WesleyC

I think the most important MP idea on these hands is that both North and South need to keep 6NT in the picture during the auction. In even an advanced field, playing 6H on these cards is a MP disaster!

If you want an informed opinion on a tactical MPs hand like this, you need to give the full auction - including the opponents style. Every bid, pass or tempo change at MPs provides critical information!

Really tricky hand, what was the auction?

Based on the description of your 1NT opening it sounds like you play a relatively old fashioned bidding system. Most people these days open 1NT on all manner of balanced hands (including most hands in the range with a 5cM and 6cm and also including many awkward semi-balanced hand shapes like 2452 and 2425. The main advantage of this style is describing the non-minimum value of those hands in one bid (and eliminating your rebid problem). Your opponents will also find the opening lead and subsequent defense a lot tougher versus a more liberal 1NT. If you haven't tried this method before I can strongly recommend giving it a go. I think you'll be surprised how many good results you get opening a more 'undisciplined' 1NT.

As others have already pointed out, splinters are a critical tool in modern slam bidding methods that allow you diagnose wasted values opposite the shortage. They should (generally) be shown separately to high card style controls for this reason. However, no-one has yet mentioned that the main reason that most modern players prefer 1st/2nd round cuebids, is that the main purpose of the cuebid is to establish extra values and slam try without propelling the partnership to the 5-level. To make an example: if an uncontested auction starts: 1S - 2H 3C - 3S you might hold anything from: [AKJxx x Qx KJTxx] [AKJxx Qx x KJTxx] [AKQJx Qx x KJTxx] Although none of the above hands have a biddable first round control, their playing strength is vastly different. Using 1st/2nd round controls and a last train slam try, you would easily be able to quantify those differences below the level of game.

I've got a lot of experience with double dummy simulation, and this hand is almost the textbook example of a situation where I would not trust the double dummy result - a club lead will work out *significantly* worse in practice. In the likely case that declarer holds the club ace and club length, there's a decent chance that you will win both of your clubs if you avoid leading one. The double dummy effectiveness of the club lead is also artificially boosted because when partner does hold the Club Ace, you will *always* find the killing switch. More than any other contract, defender start their defense vs 1NT completely in the dark, with almost no clue about declarers distribution and high card location. Leading a long suit at tricks one sends an invaluable message to partner that will often be helpful in guiding the defense. At MPs I'm happy to lead a diamond.

Or perhaps it shows a partnership understanding that (especially at favourable VUL) being very active with a shapely Major oriented hands and a shortage in the opponents suit is winning bridge! For a change I agree with rhm!

I think the idea that you're missing is that a hand doesn't have a fixed value. During the bidding you need to constantly be reevaluating your side's potential as new information comes to light. When LHO advertises a weakish hand with soft values in diamonds (your singleton) that hugely increases the offensive value of your hand. Your singleton diamond also inferentially improves your side's defensive prospects because any diamond honours are in partner's hand sitting over declarer. So even if you knew the points were divided exactly 20/20 on this hand, your side would still have a significant positive total point expectation.

If an opponent had dealt and opened 3NT, then double has a lot of upside. If we pass, Partner might end up stuck with a decent hand but be unable to bid because they have soft values and length in both minors. Or they might have weakish hand with a long major. But opposite a passed partner the upside is considerably lower because both of those hand types can be ruled out. Double might still work out spectacularly well but it could also lead to disaster. One final comment, regarding the description of the 3NT bid - It's quite unusual for a 3rd seat 3NT bid to strictly deny any outside cards because a passed hand partner can't reasonably be expected to have stoppers in every other suit. Most experienced players would describe it more as any hand that wants to gamble 3NT but doesn't have any slam ambitions.

The reason that other player get better scores is that they've spent thousands of hours playing and *occasionally* learning bridge! Obviously more reading and analysis will help, but if you really want to improve fast your best bet is to find the toughest IRL tournament in your area and play in it!

Playing online with GIB and than then posting on BBO when GIB does something you don't agree with is the wrong approach to improving your bridge. You're much better to reach to other forum members (myself included) and play a game with them!

I'm not qualified to comment on the GIB labels (which is obviously incorrect in many cases) but if you think a bit more about it, bridge logic should lead you to the conclusion that your double of 4S should be for penalties. Basically the rule is, if you've had a chance to make a takeout double of a suit but chose not to then later double that suit at a higher level, then double is penalties. Holding significant extra values, great minors and hardly any values in Spades, you should make a takeout double of 3S which would allow your partner to take the (making) sacrifice in 5C. Passing 3S and then doubling 4S should be consistent with a hand like AQJT x Axxx Kxxx where the opponents have walked into a bad break and are about to be punished!

Mr Ace: Although you did manage create a layout (albeit completely inconsistent with the bidding :P ) where switching to a club is the only winning defense, it's an absolutely minuscule chance. By far our best chance to defeat the contract is in diamonds (either via tricks or a ruff). Leading a lower spade (J or T) gives us the best chance to do this.

You dismiss 3NT but on the NS hands 3NT by North has great chances. And if north had the same hand with 5 clubs it would be a great spot! Obviously 3D isn't the best way to get there - I would prefer to show the hand as invitational in NT.

Just to clarify - You're trying to assign blame for missing a slam at MPs (against weak opponents) on a hand where partner blundered by over-calling T98xx at the 3 level and you're trying to assign blame for not bidding 6S that happens to make on 24 HCP and a double-fit. Please stop.