MFA

1NT (12-14) - 2♣ 2♥ - 3♦ 3NT - pass. Too bad that opener has a perfecto.

1. 4♣. A slight underbid, but 5♣ is too optimistic. I don't see hoping for 3NT. Our tricks are so slow that we need specific cards; heart stopper + both minor suit aces or heart stopper + ♣A + ♠AKQ. Even if he did bid 3NT over a double it would be against the odds to pass it in my opinion. Passing 3♥ is not an option. 2. 3♠. I would always raise here but it is easy to see that passing could be right.

The idea of leading ♥Q in this sequence is ok imo, but I think the spots are simply a little too weak here.

Calculated just for fun: Partner is a massive 33 times more likely to be 7-4 in hearts + diamonds than 7-4 in hearts + clubs. (Assuming any 4 diamonds, which doesn't hold of course since some diamond holdings would be too strong for 3♥, so it's just a very crude estimate).

Agree with Fluffy.

Sounds like an easy raise to 3♥ the first time. "I did not expect 2344 8-count...". This is almost always just a bad excuse for having done something silly on defense. There are exceptions but they are far between. ;)

They did get a bit lucky in the draw. Haha. ;) Well done team Diamond. From here it looked like a deserved victory.

The danish bridge magazine "Dansk Bridge" has its own master solvers' club article series, and I am one of the two editors. I took the liberty to "borrow" problem 1 and 3 - I hope you don't mind that. ;) The results based on the danish jury were: Prob 1. X 10points 4♣ 10p 4♦ 7p 4♥ 4p 5♣ 2p 6♣ 2p Prob 3. X 10p 4NT 8p 3NT 7p Pass 5p 4♦ 2p

I'm pretty sure we would end in 6♥ after a strong club relay sequence. In order to clarify ♥Q we will probably have to get beyond the point were we could settle in 6♦. 6NT is very tough to bid with safety, since it's terrible without ♠J. How bad is grand slam in diamonds or notrumps anyway? It does have some decent play, since one can combine his chances in ♣+♥.

The line that I had in mind was the loser-on-loser play. Play a third diamond and let go a heart, and we can cross-ruff from there, since west doesn't get in to play a second trump. Nigel's line seems even stronger, since it caters to east being 5-6 in the minors, which is a possible layout but not the case as it was. Had it been so Hamman could have discarded a club on the second diamond, though, instead of ruffing in. Zia would then have played a third diamond for another club discard, and the crossruff would fail because west would score the ♠T. But that doesn't make nigel's line any weaker. I'll bet he had red ears afterwards, but declarer did go down here, and none of the commentators on BBO pointed out a winning line but suggested instead that 5♠ probaby could not be made. So the point is perhaps that we can't see these things enough times beforehand, if we are to spot them constantly at the table (where there will be no "textbook-hand-is-coming gong" to wake us up). Full deal: [hv=n=sqj9xxhjxdxxcktxx&w=stxxhkqtxxdjcqxxx&e=shxxxdkq98xcajxxx&s=sak8xxhaxxdatxxxc]399|300|[/hv]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sqj853hj3d63ckt75&s=sak962ha86dat752c]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] ......................(1♦) 1♠ - (X) - 4♠ - (5♣) 5♥ - (X) - 5♠ - a.p. I was a bit disappointed to see the world class S go down in 5♠ against Hamman-Zia. Maybe you can do better? ♦J lead. S chose to win ace and return a diamond. Hamman (west) ruffed and returned a small trump. Since trumps were 3-0 and west later got in on a third heart to play another trump, declarer ended up a trick short. What should he have done? Please let the problem live a little before posting a solution, if you work it out fast.

Pachtman-Ginossar is a very strong, young Israelian pair. They have played on their national team for years and they won the 2007 European open team championships with Bessis-Bessis. Did you see Nickell's comeback against the Martens team by the way? Down 40 imps with 8(!) boards to go, they won the last ones 47-0. Incredible. The Poland/Chech team missed three normal/good games at the end and got too high on a fourth one to get cracked -300. How do they perform this kind of voodoo? lol B)

At MP I think it's clear to start: ♣A, heart to dummy, ♣ruff (with ♥A), ♠A, heart to dummy and a spade. We only have a problem now, if all we have seen so far are three low spades. Otherwise we just hook the J and have west endplayed if it loses. Hooking the jack anyway (instead of playing the 8) is only wrong if west has all of them; QT9x - and we can't solve diamonds. If we finesse J and the suit is Tx to Q9xx (or 9x to QTxx) then we have an excellent shot for 12, since we can go to dummy and play a diamond to the T. There is a squeeze coming against east. Finding Qxx in the slot is nice too. So I think it's clear to hook the ♠J on the second round in all scenarios, (except when east shows out or plays the ♠Q, of course).

He will get no badge of courage for that 4♠ bid. He is facing a partner who showed GF with clubs + short diamonds and who made an effort to do so instead of just blasting 3NT. That shouldn't be based on random soft rubbish, and there is a slam opposite ♣AKxxxx. There is no way in this world (or in anyone else) that responder should try for slam over 4♠. So the blame goes to ... opener! :D

Auto-D.