655321

Cloa the play on your hand is called an intrafinesse.

Wrong forum

4♥ on the first, 3♠ on the second. On the second hand, with a 5431 it is often right to bid game opposite a 4 card raise. This rubbishy hand is not even all bad, QJT of trumps uses only 3HCP to make the trumps solid, and any non-club card partner holds will be useful. The reason I don't bid game is because we have no keycards at all, i.e. partner needs to hold two keycards in his 7-9 else we have four losers off the top (OK, if he has the ♠A, we are on a finesse), but even without four top losers, we still haven't made game yet - we could lose two hearts for example. Incidentally, for suggestible people like me, wording the question differently would ensure unbiased responses - it reads to me as though game did make on the actual hands, so we are subconsciously swayed towards thinking we might well have bid game. Also vulnerability (diagram shows non-vul?) and form of scoring are always important.

From South's point of view, his partner has described his hand - he does not know that North holds an exceptional hand. Rightly or wrongly, he believes that he has enough information to place the contract, that game is a good bet, but slam is not. Therefore he bid a game. This idea that South is obliged to bid more slowly is nonsense. If the vulnerable opponents want to bid over 5♦, good luck to them! South has a singleton in his partner's suit, he has AJx and AQxx in the other suits, the notion that he won't be able to double a five or six level contract without confusing partner is bizarre in the extreme. You're one of the notorious JEC kibitzers I see, which after reading your post comes as no surprise. I prescribe paying more attention to the play in the JEC matches, and less attention to the drivel from the kibitzers.

I am a double then double voter. This also looks a reasonable option to me. At least you avoid the -790s, and the inadequate heart fits, at the cost of never defending 4♠X when that is right. I do think the initial double is clearly correct, then we need to choose between another double (my choice), or 4NT. And at the other end of the scale, it is no surprise that this, uh, eccentric approach to the hand did not find its way into the poll.

I would give some blame to both players, but more to North. I don't think the bidding was terrible though, just that both could have done better. South's 5♦ bid may well have been a bit lazy, but opposite many more typical FSJ slam needs a lot, for example x AJ9xx KTxx xxx. It is understandable that South decided not to look for slam, but probably it wouldn't cost to make a try. North's hand is not typical, and it seems wrong for North to think he has shown his hand, and need do no more. Even though 2♥ is not ideal, it does at least show support. I like a raise of 5♦ to 6♦. This could work badly in one of two ways, either we are off 2 keycards, or we are off one keycard and a heart loser. I think it is extremely unlikely we are off two keycards (we have 2 and partner did bid game), but there will be hands where we are off an Ace and an unavoidable heart loser. It just seems to me that much more often we will make 12 tricks - either partner has 3 Aces for jump to game, or he has the ♥K, or a singleton heart.

Double, not 1NT.

Looks like a bug in the conversion of hands - this thread has the same hand twice, when it is clear that the second hand used to be different. (This post still seems to contain the original hand, unconverted to the new format.)

Agree with double, KQJx of hearts and a doubleton spade. In hindsight perhaps 3NT was a better bid than 4♦, partner can start bidding suits over that if he wants to. Pass now over 5♣, partner could have bid 4♥ over 4♦ if he had four hearts along with his clubs.

No such bidding.

5♦. Probably an overbid, but opponents seem to have very few HCP, so I am hoping that RHO has long hearts for his bidding. If partner has one heart we want him to have at least the ♣K and a top spade. Or perhaps he has ♠AK and out, perhaps he is void in hearts. There seem to be a few chances. Silly comment, not only would OP have mentioned it, but the fact that partner bid 3[DI r/w means he doesn't have junk. OTOH, it would help to know the form of scoring.

Arrgh, now even gnasher is doing it, I can't bear it any more, so I will just say that I would be aggrieved too.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/35619-notice-of-threadpost-moderation/page__view__findpost__p__507373

No, passing this one says you were passing 2♣X.

I like to bid 4♥ on these hands opposite a limited opener. Even if you don't like that you need to invite in some way, raising to just 2♥ is pretty pathetic.

5♠, asking for diamond control. I wouldn't pass, partner has to have 5 spades and an Ace, plus some more. 5♣ would be natural, showing a strong flexible hand with long clubs. It isn't a cue bid agreeing spades.

I suggested something that didn't make sense, original post is hard to follow. Playing with the new diagrams: [hv=pc=n&s=sa75h743dt43cjt64&n=skjt96h96dakq2ck5&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1d(unbal%20or%20444%5B1%5D)1sd2s2n(5-5%20minors%20or%206+diamonds)4sppp]266|200[/hv]

3♥ WTP

Disagree with gerben42. Agree with gnasher.

This for me.

It's usually not a good idea to use an online field to judge any aspect of your game. Both you and your partner's actions were completely normal. Just like when 15 tables pass out a board with 12 HCP opposite 11 HCP, and you get to a partscore which fails because of a 5-0 trump split. It's simply unlucky. This is a strange comment after 12 of the 15 voters said "no blame". OP asked if someone was to blame, and the online field gave a clear answer, which agrees with yours. Asking the field to judge OP's actions is exactly why this forum exists. Perhaps that makes it easier for you to follow the conversation.

It would be an interesting question for a simulation, but it would surprise me if that were true. Partner is 4-4 in the majors, and he has around 15 of the missing 24 HCP.

That turns out not to be the case.

He didn't by the way. [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?myhand=M-13187400-1288336501]400|300[/hv]

I have a strongish preference for opening 1♣. The reason for opening 1♦ is to bid clubs later on without reversing. If the auction gets competitive you will be able to bid clubs at quite a high level. The problem though is that you will often be preferenced back to diamonds and play in the wrong suit. This is always a potential problem when you don't open your longest suit. To open 1♦ I would need the hand to be weaker, and the longer suit to be weaker as well. I don't really hate 1♦, but it is not for me.