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?

It all depends upon the definition of the double. If it's Lightner then the lead has to be a ♠ but that would not be my interpretation, with partner having something like 3 outside top tricks and the ♠AQ. Or a hand where a ♠ lead does not allow the contract to make. I would not view this double as Lightner but the nature of my hand forces me to consider ♠ as an option. For the double I would expect partner to have the ♠ stopped and the small fact it is more than likely that this will be my one and only chance to lead through dummy. If I had thought this long about it at the table, I would more than likely have led a ♠. Because declarer has freely bid 3NT with the distinct possibility that none of dummies ♠ will contribute. So I don't see partner with something like ♠A and ♦KQJ109x doubling to bring the contract down. At the table I doubt I would have come up with the answer quick enough and settled for a ♥ lead.

When I saw this hand being bid, there was little doubt in my mind. Subsequently I have plenty of doubt.

Always interesting to see various options, but the majority of the time the "answer" is an irrelevance unless a logical selection can be made from the bidding and cards held. If you are going against the percentages it has to be done with good reason. It's possible the ♥J will cost tricks and that leading trumps is the way to go. Alternately leading the trump denies you a ruff and you let the contract slip through. Just a question of whether you go with something that works most of the time or some of the time? I doubt many would select the ♥J unless partner had bid them, but partner has bid them.

I once saw a Dutch pair use what I would term as inverted puppet. That being a negative response to 2♣ showed a 5 card major and a 4 card major was bid directly. 2NT-3♣ 3♦ (shows a 5 card major) -3♥ (shows 3+♠) -3♠ (shows 3+♥) -3NT (shows 3+♥ and 3+♠) 2NT-3♣ 3♥ (shows 4♥, does not deny 4♠) -3♠ (denies 4♠), forcing a 3NT response -3NT (shows 4♠, denies 4♥) 2NT-3♣ 3♠* (shows 4♠, denies 4♥) 3NT (denies a 4 card major) I am assuming most of this from just a couple of sequences. I made a mental note to investigate further and that was as far as I got, apart from one effort. I am sure someone knows how this works fully and can correct any errors.

I may be obtuse here, but is there a problem? When you play the last ♠ from hand, RHO will keep his ♥, allowing you to discard the ♥ in dummy. When you lay down the ♦A and you have not seen the ♦KQ, you are left with no option but to rely on ♣? You can vary the end play by discarding dummys ♦ on the last ♠, but to no real effect. I just don't see anything concrete here, with a psuedo squeeze being the most viable option or a derivative of such? Look forward to this one being revealed.

If you consider LHO discards in combination with RHO discards, it is a very simple problem. LHO has shown up with 3♠, 4♦ and 2♣, leaving a maximum of 4♥, LHO's discard on the ♣A tells you all you need to know. A ♥ discard by LHO tells you there is no need to finesse as the drop will always pick up whatever LHO has in ♥. A ♣ discard by LHO also tells you that he has 3♥max and the drop will pick up whatever holding LHO has in ♥. The finesse is never an option. A very simple problem, until you have to do it at the table.

I believe partner is 4-0-3-6 or 4-0-4-5 and his only problem being is how many points do I have in ♥. Let's tell partner I have little value in ♥, but do have goodies elsewhere. To me a bid of 4♣ would get that across, leaving partner in control to place the final contract in case there has been a misunderstanding. I expect partner to have something like, [hv=pc=n&n=skqjthdaq9caqj932]133|100[/hv] On reflection I would add in the hands 4-0-4-5 and 4-1-3-5, a hand where bypassing 3NT with partner having a good stop and a half+ in ♥ could well bypass the only game if partner held something like [hv=pc=n&n=skqjth8dKq9caqj93]133|100[/hv] Either way, I can not see bidding 4♣ as doing a great deal of damage and possibly making things a whole lot simpler, whether or not the opposition enter the bidding again.

The real fear here is missing the grand when partner has the ♠A and ♥AKQ, which must be a reasonable possibility, although tempered by distribution catching your tail? The problem for me would be what partner believed 5♦ to represent, voidwood for ♣? I would bid 4NT expecting to take a chance over 5♥. Over 5 ♣/♦ I would bid 5♥, expecting partner to bid 6♥ with 2/3 of the top honours, 6♦ with the AKQ, highlighting the lack of ♣ honours. Out of interest, would you prefer the insurance of 7♣ over 7♥?

Whilst I do not have a specific view as to whether time penalties should be used, I fully agree with your approach should a form of time penalty be used. This gives the maximum flexibility whilst addressing the issue. To me that is only half of an equation that requires solving, you then cannot leave penalties down to the officials discretion. The penalties must be mandatory based upon the proviso's inserted within the rules, removing any possible bias or interpretation. In some cases this will result in some pairs / teams being possibly hard done by, but in the overall requirement for fairness this is a price which will have to be paid and one understood by all from the onset.

You either do nothing or you apply penalties. To me this is all about the players and it should be their decision upon how this is handled. But a slow player can affect concentration levels in others and that can be an unfair advantage. Officials have to have discretionary powers taken away from them and a set scale of penalties applied should players fall short, that way you get consistency and officials are just applying the rules, not making an interpretation. If you do apply penalties you should make allowances for items out of the players control and times set per event or by agreement. Then once you have decided to penalise slow opponents, you have to devise a fair method. Personally I would go with something like a percentage of the difference in points between the pairs over the session in question. This will never effect me or my enjoyment which ever way things turn out. But if the authorities decide something should be done, take the pressure off the officials with the rules so there are no arguments / inconsistencies and the players know exactly where they stand.