WesleyC

The fundamental principle of preempting is "always bid the limit of your hand on the first round!" For me this hand is a comfortable 3♠. I might occasionally gamble 4♠ against some opponents or if I wanted to create a swing. I wouldn't ever bid 2♠ because it understates the hands offensive potential and doesn't put any pressure on the opponents. However, once you've chosen to bid 2♠ even considering a 4♠ sacrifice is terrible bridge.

I think it's a clear pass because the opponents control the spade suit and will usually be able to win the auction. One popular idea for evaluating a 4th seat opening bid is "Pearson Points". You add your HCP to your spade length and open with 15+. While following this rule blindly is obviously a mistake, with a weak heart suit, and only 12 PP I would pass this hand against all but the weakest/tightest opponents.

The most valuable use of this double is to show both minors. Using double to show minors is also consistent with all the other similar auctions. Given that you already have a multitude of different spade raises (3H, 3S, 4S plus an array of Splinters/FSJ depending on methods) but NO other way to show a shapely hand with both minors makes this a WTP for me.

I think North should bid 3S(Asking for a stopper) over 3H and then pass 3NT.

On the actual auction West must get a majority of the blame for jumping to grand-slam in a situation where the partnership could easily be missing the ♥A. At least some blame goes to the method - the partnership reaching 4D so quickly took away a lot of West's good options. I'm assuming a simple 1D was unavailable over 1C? A slightly more economical auction after a 1C - 1S - 2C start might be: 1C - 1S 2C - 2D* (semi-art g/f) 3D - 3H* (Asking for a heart stopper or advance cuebid) 3NT - 4D (confirming advanced cuebid) 5S(*exclusion kc) - 6C* (0 Keycards) 6D

I would have doubled 1H. Given I didn't, I would rather make an unambiguous slam try with 4H.

Big D.

If you choose to start your post with maths, why make your conclusion without any mathematical justification?

In terms of adding points for honor balance and long suits you're definitely on the right track. If you want a more accurate HCP evaluation consider using: Aces = 4.3, Kings = 3.0, Queens = 1.8, Jacks = 0.8, Tens = 0.1 Then add about 0.5 for a 5c suit and upgrading/downgrading liberally based on overall texture. Keep in mind that opening strength is primarily a style thing and there aren't black and white rules. Feel free to experiment until you find a style that you like!

An expert would never claim here without drawing at least 1 round of trumps. If declarer had played 1 round of trumps and then claimed (without stating a line) then the claim should obviously be allowed. But to claim at trick 2 without stating a line or acknowledging the risk of 5-0 trumps, is -1 IMO.

At MPs you're definitely better to play on clubs, at IMPs it's pretty close between the 2 lines. The error in your maths logic is that playing diamonds for 2 losers doesn't automatically lead to 10 tricks. If hearts break 4/3 (and the 4th heart is either with the ♥A or with the 2nd diamond winner) then you will only win 9 tricks. If hearts break 5/2, then you might win 10 tricks, or maybe 8 (if the 2nd diamond winner is with the long hearts). Although your analysis of playing on clubs is correct, it ignores the 14.8% chance that you find out clubs aren't working after 2 rounds and get to choose a different plan. If clubs do turn out to be 5-1 (which is a majority of these 'replan' cases) you might be able to scramble home in diamonds with the defence unable to cash our their tricks.

I would pick between 2NT, 3C, 3H or 3S based on the nature of the hand. Jxx, T9x or similar in hearts would make me lean towards 2NT. HH and some Hx in spade you can make a simple raise to 3S. Chunky holdings in both minors might try 3C. And with a maximum I might stretch with 3H (although this depends a bit on partnership agreements).

Absolutely automatic 4S, especially at MPs.

Nice solution to a cute problem. I think your line is definitely best. The only thing I have to add is that (based on my experience) this hand belongs in (at least) the Intermediate/Advanced forums!

I've experimented with a bunch of different methods over strong 2C and always end up coming back to 2D waiting (followed by Kokish relay). After a strong 2C, the two most important considerations are: 1. Giving opener enough room to describe their hand. 2. Right-siding the final contract. 2D waiting achieves both of these objectives a lot better than any other method.

On the actual hand, North made life tough for south by not starting with a redouble. If you swap South's clubs and spades, there's a decent chance that N/S will be able to make 12 tricks in every strain! I don't think i've ever scored +2000 before...

Diamonds support and slam interest.

Using redouble as specifically a good hand and a misfit isn't unreasonable. With this agreement it feels obvious to redouble on ALL the good hands with 3145 (or similar) shape to suggest defending. However, gearing your system to penalize the opponents in this sequence just doesn't feel right to me. In an auction that is about to become competitive, your heart length is the most critical information that partner needs to know. Conveying that with a support redouble (or a pass) is a huge benefit.

Both players pushed a little too hard on this deal and got to a marginal slam - I wouldn't call it a disaster. If declarer guessed a little better they might even have made it! As no-one else has raised it I wanted to add that in sequences like this where one player is able to describe their hand very precisely, it is far more valuable to use 4H as a generic 'last train' slam try rather than specifically as a heart cue.

It's not unreasonable to play that opener's new suit over 3NT shows serious slam interest and a shortage. This makes sense given that if opener is exploring for slam, they will usually have a shapely hand with long clubs and responder will always have at least club tolerance. On the actual hand, responder has a minimum but a dubious spade stopper so they might try 5C. Opener should then assume responder holds at least 10 HCPs outside of spades and raise to 6. Holding reversed majors, responder would signoff in 4NT and play there.

I recently heard of a related method that sounds like it might have some merit. After a 2D/2H transfer response to a strong 1NT, bidding a new suit isn't a super-accept but instead shows a maximum 1NT with a good 6 card side suit with a misfit for partner's major.

Fair point. Except that in that sequence I think playing double as 3-card support is absolutely clear... :(

Given your methods I think the 2D bid should still notionally promises reversing values and that redouble should specifically suggest a misfit. With a partial fit, bid 1NT/2H/2NT* etc. Regarding what I think is best, transfer responses to 1C show a huge profit in this sequence. The extra step gives you enough room for a strong misfit redouble and a 3-card support 1H bid.

One issue with this idea is that most top pairs want to open light, even with balanced hands. Once you start including all 11 HCP hands, even a 4 point range for a minimum balanced 1C opening usually considered too wide. As a result, the most 'technically sound' non strong club systems either use 1C as 11-13 HCP or 17-19 HCP (with x-fer responses) and 1NT as 14-16, or call it 15*-17 and simply include all the good 14 counts. Another (artificial) option is to split the balanced ranges up between both minors. These methods ARE vulnerable to preemption but in an uncontested auction, being about to describe 17-19 balanced at the 1 level is very powerful.

I've had similar issues with the webclient that resulted from having my browser zoomed to more than 100%. Try checking that you have you browser set to 100% in the options menu.