sathyab

I agree partner will have a tough time making an intelligent decision over 5♦, no way can he play you this kind of hand when you have 'only' bid 3♥ earlier. But a more serious problem may be that he may never have an opportunity to decide over 5♦ at all, as the bidding can quite easily die in 3♥. Even aggressive MP players would not rush to the 4-level as readily as they would to get to the 3-level.

What's the purpose of passing here ? Even if partner passes the test, understands that the pass is forcing and doubles, are you ever going to sit for it with so much offense and virtually no defense ? And wouldn't pass and pull show a better hand than bidding 5♥ directly ?

Late to congratulate here, but I already did that in person. I want to congratulate you especially on getting to the finals of Reisinger, (okay playing 3 boards against our team, with a zombie who was sleepless till 4 AM that morning, didn't exactly hurt your chances seriously :)). If you had to pick between winning the N.A. Swiss or simply getting to the finals of Reisinger, which would you pick ?

If someone tells you that a ♣ to Q would lose to the K on your right, but that ♣ length is on your left, what would you do different ?

How do you make more than 2♣ tricks when 1 one honor is onside ? Say you lead the ♣6 from dummy toward hand and play the Nine losing to the Jack. Next you will play the A from hand, Q from dummy and let's say RHO plays the K. You have the Ten and four of ♣ left in your hand which is good for one more trick. So you make only two ♣ tricks in all.

[hv=pc=n&s=saj9hkj85da6cat94&n=sq74ha632dkt54cq6&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2s2np3nppp]266|200[/hv] (Hand rotated for convenience) 2♠ shows a weak hand with ♠s and a minor. You get a helpful ♠T for a lead. As your teammates don't play weak two-suiter openings you suspect your counterpart will probably be in 4♥, making a draw on the board unlikely. Plan your play. Anytime you play ♥s RHO plays the Q first.

We had never had a discussion about such sequences (unsurprisingly), so no idea what 6h would have been. At our table it went 1♣ - (2 ♥) - X - (5♥). But partner did bid 6♥; I bid 6♠ as I had no idea that he had such a rock-crusher there. He said that once he committed our side to 6♠ and I was looking the ♠A, I should have bid 7♠. That's quite a good point he makes. Isn't it quite possible that the 5♥ bidder may have the ♠Ace and waiting precisely for a bid like 7♠, while 6♥ involves partner ?

When I said 'Bid more' I meant bid more than 4♠. Sorry if that wasn't clear. 3♥ was GF.

Question for those who play XX to be penalty-oriented: how do you show a stopper, but prefer that partner declare NT in the interest of right-siding it? Question for those who play XX to show a stopper but what partner declaring NT: how do you show a hand that's penalty-oriented ? Question for everyone: Is there anything like a "standard" meaning for this sequence ?

Ok, the consensus seems to be that 4♥ over 2♠ is a much better description of the hand. Oh, BTW, if you think you're too strong for it, consider that partner could have bid 2♠ with ♠AQJxx ♥Qxx ♦Qxx ♣xx. Making 11 tricks when trumps break 3-1 and ♣s break 4-2 should be good enough for some Matchpoints. The problem is that sometimes you think of the right bid right after you have made another bid (or if you're lucky it won't occur to you till dinner break). In case you think this happens only to ordinary mortals, you should read articles by Kit Woolsey on bridgewinners.com, where he frequently presents what choices were available in bidding and play and what happened at the table. You will be surprised how often their choice att is not even among the top two alternatives. So assuming that you didn't bid 4♥ the previous round, what do you do now, was the original question and it still is.

I am pretty sure that if either of us had bid 4♥ the other would have treated it as primary ♠ and shortness in ♥. As for strength, it obviously has to be at least this strong since you're forcing to game opposite a free-bid which was only a one round force. But whether it should show exactly this strength, which makes sense as you're taking so much more bidding room or be possibly stronger is a good question.

Playing 2/1, you start proceedings with 1♣ holding [hv=pc=n&s=skjt5h6dk84cakj62]133|100[/hv], both Vul at MP. LHO bids 2♥ weak, partner bids 2♠ which is F1 but not GF. You bid 3♥ now, which is GF, either looking for a stopper or a hand with ♠ support. Partner bids 3♠. You have a choice of signing off now, or cue-bidding. If you bid 4♣, there's obviously some confusion whether it could be simply show a good hand with ♣s, as a direct 3♣ over 2♠ would be NF and a direct 4♣ over 2♠ would be conventional showing at least 4-6 in the blacks, whereas 4♦ and 4♥ are free from such ambiguity. But the more important question is whether you should bid more at all. Partner's 3♠ obviously denies a stopper. What he'd bid with a stronger hand is not something if you've discussed at length. Presumably he could bid a new suit or may be planning to bid more over opener's rebid.

I knew I had missed that choice when I submitted the poll, showing an anti-positional stopper. Add it to the choices. Thanks.

You're playing 2/1 with Walsh style rebids in 1♣ - 1♦ sequence. You bid a Major up the line only when unbalanced or have a concentration of values. Bidding 1♠ instead of 1♥ should deny 4♥. 1♣ 1♦ 1♠ 2♥(4th suit, GF) (X) XX ?

Ok, if LHO who's short in trumps ruffs the third ♣, then you should have tried to pull trumps and claim :D Otherwise you can try to cater for a 4-1 trump break and hopefully find a line that also works with some other 3-2 breaks as well. So let's say you start with one high trump and a ♥ ruff, then run ♣. If ♣ are 3-3, play a 4th round pitching the last ♦ from dummy regardless of who ruffs. If LHO has two trumps, he will/should be the one ruffing. Now you ruff the forced ♥ return and play the last ♣ pitching dummy's ♥. Now RHO can ruff this. But he has only one more trump left, so you can ruff his ♦ return and claim. This is the lay-out: [hv=pc=n&s=s9832hda632caqjt2&w=st6haqj754djtc863&n=sak54ht98d8754ck5&e=sqj7hk632dkq9c974]399|300[/hv] If LHO has a stiff trump, RHO ruffs and returns a trump. You win, ruff a ♥ and play the last ♣ pitching a ♥ and RHO has to use his last trump. This is the lay-out: [hv=pc=n&s=s9832hda632caqjt2&w=sthaqj7542djtc863&n=sak54ht98d8754ck5&e=sqj76hk63dkq9c974]399|300[/hv] It might appear as though you need to/can ruff all of dummy's ♥s to make the hand, so if you start with two ♥s, it's too late when trumps are 4-1. You do need to ruff 2 ♥s, but not necessarily the last one, as long as you can use your ♣s as trump-substitutes and you can't do that if you ruff more than one ♥ before running ♣s. The other neat thing about the hand is that once ♣s are 3-3, you don't care who ruffs the next two rounds of ♣s, as that'll exhaust two enemy trumps and you can pull the last trump when you get back in.

RHO is not likely to have two Diamonds from the play so far, assuming that you refused the first trick. LHO led the Jack at T1 and would have continued with the Ten at T2 and RHO who played the 9 first would have followed up with the Q next. That'd be consistent with LHO having ♦JT and RHO the KQ9. So if LHO shows out on the second trump, RHO is either 4=3=3=3 or 4=4=3=2, the latter when LHO made a frisky 3♥ bid with only a six-bagger and RHO didn't act over North's double because he didn't want to encourage partner to bid again when he had so much defense.

North was Michael Seamon, South was Jimmy Cayne, who is known for sound openings. Second chair r/w this hand is somewhat light by JEC's opening standards, which is probably one reason why North may have raised. That being said, bidding and play are two different aspects of the game. Just because you're in a pushy, difficult or perhaps close to impossible contract is no reason not to try your best to make it. In case it's of interest to you, the other table also reached the same contract on the exact same sequence.

[hv=pc=n&s=s9832hda632caqjt2&n=sak54ht98d8754ck3&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1c3hdp3sp4s]266|200[/hv] ♦J led. When opponents preempt, a bad trump break is always in the picture. Also given the favorable vulnerability and that his partner was a passed hand LHO could easily be taking liberties. So if you come up with a line that makes when LHO has seven ♥s and a stiff ♠, it'd be preferable if it also worked when he has only six ♥s and 2 ♠s for instance. If you duck the first trick, RHO plays the Nine on the first round and LHO continues the suit with the Ten and RHO plays the Queen this time.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq7432hkq3d5cajt6&n=sat8ht9764dqj82ck&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp1np2cp3sppp]266|200[/hv] T1: ♠9, 8, K, 2 T2: ♠5, 3, J, A It looks like West started with ♠J9 doubleton. You could lead a ♥ to K and if it holds, you have one more entry to dummy to lead toward Q again. If you catch Ax with East, you can't make ten tricks, either he gets a ruff, or the other entry to dummy gets knocked out before you can unblock the ♥s. But if he has A(x)x, there appear to be choices.

If partner's major suits were Qx A instead of Q Ax, he'd bid the same way and 5♦ would be cold then. And if you bid 4♦ the bidding would stop there. But I agree though that KJxxx in the fourth suit doesn't rate to be useful most of the time as it would be facing shortness in the two-suited hand. Tough hand to bid at either IMPs or MP.

Great simulation results. It looks like, opposite an invite of 16 or upgraded 15 (for five-card suit), you get to a good slam (well over 50%) with any hard 16 or higher, but only a marginal one (slightly above 50%) with a 15 upgraded to 16 for a good 5-card suit.

:) You're right, I had a blind spot that a ♠ switch removes one entry for ♦ ruffs, but it doesn't. It's the equivalent of defense switching to trumps which you can handle by winning in dummy.

What if defense shifts to a ♠ when they win the ♦A ? If you win in dummy, you can ruff 2 ♦s and 2♥s ending in dummy. If you now try to ruff the 4th ♦ there're all kinds of complications. If you win the ♠ in hand trying to preserve a late ♠ entry to ♦s after they're established you'll find yourself an entry short in establishing them.

If the deal is a competitive one, opening 1♦ is close to hopeless. If opponents compete to 3M, you would be hard pressed to bid 4♦ even when it was making. Worse yet, if 4♦ was down 1, it's best to open 4♦ rather than compete to that level and get doubled for -200. If you open 1♦ you might get to 3nt, 5♦ or 6♦, but the one contract you'll never be to get to is 4♦. Yes, in retrospect I might be persuaded that 5♦ might be excessive at MP, but I'd rather be guilty of an excess that has some chance of working than making a safe, non-controversial bid that has little chance of doing anything useful.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq54h84dk642c63&w=sjthqj93daqj83ckj&n=s632ha76dt5cat987&e=s987hkt52d97cq542&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1dpp1s2d2sppp]399|300|♥Q led[/hv] Slightly conservative bidding by opponents. A lot of players would respond 1♥ rather than pass and may eventually wind up in 3♥ instead of defending 2♠. Or West could have doubled 1♠ instead of bidding 2♦ and they could compete in ♥s. This being IMPs they were somewhat conservative and left me an interesting 2♠ to play. ♥Q was led. Best defense is to overtake with ♥K, lead a ♦ to partner's Jack and exit a ♥. Take it from there. Play or defend ?