sathyab

LOL

I agree, most likely partner doesn't have four spades or he'd have bid 2♠ before. At the table I thought I ought to try to get to a seven-card spade fit if there was one, before bidding 3♦. If he has a 3=2=2=6 pattern, he might bid 2♠. 2♠ probably won't play well, but it may be harder to double hopefully. The goal of the experiment was to see if we can avoid defending 2♥ somehow without being offered game bonus in a pointed suit contract :)

Frequently the choices at MP, you're dealt, [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sa984hk92dakjt83c]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] The bidding goes: (p) 1♦ (p) p (1♥) 1♠ (2♦) p (2♥) ? With so much playing strength, it feels wrong to sell out to 2♥. So, say you double, looking for a spade contract first before being forced to the three-level. Partner bids 3♣, which you correct to 3♦ which gets doubled. Would you sell out sell out to 2♥, given LHO's cue-bid and the vulnerability ? Can you get to 3♦ with a different bidding sequence that makes it harder for opponents to double ? If for instance you had bid 2♦ over 1♥ instead of 1♠, planning to bid 2♠ later if possible, LHO doesn't have a cue-bid available now.

If anything it looks to me like, your partner could have done more than sign off in 4♠, assuming that 3♠ showed a solid suit. From your point of view he could easily have had Jx Qxxx Kx AJxxx and still bid 4♣ over 3♠ and sign off in 4♠ over 4♦. With his solid clubs, he might have tried 5♠ asking if you can stop the enemy suit. 5♠ would be too high only when you have two quick heart losers and cue-bid 4♦ without the Ace. 6♠ can still go down if you held AKxxxx Ax Axx xx, but may be you'd bid only 2♠ with that hand instead of 3♠ ?

Hmm. Maybe I should get a life. If you do that, quite a few of us will have to do the same. So, please don't :blink:

You have a good memory :) I did post it as defense problem and the response was underwhelming as is often the case with such, not even gnasher responding. http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=28715 I posted it as an ATB, because although it does seem close to a wtp if not a wtfp, there was at least one expert pair that failed the same way as the non-expert pair here did in the second semi-final of Blue Ribbon Pairs in Boston last year. North thought that South should have cashed the Ace of Diamonds, making it clear that he wanted a club ruff. South countered by saying there was no need to establish a ♦ trick at all looking at that dummy. Give me my ♣ ruff and I'll cash out if I suspect that declarer's ♦ loser may disappear on dummy's hearts, in case declarer held something like AKJxx K xx Q9xxx. But in the present lay-out I simply exit a trump and wait for our red tricks.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=s6hq654dqt85ca653&w=sakj52h3d73cq9842&e=sqt4ha982dk92ckt7&s=s9873hkjt7daj64cj]399|300|Scoring: MP 1♣ 1♠ 1nt 2♣ 2♠ 4♠[/hv] 2♣ was explained as check-back, not sure one-way or 2-way. N-S were playing 3/5 vs suits and UDCA. Here's how it "went down" (as in describing a crime scene, not the contract :( ) T1: ♦8, 9, J, 3 T2: ♣J, 2, A, 7 T3: ♦Q, K, A, 7 End-of-defense

That's a very unreasonable 4♠ bid. If partner decides to bid game, he should bid 4♦ and then convert 4♥ to 4♠, showing only four spades and a willingness to hear 5♣. Similarly, if they raise to 4♦ he should make a responsive double and follow with 4♠. How would you bid a hand that's too strong for 4♠ ? Cue-bidding first and then correcting partner's expected 4♥ to 4♠ seems like the natural thing to do.

It could easily be our hand in 5♦ or 5♥. My suspicion is that RHO has a massive black two suiter like KJxxx x x QJxxxx. Partner will leave in your double most of the time. The exact same sequence occurred a while ago at MP. The responder had Ax QJxxx Qxxxx Q. When 4♠ got back to him, he had a choice of doubling or bidding 4nt and chose the latter, getting to 5♦ which could have beaten, but defense didn't get off to the right lead. The 4♠ bidder had QJxx xx x AJxxxx. Expecting the 4♠ bidder to have one more ♠ or that they may break 3-1 when the defense didn't hold the ♠A, the opening leader didn't lead a ♠ :P

Giving up a ♦ early on ruins our chances when the suit in not favorable, either 3-3 or a suitable doubleton, while something good may have been dealt in other suits. The spots in ♣s clearly are meant to encourage you to screw up this hand by trying to drop the Jack in two rounds if not take a first round finesse :) Accordingly I cash two high ♣s at T2 and T3. If the J falls on my left, I can envision RHO with QT9 xxxx Hx xxxx or QT9 xxx xxx xxxx. If the former, I can make by cashing the remaining minor suit winners, playing ♥s for four tricks. If the latter I need to play for ♦s to split. If I try to combine the two chances by ducking say the second round of ♦s, then even when RHO is forced to win and exit in clubs, I'll have to make a fatal discard from dummy when LHO follows suit on the third round of ♦s.

The only way this kind of problem can be solved is by relying on suit preference by partner as he holds up hearts twice. He knows dummy has entries to heats, so he might as well let you in on where his limited minor suit strength lies by the order in which he plays the remaining spot cards. If he does hold up hearts twice, you get a chance to suggest club values, after giving count first and then following suit with low-hi of the remaining cards. Needless to say this kind of defense needs some sophistication, but successful defense of NT contracts at MP can't do without it. For a similar example of suggesting suit preference, look at a 1nt defense in the 03/14/09 Daily Bulletin of the Houston Nationals.

I'm wondering if there is a way to create a list of BBO login id's given only the real names of players. I'm in the process of creating a tournament to host players who have participated in an ACBL tournament, say a District 21 regional which publishes the results of the regional on its web-site. Thanks, Sathya

If he held xxx in spades, and we confirm a 5 card spade suit, why would he not raise spades? No, 4♣ denies as many as 3♠. On the auction, when I bid 5♥, I was hoping for his actual hand with one more club and one fewer spade... x Axxxx xxx Qxxx was the idea I had in mind (altho 1=4=4=4 would be even better). Then I hear 5♠ over 5♥ and bid the grand. Ok, may be he'd raise ♠s with three small ♠s. But does he have to ? You have a known 9 card fit club fit with the opener's hand taking the tap. It's easy to construct hands where a 4-1 ♠ break would shred this hand to pieces where 5♣ does a lot better.

The doubleton spade holding seems to be the key to the good slam, but what if he were dealt xxx ATxx Jxx QTx ? Would you be able to stay away from 6♣ then ? Opener must still bid 3♠ to show 6-5. Responder takes you back to 4♣, and thereafter he probably still cue-bids 4♥ over opener's 4♦ in case opener has AKQxx Kx - AJ9xxx.

Thinking about it a bit more, West is more likely to be 4=1=5=3 rather than 4=1=4=4. In other words partner can still have 4=1=5=3 distribution which makes his second double more reasonable than 4=5=2=2. In any case the only thing I wouldn't do is bid 4♥,

For the opponents bidding to make sense, spades are 4-3. Additionally the only reason East is bidding 3♠ over 3♦ X is that he has only 3 ♦s, making him 3-4-3-3. May be he opened 1♦ instead of 1♣ because his ♦s were better than his ♣s. If we're right so far, partner is 4-5-2-2 with a good hand. When he doubled 3♦ he couldn't have known anything about East's distribution except his ♠ holding, so he was hoping to play 3♥ if you couldn't pass 3♦ X.

[hv=n=s98hakxxdqxxcktxx&s=sakjxxhxxdajxcqxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP 1nt-2♣-2♠-3nt, not sure of the vulnerability.[/hv] Identical auction at both tables and the same lead ♥Q. What's the best line for 9 tricks ?

This hand is nearly the same strength and shape I had in mind for the ♦ shift, ♠AQJxxx ♥K ♦Jxxx ♣Qx. But I think the hand declarer actually held looks like a better one to accept the invite than the one I imagined, as ♦Jxxx could easily be weak point. A lot of players would bid 4♠ with ♠QJTxxx ♥K ♦AJxx ♣Qx, but not sure how many would pass with ♠AQJxxx ♥K ♦Jxxx ♣Qx.

I picked up a similar hand in the Reisinger a while ago. With neither Vul, ♠K5 ♥AJ652 ♦KQ862 ♣8. Partner passes, RHO opens 2♠. Passing feels wrong, but the hand isn't strong enough for Leaping Michaels. 3♥ with such weak spots looks terrible, especially when holding a two-suiter. What's the best bid ?

I had the same thought myself. You lead an unsupported honor normally when you want to hold the lead after looking at the dummy. In this case however, declarer is the one with the strong hand, so if anything you'd have preferred partner to be on lead. Even with the lead of ♦5 leading 3rd/low, with declarer false-carding with the ♦6, you don't get an idea about declarer's shape yet. But when he tries to continue the false card with the ♦J on the next trick, you will know however that partner doesn't have the ♦3 as he'd have played it, unless partner thinks that his card should be now be suit preference as you have nine ♦s between the two of you. If you suspect that declarer has x-5-3-x shape, a spade switch is not as appealing. It'd still be right to switch to a spade if declarer has Kx AKJxx Jxx KJx, but I hope partner can signal for a spade switch in that case with the ♦Q at T2.

I suppose it's too late to protest that I meant to say "If Diamonds were 5-2" all along ? Does anyone allow UNDO's on this forum :P?

Here's a line that works some of the time. Win the first trick in hand. ♣Q from hand and they hold off. Unblock ♦s, club to the Ace, cash ♦A and play on clubs to knock out the King. This makes any time ♣K is stiff or doubleton. When Diamonds break 4-3, RHO has to be able win a Diamond trick and play a heart back to give you a guess. If they Diamonds lay in a way that makes it difficult or impossible, you make again. And finally there's always a winning heart guess. When the Kxx of clubs is on-side, one is better off winning the first spade in dummy and just playing on clubs. Not sure how to find a line that combines that simple chance with any other that assumes the club finesse is off or that clubs are 4-1 when the King is on-side.

To have a chance at all we need partner to have the ♣J and declarer to have two potential spade losers. If we don't switch to a spade for fear hat he may have AJx for instance, he'll pull trumps and play the ♣K and duck a club when partner shows out on the next club and it'll be too late for a spade switch then.

I'm switching to a ♦. If declarer's trumps are only as good as AJTxxx, the danger is that declarer may have ♣Axx. Partner has to cash out in this situation when he gets his last trump trick instead of continuing a forcing defense then. But alternatively if declarer's trumps are really good, he may pull trumps and KO partner's club stopper when he still has the ♦K entry.

Imagine if the thread had been peppered with a bunch of WTPs and LOLs, because it did seem like a routine 1d-1h-1s-2nt-3nt to quite a few who replied. Isn't it more likely then that you might have ignored the thread? Notice too that the title of the thread is "Bidding problem or may be a WTP". Isn't that the case in real life too sometimes? At one table it's just another routine deal whereas something interesting does happen at the other ? Why did the poster find it necessary to add a disclaimer right at the outset that it might be a WTP ? May be he or she has seen many posts from non-experts being declared WTP or LOL, so just in case... ?