barryallen

I am not sure there is hardly anything in this either way, going for an entry on table via ♣ or ♥. It's always favourite that the ♥ are going to break 3-1, but that is offset by dropping the bare ♥K. Even with the ♣ not behaving themselves, you can discard 2 on the A♠ and the third diamond? Thinking about this further, you can never be stopped form having the ♥ finesse from being an option, whereas you can be stopped from having the ♣ finesse as being an option. So I will go for the ♣ entry to table, looking for the ♥ finesse.

Opener could easily be sitting there with two of the top ♦ honours wondering whether they can take 4 tricks in ♦ and ♠ to get the contract down. Partner has forced the opposition into game and it looks like the answer will lie in his hand. When partner makes that 4♦ bid he must realise the subsequent consequences and already have the answer to the problem he has created? Partner has had the opportunity to clarify his hand further but has chosen not to do so. I am not saying any of the bids are wrong, but partner has placed the partnership across the Rubicon with the possibility opener could provide limited assistance?

I really like that line and if the ♠K never got covered by LHO I would favour it even further. I am not really worried about LHO having 4♣, because it would probably mean 2 ♥ to an honour or that RHO would have done well to duck the ♥ holding the AK.

This is where I find partner has the ♥Q and the discussion gets interesting.

Surely the key here is not whether 1♠ shows 4 or 5 cards, but that a 2♠ response can easily be 3 card support?

Unless you have other agreements for 5NT in this sequence, it has to be grand slam force. All the difficulty is taken out of the rebid by the simple fact you have both the ♥K and the ♠A. Add in the fact that the ♥K is singleton and that you have ♠Axx, I would bid 7♠ on the expectation that will play better? Opener has defined his two suits as ♥ and ♠, showed no interest in our minor suit holdings and is committing the partnership to the grand slam with the right cards. When you hold the ♥K and the ♠A it is not difficult to work out this is going to give opener two extra tricks and anything but ending up in 7 is now unthinkable? More of a problem if you just hold ♠Axx, but the bidding should be enough of a clue to come to the right decision. Opener has committed to the small slam with two key cards missing, but I don't see a great deal wrong with that given his holding and partners responses.

Am I missing something here? After that sequence I would bid 5♥ and would expect partner holding the ♥K and ♠A to put us straight into the grand. Even if partner was unsure of what was going on, there would be little doubt with a 6♠ bid over a possible 5♠ rebid. But as it was the 5NT bid should be good enough to enable the grand to be bid? Once you take onboard there is no interest in the minor holdings?

I can see either 4♥ doubled or playing in 4♠ as being the best contract, but I would not be so confident playing in 5♠. It would not surprise me if North turned up with four spades. This all depends upon your partnership agreements and the effect any bid you make will have upon partners subsequent action, especially the way the vulnerability is loaded. I have a good idea on partners shape, less so on his high cards. I am fairly certain that 4♥ will go down a couple of tricks but would not be surprised that 4♠ would return the better score. If I could double for penalties without partner getting too excited I would do that, otherwise I would pass in the expectation that partner will make another bid other than pass. If partner does pass then it's possible we have lost some imps, but it's also possible we have avoided turning a positive into a negative.

I have always wondered about upgrading 5 card suits in NT, when dummy is probably short on entries and support in that suit?

After the sequence 1♠-2♣ 3♣ Any further move is looking for game. It's easy enough to show a stop, but how do you show a partial? If you use the bid of any of the two remaining suits to ask for a partial stop in that suit, or show a stop in that suit, confirming a stopper in the other suit, would that not be better? You will obviously need allowance to define whether the response was based upon a partial or actual stop, but that should be no issue You can also use other sequences to show 2 card ♠ support, ♠ game with initial cue (thus redefine the partial ask) and the possibility of stopping short of game?

That makes a lot of sense. There's no guarantee 4♥ will make, but at least your work is done and you do not have any further difficult decision to make. I like the 2NT bid, but does it really get across your hand here? At the end of the day it appears a punt, with 3♠ giving partner all the information he should need.

I am at a loss as to why 2♠ would be natural? If you believe 2♦ is going to have problems, why not wait for the X? It's not impossible the opposition will get to 2♠ in a 5-2 fit? 2♠ for me would be forward moving, showing 4♥ and ♦ support in this instance.

I can think of two major reasons for bidding 3♠, either as invitational to 4♠, or happy to play in 3♠ or defend 4♥. It's possible having the bid give both definitions should the opponents got to 4♥, but it has to be on the primary basis that opener raises to 4♠ with a suitable hand and no interference. The next question is what to do should the opponents bid 4♥ and here opener has options to give partner, in pass, double or 4♠. pass being not good enough for 4♠ double being good enough for 4♠ 4♠ direct being a distributional raise Giving partner now an option.

I am struggling with the logic of leading 4th best here. The lead of the 10 or 9 (depending upon your system) has the ability to reduce the tricks the opponents may take in the suit, without diminishing your chances of running the suit. The only down side to this is dummy having 4 hearts including the 8, but having 6 hearts headed by the A,10,9,7 gives very good options as you only need the 8 in one of the shorter stacked hands. Plus dummy had the option of using stayman with 4 hearts, which was not deployed. It's difficult to see the ♦Q providing an entry and the suit looks blocked unless partner has 3 cards in the suit. The lead of the ♥10 immediately tells your partner of your desire to limit the tricks declarer can take in this suit, giving him no problems with any holding he may have?

That just makes far more sense, if you have any form of 4441, even 3154, it looks like you are in trouble. So for me the possibilities lie around the definition of that initial X!

Several opportunities, I was just considering the maximum impact. Declarer could possibly be 1-3-3-6 and with the right cards there is nothing you could do to stop him after that lead. As it is, I think it is excellent.

There has to be something to this X, which I can only see manifesting from ruffing. My guess would be that the lead of the ♥9 would be suit preference for one of the minor suits? My choice would be to lead the ♠J at trick 2, to try and disrupt the communication!

Why not hold up your ♠A and congratulate partner for an excellent lead?

FYP it's wat, wot, and wut all at the same time Oo ;) Thank you for the effort, or was that the 9:38 reconstruction recycled? My comment was in response to the post tempted to blast 6♠ and an inference to what players find acceptable to open a weak 2 with. Not saying it does not work as I expect most have seen on occasions. Just questioning how partner can proceed with any certainty, when all your points are more defensive, with zero attacking.

I would be so confident partner never had 6 hearts to the 10, I would consider bidding 2♥ over the 2♦ opening and responding 3NT to the expected 2♠ response.

Really? Do most posters agree with this? I would think it is bergen that defines the strength of the 3♠ bid, or having a similar gadget?

I think that what many are failing to understand, this I suspect is a tournament in name only. Many must have seen those small afternoon sessions at clubs, with a limited number of boards and a core of regular players, many who would not consider entering the regular club evenings. So they have these "odd" rules to try and protect the environment they all feel comfortable and gain pleasure from. The only problem here is failing to recognise the event for what it is and proceed accordingly.

If you consider the bidding of 2♣, followed by the X of 3♠, followed by pass of 4♠, can you define your hand any better? I feel you have defined your hand so well, it is a relatively easy decision to leave the final decision to partner, your work is done here.

Pass is not a bid, it's a call. So it doesn't qualify as an opening bid either... Does not qualify as an opening bid, but it certainly qualifies as an opening?

Why would it be dense to pass when we have just a normal opening bid? Partner passed and RHO made a guesspass with an unlimited partner. Unless we have serious extras or strong spades, we probably can't be sure we are beating 2S. It seems rather dense to double 2S when we have no reason to think that the opponents are in their best contract, and also no reason to think we are beating 2S. Well, pick a side. What exactly is wrong with doubling 2♠ even if it is their best spot, if we can beat it LOL? Do we love our RHO so much as to say, 'wow great judgment for sitting for 2♠ with J-6th, I won't x you'. I don't think AKQTx + a card is really an unusual layout here and it certainly isn't 'serious extras'. Or are you concerned by doubling that the opponents can run to a better spot, that partner can't double after the opponents wriggle out (assuming they can even find their 'best spot')? Obviously if we run with the 6214 hand, then that's a sign of weakness, and we are getting doubled (except maybe in 3♣. Even if the Michaels bidder has extras (assuming the 1♠ opener doesn't) why shouldn't that hand sit for 2♠ x'd? I don't believe there is anything wrong with that logic, is there any where to run to? One small caveat I would add if the 2♠ bid shows ♥ + another, give North 5♣ + 6♠ and pass becomes a viable alternative? As the subsequent 3♣ bid over the X should be self explanatory and a possible viable option. On the actual hand, I would bid 3♥ without any hesitation over the 2♠, - in the hope that the ♥ division is favourable and causes the opposition to bid on. - we should be guaranteed a 5-2 fit at worst. - if 3♣ is the correct contract, can you see it being left there? - ♦ will always have the last word against ♣, even opening a possible route to slam? - we are white against red.