CSGibson

Yes unblock. Not close. Partner is not leading a 4 card suit in preference to your suit, and if partner has chosen to lead the J from QJ8xx, that is ill-considered imo, and the defense is on partner.

I strongly disagree with all of your points. lets call an 8 card suit with 2 of the top 3 1 loser, making this 6 losers - I wasn't really worried about 800, but I was worried about 200 vs a partscore - its easier to double and leave in the double for 4H than 3H. Doubling 4S is a matchpoint decision - partner knows I am conservative in my preempts when vul, and expects me to have some compensating value...which I did, but they were not defensive in nature. I would frequently lead a high heart instead of a singleton in these auctions because I expect that I will know what to do when dummy hits - if I lead a high heart, I can still switch to my singleton; partner rates to have entries outside of hearts.

If I had the K of diamonds, I would be more likely to lead the suit, not less likely - I want to force declarer to make a decision quickly, instead of being able to fall back on a finesse. If I have 3 small, I'm afraid I'm picking off partner's Q or something by leading the suit.

I don't know if you saw this, but we're playing precision.

No need for 3♠ to show more, we can still use a non-serious 3N to really granulate.

[hv=pc=n&s=st864ht42d962ct94&w=saq93h3daq543cqj2&n=s7h8765dkjt7cak75&e=skj52hakqj9d8c863&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1d(10-15%2C%200+%20diamonds)p1hp1sp4d(splinter)p4np5hp6sppp]399|300[/hv] An absolute 0. I knew we could be off two club controls when I bid this way, but thought it unlikely - I took/take full blame here. Incidentally, although I don't think a splinter is a bad call, since we are playing xyz I think 3♠, showing good spades and hearts, slam interest, is actually a better call, one that would have let us out below the 5 level for sure, since we would have pinpointed the club issue with the extra room.

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt87652h2dk5ca6&w=s9hkq976543d92ct8&n=sq3htdqt843cj9752&e=sk4haj8daj76ckq43&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1s3hp3n4sppdppp]399|300[/hv] I think I failed twice by not bidding 4N initially, and after partner doubled. Partner did not play me for 8 hearts, so she wound up letting this make by hoping I had a singleton diamond instead of playing for the actual layout.

Final auction: [hv=pc=n&s=sak2ht9642dk982ck&w=shakjdqt7caqj9652&n=sqt8753hdj54ct874&e=sj964hq8753da63c3&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1h2cpp2d2np3nppp]399|300[/hv] North led a small diamond, ducked to the K, and S switched to AK and another spade; after that I wrapped the rest of the tricks. I have no idea why south doubled. I didn't really consider 2♥, but I still think 2N is a better call because I am not worried about the diamond suit - I think 2N should show an upper-ranged 2♣ call with diamond and heart stoppers, which is what I have.

Full hand and auction: [hv=pc=n&s=s75ht84da3ckjt532&w=sk964h3dt962ca764&n=sqt3hakqj972d87c8&e=saj82h65dkqj54cq9&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1hd2h2s3hpp3spp4hpp4sdppp]399|300[/hv] Partner felt that if I couldn't double 4♥ that it was likely making with her hand, so she took the sac - which turned out great when spades were friendly and I didn't do anything strange.

Ditto

its more important to have a take-out oriented double than a diamonds oriented double. At other tables, they won't have the opportunity to bid 1♦, but they will have an opportunity to make a take-out double; also, with a hand with diamonds, its much better to actually overcall 2♦ if possible anyway and make them unwind the majors at the 2 level. But the best argument for a take-out double is that you can use 2♦ as diamonds, but you don't have a convenient substitute for a take-out double hand. Waiting is not an acceptable solution - you could get the auction bounced, or have to come in at a much more dangerous level; early action is less risky than late action in an auction, and makes an auction more difficult and nuanced for opponents, usually.

Heart

I have sub-minimum values, I really only have one suit, and if it goes XX, we're very likely going for a number. Even if we are not going for a number, taking action on sub-minimum values can cause partner to play us for more, causing us to get too high, or, if partner knows we double this light, he might not compete aggressively enough on hands where we have full values. That being said, I would still double because I think the risks are outweighed by the rewards, but pretending there are no downsides is absurd. I mean, your same points can be made with xx xxxxx xxx xxx - short in spades, support for the other three suits, but that's clearly not worth a take-out double because of the lack of values. There is a line, this barely creeps across my threshold. Make it a better shape - 1=4=4=4, or 1-4-5-3, and I would be more comfortable. Interestingly enough, I asked recent partners whether they consider me a conservative, moderate, or aggressive bidder - I got 5 different answers completely spanning the spectrum…don't know what that says.

1H: i like this bid, good start. 1S: Also a good start. 2H: I think 2C is clear. This is not close to a minimum opener (where you might go 1H-2H-3C). 2S: This is also a really poor bid imo. You have a 7 bagger and a 10 count. Because the suit doesn't play well opposite a singleton, and because partner hasn't stopped bidding my void, I might be inclined to bid 3♠ instead of 4, but I think it really is a question of one of those two bids. North's 1st Pass: Also a poor bid. Partner apparently doesn't even have 2 hearts, your AK of spades and club cards, as well as the diamond shortage, should all be welcome additions to partner's hand. 3♠ should be bid now, IMO, though 4S is not unreasonable. South's final pass: Eureka, partner has a spade fit, let's go to game! is the thought of a reasonable player. South was not reasonable. In the end, I give 100% of the blame to North and 100% of the blame to South, and tell both to bid more.

Yeah, you said this, but you have a long an storied history of claiming actions are clear when a host of equally or more accomplished players either say that you are wrong, or that it is not clear, so I don't think we can take your insistent voice as evidence of the clarity of the situation to good players in general as opposed to you specifically and your own distinct style. For what its worth, I think I would wind up doubling on the North hand, but I don't think it is clear; I don't think of myself as particularly conservative nor aggressive in terms of bridge players.

Never stop thinking - except when you are getting late play penalties.

Funny thing is that I would have considered doubling with your partner's hand, but I don't think it is close to bidding with yours.

double, and correct diamonds to hearts.

I disagree strongly with all aspects to the auction after 1N, which I think is a fine bid - it describes your hand (8-10, no 4 card major), and your hand is lead directional in 3 suits. If you have the values to jump to 3♣, then you have the values to reverse. And reversing is nearly always better because it keeps the auction lower, describes more of your hand, and because the tools for bidding over reverses are fairly easy to use with some minimum discussion, whereas bidding over a 1x-1y-3x auction is somewhat of a crapshoot. If partner jumps to 3♣, then a 10 count is enough to force to game. You are at the upper range of your bid, and partner has 15+ HCP, since he cannot have running clubs (i.e., I see the king). I would bid 3♦ now, and try and probe around the spade situation for 3N or 5C. If partner's hand were something where a jump to 3C is more appropriate - i.e., AKx Axx x AQxxxx - then he has a fairly easy 3N now.

Pass. Reasons stated previously by others. Obviously bidding could work on any specific hand, but the risk/reward ratio appears to be skewed towards the risk end of things. You have a 7 loser hand, and no reason to believe that partner has the values to cover them.

1♠. You have two first round controls outside of your suit, and a defensive honor in the 3rd suit, so I don't like preempting because partner will not evaluate easily the types of hands needed to go to game. At the same time, I think pass is also a misdescription of your hand, which leaves 1♠ as the least bad option in my opinion. Even shift one of the side suits to the void, making it 7-3-1-2 or 7-2-1-3, and I would open 3. I think it is incredibly close, and I wouldn't fault someone who made a different choice than I made - I think that when you post a borderline hand, there is room on both sides of the border, and this is clearly borderline.

I'm not sure whether she would have signed off over last train, or cue-bid 5H. Your reconstruction is nearly accurate, partner had the heart 9 and decent spade spots. As I said, we don't really have ranges for the splinters - opening hand is limited because we are playing precision, so our criteria is that it is slam interest opposite the limited opening where the chief evaluation should be wastage opposite the shortage. Some of the hands you gave would be too strong, because they might want to explore slam with some wastage anyway. That being said, I think that there is a better bid with partner's hand than 4D - we are playing xyz, and 3S would have shown 4 good spades and 5 good hearts with slam interest. This version of XYZ is new for my partner, though, so I don't think that she thought of it, and its not like splintering is a horrible bid, its just not the best bid IMO.

I'm glad to hear you say that, its what I did, partner happened to have 5 solid hearts, good spades, and 3 little clubs to go with their diamond stiff, and the opening leader had the temerity to cash their AK of clubs on opening lead…jerk. It turned out to be a 0.

Our meta-rule in partnership trust situations is that exceptional bids are reserved for exceptional hands - hands where partner will have trouble making a final decision if we pass the buck. I might only have 6 hearts for a weak jump overcall (though at these colors that is infrequent), so an eighth heart may be enough for me to make an exceptional bid.

ok, I was kicking myself after this hand because I thought I should have bid 4N here - emphasizing the extra heart length, since partner almost certainly has a high heart honor (the ace in this case) for 3N - partner is an exceptionally good and thoughtful player, you can trust her to have a logical reason for what she does.