MFA

I would pass both hands.

On hand 2, i wondered that 5♠ was perhaps still natural and forcing, could we not still be worried about strain, or have a hand that wanted to pass and pull? If we had just spades we would bid spades instead of passing. We could have been passing with a choice of suits to play in including spades, planning on pulling a double by partner, but when he bids a suit instead (especially the highest one) he is saying he wants to play there regardless. So we can't introduce a new suit naturally now. What does partner do if he doesn't have a hand that wants to play in diamonds 'regardless'? But still with a good ♦-suit? Here it really looks like partner has just tons of diamonds, given our strong hand, outside controls, and RHO's bidding. But apart from that I don't see why partner in principle can't have a second suit in an "one and a half"-suited hand, for instance.

No. The rules are unfortunately so that you are not allowed to change the contract after dummy has come down. :D I was not N/S at this table. So I'm not really interested in the bidding.

1) 5NT- pick a slam. We probably have a grand but I don't want to shoot it. 2) 5♥. Invitational to slam if partner has a spade control.

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=s5h73dajt82cajt92&s=sj76hakj82dq93cq3]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] N......S 1♦ - 1♥ 2♣ - 2♠ 3♣ - 3♦ 3♥ - 4♥ Lead: ♠3. 4th best. A) East wins the ace and returns a small trump B) East wins the ace and returns ♠4 - 7- 8 - ♥3 What now in each of the cases? Hidden:

Armed with recently-developed bridge theory, it seems like north should just bid hearts, not spades. A majestic leap to 6♥ over 3♣ is possible, while more technically inclined bidders might prefer the slow route via 3♥-4♥ then RKC. :lol:

In some mid-night rubber I was playing with a friend against two other good friends, and we were killing them completely. Mostly because of getting good cards, but still. RHO was looking less than pleased at this point. But then LHO opened 1♣ precision, and RHO sat up and suddenly again seemed to be interested in the game. They bid: 1♣ - 1N 2♣ - 3♣ Pass! 2♣ was an asking relay, 3♣ showed a 5332 type with five clubs, and pass exposed the psyche. RHO frowned, but it was nothing compared to what he did, when this happened to him: We overtook the auction, 3N-4N-6N! It was a decent contract, but partner had to solve ♣AJ9x to ♣Kxx for 4 tricks. Guided by the informative bidding, he knew that clubs had to be 5-1, so he cashed the king and played small to the 9! Nasty setback for LHO, opening a 0-count with a strong club and proceeding to relay for RHO's shape, only to see his opponents use just that information to help them land 6N seconds later. +1440. It was all too much for RHO, and let's just say that this board became the last one of the rubber... :-)

Two that come to mind. Both are from serious international events, but back from the junior days... (of course...) 1. A psyche that worked ♠xxx, ♥xxx, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx, none vul My friend opened 1♥! Well, you don't get a balanced yarborough every day so it's just too hard to stay quiet, I guess. Partner responded 2♣ (10+ acol style). Not willing to expose the whole thing already, he then decided to follow up with 3♣!! Don't be a wimp. Partner said 4♥, and he watched nervously as it went all pass! Down 5, -250 only, with opponents cold for 3NT and 4♠. They had 13 bal each - partner had 14 bal. A hard way to earn the imps. It was at the time when doping tests were being introduced. It came as no surprise to the Danish team that our friend here was picked for testing as the very first player at all in the event. ;) 2. A psyche that didn't work so well. ♠xx, ♥xxx, ♦xxx, ♣QTxxx, nv vs vul 1♠ on his right, and the vulnerability made it all too tempting: 2♣! A pretty skinny one, but unfortunately, it turned out, not only was it a skinny overcall, but RHO had in fact opened 1N - not 1♠! So now the 2♣ mini-bluff was suddenly not showing clubs but both majors... 6N from LHO and ... 7♠!! from partner. Ugh. I think it was -2300.

One lesson to be learned from this is to strive to make explanations simple, if they can be.

Heh, cross-posted with JLOGIC.

Hmm. On the first one I would probably have ruffed and first-timed a finesse into west, playing for good brakes and either spades or clubs to come in. Planning to play spade ace and then finesse into west looks inferior since if west wins and plays a third spade I would be dead even if with five club tricks. And I don't see why it is clever to play ♠AK from top. But west has the stiff Q, I see. I better call it a day now before I screw up the second one also. ;)

.. but wrong, it seems. What if partner is 3-4-3-3, 3-4-4-2, 2-4-4-3, etc.?

I think it's wrong to imply something about black suit length that could easily not hold. If you thereby scare them off a successful competitive action, you have just misled them. 'Pass or correct' is fine, if they don't kow the principle so well, you could explain how it operates.

Maybe the 2-suited interpretation with clubs and some (or any) major is good and logical, but absent partnership discussion I (or "we" rather) don't invent such things at the table. Never. By default 3N is natural if it is at all possible. And it is possible here. There must be a club suit and hope to make 9 tricks opposite partner's likely weak NT type. Ax, xx, Tx, AJxxxxx. For instance. No diamond stopper seems more likely than not. Or perhaps there are only 6 clubs. Why bid 4♣ if we can bid 3N instead.

Finesse: 47,0%, drop: 53,0% Finesse: 30,8%, drop: 69,2% Finesse: 57,1%, drop: 42,9% Seems to be the same results as the other posters. I calculated by looking at the relevant distributions: 1) ♥Hxxx, ♣xxx - ♥Hx, ♣Qxxxxx compared to ♥xxx, ♣xxxx - ♥HHx, ♣xxxxx [♣Q irrelevant as a specific card] 2) ♥Jxxx, ♣xxx - ♥xx, ♣Qxxxxx compared to ♥xxx, ♣xxxx - ♥Jxx, ♣xxxxx [♣Q irrelevant as a specific card] 3) ♥Hxxx, ♣xxx - ♥Hx, ♣xxxxxx compared to ♥xxx, ♣xxxx - ♥HHx, ♣xxxxx I counted the number of distributions and then calculated odds.

Good/bad or lebensohl IS creating a whole new problem in the process of trying to solve the strength issue. Without those conventions we would be knowing the suit immediately instead of a nondescriptive 2N. It is the conventions that create this problem not the competition itself. So we have to make a choice, and my choice is that good/bad is not worth it. In competition, getting suits in is so huge in comparison to being precise on strength. Often when we bid, we don't know who can make what, just that there will be a lot of tricks. So in principle lebensohl has the exact same flaw as good/bad. But lebensohl is used in sequences where the threat of further competition tends to be smaller: A) 2♥ - X - P - 2NT(leb) We tend to be able to continue our sequence peacefully. B) 1NT - 2♠ - 2NT(leb) Already worse, but facing a 1NT-opening responder usually can take care of himself. Contrast with: C) 1♦ - 1♠ - D - 2♠, 2N(good-bad, any bad 3X bid) If the overcaller bids 3♠ or 4♠ now we can just say: Ugh! Responder probably has fit for something, but what suit(s) does opener have?

I like to play it also over 1x-p-2x-X-p-2N... FWIW and with some partners, even after 1x-X-2x-2N It has a lot of merit in these auctions. Leben and "good/bad" are close relatives. They are. But good/bad has a very serious flaw in that 2NT doesn't show the suit immediately, and therefore it is very vulnerable to further competition. For that reason I don't like good/bad in general. Lebensohl also has this problem in those sequences where next hand can potentially be expected to bid sometimes. Notably after sequences like 1S-X-2S-2NT. I play Lebensohl here too, but I don't really like it. When opener bids on in spades we are potentially in trouble when we may need to compete. I compensate be stretching to show a good3 instead of going via 2N. ;)

I agree with agua.

I'm no expert in pharmaceuticals, but: :) I mean, north just made a cuebid in opener's suit*). Of course that could potentially be enough for south to launch exclusion. *) Cuebidding a singleton in partner's suit is generally wrong if partner could be dependent on finding an honour to run the suit. Here it was a reasonable move since such good strength in the red suits means that a lot of club tricks will rarely be necessary in a spade slam. Perhaps south should void splinter instead of 2NT.

It is cute. So many opportunities to be an annoying defender for the wide-awake. Saw this 3NT this morning: [hv=d=m&n=skjxh8xxdkjxckqxx&w=sxxxxxhxxxdxxxcax&e=sxhkt9dqtxxxcj9xx&s=saqtxhaqj7daxctxx]399|300|[/hv] ♠9 lead. ♥ to 9, Q. ♣ to K. ♥ to 10, J. ♥A (easy). Cash many major tricks. ♣ up again. 12. or ♠9 lead. ♥ to 9, Q. ♣ to K. ♥ to K and A. Hmm. Hmmm... ♦ to J. 11. If there are only three heart tricks, declarer rates to need the diamond finesse. Cashing ♥A is bad if west has ♣A + ♦Q + ♥Txxx.

Very annoying. We can anticipate a preference to spades by LHO. If we double now and it goes 2♠-p-p, we are in deep trouble because partner's pass is forcing. At least as I play it. So I think double now is out. For those who might not play X as promising another bid after a simple preference: Do you combine this with subsequent penalty doubles or takeout doubles? I see two options. Pass and then pass. Or pass and then X takeout. I try the former and hope we are not being robbed. It smells like a misfit.

Double. If partner has sub-minimum and short diamonds, he runs. That is not lack of trust, it's a logical consequence of my failure to make a game try. Playing me for ♦KQJT + A + A is not practical. The actual responding hand has a clear 3♠ bid.

I don't see why we shouldn't apply normal bridge principles to this situation. So: Bid: I have 5+ cards with some values, NF of course Pass: I have nothing, or I am roughly balanced and waiting for the bidding to proceed. A later double is for take-out. Several styles are possible here for sure, but it seems particularly silly if we are obliged to bid something directly with nothing and a balanced hand.

I have a clear preference for 3NT. Just think it works more often. If partner's spades are not very strong, there could be 9 tricks outside the long spades but lots of trump losers in 4♠.

Ok, also a very good suggestion from jdonn.