MFA

Kxx Kx KQ9xx AKT What is he supposed to bid with that hand ? 1NT, or X then 1NT are his options, not 1♦. 2NT should be a rare bid. We want to have sure tricks so that the wheels don't fall off completely when partner is bust, which is a live possibility. I think the diamonds are too tenuous. We want to be able to run them without being dependent on catching a fitting honour. I think your partner should either double 1♣ and then bid diamonds. Or bid 1♦ and then double 2♣. The model distribution for that is 3361 since 4351/3451 doubles 1♣. He would then have an easy time (pass) after 2♦ or 2♠, while 2♥ would give him a choice of trying 2NT or just passing 2♥. I think the latter would be the percentage action.

No extra trick to declarer, and a strict warning to east will suffice.

I agree with gnasher. I have been wondering lately if 15-18 really is the right interval for a NT-overcall in direct position. Perhaps it is too conservative. Perhaps one should lower it by appr. 1 point. Thin openings (and thin responses) might be shifting the correct weighting between safety and aggression. We are more likely than in the old days to get stolen from, and we are harder to double in 1NT because opener might be thin in responder's view. Getting sensible in to the auction tends to carry such dividends, even with the more balanced hands. Just a thought.

I would bid first and worry later. 6♥ now, and then 7♥ if they bid 6♠.

3♦ > 2♦ >> 1♦ > pass

This is not just taking a swinging action. 6♦ is an almost unreal bid that catches a model-perfecto scenario. xx, xxx, Kxxx, xxxx. Not even a jack to spare anywhere. It's not just outside my box, the whole thing is far and away the most spectacular thing I have ever seen at a serious tournament. Sure, 6♦ might work out. Of course. It is a strong hand and we have AQxx of trumps. We might buy well. I don't think it is a surprise that such a board gives cause to suspicion, and having a committee to review the happenings seems logical. When that has being said, if that committee doesn't find anything to take action on, I will respect it 100% and never even think about using any word starting with a "c". The player (whom I don't know) will have my complete benefit of the doubt that he just chose a remarkable action with remarkable success, and it is part of the charm of the game that wild things can readily happen.

Do you also play that 1♦ 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ is invitational ? If yes, is responder supposed to jump to 2♥ with 4♠+6♥ and weaker than invite? Yes & yes. With 4-6-2-1 responder could also bid 1♥ and then take a preference to diamonds, or if it is a reasonable hand live with 1♥ then 2♥ although partner would expect a better hand. Being able to invite while staying on the 2-level is great, when there is no guarantee of a fit. 1♥ then 3♥ invitational is really awful.

For me 3♥ would be invitational. Here it is standard to treat all responder's simple rebids in a major as invitational (except when XY-NT applies), because of weak jump shifts in the first round of bidding.

Raising to 5♣ was silly. When partner runs from 3NT he will have a minimum, so no way there will be 11 tricks. I don't think south should run from 3NTX, but those things are often also a matter of table precence so they are hard to judge afterwards. I assume that the partnership agrees that 3♦ is gameforcing as it seems.

lol, seriously or are you kidding?

I still think 3NT is very bad. It will just miss so many slams where partner has nothing special but easily enough for a good 6. Axx, xxx, x, AKxxxx or Axxx, Qx, xx, AKxxx etc. At least we should try to bid some of these. Here partner should have saved us and bid over 3NT, but that is only because he has enough for a magnificient grand slam. mikeh, are you really worried that partner should keycard without ♠KQ, ♥AK, ♦A and then proceed to get us too high because he expects us to have better trumps as well? That is a little too far-fetched objection to 2♦. But ok, I concede that if we are in grand slam territory, it could happen. For me 3NT is just unacceptable with an ironclad übermax, strong controls, a slammy diamond holding and a partial club fit.

Yep. :) Last time I led the K without the Q for no particular good reason, just that happened to us. Partner overtook perfectly logically, 5♠X made, and that board even cost us the whole knock-out match. So now I have promised myself not to try the coup again until I really (think I) know what I'm doing. :P

Ok, I realize now it's matchpoints, but that only makes it even more attractive to compete imo.

I don't like to draw too extreme conclusions. Like partner didn't overcall so he doesn't have 5 spades, so they probably have a 6-4 fit in spades, or something (RHO might have responded light in a 6card major btw). Most of the time the distribution will be rather peaceful around the table relative to what we can expect. I think it's right to bid 2♣. A partscore swing is half a game swing, and if they continue bidding something they might easily go down with the hearts badly placed. I don't expect them to be in trouble in 1♥.

2♣. Yes pass could work, but more often we will need to compete for the contract. Either to push them higher or to make something. If they get to 4♠ on a 4-4 they most likely will go down, so that doesn't worry me so much.

Not for 0 losers. well sorry I mean, KJ98 onside actually since the suit is AQ10xx xxxx it will make the same number of tricks. Yes. But I carefully assumed the 9 also in my post to make my point, since I thought it would be an interesting addition to OP's question. :)

Not for 0 losers.

How does this work? Can't you finesse for the king on the second round? Also the problem with small to the ten is it loses one trick unnecessarily to the common holding of Jx offside. Low to the T handles 4 cases (KJx, KJx, KJxx, Jxx onside) while low to the Q handles only 3 cases (Kx, Kx, Kxx onside). And since my assumption is matchpoints with everything else dull, we only care if it gains or loses, not if we win or lose 1 or 2 tricks. If we take a finesse that loses, we should play for the drop on the second round. That is best in isolation and particularly crucial if we went deep on the first round, since everything is already lost anyway if it was the stiff J that took the trick.

If this is trumps at matchpoints and everything else is dull and standard and we have the 9 also (so we can handle 4-0), then the percentage play is small to the ten, since that will gain more often than small to the Q. It loses 2 tricks to the singleton J offside but that is still just one matchpoint. If we instead want to get the maximum number of tricks on average, then small to the Q is right. Cute combination.

I think you misread the auction. There was a 1♦ overcall.

3NT is a lazy bid. The hand is huge as dummy if partner is unbalanced with clubs. South should start with 2♦ and see what partner does. As north I would have tried 4♣. There should be a good chance for slam with north's hand. So both players are at fault imo.

I would pull all of them to 2♥, except for d) which is perfect for 1NT with its 5333 shape :). I'm close to passing with c) only.

No. 2♣ was not gameforcing, so it would be illogical to be in a gameforce now just because we have found our strain. To make a slam try, we'll have to splinter, or if that's is impossible, torture partner once more with 3♣.

I like 2NT natural, but not if it is a scramble (as it should be imo). At first it seems like a nice thought getting to 3m in partner's 5card minor. But it's bad if he is 4144. And 3m will be wrongsided and it is low-scoring. As bluecalm is worried about, once in a while partner will be very strong. I just don't think we can bid game now to cater specifically to parner having about a king or ace more than he needs for a second double. In practice he will often be close to minimum for his actions when everybody is bidding. But getting to 2♠ at least will often scores us 140 or 170 instead of 110 or 130 in those cases. And perhaps partner can raise to 3♠ so we get to 3NT after all (yes, I'm dreaming).

Just a few random remarks: I don't raise to 2♥ that freely if they haven't bid more than the opening bid. It shows at least some hope for game. To make a forcing bid in a new suit, I'm used to having to X+cuebid+bid the suit, since X+bid or X+jump are not forcing in my methods. X+jump is descriptive with a good suit, so that partner doesn't need to worry much about trumps - just about having a few scattered fillers.