quiddity

I remember a similar hand in a Marshall Miles book - his suggestion was to open 1S and rebid 6D. I think after that start there's a reasonable chance to play 6NT by North.

That leaves partner with xx Qxxx Kxx Jxxx, and he's bidding stayman over our 1NT overcall. Does this seem right? Oops.. I expect 1NT to have a wider range over 1S (since we can't hope to double and bid 1NT to show 19-20), but perhaps this is too light for stayman. Oh well.

Then a heart works just as well, while not losing if declarer has a similar hand with diamond king instead of heart ace. Fine, give him the HT too.. KQJxxxx ATx xx x. I agree it's possible that he could have DK instead of HA, but I think he would be more likely to open 3S with that hand.

The danger is that declarer has 6 spade tricks and the HA. If he can get 2 diamond tricks, he's home. The ST could very well be an entry here, so I think I would play SA and another spade. When declarer leads a diamond, I go up with the Q on the first round playing him for KQJxxxx Axx xx x.

I guess my judgment here is way off; I would definitely have bid 5H. Surely LHO is short in hearts for his bid and outside of that suit we can't contribute a single defensive trick. Meanwhile on offense we have a singleton spade, beautiful trumps, a very offensively-oriented 6-card side suit, we're vul vs not... Also since partner did not have a forcing pass I would tend to play the double as showing extra values, with aces etc, not as pure penalty. I don't expect him to have a spade stack and nothing else. If he had wanted to set up a forcing pass he could have cuebid 3S instead of jumping to 4H. "The five level belongs to the opponents" - that refers to a situation where you have already pushed the opponents to the 5 level and are considering bidding (for example) 5S over 5H. Here, WE are the "opponents"; the 5 level belongs to us.

This hand came up in my GNT-C match last weekend; at the table East played HA and returned a low heart and the contract was made. I'm not sure whether the right defense can be found with certainty but there are a few clues: 1. As you said, West likely has H-QJ and probably doesn't have much else. 2. South almost surely has CK. Even so, he only has 2 kings and some quacks opposite a minimum opener yet he bid 4S. What is his shape? How many spades does he have? 3. West might have led East's suit (diamonds) if he held an honor. He almost certainly would have led a singleton diamond if he had it. You have 3 tricks in hand - where can you find a fourth trick?

This hand really does play itself; I think just about everyone would win the HK, cash the spades, and hope for diamonds to break. Some declarers might miss the blockage at the table, but when the problem appears the hearts will provide an obvious solution. Only a very strong player would even consider an alternative like the triple squeeze line. The real difficulty is reading the ending, which requires keeping track of defender's discards and drawing inferences from them, counting several suits, noticing breaks in tempo etc. This is where the weaker players will often go wrong and the experts will almost never go wrong.

oops! yes, that's much better.

I would win as cheaply as possible in hand, cash the DK, cross in spades, cash the high diamond discarding a club from dummy, run spades and then hearts hoping East has CK and the outstanding diamond. If the line is correct, it's low-intermediate. It seems natural to play this way even without knowing anything about squeezes.

What is your reasoning here? I would guess the preempt probably does all right on the majority of hands making it a decent matchpoint bid, but the risk of missing a vulnerable game might persuade me to pass or open 1H at imps.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=skq9h983dkt4caqt6&e=sahat52da9752c987]266|200|Scoring: IMP 1C (1D) 1S P 2S (X) 4S P P P West leads HQ. [/hv]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=saq94hkjt8dq9cat2&s=s8hq932dak84ckq93]133|200|Scoring: IMP W N E S ---------- 2S X P 2N P 3C P 3S P 4H P P P [/hv] North's sequence showed 4 hearts and a spade stopper, choice of games. 1. After 3S, should South cuebid 4C or 4D? Is the cuebid mandatory or does it show extras? In the actual auction, should North continue past 4H? 2. How do you play the "slow" cuebid vs the "fast" cuebid after a weak 2?

It is unethical because the dumper is deliberately trying to subvert the spirit of the round robin, which is intended to allow the best teams to advance, and in doing so is denying both beneficiaries and victims a chance at a fair contest. You might as well argue that people should be allowed to throw boards to their friends in pairs games because it will improve their chances in the next game when the favor is returned.

Was the 2C bid game forcing?

Would you tend to pass over 3C with something like Kxx xx AQJxxx Kx? I was thinking that a hand like this must bid 3D immediately while more offensive hands can afford to pass and take some action later, but maybe that's not the right approach.

Does the immediate diamond rebid (instead of a forcing pass over 3C) say anything about South's values? If it suggests a weaker hand, then the later forcing pass makes sense. Edit: never mind, I think the forcing pass makes sense regardless of the earlier 3D bid. He's asking North to consider bidding 5 with extra offense, and after all he has a hand worth 7 tricks in diamonds and 1 or 2 in clubs. It's not his fault that North bids SIX with his 9 points and moth-eaten heart suit.

1. Values. These should be useful on offense or defense (aces), so partner can either pass or bid depending on his hand. 2. "Please describe your hand further." At least invitational to game; maybe a hand which isn't sure of the best strain (4-4 in the majors), or maybe a good balanced hand without a diamond stopper. Or perhaps a strong single-suited hand which wants to establish a forcing auction. 3. Takeout/balancing, guarantees two possible places to play. 4. same. 5. The points seem to be evenly distributed and the opponents can probably out-compete you in a major suit. There's a "rule of 15": when you have a marginal opening bid decision in 4th seat, add your HCP to the number of spades in your hand. If the result is less than 15, pass. 6. I don't know about this one. Your play is only suit preference if it will be obvious to partner that attitude doesn't apply. I guess there's a possibility here that you want partner to continue hearts and force dummy to ruff, but it depends on the auction and on your hand.

1C-(2H), pass and pray.

The unstopped doubleton has secondary honors, so partner (who rates to have some length and points in diamonds) is less likely to need a 3rd-round ruff. The HA is another indicator for 3nt, since it means you'll be able to establish heart tricks without losing the lead too many times. The HT makes trump-promotion plays less likely, but also improves the chances of establishing heart tricks at NT. Although I would bid 4H at matchpts, I think I might bid 3NT at imps. If partner had bid 3NT instead I would certainly pass at imps, and perhaps also at matchpts. Anyway, Han, I'm interested in the results of a sim; what are the chances that hearts are 2 tricks, 1 trick, or zero tricks better than NT when partner has 8-9 or 10-14 HCP?

I think the JT, QTx, and the pre-established club suit all argue for 3NT, but I'd still bid 4H because of the minimal combined point-count (which makes it more likely that we'll be wide open in diamonds, or won't be able to establish hearts). If partner had bid 3NT I might pass.

This hand reminds me of a similar hand in Lawrence's balancing book. He preferred a jump to 4H (in the balancing seat) and said something like "definitely swayed by the HT". The reasoning was that this bid would help partner recognize the importance of the HK for possible slams. He also said something like "the shape rules out a double", but then again the book was published 30-odd years ago...

Or what if LHO bids 4D and partner bids 4S?

What are you going to bid over 4S from partner?

Roger, hackenbush, how about a hint? Does the CA, C-ruff line go down?

I think Lawrence's "complete book of t.o. doubles" has similar examples, and it was published 15 years ago.