rhm

Why? Total tricks arguments does not suggest action. Opponents have likely 10 ♥s between them, you may have a 9 card fit in a minor or on the second hand an eight card ♠ fit. So it seems wildly unlikely that this is a double game swing and chances for 4 or more tricks in defense look to me much more likely than ten or eleven on offense. Yes every second leap year partner might have a real powerhouse and I will miss slam. But with an almost certain loser in ♥, this looks really remote. If you had 3 small in ♥ and shortage in another suit bidding on would be much more attractive and passing much more dangerous. I at least am not prepared to sacrifice against 4♥ with no clear source of tricks. Rainer Herrmann

It would not occur to me to double 4♥ with this hand after having shown values already with a cuebid. At some stage you should bid a near solid suit and having failed to do so over 3♦ I would now bid 5♣. I can understand a forcing Pass instead of 5♣, but Double, in particular when in front of partner known to be short in ♥, should show a much less offensive oriented hand. Rainer Herrmann

If the bidding starts 1NT--2♣ 2♦ -- 3♣ The auction is game forcing. Why can't opener now not bid 3♦, with length and strength there? Opener has the inference that responder likely got a 4 card major and at least a 5 card ♣ suit. Also it is significant that 2♦ did not get doubled. If opener bids 3♦ over 3♣ it is long odds that 5♣ is better than 3NT (though not impossible) If opener bids 3NT over 3♣ I would pass, but if he bids a major over 3♣ I would bypass 3NT Rainer Herrmann

If you feel that the hand is unsuitable for 3♠ or higher (I do) then 2♠ is just fine. The seventh spade compensates for the bad honor structure and the weak suit. The trouble with 1♠ is that you may not be able to rebid them at a low level, since opponents have a heart fit. Having quacks outside of your long suit and a singleton ♥ jack is enough for me to consider this hand well within 4-7 HCP. Rainer Herrmann

South would bid 4H. This is not an opening hand, but once partner bids a forcing 2H and you have 4 trumps to the queen, two aces and potential ruffing value, I think it would be wrong to bid only 3H. I think it is rare that partner holds 4-card support for the 3H bid. Maybe and maybe not But there are also plenty of minimum opening hands with 3 card support where you want to be in game, for example: xx Qxx AKxxx Axx Rainer Herrmann

5♦ looks clearcut to me. Passing is only right if neither 4♥ nor 5♦ makes, which is possible but unlikely.

If a bid in an undiscussed sequence can be natural it should be taken as such. Over 1♣-(2♥), 3♦ from partner creates a game force. I see no good reason why partner can not have long ♦, but not enough for a game force. On the other hand if parter wants to play ♣, if worse come to worse he may have to choose between 5♣ and 6♣, but can often hedge with 4♥. If he thinks ♦ should be trumps he has no choice. Accordingly I would bid 4♥. Over 5♦ I would bid 6♦, but I can understand pass. I just don't think partner would fight my ♣, if he is very weak. Rainer Herrmann

So if 4♥ was the worst bid this raises the question, should North have anticipated that there would be 2 ruffs for the defense? How would the bidding go if South held ♠xx ♥Qxxx ♦Axxx ♣Axx (Not that I would open this hand either) In my opinion 4♥ was the best bid. 2♥ was questionable unless playing NFB and I do not think opening the South hand (rubbish!) is winning Bridge either. However, passing 3♥ is a big mistake in my opinion. The whole point of overbidding 2♥ by North, which is questionable is, because you might well have a ♥ fit. Having overbid already is no excuse not to reevaluate your hand (though a common error). Once the ♥ fit comes to light the hand improves and you should not stop short of game opposite an opening hand. That South does not have an opening is not North's fault. Rainer Herrmann

I would open 1 and 4, and pass the rest. 2 is the type of hand, which is frequently overrated, but the hand is certainly much better than hand 3 or 5. I was interested how these hands would do double dummy opposite 12 HCP with a mild fit: Hands, where I would expect the vast majority to force to game. So I did a simulation specifying 3 cards opposite the longest major and less than an 8 card fit in the other major. I generated 1000 deals each result: deal 1: 4♠ made 47.3% of the time; average number of tricks: 9.43 deal 2: 4♥ made 32.5% of the time; average number of tricks 9.06 deal 3: 4♠ made 14.3% of the time; average number of tricks 8.55 deal 4: 4♥ made 71.7% of the time; average number of tricks 9.95 deal 5: 4♥ made 17.1% of the time; average number of tricks 8.66 Rainer Herrmann

If that's the worst slam you ever have been my congratulations (admittedly 6NT is a nice contract) Rainer Herrmann

That sounds very optimistic to me. RHO should have all outstanding 7 ♦ plus very short ♥. Since he can have at most 7 points outside of ♥ I would not be surprised to find him with no ♥ at all. I would also take the ♣ finesse at trick two. If it wins I would ruff a ♣. Cash just one ♥, whether East follows or not and play ♠A and overtake the second ♠ in hand. Now play ♣A discarding a ♠. If the last ♣ is high discard a second ♠ before continuing ♠. If LHO has all ♥ and ruffs, discard a ♦. You can now make 11 tricks if RHO had 3=0=7=3 with the ♣K. In the unlikely event that LHO has only 4 ♥ you can overruff and ruff a ♦ back to hand with the ♥9. If the ♣ king does not drop in 3 rounds West must follow to at least 3 rounds of ♠. Ruff the fourth ♣ low in dummy and come back to hand with a ♠. West will now have only ♥ left. Play your last ♠ and overruff in dummy finally ruff a ♦ with the ♥9 to endplay West. Rainer Herrmann

To call pass with nine cards in a suit a no-brainer is a bit over the top. Just wonder how many cards you need in a suit before you will bid opposite a simple overcall at favorable vulnerability, would 10 or 11 or 12 be right? Just guessing. Rainer Herrmann

Play a ♥ to the queen. If it holds play a ♣ to the queen If it holds cash ♣A. Play ♥ to the ace. If the ♥K does not drop ruff a club and cash ♠ discarding ♦ If all follow to 3 rounds of ♠ you make 11 tricks if trumps break and otherwise 10 If the ♥K drops draw trumps and discard a ♦ and a ♣ on the ♠s. Finally try the ♦ finesse for 11 or 12 tricks If the ♣ finesse fails and a low ♦ comes back, play the king. If both minor suit finesses fail you are down. But if the ♦ finesse wins you can cash the ace of trumps and try to get rid of all your ♦s before someone can ruff in. You might again make 11 tricks if trumps break by ruffing a ♣ later. Rainer Herrmann

I do not pass 2♦, particularly at these colors. 3♣ suits me fine trying to keep opponents out. I will bid 3♣ and will insist on ♣ if necessary, at least up to the 5 level and I will not let the opponents play below the 5 level. I doubt that ♣ bids will excite partner. If it does, opponents will have a very good fit in a major. My guess is that on average even 5♣ will produce less undertricks than 2♦ Rainer Herrmann

The question is whether to take the trump finesse or not. If you take the finesse and it looses you are dead after a spade return. If the trump finesse wins your chances have improved but you are still not out of the woods. If the trump finesse works and you refuse it you are not down yet. I would go up with the ace of hearts and run the ♣Q. Establishing tricks and communication between hand and dummy seems more important. The continuation will depend on what happens in the ♣ suit. If the ♣ finesse fails and a trump comes back I will probably have to take the trump finesse now. If the ♣ finesse wins I will continue ♣ and try to get rid of some ♠ loser. If East ruffs the third round of ♣ you can over ruff and ruff a spade in dummy and ruff a club before drawing a second round of trumps and taking the ♦ finesse. Rainer Herrmann

I do not know what your agreements are about 6♣. This could be be a second (better) suit as well as a void. Whatever it is, since I now want to play a grand and I have already implied ♠ support and I want to avoid a misunderstanding I would now bid 7♣. If partner has a black two-suiter with better ♣ than ♠, he will pass. If partner has a void in ♣, he should now be in a good position to choose the best strain. Rainer Herrmann

You can play for a singleton ♦Q or, more likely, any doubleton ♦Q onside. Ruff a ♣ and depending on whether RHO drops the ♣Q or ♣K, in which case discard a ♣ on the second high ♥, but otherwise a ♠. Now ruff a ♥ and ruff your remaining black suit loser with the ♦J. Finally finesse against the ♦Q, unless RHO could have over-ruffed, but did not, in which case play the ♦K on the first round. If RHO is 3=4=2=4 and fools you by dropping the ♣ honor from ♣Hxxx on the first ♣ ruff and subsequently over-ruffs your ♠ with the ♦Q congratulate him for a brilliant defense. Rainer Herrmann

Run ♦. Maybe you get some useful discard, e.g. an opponent may discard a club from his doubleton or tripleton. Then play to the king of ♣. Now you play your squeeze card, the third ♠, and need to decide whether ♣ broke all the time or you can squeeze somebody in ♥ / ♣. If North holds the long ♣ you can squeeze him if he holds 1) the ♥ jack, by discarding a club and running the queen of ♥ 2) the ♥ king , by discarding a club and not running the queen of ♥ If South holds the long ♣ you can squeeze him only if he is in sole control of ♥, either 4 cards in ♥ or both honors in ♥, in which case you might as well discard a heart from dummy. If you play for the squeeze and it looks like North controls ♣, I would be inclined to play him for the jack of ♥ rather than the king, because South could have broken up the squeeze by switching to ♥, if he did not have the king. Rainer Herrmann

I am not sure. I am not worried when I have AKQ instead of 4 cards, particular with a doubleton in the unbid major. In fact it is easy to show that often ♠ will be an excellent Moysian fit, while the opposite is not so easy. A jump raise does not deny a balanced hand, while the trouble with a reverse is that you then presumably support ♠. Not only do you suggest longer clubs but an unbalanced hand with short ♥. Danger is in the eye of the beholder Rainer Herrmann

It depends whether you consider an 18-19 count, where 9 points are in partner's major and a small doubleton in the unbid major, where partner is known to be shorter representative for a balanced 18-19 count. Bidding should be geared to finding the best contract. This sometimes means bending the rules. Besides, I presume even you would not suggest a balanced 18-19 count with 2NT, when you had a balanced 18-19 count, if it included 4 cards in ♠. What do you do with the actual hand if the bidding continues 1♦--1♠ 2NT--3NT I rarely double raise a major on 3 cards, but I also refuse, particularly at MP, to play fancy conventional meanings for 3NT. If partner has Jxxx or worse in ♠ and good ♥ he is invited to suggest 3NT. At least 3NT will be played from the right side While I usually open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors, I make an exception with strong hands for obvious reasons. 1♠ over 1♣ is very often a 5 card suit anyway. Rainer Herrmann

1♣ -- 1♠ 3♠ -- 4♦ 4♠ Simple and effective. I do not like to suggest notrump, when I have no intention to play notrump. Rainer Herrmann

The lead makes it unlikely that West has the queen of ♠. I see 2 lines of play: Line 1: When you test the ♣ by reaching hand via the ace of ♦ you will see in time that you can not afford a red suit discard. Discard the ten of ♠ and since you will need the ♦ finesse, hook and check whether ♦ break 3-3 If not, cash the ♠ ace and come back with ace of ♥ and discard ♦ on the remaining ♣ assuming West will not relinquish his high ♦. Finally finesse in ♥ by leading the jack. If West is long in the red suits he will be squeezed so that the ♥ suit will run. You need West to have Qxx in ♦, or both red queens with length or the ♥9 must drop . Line 2: Come to hand at trick 2 with the ace of ♥ When West discards on the second ♣, discard a ♦ and run the jack of ♥, hoping for 4 tricks in ♥. If they materialize play king and ace of ♦, on which East will be squeezed between the black suits. If ♥ plays for 3 tricks only (West having ♥Q9xx or longer, since you can not afford to repeat the ♥ finesse), you need the queen of ♦ with West. Cash the second ♠ trick, come to the ace of ♦ and discard now the ten of ♠ on the third ♣. On the fourth ♣ West will be squeezed in the red suits. Line 2 is superior, because ♥ are more likely to run for 4 tricks than ♦ for 5. In either case the second red suit finesse is not required. However line 2 is a bit of hindsight: If ♣ break reasonably you prefer to come to the ace of ♦, because leaving your ♥ intact gives much better squeeze chances for the 13th trick. Rainer Herrmann

Do you really call the South hand 19+, with which you then would super-accept??? But then North shows of course remarkably restraint. I wonder what you would call 19- hand (guess ♥82 could have been ♥32) Rainer Herrmann

If opponents have not preempted, I play the cue-bid above the 4 level of the implicitly agreed suit, in this case ♦, as exclusion key-card Blackwood. Accordingly show one key-card Yes, I would hook. The ♠2 seems to indicate that ♠ are 6-3. This marks North with a weak six card suit for his bidding. He must have the ♦ ace and some distribution, which can only be shortage in the red suits, most likely in ♥. North is marked with a lot of black cards from the bidding and opening lead. Accordingly I would now play a ♦ to the nine and pay off to AJ doubleton. Rainer Herrmann

In which case your play against competent opponents is not much better than the simple ♦ finesse. I do not know the level of the opponents when this occurred. The play in ♣ is strange, but I am inclined to assume that West has AK and length in ♣. Maybe East foresaw, holding the queen of ♦, that a club continuation would lead to the double squeeze. The same might be true, why West refused to over take and continue ♣. West can easily deduce that a second ♠ can not cash, when you duck out a third defensive trick in ♣. Consequently the setting trick can only come from ♦ and the (double) squeeze threat becomes rather obvious to anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge about squeezes. What about running ♥ instead of ducking a ♣ at this stage? When you play the last heart, dummy will have kept the queen of ♠ and all ♦ in the 4 card ending, while in hand you hold all ♦ and the jack of ♣ You can still play either opponent for the queen of ♦. If East has it and has kept 2 cards in ♦ the queen will drop and if East has kept 3 cards in ♦ go to the ace of ♦ and throw him in with a queen of ♠. Initially I am inclined to give East 6=2=3=2 with the queen of ♦ for a number of reasons. West did not over-call over 1♥. Few people pass with AK98xx in ♣ and a singleton heart and he gave only a single raise, dubious with a singleton heart if he held 3=1=4=5 with the queen of ♦ in addition to the AK of ♣. Also East might have continued to 4♠ with 6=2=4=1. East is "marked" with 6 cards in ♠, a doubleton ♥, and West will likely tell you whether he held 6 or 5 ♣ on the run of the ♥, by discarding another ♣ from six early. (you will first discard the six of ♠ before starting to discard ♣ in dummy). Therefor you are likely to get a complete count. Against most defenders the end position will be easy to read. Against top level players the double squeeze is a pipe dream anyway. Rainer Herrmann