barryallen

That's one thing for bidding 4♠, I don't believe you will miss the slam if it's there.

A well worded analysis which is backed up by the majority of resident experts. Looking at that hand my only concern is how much trouble I can get myself into and how mislead partner would be? The overcall of 2♦ looks relatively sound and should normally escape an immediate penalty and I do not believe you have misrepresented your hand to partner, forcing a major error of bidding later down the line, this obviously depends upon partnership agreements. I am not even envisaging this leading to game, but giving partner sufficient information to raise to the 3 level and giving a decent target to defend. This should be relatively easy for partner to evaluate with the strength sitting on his left side. Should we rest in 3♦, I believe partner has sufficient information to make a sound judgement on that call. Far better than making some later intervention atop of a 2 level pass out. My only reservation on bidding would be that it enabled the opposition into a game they normally would not have found. But I can see little danger bidding at the 2 level with that hand and insufficient misrepresentation's for partner to compete at the three level, should that be an option.

That's true to a degree, but how is North meant to know that by only having 2 clubs was key to bring home the slam? Inform South that North had 3-4 diamonds and the ♠A and slam looks very likely after that bidding. When South bids 4NT he denies himself that information and commits the side to 5 of a minor. When you only need partner to have ♠A, 4 small ♦ and only 2♣, how can you expect partner to raise to the 6 level? South knows and gave himself no chance of a clue of finding Norths holding.

This to me is key, the rebid problems can create more of an issue than opening 1NT in the first place, so how can it be wrong? Is it important that both doubletons contain HCP and what HCP would you recommend as being of any value? If you are prepared to open a 5332 with no HCP in the doubleton, why not when you have two of them, or maybe that's pushing the odds too far? I would be equally concerned about lack of strength in my long suit and down rate accordingly, due to the fear of slow tricks in establishing the suit.

If you lead towards the ♥ honours at trick 3 and it holds, I would go with the odds and rely upon a 3-2 ♥ break by continuing with a top ♥ at trick 4. Expecting to lose 2♥ tricks, 1♠ and 1♦. If the first ♥ trick loses, your options will depend upon what the opposition return but there are many opportunities from a ruffing finesse in ♣, a combination strip squeeze against West given to the odd lead or the ♥ just coming home.

Has someone edited the original hand, because I am having difficulty here? Because of the 2♠ over call, seeing dummy with 3 small ♠, holding ♠10xx, I would be giving count every time. Because I expect declarer to have 2♠ and whatever card I play will have little affect on the tricks he takes. Even if declarer has 3♠, I can't see anything lost. If partner has 3 ♠ honours, I would expect to see one of them led, as it is it looks like partner and declarer have 2 each, with my only real constructive input to give count?

This board looks to have the ability for a lay down grand slam to just collecting 10 tricks in ♠. Looking at Easts and Norths bids and Souths holding, it would not surprise me for East to show up with something like [hv=pc=n&e=s2hakj5dj2cq98765]133|100[/hv] Then again with Norths bid, which looks mainly constructive given Easts defined 2♣ bid and Wests subsequent pass, giving something like [hv=pc=n&n=saqjt7654h32da83c]133|100[/hv] to [hv=pc=n&n=saqjt765h3da843c2]133|100[/hv] The question this comes down to for me is whether I believe partner has 2 or more ♥? To me this is just a punt, but a reasonable punt and a lot would depend upon the state and stage of the game. If you use RKC you run the risk of getting a double from East indicating a possible ♦ void or any other wanting the ♥ lead. If I can get a ♣ lead, I fancy our chances of making the slam and would just blast the 6♠ because I don't believe partner would have bid the 4♠ with the hand I assigned to him. It's possible that there is a lay down grand but I can see no way of knowing that until committed to the 7 level. 6♠ may go down but I don't see how RKC will help most of the time until too late, whereas bidding 6♠ directly has the possibility of making a slam you had no natural entitlement.

I think it's a congratulatory gesture to the lead of the A♦, indicating an original holding of QJ10.

I think that is the key here. Most of the time you are going to be faced with a dummy with a minimal holding and having to lead out everything from hand with no real sequence. Leaving the opposition with a much simpler task of the best contract to play this board in. My decision at first glance would have been to pass, but there are considerations that I see now to bid 1NT. Partner could well have something in ♥ to avoid the suit being run and that 10 could be very handy. Alternatively you may still have an out in one of the minors that could be useful or force the opposition to bid on.

:unsure: I would bid 6♥ after partner found a double following the 4♥ bid. After seeing what partner bases their doubles on, a rethink would be in order.

Partner has at maximum a J somewhere, so I really don't want to destroy any trick taking ability he may have. Holding the ♠A10xx, I really don't want to give away the contract by allowing easy discards on the ♠KQ by leading the A and to find partner with the J. I can't see much damage being done by leading a ♥ trump lead and a ♦ would more than likely only be giving them what is theirs anyway, but could cost. In reality I can't see much hope in bringing this contract down and on that basis will lead the ♦8, giving declarer an awkward moment of looking down the barrel of two losers off the top, should he take the finesse. He may have some play for discarding on ♣ but may be short of entries if he goes up with the ♦A and finding ♣QJxx. There is still a chance at MP that this will not cost, but I firmly believe it's the best chance of bringing down the contract.

As the OP has already informed us that "After 1 or 4, go on with 4!" and that 5♥ would ask for the ♠Q, I can only see one conclusion otherwise it never gets posted in the first place. For two good players I can hardly see any confusion arising here but for the additional information carried by the 6♣ bid. After this sequence of bids I would assume something like, but I expect others have better. 5NT shows the ♠Q with any subsequent suit bid as asking for Q 6♣ shows the AK♣ plus ♠Q 6♦, ♥ shows that suit K plus the ♠Q 6♠ denies the Q The only confusion I can see arising is over the holding of the ♠Q or the unlikely holding of ♠AK and two outside A, but I cannot see that as an issue given the bidding so far. You have to have a method of showing the ♠Q when you go forward with 4 key controls whether that is by denial with 5NT/6♠ or acceptance.

Very similar feelings, but if I am making 650, I would expect to make 500 in defence. Partner must have doubled on decent values or more shape with less values. Even for LHO to have an A and K (not same suit) or 2K, I would still heavily favour the chances of making 5♥, as long as it's your standard pre-emptive opening. The key to this is that partner has crossed the Rubicon with the double and all the signs he does not have ♠ tricks. It is difficult for me to construct a hand where we would not be favourites for 5♥ after the double and fair possibilities of the slam. Missing important cards have a good chance of being placed with LHO? For me the 5♥ becomes automatic with the added possible slam or just what was partner doing doubling in the first place? Like yourself I am wondering what I am missing here in note of the other replies and the answer has to lie in the double? Normally I would take this as favouring take out, especially holding ♠Kxx.

With most of these kind of problems, the actual hand is not important, but a supplement. The answer has to be based upon the little know facts the opening lead has. What is interesting about the actual hand and the bidding, is that the double is not only unsound, but decreases the chances of actually getting the contract down. Partner will have very little in his hand and if anything a ♠K,Q or J. With the actual hand, is it a surprise that the possibility of leading ♠ become a serious option? To get this contract down, South needs a ♣ or ♥ lead, still with no guarantees if the ♠ deliver. There are no 5 tricks off the top without partners help and I don't see the double as improving those chances but decreasing them. Without the double I would have led a ♥ on the basis of giving declarer the least help and rely on the limited access he has to dummy to finesse partner.

I thought the standard treatment for maximal doubles was always for the double to be maximal and any lower suit bid to be an invitational game form? So the 3♥ now replaces the double, introducing the option of a penalty orientated double? As this now denies partner of a penalty pass option, is there a gain to be had here?