MFA

I didn't play the board myself, but count me in with the heart leaders. When holding this hand, I think partner's double should mean that he can give me a heart ruff. Two points come to my mind: 1. Partner is very likely to know about my singleton heart, and he will then also know if I can get a ruff or not. (Ok, with ♣Axx it's a gamble for him, but he must hope I'm not 1-1 and double) 2. If I lead a heart and I can't get a ruff, this could easily be disastrous for the defense, since I'm butchering the heart suit, which could have been a nasty surprise for declarer. Also I'm giving up a tempo, if a diamond lead or a spade lead could have given us two winners. I feel that some posters seem to underestimate this. Is it really sensible to use the precious lightner double to try to cater to a different ruff than the ♥-ruff? I think not. This is so small a target, when the heart ruff is such a big theme of the hand. Note that the big gain comes when partner doesn't double, because we could then try a ♠ or a ♦ instead of the hopeless and dangerous singleton. If partner does in fact have a spade or a diamond void, he can still double and pray. There will only be a conflict when we have a singleton heart as here. Is this logic realistic to use at the table? I think so. I like to define a lightner double of a slam as "I think this one goes down in spite of their convincing bidding - please figure out why", rather than "please lead xxx". Freestyle and co-operation will get a good shot at solving most problems, rigid diktats will only work in very specific situations.

When we have such a handy method to show 4♥ and long diamonds and gameforce, there is now no reason to open this handtype at the one level, as one often would do without this gadget. So partner has a very good hand, yes, but not necessarily an absolute monster.

1) 2. Cuebidding is marginal but ok. It's not like our 0 hcp in partner's suits and ♣KQ in partner's likely shortage are that wonderful. 2) 1½. I would double again. 3) 1½. 3♥. Partner's hand is a clear raise. Don't believe too much in OBAR theory, if that implies you should be wary of supporting partner even with a fair hand + fit. 4) 4. We need to lucky for 2♠ to be right. But it's certainly not insane to gamble that. 5) 2. I'm a passer here, but it's close.

4♦, but this is enough. I need very good cards opposite to make 5♦. My black cards might not be pulling full weight, if partner is something like 2362. Can't pass now, since I would compete to 3♦ on a lot less than four card support and singleton heart.

You, south, have picked up your usual hand: [hv=d=w&s=s86542h9dj7643cj4]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] They bid 1NT- 2♦ 15-17 & twoway stayman 2♠ - 3♠ 5card hearts! 3NT - 4♣ natural 4♦ - 4NT cue&1430 5♣ - 6♣ X'ed by partner. What is your lead?

West claims, of course, that E-W have a clear agreement that XX of a partscore is always SOS (unless it's a lead director they XX, I suspect). E-W is a seasoned partnership. They have recently changed their 1M response system from something extremely convoluted to just "normal" bridge. Well, TD just asked west what he would do, so therefore west didn't give a list of options. Imo it comes down to evaluating two things. 1. Is south damaged by east's explanation and should consequently be allowed to double 3♥? Yes or no. 2. If the answer is yes, then TD should use law 12C2: What is then "the most favorable result that was likely"? Is it likely that west would pass 3♥X or take a preference to 3♠, which is roughly equally bad? This is the TD's judgement and what the players claim at the table about their intentions he can attach importance to at his own discretion. 3♥ should have been down 5, but the defense slipped 2 tricks. 3♠ is down four if NS are remotely sober, but of that we cannot be sure, unfortunately :(. 4♣ is down only one. Opener is 5413.

West thought they played 2-way 2NT. This explanation was written to north during the auction.

I'd double and accept the risk of catching an unsuitable hand with partner. If he has something like 4-2 or 2-4 in the majors, he could be quite strong without having a bid over 1♣.

Pass...

Haha Ole, you'll need to search hard to find someone with the same kind of imagination as you :(. Your choice would have worked better had you not had Michael the Wimp as partner....

Hmm, I seem to absorb the TD cases at the moment... [hv=d=e&v=n&w=s4h3dqt762ckq9842&s=sat72hat862dk98c5]266|200|Scoring: IMP 1♠ - 1NT 2♥ - 2NT* 3♥ a.p. [/hv] Screens E-W plays 10+ 2-o-1's. 2NT was alerted from east to south as "good 3H raise". Therefore south felt unable to penalty double 3♥. 2NT was alerted from west to north as "good 3H raise OR both minors". After the board (down only three after an unmentionable defense), south feels damaged, since he feels he has a penalty double if 2nt is not unequivocally a good raise. Do you agree that south might have a penalty double if given a different explanation rather than the actual one? Would you allow west to make some rescue attempt if 3♥ were doubled? What bid then? Note that west explains that this 2NT agreement was quite fuzzy, and his intent were to redouble 3♥ as SOS to make partner understand the situation. E-W is a top-class pair, but they have been changing the system lately, so they might not be on the same wavelength in all sequences. It is, however, not quite possible for the TD to establish the exact partnership agreement about 2NT.

Would not have passed partner's double? WTF?? :o I'm too weak to let me be sucked into a rythm double sequence, so I'm passing 2♠ although it looks strange that they should have a good spot there.

I'd pass.

If you give a luke-warm preference to 3♥, do you then expect him to raise with say ♠ KQxx ♥ KQxxxx ♦ x ♣ Ax For all he knows, you could have a bust. Nothing so far has indicated that you have values. Pass over 2♦, 3♥ over his double. It doesn't sound encouraging, does it? Roland Hi Roland. No, I don't expect him to raise with that, but it's quite close. Imo partner shouldn't assume that we are completely broke or he wouldn't be able to act very often in the first place. Anyway I might still get lucky and write +140 with a bad split in either major. Is it my turn now to assign a *random* hand to partner? :D B) :D

No support doubles when we can't have a fit. X reverts to being take-out.

...and? If partner has anything at all + five decent hearts, it could be a blood bath in 2♥X. Our honour location is perfect for a double. The black aces and solid diamonds. The only serious flaw is the lack of a T or J in spades to make RHO's holding more 'finessable'. Double! Take-out of hearts. Of course the alternative is, partner is dead (not unlikely), and responder is 5-6-3 in the majors, or opener 6-4. With kind regards Marlowe I'm sorry, I don't understand your post?! :)

Pass over 2♦. Considering what rubbish my partner usually has for 1♥ this is not close for me at all. He will have a second chance if LHO passes. 3♥ over 3♦X. The usual spade length for partner here is just 3. I'm not bidding ♠Jxxx before ♥Ax. Bidding game is much too rich for me (although 4♦ would land us in the right strain). I want partner to act aggressively with short diamonds.

...and? If partner has anything at all + five decent hearts, it could be a blood bath in 2♥X. Our honour location is perfect for a double. The black aces and solid diamonds. The only serious flaw is the lack of a T or J in spades to make RHO's holding more 'finessable'. Double! Take-out of hearts.

There should be no special focus on hearts when we double 4♠, since hearts have no particular rank over the minors, when we can't play in 4♥ anymore. ♥Axx looks sufficient to me, perhaps a little less is ok on a good day.

I'd bet more on your bidding judgement than your judgement of Zia's bidding judgement :) Zia did indeed bid 2♠. Lol, of course :). I still think that 2♠ is horrible.

2♠? Uuhh, I really, really hate a Michaels' cue on this rubbish. I think I'm an ace short for that bid, atleast actually, and I'm confident that Zia did not choose that. If I'm acting (which is tempting for the zia in me :)), I'll try a take-out double. Hardly a classic hand, but we will rarely be complete off base, while we're staying aggressive.

Maybe. The issue here seems to be whether to take the anti-percentage action during bidding or not, for which the information we have is insufficient, IMO. Who knows, this might have been the last board and an absolute top was required. Bidding 4H likely won't get you that. I don't understand why people are being so harsh and calling it a basic mistake/bad bridge/masterminding etc. You do need to take the state of match/goal into consideration before deciding whether an action was reasonable or not, and especially so if that is what the original poster seems to have in mind. The concept of deliberate swinging is so often misused badly, because players fail to realize how rarely the proper situations for it actually come up.

I think playing low and hoping for exactly Jxx is much too big.

A simulation is not the answer. Being able to determine when to give count is a defensive ability, one must train. Ideally, partner just gave count when you needed to know to solve your problem. Tough, yes, but one could come close to that.

Agree. I like to play over 3♣: 4♣= strong 5-5 majors 4♦= marginal 5-5 majors. The point of this is, of course, that 5-5 majors hands are so anxious to get the suits in that they would want to bid on quite small values.