Kalvan14

If the finesse wins, cash A and ruff a diamond. Now W cannot gain by refusing to ruff in front of dummy.

1♦. If bidding comes back at 4♠, I'm willing to try a 4N

A magic hand? Pard bid 3♥, without any honor. It is very unlikely that the 5-level is in jeopardy. 4♥ would probably end the bidding. I might make a case for bidding 6♥: the only risk is finding pard with AKx xxx xx KQJxx or AKQx xxx xx KQxx. [4♦ guarantees a control in spades, but might lack a stopper in diamonds]

To focus on ♠ control I would bid 5♣. Nevermind this is a clear 4♥ You must have missed a point that was in my earlier post: clubs might be the strain where I want to play. The choice is between a slightly conservative 4♥ [it's MP, so it should not be bad even if the slam is there] and a more aggressive [but technically sound] 5♥. 4N would never be my choice: you make slam also opposed KQxx xxx Ax KQxx.

You might make a case for both pass and 4♠. Overall, my feeling is that 4♠ is still best, by far. My only worry might be an undisciplined partner, who might be willing to sacrifices over 5 red :P

I'd open 1♠ 100%, lacking a specialised opening bid showing both majors. Better to show a 5-5 rather than just hearts.

2♣-2♦-3♣-3♠-4♦: the last bid N should make is 4♥ [which cannot be natural: is it last train, or a cue-bid in support of diamonds? or what?]. IMO, N should re-bid 4N, quantitative (he holds 2 potentially useful cards, the major kings; and S has shown a very strong hand). As usual, system is not a problem: players might be, though.

All your explanations are quite correct, Mikeh. The only thing I disagree with is your dislike for NMF. Frankly, I do not see the problem (see also the other thread Going Slamming)

if the pass already establishe a GF, 3♣ has no alternative. WTP?

there would be no problem, unless pard rebids 3♥ (with which bid I fully agree, btw). And even in this case there is a cure: 5♥. I'm reasonably against building a very complicate structure to cater to a (not frequent) possible problem

I think Phil line is a good one. The alternatives: after A♥, A♠, K♥, A & K♦ and diamond for a ruff; or start with A♥, A & K ♦ and diamond for a ruff. The finesse in diamonds convinces me more, though.

I choose 5♥, pinpointing a likely problem in diamonds or spades (4♦ can be last train, confirming a spade stopper and denying a diamond stopper). We do not play 3N (either serious or non-serious), in particular on a sequence like this which is a bit mixed (from pard POV, the strain might be clubs). 5♥ has the added advantage of removing this doubt. Pard had a good minimum for his bid Axx xxx Ax KQTxx, and raised to 6. Spade lead, but clubs were 3-3, and the ♦K was on-side. 13 tricks.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sj95hakqj9dqj7ca9]133|100|Scoring: MP 1C - (P) - 1H - (P) - 1N - (P) - 2D* - 3H** - (P) - 4C - (P) - 4D - (P) - ? * NMF ** 13-14, 3-cards fit[/hv] 4♥? Anything else? You're playing 2/1, with mixed Qs

I would make a game try: 2N [3N is quite possible still]. 2♠ - which I play as a strongish game try in hearts - might have other meanings; it's a matter of choice, and of what fits or doesn't fit in your other agreements over 1♥ opening.

Sorry, guys, I've to disagree. Allowing for 1♥ being a normal bid [and pard being not high on something], the 2♣ rebid by opener is the most flexible and practical bid, IMHO. 3♦ would crowd the bidding, and reduce the chances to discover the [likely] 5-3 fit in hearts.

Quite possible, and that is one of the reason I preferred to pass 3N (the other main reasons were the singleton ♠A, which sucks, and the lack of intermediates in diamonds). The real hand was weaker in terms of HCPs, but was much more pure; while I can understand giving it a plus for the T and 9 in spades, it is not possible to appreciate the value of the ♣T. With the hand you post, N - who has already limited his hand twice - would go to slam. 6♦ has some play, but it is certainly not a good slam.

2♦ as first bid, no doubt; over 3♣ (and assuming no special agreements), 3♠. 6♦ is an ok slam, same as 6N. 6♣ is a bit worse. I do believe you should be in slam, and it is quite likely you'll get there (S has a huge hand)

Is it possible that the "experts" are self-proclaimed? We are truly in the presence of a herd of walruses, who count points and percentages to the nth decimal point, and are completely devoid of judgment.

Expecting brilliance from declarer is not the best policy, as a rule. But the issue is another: you disregarded your own agreements on the lead (and it would have helped a lot in this hand); then you went for "miracle cards", plus the above mentioned brilliancy. Where you trying to demonstrate something to this particular declarer?

2♠. I don't like Michaels, and the 6th spade is good.

Question 1: certainly worth a slam try. I'd bid 4♠. Btw, I like 2♣ much better than double over these hands. Question 2: certainly worth a game try. 3♣, if you play L-S try, otherwise 3♥ Question 3: much more doubtful. Pard has only 5 hearts, otherwise he'd have opened at 2-level. You need to find KQJxx in hearts and an outside A. Red and at IMPs I'd bid 3♥ (I'll not play 3N). Question 4: 4♥, mild slam try. I am not very sanguine about this hand. Question 5: Pass. Question 6: Pass, again. I am confident, but redoubling... Nice hands.

IMHO, it does not look like a significant improvement over natural rebids. It will end up with opener rebidding 1N most of the times, with the wildest distributions (and so wrong-siding NT, or playing the wrong partial). The difference between 2-level and 3-level is quite substantial (you have lost 5 bids), and this makes for a much more cramped auction. At 2-level it is much easier to explore min-max once you have shown your pattern (and in any case you have limited your hand).

Come on, Ken! if pard has J5, he knows that there are 2 higher spades in declarer's hand, and so he does not unblock the J. So back to square one: either you have an agreement, and follow it, or better not to have agreements. The hand you constructed (KJx Kxxx xxx KTx) would still make 2N, even misguessing the clubs (4 clubs, 2 hearts and 2 spades). IMHO, it is much less likely than the real one (no J♠ with declarer).

IMO, there are some little issues here: 1♥-(2♦)-X is a T/O of the reds (and denies a fit in hearts). I would submit that it does not guarantee 4 spades (i.e., it is not the same as if the bidding were 1♥ - (P) - 1♠). Unsurprisingly, I have no problem with KQxxx xx xxx Axx: it is a 2♠ for me (which is not an NFB: invitational, 9-12). [at the same level, mind: 3♣ would be forcing] If you are always guaranteeing 4 spades, what are you bidding with Axx xx xxx KQxxx? To summarise: X for T/O, guaranteeing tolerance at least in the unbid and strongly hinting at OM; same level bids natural and invitational; change of level bids forcing; cue-bid is obviously forcing. The corollary of this is that: 1♥-(2♦)-X-(P)-2♠-(P)-3♣ is invitational; 1♥-(2♦)-X-(P)-2♥-(P)-2♠ is forcing.

The main issue is 3♠ rather than 4♠ by W. Once he failed to communicate his hand (very good from for attacking, and very poor for defending), he was unable to recover. Going with Mollo, W was certainly Walter the walrus :) I've more sympathy for E: his hand is trong, but he need a fit, and a lot of coverings. If W has a weakish balanced hand the 5-level is certainly unsafe. The best player at the table must be S, without doubt. Even without seeing his hand, I am ready to praise his first pass over the X, and the subsequent "sacrifice" in 5♦. At equal vulnerability (and possibly with some vales in his hand - certainly hearts values) it is much more sensible to see if the oppos manage to hang themselves on their own (or maybe end up playing in hearts). There is always time to put in a 5♦ bid. Well done.