WesleyC

Why not? The main thing I take away from this hand is that a conventional method for showing strong 2-suiters over a preempt is really important! Without leaping Michaels, no bid adequately describes this hand. Regarding the auction you had at the table, I think North has a obvious 3NT bid over the 3C. (Assuming your playing IMPs or Rubber)

I hate to pass with this hand shape, and the cards look to sit favourably for our side but with partner unable to act over 2D I think we're just outgunned. I'd need an extra high card to double .

I agree with your maths regarding the ♥ finesse vs spade finesse. Versus a perfect opponent I agree that ♥K onside plus singleton King is probably the percentage line. However I strongly disagree with your assumption that this hand is trivially easy to defend. My only evidence is the fact that I've failed to defend accurately on hundreds of similar hands. Even playing against an expert defender, being a declarer that is occasionally prepared to take a sub-optimal line in the hope of creating an error if a great reputation to have. Kranyak's declarer play in the team trials is an excellent example of this.

Playing IMPs it's not a tough problem at all. You win the lead and play a Spade which (practically) guarantees the contract.

I think bidding 2♠ on the previous round is a much better option because double doesn't describe anything like this hand. Now we've got a pretty ugly choice. 4S could easily have no play, but 2S will almost never get us to game. I'd play double in this sequence as showing a good hand with no clear direction, so starting with double (planning 2S over 2H seems pretty sensible).

Everything that's happened so far in this hand is bizarre. At T2 my thinking would be: The opening lead marks RHO with ♣K and almost certainly the ♠K in a hand good enough to preempt 3S with only 3 card support (e.g. often some shape). That leaves West to have overcalled vulnerable opposite a passed partner on a hand that is pretty rotten. Would they really overcall [AJxxx Qxx xx xxx]? Seems pretty suicidal, and i'm usually a fan of suicidal bids. Adding all this together makes me place the ♦Q pretty firmly with LHO. Even worse, LHO holding a hand like [AJxxx x Qxxx Txx] is one of the few layouts that actually does make sense, and on that layout your line would be a disaster. Finally, even if the diamond finesse wins, there's no guarantee you'll actually be able to use the diamonds. So I agree with Gszes that ruffing a club to take finesse diamonds is too greedy. However once you do choose that line and LHO wins and switches to the ♠K it's yet another WTF moment. Did LHO really overcall [Kxxxx x Qxx xxxx] or [Kxxxx Qxx Qx xxx] and then lead a club rather than a spade? billw35 is right that at this point that a spade trick isn't worth anything, so you're better to confirm the layout by playing the Q♠. So now you're at trick 6 and still have pretty much no idea who has the ♥Q. Either both opponents have made weird bids or one of them has outright psyched, so this feels like a spot where you should be making your decision base more on table feel and knowledge of the opponents than normal logic. I'd certainly make a mental note to penalize this pair aggressively in the future!

Matchpoints! [hv=pc=n&s=s2hkjt865dak2caq6&n=sqt53ha93djt964c7&d=n&v=b&b=7&a=pp1h1s2h3s4hppp]266|200[/hv] The play: 1. ♣2, ♣7, ♣K, ♣A 2. ♣6, ♣4, ♥3, ♣5 3. ♦J, ♦8, ♦2 ♦Q 4. ♠K, ♠3, ♠X, ♠2 5. ♠X, ♠5, ♠J, ♥5 What next (playing MPs)?

You're using false logic here. (Ignoring the lead implications) There is a slight bias towards the ♥K being in East's hand, (based on the JT of hearts being marked in the West hand) but it's nothing like 3 times more likely. The a-priori chance of KJT to any number is 11% and JT to any number is 13%.

Mostly this hand comes down to table feel and knowing your opponents. The simple answer is that if LHO rarely leads away from a king, taking a losing finesse at trick 1 is obviously wrong. But against most opponents, the ♥J lead only somewhat diminishes the chance that they also hold the ♥K. From a hand like [Kx KJTxx Axx Kxx] or [x KJTx xxxxx Kxx] the Jh looks completely normal. Based on this, I think taking the heart finesse and then falling back on the stiff ♠K feels like slightly the better option, but at the table my gut might convince me to go the other way. However, especially against non-expert opponents, I think that trying the ♥Q and (assuming it loses) ruffing and ducking the ♣9 feels like an even better chance. Although this line might expose you to defeat some of the time, finding the winning defence will (usually) be far from obvious. There are plenty of defenders that can't overcome the instinct to play back a trump and cut down ruffs. It might even be possible to come up with a layout (from their point of view) where that is the winning defence. Finally even if RHO does work out to win the club and switches to a diamond, after ♦K, ♦A the ♦J might turn into an entry.

99% of the time in this situation I think it's best to give unambiguous count (e.g. 2 followed by SP on the next round) and leave partner to make a sensible choice based the all the information. Between their hand, the auction, the dummy, declarer's pips and the potential meaning of the suit preference signal they should almost always be able to work that you have 4 hearts. This is especially true against a weaker declarer who might not false-card their pips. One of the main advantages of always(*) signalling this way is that partner can take a lot of inference from the pips you play on other hands. For example, any other combination of low/high (not including the 2) is unambiguously a doubleton. Partner's key decision might come at trick 2 rather than trick 3 (for example if they have 6Hs and must choose between cashing a second heart or switching). In this situation they will suspect that the 2 is more likely from a 4c holding (and a higher spot like 4 or 6 would guarantee that a second heart is cashing).

As inquiry pointed out, the vulnerability is really important on hands like this. I'll assume equal Vul. I know you specifically asked not to discuss the bidding, but the failure to double on the previous round is a major error and greatly effects the rest of the play. If partner does have a singleton club, and a club return beats 3D, then they must also have spade length (e.g [Axxxx Jxxx xxx x]) in which case we've already lost the board by not doubling on the previous round. So I think the best play in terms of Matchpoint EV, is to switch to the ♠K and hope that we can salvage some MPs for -130 or -110.

This is a WTP pass for me, but my partners probably preempt more aggressively than most. For example, a 0364 hand with decent diamonds would be an automatic 3D at these colours. Given how stacked our hand is in the majors, there's a good chance West won't have a convenient way to reopen, so 3D will win the auction. If you moved a high card into diamonds I would raise to 4D.

If you look at the HCP distribution around the table: Our hand has 11 HCP. Give the 1S bidder an average of 12 HCP. Give partner's 2H bid, an average of 10 HCP. That leaves the 4S bidder with about 7 HCP. A reasonable opponent bidding 4S with minimal HCP values is likely to have a shapely hand and a big fit. 5D might still go for a number, but you shouldn't be worried about responder having a good defensive hand.

Your signalling agreements are 9's to discourage?

Obviously the initial t/o double promises at least heart tolerance, but I would rather be able to make an offshape take-out double on a shape like 5224 in the hope of catching the opponents speeding, than use 3S as specifically promising a fit. However this is certainly a situation where different styles are possible.

I've been given this hand no less than 5 times in the past 2 years! I'm pretty sure it was Ash who gave it to me the first time (and I got it wrong).

I've played a lot of strong club and Phil's description of the 4♠ bid as 'can be anything' just isn't right - even strong clubbers are forced to pay attention to the vulnerability. Given that the 3 other players have all shown values there aren't enough HCP left for RHO to hold a strong balanced hand so they are basically marked with a big fit and a shapely hand. Once you've reached this conclusion, with no aces, an undisclosed 6 card suit and some great texture in hearts I think it's right to take insurance with 5D. Fairly often you'll be taking a phantom sacrifice, but if either 4S or 5D is making (which isn't at all unlikely) then bidding is likely to win big.

I absolutely hate opening this hand 1H in 3rd W/R - 3H is extremely low risk and puts a lot of pressure on the opponents.

My first advice regards the way you've formatted the problem. Especially on a subtle hand like this, it's much better to simply provide all the information rather than just the information you think is important. One of the missing spot cards might provide vital info. From your explanation (and given the missing clubs) I assume the first round of clubs went, ♣K, ♣9, ♣6 and you play high to encourage, and partner followed small to the first spade? In which case partner is pretty much marked with ♣QJ9 (or possibly ♣JT9). Given how much bidding there was (and how few HCP are outstanding) it also feels extremely likely that South has a 6c spade suit. Based on these assumptions, it's hard to come up with a layout where it is wrong to play a heart. If partner has a diamond trick it's unlikely to go away, and I will always be able to switch to a diamond to break up potential endplay when i'm in with the ♠A.

I agree with all of Mr Ace's anaysis. However one extra point, is what kind of hand (and how many hearts) does partner promises when they bid 2H? What would a double have meant instead? The answers to these questions also have a big effect on your decision!

There's been a bit of discussion on this topic recently, and you might be interested to check out Richard Pavlicek's analysis of this (and similar decisions) in high level play. Pavlicek Major Tournament Analysis Pavlicek 1S vs 4S Analysis My personal conclusion is to open 4S on more hands in the 10-12 HCP range if they fit all the other criteria. However your sample hand isn't a 4S opening for me because it has the wrong ratio of defence to offence. If we give partner scattered values and short spades, we'll go down in 4S, and the opponents probably weren't making their contract either. I'm confident enough in my methods that I can open this hand at the 1 level and stop in a part score most of the time that it is right.

A few people have suggested that playing kickback in 4 suits is more confusing than minorwood, but having played 4 suit kickback for a couple of years now I strongly disagree. Using clubs as an example: A 4C bid is NEVER keycard. It is always a forward going slam try leaves room for partner to bid 4D as keycard. A 4D bid that would be otherwise be a cuebid/splinter/slamtry in support of clubs is ALWAYS keycard. 4NT replaces the meaning of the 4D bid. Obviously in any case where the bid might be natural, (e.g. it is your first chance to support partner's diamonds) then that takes precedence. I've very rarely had ambiguous situations come up since i've started using this method.

In this kind of situation, it's not unreasonable to play that a change of suit (even to a lower suit) shows slight extras. However you certainly shouldn't ever bid 2D with a 4/4 because partner's double (almost) promises 3+H while they might occasionally have a doubleton diamond.

Without the ♠9 this would be a tough problem, but on this hand I think 1NT is clear. Much of the time it'll be a wash scoring up 90/120 vs 50/100 on a partscore deal but once in a while partner will have values for game and spade holdings that provide at least one stopper. Qx, Kx will often give you 1 stopper, JT (or better) will always work. Vul vs NV partner could also have a hand that with short spades, values and a long, weak suit that makes game cold in a different strain and they might be afraid to balance.

Playing 2/1, is it generally accepted that the auction: 1C (2D) 2S (P) is G/F? Not being able to bid 2S on a shapely 9-11 HCP hand feels like a lot to give up...