skjaeran

I think the problem hand is east, not south. Our partner opened 2♠ and rebid 3♠ and RHO overcalled 3♥ and rebid 4♦. Preferrably the pass before the question mark should be removed. As for the problem, I'd have opened the hand 1♣. Having passed I'd have raised to 3♠ over 2♠ unless partner is known to be a loonie in 3rd seat. Having passed twice I'm in trouble now. Just one certain trick on defence and support for partner strongly suggest no double now. Partner rebidding 3♠ implies a hand normally too strong for a weak 2♠, which isn't uncommon in 3rd seat. There might possibly be game on in both directions. Too bad I'm unable to bid clubs now below 4♠ - that might help partner tremendously if opponents bid 5♦. I'll try 4♠ now and hope for the best.

The last two or three times I've seen it it was you...... :) (I didn't see your hidden line before I got this far.)

Agree. Btw that 1♥ vote is mine - a mistake. I'd open the OP hand 4♥, then pass.

I agree with the initial pass holding the ♥T. Now I bid 4♦. Seems perfect.

With MY hand I open 1♥ in 1st seat. No alternative. With PARTNER'S hand I raise 3♥ to 4♥. Of course these hands and this bidding can't occur in the same deal.

21 already? Damn, then your half my age - seems you're catching up on me.... Happy Birhtday Justin, have a nice one!

Probably not...the hand again for reference. ♠J752 ♥Q ♦A9 ♣AKQJ76 How strong would it have to be for it to be a problem? If the Q were an A? How about the jack? If I had J752 A A9 AKQJ76 I'd double. That's enough for double followed by x♣.

I'm a bidder here. Depending on methods I'd either bid 1♥ (transfer) or 1♠.

Deleted

Never ever in 1st or 2nd seat. I'll be missing too many slams if I do.

Absoultely agree.

Obviously 3♦ was an advance cuebid. My hand is great now and I'll just RKCB.. In my cuebidding methods a grand shouldn't be possible, but with an unknown non-Norwegian partner I'll not rule it out.

IMO 4♦ is forcing here. But even if it was invitational only, south's got an obvious raise. Thus south dropped the ball. For those where 4♦ is invitational, both dropped the ball. Still south's fault is the bigger one since after that there was no way back.

♠ AT64 ♥ JT43 ♦ 65 ♣ T85 ? Is this a clear raise because of it trick taking potential, its overall strength or is it a preemptive raise because fo the great fit and shape? ;) Sorry but this looks like a clear pass to me after (1♦) 2 ♣ (pass) .... It's a clear raise because of its trick taking potential (ace, doubleton, 3 trumps) and overall strenght. vs a maximum overcall we might have a game, vs a minimum overcall it might preempt the opponents. Of course this is a style question. But I'd be very surprised if a partner of mine passed with that hand. My partners would likewise be surprised if I passed.

Tim Seres discovered a rare triple squeeze in 1965 when playing a 6♣ contract he reached this end position.[hv=n=sq7hdck&w=shjdjc3&e=skhd97c&s=sh9dtca]399|300|[/hv] The ♠7 was ruffed in hand and poor west was squeezed in three suits including trumps. This kind of squeeze is of course known as the Seres Squeeze.

According to The Official Encyclopeida of Bridge the first two are Deep Finesses (you finesse for more than two outstanding honours/cards). The latter two are Double Finesses (you finesse for two outstanding honours/cards).

Yes. It doesn't always work out but it is indeed standard.... P thinks you are leading from top-of-nothing due to your .... er, idiosyncratic choice. I would have assumed, as your partner, that we have zero nada zilch zippo in this suit, other than my Ace, would therefore win trick one, and shift to whatever suit you wanted me to lead back at trick two.... Well, looking at 53 in hand and 62 in dummy an aware partner would recognize that the only missing cards below 8 it the 7 and 4. Depending on lead methods, the 8 could be top of nothing or from QJ98(x) if that's your alternatives, or it could be from J874/J8x/9874/98x or from QJ98(x). A high spot card isn't high when you can see all lower spot cards. And it's ambigous when you can see most of them. Normally (not always) the bidding will make it clear which alternative partner will be holding. To just out of hand conclude that partner has nothing in the suit is very strange IMO. Of course if you always lead the queen from QJ98(x) you DO know this isn't partner's holding.

ROFL, you did not! :)

This used to be standard practise in Norway too. But we had a law change (a footnote to Law 41A) saying that the bidding cards shall remain on the table until the lead has been turned face up. Of course even ten years after this change many still use the old practise.

Nicely put, Phil. I agree if I'm playing with a partner I'm not 100% sure I can trust. I'd have cuebid 3♠ over 3♦. 4♦ would show 3♥ and 4♦ in my methods. Without that agreement I'd never bypass any cuebid. Playing with someone I trust 100% I'd bid 6♥ over 5NT, for reasons mentioned by Josh.

2♣. I've never considered hands like this a problem - maybe something is wrong with me?

Since the chance for making the grand is more than 57% you'd want to bid the grand if you expect "the field" to bid at least to the 6-level. So whether I'd want to bid the grand depends on what field I'm playing in. If it's a team match vs a strong team (or a strong pair at the other table) I'd want to bid the grand. If it's a pairs event with a very strong field, I'd just barely like to bid the grand, certainly if I feel the need for a good board. In any normal field I'd be content to bid the small slam.

The double is surely a t/o type double. But I don't think it shows the same for all. To me this double typically shows a strong 2♦ overcall - a hand just too weak to double first and make a strong ♦ bid later (cue or jump as I play Equal Level Conversion). I'd say a 1-suiter is more common than a 3-suiter. On the bidding I'd expect partner to hold a doubleton ♠ more often than a singleton. Partner typically has 2263 or 2362 and a 17-18(19) count. Thus I think this is a hard decision. Pass, 4♦ and 4♥ is all possible. I won't pass, since the chance for +300 seems to remote. I'd reluctantly bid 4♥ as other posters due to the upside if I can make it, and there's a reasonable chance for that. At least when partner holds three of them.

It's an atypical 1NT opener for sure, in the sense that most 1NT openings doesn't look like this. But surely most experts will open this hand 1NT. I'd routinely do so, and expect all I routinely play with or against to do the same. 1♣....3♣ I like to be just a tad stronger, and with a better suit normally.

with the example hand, 4=6=3=0 and 16 high, assuming the opps hold most of the points in clubs (I'd bet they own 8-10 hcp in the suit), how can 5♣ be wrong? It may miss spades on the 4-4 but it won't miss hearts on the 6-3 or diamonds on the 5-3 or better. I totally agree with Mike here. I'd not hesitate to rebid 5♣ here. As to the original hand, I agree with all those starting with 2♥ and rebidding 4♠.