WesleyC

I'd bid 4S with no second option. I would love to see an analysis of how often top pairs make 'game try' bids. My guess would be 'not very often'.

Common sense dictates that East should be allowed to recognize their mistake at the point where West passes the 100% forcing 2D bid. However the way Law 16.A is worded: "A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source;" Suggests that the a ruling might go the other way.

Good points by rhm. On more reflection, starting with diamonds might also be superior if you run into a very favourable diamond layout like: West:[xxx xxxxx KTx Ax] or West:[xxxx xxxx AK Axx]. In this case you might be able to establish 2 diamond tricks, and if the opponents do knock out the clubs, you can fall back on the spade finesse in desperation. Also, the major loss case for starting with diamonds (RHO holding ♦AK and the ♣A) is unlikely because many players would open that hand in 2nd chair.

Because they passed as dealer at Nil Vul.

Tricky hand - you've got a lot to do and awkward communications. It feels like against accurate defense, you're probably always going to need the club Ace onside. My first instinct was to win the opening lead in hand and play spades from top, overtaking in dummy. One advantage of this line is that if West wins the spade, it will be very hard for them to switch away from the ♣A. The other reasonable option is a diamond towards the Queen. This might be more flexible (and would be perfect if you can steal a diamond trick) but against reasonable defenders it telegraphs the club weakness a little too much. East will usually win and then should find the club switch if its right. This line also entails an extra risk that you might might go down if diamonds are very unfavourable, even with the ♣A onside.

Although I have a lot of respect for Forrester, I wasn't impressed with the way he acted on this hand either at the table or afterwards.

I'm not a fan of the first round double holding Kxx of hearts under the 1H opening and only a doubleton spade. I favour a heavy 2C overcall which should at least encourage partner to act with a decent fit. However, once you do start with a double and partner can't muster up a 2S bid, then I'm prepared to throw it away.

Thanks to the magic of video we can go back and watch the auction (including the 30 second pause)... If you play style where a RvW 3S opening is very conservative, I don't think bidding 4S is as crazy as everyone is making out. Although it will mostly be wrong looking at all the hands, it might work out nicely for tactical reasons. Even Vulnerable, 4S undoubled is a good save against a making game. I've got some sympathy for Nowosadzki taking some time to consider it (and maybe trying to pick up some vibes from his screenmate). So in this context I would lean towards Yes for a). However, given that hand Kalita opened 3S is anything but conservative i'm not so sure...

I've noticed that (at least among the experts in Australia/Asia) older players lean towards doubling more often, while younger players lean towards bidding. Obviously there are a lot of influencing factors, such as support for the other minor, suit quality, vulnerability etc etc.

I'm happy to raise to 3H which might give North a problem in the fairly likely case they have extras.

I wouldn't rule out 3♥ either. In my opinion all 3 bids are reasonable, and I'd choose between them based on partner's style/opponents style/state of the match/form of scoring.

If E/W play a style where 15-17 hands with a 5cM open 1NT then it looks automatic for East to open 1NT on this hand. West's 2S bid is definitely misguided because 3C is a much better description and even carries an implication of spade tolerance. On East's second turn, holding a balanced hand with a defensive holding in hearts it looks clear to explore for 3NT. And finally South gets some blame for their 2 level overcall on a bad 5c suit and a flat hand opposite a passed partner.

Without a complete understanding of the polish players style and methods we can't do anything more than speculate. Does 2NT actually not show extras? Does 4C actually agree spades or did 3D already set diamonds? Was 3S natural or a cuebid? From East's point of view is it impossible that West was contemplating between a 4D cuebid/waiting bid and a signing off in 4S/5D because they had a sub-minimum? If that was the case, then the UI suggests signing off and East is ethically obligated to force to the (bad) slam. My guess is that the ruling went the way it did because the BIT didn't actively suggest one action ahead of another.

At the table LHO held [Kxx AQT9xxx T Kx] so the winning line (which I didn't find) was to run the ♣9. Well done to nige and phil for finding it here! I hadn't seen this suit combination before and it is actually quite complex. As Nige points out running the 9 wins on quite a few layouts (although not JTx - Kx if RHO can work out to unblock the ♣K). However, I would also often expect to succeed if LHO holds Jx or Tx and errors by covering the ♣9 - a pretty easy mistake to make!

Is the auction in your diagram correct?

+10 for PhilKing's 1H-4H megaquiz. 1 vote from me and 9 from the non bbo-forum people that I shared the quiz with!

A variation that has become popular in recent times (especially if you play in a short club context) is using the double of 1H to show 4+S and the 1S bid to show less than 4S with competitive values or better. This solves the problem in a slightly more efficient way, because you gain an extra step after showing spades (which you could use to show 3c support). There are lots of ways you can extend this treatment, such as making the 2H cuebid and 2S to show some other hands with 6+ spades. Personally, I've never had a problem just using standard methods if you include the possibility of sometimes doubling occasionally with less than 4S.

In the first auction where the opponents have landed in 3C it looks pretty clear to defend. Partner is marked with diamonds and any soft diamond values carry a lot more weight on defense than offense. The ♣J9xx should provide at least 1 defensive trick (and also greatly reduces the chance that the opponents have a 9c fit). And finally the major suits might sit poorly for our side, LHO is marked with Spades and RHO will have the long hearts and could easily find a double holding a couple of trump tricks. In the second auction where the opponents have landed in 3D, bidding is far more appealing because we might still have a double fit in clubs and hearts (giving the opponents a big diamond fit). However, I don't think bidding is automatic because we still have the issue of the majors being poorly placed an partner holding short spades. Also some of the time partner WILL have diamonds. You could certainly tempt me to bid here especially NV against passive opponents but I don't think it's mandatory.

I think this hand is too good for 3H. I'd choose between 3NT (showing a 'balanced' hand with extra heart length, too strong for 3H), 3D (inventing a strong jump shift) or 2NT (if that was forcing) based on my methods.

One comment about the way you've posed the problem - you're much better to include ALL the information (including spot cards and signalling methods) so that the reader can decide what is important. Regarding your lead choice, I agree with Mr1303 that holding an entryless hand, a small spade lead is by far the best chance. If partner held the ♠Jx on this deal a small spade lead would've beaten the contract straight up. However, once you have started with a top spade, things look pretty grim. I'd guess there's about a 50% chance that that clubs are running and if they are we have an uphill battle to win 5 tricks. In both cases is looks like a diamond switch is our best chance because it requires the least from partner.

Playing IMPs against a slightly eccentric opponents you manage to overbid yourself to a pretty rotten 3NT contract... [hv=pc=n&s=s7653hk5dq752cq95&n=sahj93dak84ca6432&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1h2cp3cp3hp3nppp]266|200[/hv] West leads the ♥A, East following small. West continues with a ♥6, and East discards the ♠2 (low encourage). Plan the play!

In the context you've given I guess it was accepting the invite and throwing the ball back to partner in case they had an unusual hand (eg 6322 or something and weren't sure what style of xfers we were playing). However its not a bid that I would ever make in a pickup partnership.

Given your agreements this looks like an auto 2S.

First a disclaimer that I don't have much experience playing negative free bids... However in the context of a standard auction, I don't think this sequence should show a trap pass. Holding 5+S and a club stack is very low frequency and responder has plenty of other ways to show that hand. My vote is for a hand like: [KQxxxxx - xxx xxx] which didn't have an easy way to enter the auction on the previous round, but has a strong preference for playing in spades. If you would act with that hand, then make it a bit weaker :)

Given that 3H is forcing, 3S needs to show any hand without support or a stopper - basically just a waiting bid. It could also be a very strong hand (possibly with support), that is hoping to reveal itself later. In that context 4C pretty much has to be natural.