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.

Obviously you double. Give declarer a 4351 shape instead (with dummy the same) and you probably get 300/500.

Obviously the initial 2NT bid is dependent more on shape/texture than on high cards. With 6-5 shape and decent texture, I would overcall quite aggressively - [ x KQJxx QJTxxx x] would be typical. The double of 3NT shows extras, but again I might stretch to act holding more shape. For example [Kx ATxxx KQJxxx --] or [--- AKJxx AQT9xx xx] would both be worth a double of 3NT. On the basis of this, I think West, holding short clubs and a double fit, should probably stretch to act directly over 4C. So now in the passout seat, East still has significant extra values. Opposite [xxxxx xx Qxx xxx] or [xxxx xx xxxx xx] 4D will play okay, and if partner has a defensive hand like [xxxxx xx xx Jxxx] or [xxxxx xxx xx Qxx] then 4C is going to run into some serious management problems. Even if we aren't cashing 4 tricks off the top, +200/500 feels most likely.

Agree with Neil that both players could've done more but I think the majority of the blame has to go to East for passing out 4C holding an amazingly strong hand.

I think what most people are missing is that a re-opening double at the 5-level *doesn't promise hearts*. It shows ANY hand with enough transferable values that it is happy to act at the 5-level (and the 5-level mostly belongs to the opponents) but can't find another bid. Partner is expected to pass without extreme shape or significant extra values. Opposite a sound partner, raising to 6H looks absolutely normal.

This looks like an automatic double to me. The main consideration is that aggressive opponents are likely to be taking an advanced sacrifice in this spot. Even if 4S is making on a lucky layout, there's a good chance our teammates haven't gotten that high at the other table. The difference between -590 and -420 is very negligible if our teammates are bringing back +170 or even -420. Partner *might* be absolutely broke for their 3H bid, but most of the time they'll have at least 1 helpful card.

Most of the problems stem from the fact that both hands are still unlimited after the 3S bid. A really simple improvement to basic Jacoby 2NT uses 3C to show an artificial minimum. If you like simplicity, you can keep the other responses exactly the same - a new suit shows shortage and a non-minimum, including 4C. If you show a minimum and responder is still interested in finding out about shortage they can bid 3D as an enquiry. The main advantage of this method is that you avoid giving away information to the defense on hands where responder has no slam interest opposite a minimum, but it also has significant advantages in slam auctions by slowing the auction down and allowing opener to put their hand in a range. Using this method I would respond 3S showing non-minimum and spade shortage. After stretching the first time I can now happily sign off on the next round having shown partner that I have at least a bit extra.

I'm probably being overly critical here, but I struggled on this problem. Fundamental to any defensive problem is a clear explanation of partner's first signal. On the hand I also couldn't see a explanation of the 3D bid. Assuming natural signals, partner discouraged strongly at T1 despite almost certainly holding 4 hearts. When declarer opened clubs, partner is absolutely marked with strong spades. Playing declarer for something like [xx AKxx Kxxx KJT] where they need to sneak one trick, feels a lot more likely than the actual layout, where declarer (for no reason) severs communications at trick 2 by playing a small diamond up on an otherwise untouchable hand...

Agree with the rest of the respondents that West shouldn't double 3C. On a related note, especially if you play aggressive overcalls, you might want to consider playing constructive but non-forcing 2 level advances.

Responder does sometimes hold that hand, but given the auction has started 1NT (P) 2H (P) in tempo (even behind screens) then the opponents are pretty unlikely to hold a combined 25 count. And if partner does have that hand, will your choice of action even matter? You're never making 2S, maybe you go -3 in 3D when you would've gotten out for -2 in 2S. Maybe bidding 3D saves you from the takeout double into penalty pass that would've happened to 2S. Maybe bidding 3D stops them balancing into game? The actual losing scenario is when responder holds a 6-3-1-4 5-count with good spades and 2S was making but 3D doesn't. Obviously you should decide based on the whole hand whether the upside (partner holding 6-8 with a fitting diamond card and bidding a good 3NT) is worth the downside (going off in 3D when 2S is making). You're always allowed to just accept the transfer like everybody else. rhm: I've read/responded to enough of your posts to understand that you struggle with communication. Let me rework your first couple of sentences into normal, respectful, English. "Using 3m as a natural, invitational is unusual, I haven't heard of any top class players using that method. Perhaps a better use for the bid would be to show a sub-minimum opening with long suit?" At this point you might qualify that you've not recently played in any high-level international events, so you are expressing just your opinion and have no idea whether top players may or may not use these methods. The ironic thing is that I actually agree with most of the other points in your post. I haven't personally tried the 3m showing a natural invite method so I can't back up its usefulness with any personal experiences. I was simply offering it as an additional caveat to the underlying idea that super-accepts (especially in spades) are best used infrequently and generically.

Obviously this stuff comes down to partnership understanding, but I can offer a different opinion to the previous responders. a) Your side is blessed with plenty of room in this auction. Strong single-suiters can either start with 3S, or a double if they're based more on HCP. So by far the most useful meaning for 4S is to show a distributional hand that is afraid of getting passed out in 2S and wants to put pressure on the opponents. Something like [KQJTxxx x AQxx x] would be typical. b) Most modern partnerships play 4m in this auction as a non-leaping michaels bid (showing 5m & 5S). With a HCP rich single-suiter they are forced to choose between a gambling (and often offshape) 3NT or starting with double. The jump to 5D is thus reserved for distributional one-suiters, not necessarily super-strong, that only have interest in playing in diamonds. c) This hand is a little different because after the 2/1 our side is assumed to have the balance of power, and opener does have the option to bid a forcing 4C. On that basis I think 5C should show a minimum strength opening with big distribution and no fit for hearts.