing with a completely unknown partner maybe it is safest to make a direct raise to game on any hand, 4-6 or otherwise, that is strong enough to play at that level. To put it another way, spotlight’s initial response is correct, but as subsequent responses have indicated it might not be a good idea to assume that your partner is on the same wavelength.

Mike Lawrence spends a long chapter on reverses in his “Tips on Bidding”. He recommends using the cheaper of the 4th suit or 2NT to show a weak hand. Also responder should give priority to rebidding a 5 card major. Using his methods the bidding would therefore continue 2NT - 3C -3D - Pass. Opener would not be tempted to continue to 3S as responder has more or less denied a five card spade suit.

Second hand, vulnerable against NV my partners would expect a little more than any of these hands have. Third hand NV I’d open those with a decent suit, but that’s about it.

I can’t say that I see the problem. Whatever double means (support, take out, penalties), you don’t have it. You can’t raise partner or bid NT. You are also too good to pass, well at least I think you are, so you rebid your excellent six card suit. So 4C it is. Sure, it may not lead to the best contract, but then that is why players pre-empt.

Whilst I agree that this double is for take out, I think many on BBO take the mantra that “all low level (I.e. less than four level) doubles are for take out a bit too literally. The rule I use with my regular partner is that low level doubles are for take out unless partner has shown or implied support for the doubled suit, or if a previous double was for penalties, or if a pass would be forcing or if it is the third round of bidding. By implying support I mean bidding NT or making a TOX or negative double of another suit. So, for example, (1H) - X - (1S) - X would show spades, not the unbid suits. Similarly 1D - (1S) - X - (2H) - X would show hearts. The auction in the question would be an exception as clearly the doubler cannot have a penalty double, especially as he sits under, not over, the bidder.

I must admit that I cannot imagine any hand with which you would pass over 1NT but would double 2H. Having said that, the double must be for take out so I’ll take it out into my longest suit. So 3D it is. Now I anticipate that we will be told that the doubler holds Axxxx KQJ xx Axx and intended the double to be cooperative; pass with some defence, take out with offence. Whatever the result, I’ll ask partner not to put me under pressure like this again.

I think a good general principle in these sorts of situations is that you should only pull the double if you have more than you have promised, not because you have less. That is, pull if f you have significant additional offensive values, such as at least six clubs, or an undisclosed five card side suit. You don’t pull just because you have a king or so less than you should have in defensive values. In such situations you have to cross your fingers and hope that partner has good values, or what limited values you do have are well placed.

3S looks more than enough for me. Even if 3H promises support it should surely show more values than this. You have a six loser hand in support of spades, which 3S shows exactly. Second choice would be 4S, which I think is an overbid but could work out.