louisg

FYP. Did no one just open 4NT with this hand? Everyone that I know plays this either as Blackwood or a specific ace ask.

In fact, they were not. The actual hand was 97 KQ976 J65 Q65.

Just to set the record straight: 1) At the other table, South bid only 3♥ in response to Michaels, and North raised to game. I was East, and my double was intended to show transferable values, though of course partner will pass most of the time at this level (I'd have doubled 2♠ with a purely defensive hand). My partner might have bid 4NT over it with his actual hand, but I have a lot of sympathy for his pass. 2) Par is 5♦x down 2 (not 1). After the singleton club lead, North should switch to his spade while he has trump control, and then both defenders get a ruff. Of course, an unlikely spade lead at trick 1 also works. 3) Certainly a disappointing end to the day, but we'll get them next year!

Why? It's much more comfortable to overcall 3♠ when partner hasn't announced that his hand is all clubs than it is to overcall 4♠ when he has. Even if it does go 1♥ - p - 4♥ (and it probably won't), a 4♠ bid has a much better chance of success than it does on the actual auction.

You are joking, right? If South bids 4♠ he deserves to find partner with x xxx xx AQJTxxx and go -1100 (if trumps split).

Thanks for everyone's comments. In retrospect, I agree with those who say that 3♦ was an underbid. AKx is just too strong a holding, and given the likely source of tricks that it represents, some stronger action was called for. I must strongly disagree with those who suggest that the 2♣ bid was misguided though. 4♠ in a 6-2 fit is hardly "remote", and could be a much better contract than 3NT. Consider a hand for responder like Ax Kxx xxxx Kxxx. 3NT looks to me to be a big underdog (even if the opening lead is not optimal), while 4♠ requires nothing more than 3-2 trumps. And, of course, partner's clubs need not be even this good. To answer Zel's question, a 3♣ rebid by overcaller is not specifically defined in our notes (GF hands would either jump in a red suit or go through 2♣ if not prepared to place the contract). Therefore, I would expect partner to take it as natural (good 5-5 in the blacks).

If partner is leading the systemically correct card, declarer can not hold stiff ♦K.

[hv=pc=n&w=sj98642haq9dak3cq&e=s5h72dq8642cakt54&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1c1sp1np2cp2dp3dppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs. Relevant agreements: 1NT=natural, 8-12, usually but not always a club stopper (2♦ instead would have been constructive but NF) 2♣=artificial and forward-going, usually a broken 6 card spade suit with game-invitational or better values, forcing to at least 2♠ 2♦=5+ cards (typically exactly 5 since no 2D bid at first turn), ambiguous as to strength 3♦=natural, NF

[hv=pc=n&n=sakhajt3d82ca9762&e=sj94hk8765daqt3c3&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs. Partner leads the ♦7 (3rd best from 4, 4th best from 6, lowest from odd) to your Ace (please comment if you would prefer to play the Queen) and declarer's 4. What do you return?

I suspect that the "default beginner or intermediate interpretation" is different in different parts of the world. I certainly don't believe that most Americans would agree with you about this.

No, you miss the point that 2♣ is nonforcing. You will play your 4-2 fit, not to mention not get the chance to show your extras, when partner leaves you in 2♣ (as he should) with something like a 2=5=2=4 7 count.

This is highly non-standard. The standard interpretation of 2♣ here would be natural, with something like 4=0=5=4 distribution, expecting that 2♣ or 2♦ will be a better contract than 1NT.

LOL. If you bid 2♠, and the East and South hands were switched, you wouldn't be any happier than if you had made a penalty double. Despite the result on the actual hand, I think a case can be made for passing over a 15-17 NT with the North hand. I do agree that a 2-suited overcall, if available, is safer than bidding a natural (1-suited) 2♠.

"Forcing pass" should not be treated as a convention that one plays or doesn't play. It is a concept that stems naturally from the fact that it makes no sense to let the opponents play in an undoubled contract once our side has shown the values to force to game. Some N/B players may not be familiar with this concept, but they should be exposed to it as soon as possible (certainly before conventions like 5NT = "pick a slam"). I agree that making a forcing pass, followed by bidding again if partner doubles, is usually treated as a slam try. That doesn't contradict the use of a forcing pass to show extra values and give partner the choice between doubling and bidding on. When I make a forcing pass over 4S with the North hand, it is at that point simply a request for partner to say whether his hand is more offensively or defensively oriented in the context of what he has already shown. Here he is more offensively oriented, and has extra values of his own, so bidding 6D is a reasonable guess (but I wouldn't criticize a 5D bid instead).

I agree, but to play it as not game forcing puts opener under a lot of stress when he has some extra values but no clear direction. Imagine a hand like xx KJxxxx Ax AKx. If you can't bid a forcing 3H with this, then what do you do? Even if 3S is interpreted as a stopper ask, it doesn't show the 6th heart, which might be very important. I understand if a partnership wants to agree that 3D is not GF, but I don't think that is mainstream. Would it be surprising to find that responder's hand is something like Ax Kx Kxxxxx Qxx? Now 5D is at the mercy of a 3-2 diamond split, while there is an easy 300 or 500 available against 4Sx. That's another advantage of agreeing that 3D is GF; it allows opener to avail himself of a forcing pass if opponents compete further.