WesleyC

IMPs [hv=pc=n&n=sjhaj6dakjt94ckq8&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d3hdp]133|200[/hv] What do you bid?

I don't really understand whats going on in your auction, but I would already have bid slam over 4H.

I'm not a fan of South's 4C bid - surely it's more useful as natural (and hence the redouble is just confirming a fit). How else do plan to find a club fit when responder has a hand like:[Kxxxx AJ A KQJxx]? On the auction as given, I think north was pretty soft not bidding slam with the undisclosed Axxx of trumps.

My gripe is with North's 2H bid. Much better to jump raise 3H (showing a shapely hand with 5+C and 4+H). Now South will know to bid rather than defend. With all HCP based invites I'd start with 2S.

On the actual real-life auction I think 2NT is shapely minor takeout, probably without heart tolerance but likely with longer clubs.

FWIW my 'prejudice' was based on manual analysis of something like 100 deals where a DD simulation had a passive lead significantly ahead of an active lead on pretty random hand after the opps bid 1NT - 3NT. Maybe if R. Herrmann has a couple of hours free sometime he could do the same and report findings? WesC

A couple of years ago I did a bunch of DD lead simulations. Many of my simulations showed a strong bias towards passive leads (especially at NT), however I'm very skeptical that they work as well in real life. Although it's hard to quantify this phenomenon some strong logical justifications are: 1) Single dummy: A passive lead can solve a suit for declarer that would otherwise be a guess. Double dummy: Declarer was never going to get the guess wrong. 2) Single dummy: Breaking a suit unfavourably can lead to a situation where declarer still needs a correct guess to gain a trick. Double dummy: Declarer will always punish an unfavourable lead as much as possible. 3) Single dummy: Passive leads are sometimes difficult for partner to read and leave more room for defensive errors later in the hand. This is especially true in auctions where declarer's shape is mostly unknown. When it's close, leading your longest, strongest suit is a powerful signal. Double dummy: Partner will always defend accurately, so no need to signal. So although I have no mathematical justification, I'm pretty sure at the table a diamond lead would be a clear winner. WesC

Even if you generally play Snapdragon doubles I don't think it make sense for them to apply in this auction. Better to simply bid 1S with 5+S, and save double for hands with 4S and some values.

When I'm considering a pass vs preempt decision, I always choose the action I would least like my opponents to choose against me. On this hand that makes 2D clear for me.

♥J but don't have a strong opinion.

♦A. Would never consider passing over 1C...

Double would be takeout. It would be my choice on 4333 with the same points but I lean towards pass on this hand (trusting partner to act on hands with very short hearts). I prefer to balance very aggressively in this kind of situation so I won't force to slam, but 5C into 5H should show something like this hand and rates to be safe.

I've tried a bunch of variations and settled on short club with 1M rebid on all balanced(ish) hands 11-13(14) HCP and shapely hands with 3c support (less than GF). This works best in the context of short club. Leaving the 1NT rebid to show (17)18-19 balanced is a huge boon, both because you get a whole extra level on slam/game exploration auctions and also because you can safely respond to 1C on any hand without fear of ending up in 2NT. The other personal change I've made to traditional walsh is using 1C - 1S as a multi, either 6-10 No Major, G/F 5+ Clubs or Balanced G/F that doesn't want to declare 3NT. Showing clubs rather than diamonds in this way is better in terms of economy and leaves responder room to pattern out their full shape below 3NT if required. INV+ Diamond hands are handled via 1C - 2C which still leaves room for opener to start with 2D on all minimums without a great fit.

Certainly you can't send more than one signal at a time, but top partnerships seem to do well at recognizing exceptional situations so they can cater for them. Under the assumption that East has at least one ace then suit preference should always solve the problem. If the lead was from [xxx Qxx KJ9xx xx] or similar then it might be the only way to win. The only hand that turn out to be a disaster is [Axx Axxx QTx Axx] where declarer has both the Qd and the Td and is about to run 9 tricks. Anyways it's just an idea - count would certainly be the default signal.

I think mikeh has hit on a key point - East's play of the ♦A at trick one should certainly deny the ♦Q. At trick 2, cashing the ♥A might be okay (or at least helpful to partner) but there are quite a few layouts where it sets up declarer's 9th trick, or knocks out your entry before you've had a chance to play a second diamond through. Assuming that East returns a diamond and West is on lead, they might be able to afford to cash another high diamond (for a suit preference signal), but even that isn't always safe (or possible at all if declarer has ♦QJx(xx) ). This left me with the idea that maybe East's first diamond return should be suit preference rather than count. (With an exception of the T being for unblock on a holding like AT9x).

Comfortably ahead in an IMP knock-out match, your opponents are swinging and reach this very dubious 3NT contract. [hv=pc=n&s=saj9hq82dqt94ca73&w=st432hk93dkj762c5&n=sq7h7654dckqt8642&e=sk865hajtda853cj9&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1n(11-14)p3c(INV)p3nppp]399|300[/hv] Playing UDCA signals and Attitude leads, West leads the ♦2. How should the rest of the hand be defended?

My solution essentially looked at all the possible layouts before any cards have been played at all and then worked out on how many of those layouts each strategy was going to succeed. This is usually called the 'a priori' chance. In this example Stiff King onside is included as a win for both strategies and Kxx offside is included as a loss. You could calculate the chance of success at a different point (e.g. after LHO has followed low to the first diamond or after you dropped the Stiff King dropped offside). At this point some possibilities have been eliminated and the chance of success might be different, but when comparing a simple strategy like drop vs finesse that can't be varied, you won't get a more meaningful answer.

The finesse is the better option 50% vs 45%. The win chance playing for drop is given by: 26% (chance of singleton king) and 52% (chance of Kx in either hand) * 36%* (chance of 3/3 hearts). You might also get a slight extra chance if trumps are 3-0 and they don't cash the As ----- If you also had the J♥ then your chance of playing for the singleton would also pickup 4/2 5/1 6/0 hearts with 2/1 trumps. This swings the odd significantly 26% + 52% * 63.5% (chance of 3+ hearts with the long diamonds) = 59%

Signoff in 4h seems very obvious.

I'm hesitant to dig up this topic again, but I do want to address a point made by gszes, ggwhiz and Vampyr who suggest that the final double in this auction is a 'flexible' action. My opinion (in the context of Matchpoints) is that the final double here isn't optional, its penalties. I would almost never expect partner to remove it. Although not relevant to the ethical dilemma, the final scoring of the board strongly supports double over pass in this particular part-score battle. For our side: -730 - 0% -140 - 24% +100 - 42% +110 - 51% (par score in spades with accurate defense) +140 - 70% +200 - 95% So in this case double only risked 24% and had the potential to gain 53%.

Thanks to everyone who took the the time to respond. Special thanks to Trinidad for several well written responses (which happen to align with my personal opinion :P). At the table Partner held: [Kx xxx Kxxx T9xx] - which looks like the world's most obvious 2S bid to me! He was worried about the opponents' 9 card heart fit and was considering an ambiguous 2NT bid to put more pressure on South to compete in hearts directly (rather than comfortably balancing 3H in the pass-out seat). On the other side of the table, I concluded that my choice of action wasn't limited by the hesitation. A combination of Matchpoint Madness, over-aggressive opponents and table feel (South's 3H bid was also made after a significant hesitation) led me to a speculative double on [AQxxxx Qx Axx Kx]. Declarer failed to find the Qh so we picked up +200 and 97%. There was no director call, but the hand was brought up at pub that night, so I needed to clear my name!

FWIW you're 99% sure partner knows its a T/O double.

My thoughts are: - Very weak with a heart void should usually pass but it's important to be able to bid 1S on weak shapely hands like [KJTxx xx JTxxx x]. After (1C) 1H (P) 1S (P) I would use. 2C would be artificial, extras. Something like 13+ with a fit or 16+ without. 2D natural, non forcing. 1NT doesn't show extras (or promise a stopper). 2NT would be natural 15-17ish and promising a stopper. Probably a hand unsuitable for 1NT due to short spades. --- However because I like to overcall and advance aggressively, my strong preference is to make 1 & 2 level advances not strictly forcing. Although the overcaller will stretch to keep the auction alive, they are allowed to pass with weak hands that don't have a convenient rebid. Having overcalled 1H, i'd be glad to pass 1S on hands like [xxx KQJxx xx Qxx] or [QT KQTxx xxx xxx] where the 1H bid was destructive and game for our side is unlikely. The key to making this structure work is putting the very strong advances through the 2C cuebid (along with the raises). This doesn't really require much discussion because strong single suiters are extremely rare and when they do come up, over-caller inevitably has a minimum.

I really like north's choice to open 1D! I decline to comment on the rest of your auction. ;) 1D (2C) 2H (5C) 5D (6C) 7D Looks very reasonable to me.

First, I hope I'm not breaking any rules by posting in this forum rather than in a director's forum but this situation feels more a case of judgement than purely rules. This hand occurred in the qualification phase of a matchpoint pairs event. The overall field is weak but this round you are playing with an expert (in a new partnership) against a strong pair. You play 2/1 with a semi-forcing 1NT (opener will only pass with 11-13 balanced). You are East and the auction proceeds as follows: [hv=d=n&v=b&b=13&a=p1sp1n2hdp2spp3hpp]133|100|[/hv] There was a long hesitation before West (partner) bid 2S. His other calls (1NT and the final Pass) were made in normal tempo. When South's 3H bid is passed back to you, pass and double are the logical alternatives. Does partner's second round hesitation suggest one of these alternatives ahead of the other?