nigel_k

It's definitely an incorrect explanation and I would almost certainly adjust. Maybe North thought 2♠ might be a cue bid or maybe they were concerned about spades breaking badly. These are not especially good reasons to bid only 3♠ but, for the class of player involved when they have the benefit of the doubt, I think those reasons are good enough to avoid 3♠ being classed as a serious error. You would need to ask North some questions but it's quite unlikely they will admit that they would have bid only 3♠ with a correct explanation. It's also a bit fishy that East never 'raised' hearts non vulnerable but there's probably nothing the director can do about that except comment on it so East is aware their behaviour has been noted.

Doh - didn't think of using myhands. Thanks.

Yeah I did watch some of that but I like an interface where I can click a button and force Joel to make a bid or play immediately.

I don't like showing a two suiter with six of a major and five of a minor. Anyway I would pass now as partner was under pressure and might bid 4♠ over 4♥ on all kinds of rubbish. It's certainly possible that partner will choose to defend when 5♠ is making but my hand is not so unusual that I can make the decision myself.

Is there any chance of the lin files for this being placed on the Vugraph archives site? The ones that are there appear to be empty unless I am doing something very wrong. Due to my time zone I was starting work on Monday morning almost exactly when set 1 kicked off so I missed the whole thing.

I assume the question is whether to bid 4♠ or 3NT. I don't claim to know what's best on these hands but would choose 4♠ at the table.

AJ10xx is an excellent holding because jacks and tens aren't worth much by themselves but here they are part of a combination that hugely increases their trick taking potential. Here are some examples from Kaplan/Rubens: Jx ATx Q82 A5432 10.9 (moved J and 10) xx Axxx Q82 AJT5 11.85 (no 5 card suit) Tx Jxx J82 AKQxx 11.20 (good 5 card suit but unsupported jacks and tens) xx Axx Q82 AJT53 12.05 (actual hand) Having a five card suit is good but this shows that most of the boost in value comes from the AJT combination lifting the contribution of the minor honours. Over partner's 1♥ I would bid 1NT. 2♥ would be ok as well but for me it's too much of an overbid with a balanced minimum and only three card support.

I would definitely open that and I don't normally open with 11. It is at least a one point upgrade. I prefer double instead of 2NT.

A passed partner can't really have a natural 2NT bid opposite one of my overcalls, especially in an auction like this where it is so easy for us to reopen if partner passes. I'd prefer to play 2NT as a spade raise but I guess we have to assume is it natural without discussion and probably we have no agreement about 3♣ either. I would pass and hope the opponents come to the rescue with either double or 3♦. Of course it would be nice to bid 3♣ and play there but I don't see this happening unless I precede 3♣ with an insufficient bid then correct it.

With extra values, e.g. Qxx x AKJxx AJxx I would bid 2♣ over 1♠ then 2♠ if partner gives preference to 2♥. The hand is too good to just raise immediately to 2♠ but I would still like to stop low if partner is minimum.

For me it shows extras because I would raise to 2♠ if minimum 3514. But it is forcing regardless.

I strongly agree with this. Does anyone seriously believe the player would have preempted at the three level if their suit was a major? The choice of 3♣ was not an indication of the limit to which the player is willing to go. It was either a misguided attempt to keep 3NT in the picture or an even more misguided attempt to avoid pushing opponents into game. Bad players do these kind of things all the time and directors and committees in general attach far too much weight to it.

Agree that 5♦ is to play and I would just bid 5♥. Slam could make but is against the odds and partner can still bid it sometimes.

At any other vulnerability I'm not sure that pass is even a logical alternative. 4♥ is not a preempt where we give up control and allow partner to decide. The actual hand has an extremely high offense to defense ratio compared to the range of hands where we might bid 4♥. Certainly it is quite likely the player simply didn't believe pass could be a logical alternative, so there are no grounds for questioning their ethics even if you disagree with their assessment of the facts.

I think it's nearly always best to run. It's hard to see 1NTX being good and if LHO has the kind of hand that will pull the double then they probably aren't getting us in any case. I don't know your methods but if my choices are between showing diamonds and showing diamonds and a major, I will do the latter.

The relevant law is 70-D-1: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful." where "normal" includes "play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved". As I stated earlier, I think it is clear that there is a "normal" line that would fail. But I think we haven't fully addressed the issue of whether the successful line is "embraced in" the original claim. My position this: When declarer used the word "break", in the context of this hand he clearly meant "break 3-3". Since there is no way for a suit to break 3-3 when there are seven cards missing, that part of the statement is essentially meaningless. So I would just rule that there is no line of play whatsoever that is "embraced in" such a statement. The alternative view is that we work out what would have happened if the hand had been played out in accordance with declarer's intention, using his statement of claim as evidence of that intention. This would not be a bad rule, but it isn't the rule that is actually written in the laws.

It is careless and inferior but not irrational to do the following: Start playing clubs and then realize that there are seven missing, not six. Not notice that the ♣6 is high so come to hand with a spade and take the diamond finesse. Down 1.

1. 1NT would have worked better on the first round but 1♠ is pretty normal. I would now bid 2♥ probably. 2. I would probably have passed it in if I held both hands. Fortunately I will avoid a bottom as there are two queens of clubs so a misdeal. 3. I would double. We're definitely not in a force. I would have preferred to create a force last round by bidding 4NT instead of 5♣ as long as this is understood as strong with slam interest, not Blackwood.

You don't have any unauthorised information (assuming partner's face didn't reveal anything) so you can legally do as you please. Whether partner's 5♣ will be allowed to stand if you do pass is another matter.

I would bid game on the first one and pass the second. No special reason, just gut feeling. Both are quite close though.

Obviously don't double on that hand, but there will be plenty of other hands where double is the percentage action but they can nevertheless redouble and punish you. It just isn't that hard for them to make eight tricks when they have plenty of high card points and LHO has four decent diamonds. The main thing to learn from this is to make sure you nail the opponents as often as possible when they make these doubles.

Here's my analysis: Declarer is unlikely to have six spades because with a weak four card minor he would probably have opened a multi instead of the two suited opening. Declarer can't have a heart void given the lead so let's also assume declarer has ♥A otherwise he is probably down. Also if declarer is 5242 or 5341 he appears to be down on any defence. So the shapes we need to consider are: A 5143 - Partner would not lead from Qx but might from QJ. We need to take our diamonds before declarer establishes ♣9 for a diamond discard. B 5152 - Declarer may establish diamonds for a club discard C 5251 - Declarer may establish diamonds for a heart discard D 5134 - We need to cash diamonds and take our club ruff E 5314 - We need to cash one diamond and take our club ruff F 5224 - We can either cash both diamonds or just one plus a club ruff Line 1: Cash ♦K and lead a club. This works on all except C. Cashing both diamonds doesn't gain and loses in E. Line 2: Switch to a club immediately. This handles everything except in case A it may be tough for partner to find the diamond switch, especially if he has the jack. Anyway at the table I chose line 2 and it was case A. Particularly annoying as declarer had a rather horrible Qxxxx A 10xxx 9xx. I unthinkingly returned ♣2 but ♣8 is better and partner would probably have got it right.

I would just bid three hearts. It is enough to send them into uncharted waters unless their agreements are very solid and I don't want to offer too big a penalty when we may have already made it hard for them to reach slam.

I actually prefer to use 3NT to show two spades and five hearts so we can find the right game. But it seems as though 5-3 fits are no longer cool. I also believe in super-accepting more readily after a 2NT opening, i.e. with three card support and a suitable hand. But I agree it's going too far to say that a 3♠ acceptance denies a fit, and the reverse where it promises one is even worse.

KQ tight and Jxx are both bad. Having no intermediates is bad, probably a half point downgrade by itself. Two aces is not a plus because that is average for a 19-20 HCP hand. The only good thing is the ♦J being supported by other honours. Kaplan/Rubens calls it 18.9 which is about right. Cyberyeti makes a good point about the risk of missing four of a major, but I'm not worried about missing a good 3NT non vul.