cherdanno

I have sympathy for passing (we have help for every possible lead!) but I don't see why we have the balance of strength.

I think broken bones or brutal-looking body checks in hockey are not the real problem. Body-checks probably don't even hurt very much, and broken bones heal. The biggest problem for NFL players are repeated small concussions, which seem to have a devastating long-term effect. In addition, the obesity required in some positions takes its tolls. The life expectancy for NFL players is, according to some studies, as low as 52 years for linebackers, and 55 on average. Encouraging kids to play football seriously should be seen about as responsible as encouraging them to smoke.

4♣ and 3♠. On the first one, I like the chances that partner has a heart singleton. In that case, 4♣ will usually make.

Ok that changes the likelyhood, but partner still won't bid with a 5-card diamond suit, unless he is weak with 5-5 in the minors. If his 5-card suit is bad enough that he doesn't want you to lead it, he certainly doesn't want to play a 5-2 fit in this suit with the strength behind him!

Cyberyeti, partner doesn't need 6 diamonds for a 1♦ opening. He will ALWAYS pass 1NTX with a balanced hand. No matter how good or bad his diamond suit is.

MATCHPOINT ALERT!

♥4 seems very normal.

South should force to game over 1C 1D 1S. This is much more important than the silly argument about the 1S rebid.

Congratulations, especially on the easy draw!

Arg, I am not quite awake it seems. In the BB final hand, Hamman's opening bid was in third seat, so partner was a passed hand.

I find it interesting when a good player does s.th. I find very unusual. If you don't think it's interesting, you don't have to post.

This hand is from the Bermuda Bowl final. I just looked it up again, it was all vulnerable, and the clubs were actually AQT2. Anyway, Hamman passed and the Bridge World report (by Bramley) didn't even comment on it. (It was board 4 from the last set, which USA started with a lead of 40 IMPs.)

IMPs, don't remember the vulnerability, sorry.[hv=d=s&s=sjt8hakxxdxxcaqxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣ (1♦) P (P) ?[/hv]

That rather depends on your agreements, no? Many play negative doubles through 4D over a 1H opening and barrage. If the original posters was playing unusual agreements, he would have told us so. So double is not penalty, and partner can pull with wild shape (in particular, he will pull with any hand that has a club void).

Of course partner will pull our double. We could go down in 5H, or make when he pulls to his 6-card suit. I think the odds beat playing for +150 or +200, but it does seem close.

I was wondering why you didn't comment on this suggestion from Han. I guess I was right that you didn't read it ;)

On the original question: I would also overbid with 2♣, because I would really like to show this club suit! I agree East should double 5♣, but I am not sure it would help much - showing 4-cards or a good 3-cards in a suit where we have KQJT3 isn't going to help much. But I understand 1NT and 2♣ would lead to other problems in other auctions. I am not sure I agree with Han that East should bid 4♣, most of the time this will just help opponents with the lead (if it's a cue) or with the decision to save (if it's natural), I would rather bid our game contract right away. On the other hand, I don't see how West's decision to pass 4NT and double 5♦, instead of doubling 4NT and passing anything at the 5-level, would be able to help. So I would give 20% blame to West's failure to double 4NT, a reprimand on East's failure to double 5♣, and 80% blame to random timing of the auction and the dealer.

Doing well! Cheers for the round of 64!

Marlowe, why do you post a reply to a play problem when you don't even take the time to count tricks? If partner has the ♦A, and declarer all kings outside of diamonds, then he has 5 spades + 1 heart + 6 clubs, for 12 tricks.

With partner having described his hand reasonably well, including limiting it, my instinct is that NO bid by S (I guess except a ♦ bid) would be forcing. By what principle should 3♠ be forcing? By the principle that you want to play game in 4M when you have an 8-card major suit fit, and in 3NT or 5m otherwise.

A thought can be ridiculous without being logically ridiculous.

I admit 2♦ is tempting. But I do pass.

Yes. If so, then the decision to play in spades has already been made. Partner will probably assume that later showing heart support also carries the inference of L.R. + values. Even if that is true, what do you do when you have a balanced 18-19 hcp hand and find out that partner has a limit raise, and doesn't try for slam?

I would play 4S if partner has 3 spades and 4H otherwise. I would bid 4H if I can't find out.

So everybody else at the table knew what 2S meant. And you had good reasons to assume that everybody else knew. Why don't you ask?