WesleyC

An extension of Burns law uses the opponents 5m opening as an ace ask for your side. Pass shows 0-1 Aces, Double shows 2+. Regarding this specific hand, I would like to continue playing against South (preferably for very high stakes)!

Even at MPs, I can't see any reason not to show a game-forcing hand with clubs.

I find this Suit Combination Calculator to be the most user friendly resource. In the missing cards box, you should input QTxxx (because the X's are equivalent) and click calculate. The apriori odds of Qxxx - T at 2.8% and xxx - QT at 3.4%. However, as Stephen points out this could easily change with additional information. If a side suit was known to break 3-6, you would adjust the vacant spaces in the top right to "10" , "7". In this new situation, Qxxx - T is 4.8% and xxx - QT is 4.1%.

On the second hand, ducking the ♦A seems careless. Then again playing for declarer to have made a careless mistake on a hand where your play is otherwise unlikely to matter, is quite reasonable. Also the hands you've constructed require partner to have played the 7 from AJ74 or AJ874, which seems impossible (at least in my opinion). PhantomSac: Are you suggesting that playing a second diamond is better than switching to a club?

Here's my version: Highlander Mage I'm 7 wins 5 losses so far at a low rank, but I've definitely lost a couple of games I could've won. It's also the most fun i've had playing HS in quite a while!

I'd draw trumps, try the ♥J and unless I got a sniff that the ♥K was onside, win the ♥A, ruff a heart and fall back on the club hook. Even a solid LHO might think they have a problem holding ♥KTx or similar. The faster you can do this the better! If you're playing a team match (rather than swiss pairs) another advantage of this line compared to ♣A and then heart finesse, is that you will go only 1 down and save 3 IMPs if both Kings are offside (in what looks like a relatively normal contract).

Obviously practical considerations often necessitate cutting a few corners, but using this as your default plan seems misguided. I've seen some bizarre bids allowed based on a unanimous polling of players at a different level to myself (in both directions).

I must be missing something because this hand looks trivial. Draw 1 round of trumps, ruff a diamond then play hearts discarding clubs. As long trumps are 3-1 (or better) and the second heart stands up, you'll only ever lose 1 heart and 2 trumps.

I think there's a difference between 'polling' and 'asking for a second opinion'. Seeking guidance from an experienced player/director about the strength of the player in question and if the situation warrants further investigation is OK. However, giving an experienced player the problem in isolation and then using that as as a 'vote' in your poll would not be fine.

No - fatigue happens on your turn so it won't trigger secrets. Whats your decklist?

"Another skewy contract, semisanely reached" Double ;)

On one hand, the fact that this hand passed in 1st seat rather than opening 2S, suggests passing out 1NT might be a logical alternative, at least for this player. As a counterpoint, after (1NT) P (P) the opponents have denied game values and it's easy to come up with hands where both 1NT and 2S are making. You could make a strong case that even if you passed originally, bidding now is more likely to gain and less likely to lose. Only way to come up with a fair judgement would be to poll several players of a similar skill level. FWIW I personally would never pass.

3NT. With only 3H and an ugly spade holding, i'm not excited about playing 4C/4H from partner's side. Opposite [xx xxx Kxxx Jxxx] or similar, 3NT will have a chance while the double will probably lead to 4C going down.

Pitch a club?

This is a valid point - if responder already had a chance to double 2H for penalties then there is a lot less value in reopening with a double on this hand. Personally, I use responder's double to show a maximum 1NT bid without clear direction.

West's choice to rebid only 2D (hoping to pattern out with 3C next) is certainly reasonable. Obviously you'd kill to have gazilli available on a hand like this. Apollo's plan to jump shift and then force to 5m is too rich for me on a deal where partner will usually hold 5+H and we might not even have a fit. I also agree with West's reopening double. This hand isn't too far from the 5143 shape that partner should expect. If partner chooses to convert with a singleton spade and a long weak heart stack you've got the perfect spade holding and plenty of side entries. On a different day, partner will be sitting on the KJ9xxx of hearts! However I don't agree with East's final pass. Past experience tells me it's too greedy to leave a 7c suit unbid because partner will often hold club values that aren't pulling weight on defense. Even a minimum reopening double with club values like [KQTxx x JTxx AKx] gives 5C some chance while 2H could easily scrape home. At the end of the day I'll stick to a fundamental bridge idea - making marginal penalty passes of 2M contracts isn't a winning strategy.

Not reopening with a double here is a crime!

Really complex hand - I've can come up with layouts where almost any continuations is correct! Partner's diamond pip is slightly ambiguous - it could be singleton, doubleton 74 or encouraging from a variety of holdings (with declarer concealing the 4). One thing you do know for sure is that declarer has at least 1 more small diamond. Another inference that partner is more likely to hold the ♦A is that a competent declarer with a fragile club holding and prospects in spades (e.g. [AT9x Kxx Axx Axx]) won't duck the lead. On the other hand, if declarer has a really rotten hand like [Axx Kxx AJ86 Axx] ducking the diamond is probably their only chance so playing another diamond isn't without risk. Is there any risk of the diamond going away if we switch a club? I think it's a long shot. Declarer needs to hold a hand like [xxx Kxx Jxx AKQx] or [xxx Kxxx xx AKQx] which don't look like 4H bids to me. Also on this layout, partner might work out to overtake and cash another diamond himself. There is also a small risk that a club switch picks up the suit if declarer holds AKxx or AQxx, where they might've otherwise tried to get fancy with an endplay line. So I think i'm switching to the ♣T, but without much conviction.

A common misconception is to automatically think of the aggressive action as gambling. In reality it is usually the other way around. Vulnerable at IMPs you only need 4S to make about 37% of the time for bidding game to be the correct action. Your chance on this hand is certainly better than that. --- To think about it another way: If 4S makes and you DON'T bid game, you will lose 10 IMPs. If 4S doesn't make and you DO bid game you will lose only 6 IMPs. So passing 2S is actually a much bigger gamble!

Over 1S, I'd upgrade this hand to an INV single suiter with clubs (whatever methods you use to show that). Although it's a stretch on values, with spade tolerance and an 8c suit at favourable vul it puts the opponents under the most pressure.

With 0 first round controls, 5S is enough for me too.

I'd bid 1NT with your partner's hand although 1H would also be fine. I wouldn't double. I swapped to playing t/o doubles at the 1 & 2 level in situations like this a couple of years ago, so double would be automatic here. If you don't have that available then I agree with kuhchung, bid the spades first (and maybe show diamonds later).

YETI POWER!

Playing the Qc off dummy definitely isn't a hopeless line - I'd guess it's about an 80% chance. It would be even better if the club suit was concealed, because the opponents would have a chance to misdefend. Is the line that I suggested better than 80% in reality? Against less than expert opponents that will often give away the ending, I think so.

As gnasher points out, double pretty much has to show any hand that has 'values but without primary support.' because it's the only sensible start to the auction on any strong balanced hand. Given opener has huge offense and no defence it looks clear to pull the double of 3H even if it is 'penalty oriented'. On a related note, I can strongly recommend the agreement that if responder passes over the cuebid and then doubles a suit on the next round it is strict penalties. This gives them an option on hands that really are stacked in the opponents suits and playing this double as t/o doesn't make a lot of sense.