MFA

I don't buy south's statement. I don't see why it should make any difference. I would rule result stands.

Natural. I don't like it if we are supposed to improvise some conventional meaning that we have not discussed, when the bid might as well be natural. Why shouldn't it be possible, for instance, to hold a 6 card heart suit with a hand that could not take action over 1♣?

2♦ is the only available cuebid, so it covers all strongish hands with no clear direction. Not sure if this can be clarified further. Btw an issue that nobody has touched is - what about hearts? Can we rule out that south has 4 hearts when bidding 3♣? In priciple the answer must be no. Based on my hand it seemed unlikely that he would have 4 hearts and anyway I decided to bid what I felt was the value bid in support of clubs. Thoughts?

2♠, 3♠ and 4♠ are all natural bids for us.

I was north, and I considered 4♠ of course. I wasn't worried that partner would misunderstand. As you say, if I have spades I start with a double (or bid spades directly after 1♠). But I was worried that 4♠ would be an overbid. It's only "free" to the extend that partner is expected to respect it when I conduct a very strong sequence. Or we will suffer on many stronger hands where partner won't take appropriate action. I simply thought that missing AK AK A was too much, but I might be wrong.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=shq9xxdkqjxcqtxxx&s=stxxxhkjtdacakjxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (pass) - pass - (1♦) - X (1♠) - 2♦ - (2♠) - 3♣ (3♦) - 5♣ - all pass Not good. ;)

I agree with "your" director's understanding of the laws. Law 46B has a clear safety valve, just as you describe it. I like it if it is used here. I think that a player who has cashed A, then K, then Q, is incontrovertibly intending to run the suit from the top in spite of his forgetting to actually say top diamond every single time. FWIW I have seen this many times before, when it is just about cashing a solid suit. For some reason it is a situation where it is easy to get just a little sloppy with the words. In practice it is usually solved by a defender saying "huh" and declarer saying "I meant top of course", and everybody being happy about that. Maybe this is stretching it, I don't know. But I'm all in favour of choosing the interpretation that conforms best with how the situation is usually handled at the table, so we avoid rewarding a player who acts like east does in the actual hand.

Double. It's time for -530 once again. B) I don't think we can make that much. If partner is void in hearts, he will bid 2♠ quite aggressively.

Pass is out. We have too much for that. We rate to be able to make 4♣. Just for a start. I would bid 3♠. But I admit that double is tempting, since it's so easy to see how it could be a big winner.

Strongly disagree with the system. We should not base our entire defensive methods on having penalty doubles, but instead on takeout doubles. We are catching them often enough anyway through passes of partner's takeout-X.

Yeah, it took no master's degree in deduction to figure out that ♣A wouldn't work out when it wasn't even included in the poll. I still think it's the best shot though.

Why is this hand a 5C bid, but x xx AKQxx KJTxx is not? I don't think anyone else has said it, but I still think with Jxx Axxxx xxx xx partner should (will?) lead the ace of hearts. I don't think I would lead the ♥A from that. 3♠ sounds like a 6-card suit only. The risk of having the heart ace ruffed with ♥K(Q) in dummy is significant, while on the other hand if declarer should be void in spades, which we have no particular reason to think, there is a good chance that partner's spades are good enough to neutralize dummy.

The very first(!) board of the 2006 world championships in Verona at our table had that theme. xx, Kx, AQT987x, xx /none vul. (2♠)-4♣-(4♠)-? Decide what you do before you look it up. <_< Board 8: http://www.worldbridge.org/tourn/Verona.06...s/01_RR_555.pdf [Yes, he opened 2♠ with that!]

♣A, then ♥Q unless partner plays one of the two smallest club spots (udca). Knowing partner is important here. Would he tend to cash his ♥A, if he has it? Would he perhaps have opened 2♥ on Jxx, Axxxxx, etc. vul vs not? I think we need a strong read in either of those directions, or a small club now is just much too big a play. I pay off if partner has ♣Kx with a high spot, Kxx with two high spots, or specifically the two lowest club spots doubleton. But if I had to bet, I would bet on partner holding the ♥A. The suit lengths and the bidding simply makes that more likely than the ♣K. I would guess that x-x-AKxxxx-Kxxxx (with perhaps some 'meat' also in the suits) would be declarer's most frequent hand for a leap to 5♣.

I think that 6♥ is a better shot than 7♥ if forced to guess. Voids are rare, they often have a 5-4 fit here. 7♥ is a bit greedy. With no agreements at all it's tough. I don't have any here either (but do, if east hadn't bid 4♠). Perhaps 5NT and then 6♥ on 6♦/6♣?! Trying to indicate the lack of spade control (no 5♠ bid)?!

I would surely run to 2♦ now, and I would most likely have bid 2♦ on the first round. I have an unbalanced hand and want to play in a strain other than notrumps, that's all. Sure we have half the deck, or perhaps a bit more, but then again partner is most likely not leading one of our suits, and perhaps not even when he gets in again a few tricks later. I think that relatively aggressive doubles of weak 1NTs are right, btw.

Sure, I also expect the ♦K to be onside most of the time. But not 100%, and not close to 100% if east is a strong, tricky player. We won't get that many honest doubles to outweight completely when he just feels like being clever. Btw a reason to doubling could also be to avoid a trump lead with QTx, just a side remark. In my regular partnerhip, a double of any 4-level splinter in a noncompetitive auction would ask for a lead in the suit below. Unless NV vs. V where it would be a suggestion of a sacrifice, in principle unrelated to the lead. Did we check if they play something like that, btw? If I was playing with a strong partner, I would just about never double a splinter for the lead without a very good excuse. I'm sure that many of my regular strong opponents think the same. I can think of many players from over here I wouldn't trust one bit in this sequence. Anyway, my primary point in this hand is that I wouldn't really worry about missing a grand on such a layout, where partner has ♣xxx. I don't really want to be in it when I also have to rely on the diamond hook, at least not enough to worry about it. :(

I'm used to playing 1♥-1♠-1NT-3♦ as invitational. I don't understand north's bidding. He has such a strong heart suit but he does all that he can not to bid it again?!

I suppose you are relying heavily on the diamond finesse to provide the last trick? We can't even try to ruff out the ♠K before trying the diamond finesse. We are not told how predictable and/or bad our opponents are. But doubling a 4♦ splinter here with a naked king in a situation where NS are otherwise out of space below 4♥ - that's horrendous. I'm wary of trusting east to have the ♦K.

It doesn't. I think we need a relay system for that. Dependig on methods, it might be better for south just to keycard after 4♦X. After 4♠-4NT(1)-5♣(Q?), north should have a bid that shows ♥Q, some values but no kings, probably 5NT. Then south could try 6♣ finshing for the ♣Q. For example. Other methods might lead to other sequences. In any case south has much more a keycard hand than north. I still don't want to be in a grand in a layout such as this.

I would pass

I think you made an excellent ruling, just as the other congress rulings you have posted seem to be of high quality. :)

OP says 4S was Kickback. I think 2 with the Q will get them to only 5H. That aside, taking over with XXX in clubs doesn't feel good anyways. You've got a point, lol :) I withdraw the part of the criticism that was about getting to 6♥ off 2 keycards.

As a general rule of thumb I think you should always respect your partner's forcing bids if you have any excuse at all for doing so. I mean to pass a jump shift, apart from having sub-sub values you should also have a desperate misfit. With QJxx in hearts this hand is fine and nothing to be ashamed of. Btw most play 2♥ (instead of 3♥) as a forcing reverse, and 3♥ would then either be something artificial or promise 6-5 (the Italian style).

I wouldn't want to be in grand. Apart from that, north's keycard seems wrong. I'm impressed that he finds his hand good enough, but if it is according to agreements then fine. But it seems to be a problem that south might have 2 key cards with the Q, getting us to 6♥ off two key cards. And north's hand is not suitable for being in charge towards a grand slam, if south is very strong. So if north feels he is too good for 4♥ then he should probably cuebid the ♠A. Also it seems to be a good idea to agree how to investigate the ♥Q after such a '5♥-bid-again-with-4-keycards' kind of bid.