louisg

This is a good analysis as far as it goes, but I would have liked to see a couple of other points addressed: 1) Why must declarer have EXACTLY 11 points in spades and diamonds? I don't know what ranges EW were playing, but is it normal to force to game with a 4x3 24 count? Is it normal to superaccept with a 4x3 23 count? 2) What do you make of declarer's failure to unblock hearts by leading the ♥2 rather than the ♥T at trick 4? This is probably careless technique in any case, but if declarer had a finessable position in a pointed suit, wouldn't he be more likely to take the care to unblock hearts? Note for example that if declarer has ♠AKT and ♦Axx, failure to unblock means that you can defeat the contract even by continuing clubs, since declarer can only get to dummy for a spade finesse by ruffing the good ♣J, which he needs for a discard.

[hv=d=e&w=sj9h98743d8762c65&s=s8643hq65dj9ckt73]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 2♣-2♦-2NT-3♦-4♥ Say you lead the ♣7 (3rd/5th) to partner's Queen and declarer's Ace (would be interested in comments about the opening lead problem, but it's not intended to be the focal point of this post). Declarer plays ♥A, ♥K, ♥2, while partner follows with the ♥J and then discards 2 clubs that indicate his original club holding was probably Qxxx. How do you defend?

Why would the ♠J only be a concern if 3♠ was bid on a doubleton? Give responder something like xxx Qxx AK AKQxx, and RKCB will get you to a poor slam opposite AQxxx AKx xx xxx. I'm assuming here that these hands are consistent with the auction to this point, but certainly that would be true for many partnerships. The argument that responder could have bid 5♣ to ask for a diamond control seems compelling, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense to have 5♠ ask for trump quality.

And he wants to be in a grand opposite xxx Qx Kx AKxxxx? And did partner really bid a NF 2H on this hand anyway? Note that if partner has xxx Qx xx AKQJxx opposite your example then the best grand is 7C (see my comment to jdonn above), but I don't think it's worth bidding (and partner might not have bid 2H with this either). My point is that partner needs a much better hand than your example for his bidding, and certainly better than the the hand the OP has told us he actually had.

Why not bid 7♣ and let partner decide? I'm quite sure this should show the club queen, not that you want to play in clubs. Not bad, but I do think it suggests the possibility of playing clubs. Perhaps xxx Qx xx AKQxxx or so. I'm having second thoughts about driving to 7 anyway. Can't partner have A AKxxxx AKxxx x?

Wasn't my 2H bid non-forcing in SAYC? Given that, my hand can hardly be better than it is, and I'm bidding a grand. However, I think 7NT is better than 7H. Imagine the risk in playing 7H on a club lead, when partner has a singleton club.

Yes, but game forcing (possibly a one-suiter). There were hands too weak for the cuebid, but willing to force once partner showed values with 1NT. Those hands would either repeat the cuebid or jump, while a simple new suit over 1NT was based on shape.

This is not really an ELC issue, but a more general question about takeout doubler's rebid of any suit after a 1NT advance. Many people believe (ELC or not)that this shows the hand that was "too strong to overcall", but the Goren-era texts that address this issue disagree (and I think they have the better of the argument). Say you pick up: ♠ ♥Qxxx ♦KQJxx ♣Kxxx and double a 1S opener. Don't you think that 2D is likely to be a better contract than passing partner in 1NT? While if you hold the big hand, a forcing 3D bid is OK (partner has promised some values in theory) and still leaves room to explore for the correct game/slam.

In what way did I go off topic? You claimed that the auction announced ownership of the deal; I did nothing more than present evidence to the contrary.

Would you apply the same reasoning to the auction 1♦-(1♥)-1♠-(5♥)? Note that in both cases, overcaller's hand is virtually unlimited. Advancer may _think_ he is sacrificing, but.... This doesn't mean that it is our hand. Had advancer bid 3S I don't think many would treat opener's pass as forcing, and it would be debatable over 4S (in this partnership for example, pass would not be forcing here either).

[hv=d=s&s=sxhakxxdatxxcqxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♦-(1♠)-2♥-(5♠)-? Assume that 2♥ is a one-round force, but doesn't promise a rebid if opener indicates a minimum (which I believe is the mainstream approach in most places). Would your partnership treat opener's pass here as forcing? Why or why not? What call do you make?

Do the people who advocate a 4C bid last round think that it creates a forcing auction?

No one has yet suggested what I think is best, namely that it shows values with shortness in the unbid minor (and can stand a lead of opener's minor if partner chooses to defend). IMO, this combines the best features of both the penalty and takeout treatments. Partner can bid a major safely with 4 cards, or pass when the hand is a complete misfit. It is also safer than using it to show the balanced 14 count with values in m, because we are more likely to have a playable landing spot when partner is weak. My prototype for this auction (assuming the opener's suit is diamonds) is something like: Axxx KJTx AJTx x This hand doesn't merit any positive action on the first round, but has lots of potential both offensively and defensively once the opponents subside in 1NT.

The reason that double followed by 3H is forcing is that it needs to contain enough values to run the risk that partner passes the double. Those who play this way would not double with "some non-invitational six-baggers" just for this reason. Forcing hands unwilling to hear partner pass the double must either cuebid (which would promise diamond support for some) or jump to 4H. Not perfect of course, but doubling at this level must cater to the possibility that partner is stuck passing with the sort of non-descript hand that you suggest.

I don't know what Nickell plays, but one common treatment (which I know as Mathe) is for responder to show a singleton over opener's relay. Responder returns to the trump suit with no singleton, and 1H-3H-3S-3NT shows a singleton spade. The theory is that a balanced LR opposite a one-suiter that couldn't open 2C probably won't make slam. Therefore the most useful information that responder can convey is his shortness (if any), allowing opener to evaluate his cards accordingly.

I suppose that this is, like most other things, a matter for partnership agreement. However, I'm very surprised that no one has mentioned what I consider to be the most common and most useful treatment -- showing the guarded ♦K and a willingness to suggest 6NT as the final contract. Consider the fact that partner's hand is unlimited, so with first round diamond control you would certainly bid 5D. With no diamond control you can't afford to bypass 5S. So why not use 5NT to show the King, and play the final contract from the right side when the hands are something like Axxx Qx Kx KJxxx opposite KQxxx AKx xx AQx?

Kaplan-Sheinwold: 1NT opening is 12-14 1NT response to 1m is 5-8 (to play opposite a strong NT) 2NT response to 1m is GF

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sjt9hkj9dxxxcajtx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1D-2C 2D-? 2C was forced by system. 2D was nonforcing, showing an unbalanced 12-14.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sahajt9xxxdajtcax]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] RHO opens 1D. 3D would be natural, and 4D is undiscussed. There is a modern tendency toward (virtually) unlimited overcalls with shortness in the other major. Part 1: Double or overcall? Please decide before reading on. Part 2: You double, and the auction proceeds: 1D-X-3D-4S P-? Oh well. Your guess?

No strong feelings about the first one (I'd probably open and then pass 1NT, but admire anyone with the nerve to throw it in, and recognize that passing 1NT might miss a superior partial in any of the other four strains). I think you have to keep the bidding open by rebidding 2H on the second one. You are red at IMPs, and have three working cards for partner. Game is certainly still in the picture, and if partner passes 2H there is a decent chance of scrambling 8 tricks by using my entries to ruff spades or diamonds with small trumps. Besides, it's not as if 2C will be cold on a trump lead either opposite a minimum. It just seems like the upside of bidding far exceeds the downside, and the chances for game are worth any risk being taken.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sxxhqxxdxxxxcajtx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1NT-Pass-2C-? You are playing in the Spingold Round of 64. Your heavily favored opponents were up only 11 IMPs at the half, but will be playing their front four (i.e., no sponsor) the rest of the way. It is now late in the 3rd quarter, and while you've had a couple of decent results so far, on balance you don't figure to have made any headway and have probably lost a few more IMPs. Is this a good time for what you might otherwise consider to be an unsound lead directing double?

Presumably West is 7=5=1=0 without the ♥K, so we can discard a club on the ♥Q and another on the 5th heart, endplaying West at the same time to give us a ruff/sluff and dispose of our last club. All will become clear once the ♥K drops on the 3rd round. So: ♥ruff ♦9 (all follow) ♥ruff ♦K ♥ruff - King drops from East The hand is now a complete countout, so cash the black aces, ruff a spade, cash the ♥Q pitching a club, and pitch another club on the last heart.

I don't agree with this. If I had AKxx xxx Qx Kxxx I should switch to a diamond myself. Furthermore, partner needs to consider the possibility that declarer was 4-6 in the majors (in which case he would need to give me a spade ruff).

Mikeh's analysis is clearly correct, and in actual play the contract made when I woodenly returned a spade before cashing a club (maybe the ♣J is better than the ♣K so there's no risk that partner tries to give us a club ruff) and declarer guessed the ending holding the dreaded ♦QT doubleton. I was really hoping with this posting to stimulate a discussion of why this possibility fell into my blind spot at the table, and whether it would for others as well. I realized that partner needed the ♠Q and ♦K to beat this, but gave no thought at the table to the location of the ♦T or the risk of an endplay. It also seems counterintuitive to cash a winner in a suit where dummy has a possible trick source (yes, I realize that there aren't sufficient entries available, but without seeing the specific need to make the play it just feels funny). Any thoughts?

[hv=d=w&v=b&e=sxxhqdaxxxxxct9xx&s=sakxxhtxxdjxckjxx]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] West opens 1H, and rebids 2H after partner's 1NT response. Trick 1: Spade lead, won by your SK Trick 2: Trump return, won by dummy's HQ Trick 3: Club lead off dummy to declarer's CQ and partner's CA Trick 4: Spade from partner to your SA (carding indicates that partner started with 4 cards in spades) I suspect that, presented as a problem, most here will find the correct defensive plan. How do you defend, and how sure are you that you would have defended the same way at the table?