Coelacanth

[hv=pc=n&s=sjhak42dqtcakj863&n=sa2hjtdak84cq9542]133|200[/hv] North deals at matchpoints. West overcalls in spades at his first turn. My partner and I do not play inverted minors. 1♣-(P)-3♣ would be forcing, although at the table North did not open 1♣. I guess I just find slam auctions in the minors problematic. Playing your favorite methods, how would you bid these hands?

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. On reflection, I think I did miss one potential point of interest. In focusing on the fact that NS's bad result was due to their failure to bid 5♣, I didn't consider other possible results. South was insistent that he would not have doubled 2♣ with the correct information. (I think this is because NS have an agreement over Michaels but not over top-and-bottom). If (in some alternate reality where South and East are screenmates, for example) South receives the correct information, fails to double, and West bids 3♥ (as she did on the actual auction), it's just possible that North would not double. (I say possible...she has a sharp 17 count with 3 hearts). So I should have considered a score for 3♥ by EW, likely down at least two. I think if NS had made this case to me at the table, I would have been sympathetic. As you can imagine, however, +50 and +100 would have been almost the same matchpoint score anyway.

[hv=d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1c2c(Alerted-ish%3B%20see%20below)d(See%20below)3hdpp4dppp]133|100[/hv] I was called to the table by North after West's 4♦ call. The following information about the early auction was presented: After East bid 2♣, West somewhat hesitantly alerted, and then withdrew the alert. Something along the lines of "um..Alert....no wait..I guess that's not an Alert." It was not clear to me whether South asked West at this point and was told "Michaels", or whether he just assumed it was Michaels. In any case, this is the ACBL and the only alertable meaning for 2♣ would be natural. Anyway, South's double of a Michaels 2♣ would promise at least 4 cards in at least one major. West's 3♥ call was based on her belief that 2♣ showed the majors. However, when this was doubled and passed back to her, she re-thought her agreements. The EW agreement, clearly marked on both of their convention cards, is that 2♣ is a top-and-bottom cuebid, showing, in this case, spades and diamonds. Sometime between the 3♥ call and the 4♦ call, West realized her mistake; there is no suggestion that East expressed any discomfort or transmitted UI to West in any other way. Indeed, he was prepared to take his lumps in 3♥ doubled holding a small doubleton heart. North was surprised by the 4♦ call opposite a partner who had nominally shown the majors, asked West to clarify the 2♣ call, and then summoned the TD. After sifting through the facts, I first determined that there was no UI issue. East had no UI, and West had not taken advantage of any UI (by running from 3♥X, for example) in the auction. In addressing the MI issue, it seemed clear that NS now had an accurate explanation of the EW agreements. However, South may have been told Michaels earlier in the auction. I therefore gave him the opportunity to change his last call (the pass just before the 4♦ bid) and he declined. Both North and South were very insistent, however, that given the correct information originally, South would not have doubled 2♣. At this point I saw no option but for them to play out the hand. I advised North to do so and to call me back if she felt she'd been damaged. She was very persistent: "I think we've been damaged RIGHT NOW." I explained that it was too late to go back and remove South's double, so that I could only assess damage in terms of the actual result. With some grumbling, the auction continued with 3 passes. 4♦ was defeated 1 trick, +50 to NS, but it turns out this was a poor matchpoint result as NS are cold for 5♣. North was very much of the mind that "our opponents did something fishy; we deserve an adjustment". I explained that she and her partner both had a correct explanation of the opponents' bidding after the 4♦ call, and that to avoid their poor result one of them needed to bid 5♣. Without putting words in their mouths, I gave them every opportunity to make a case that the MI in the early auction caused their poor result. When they failed to make such an argument, I allowed the result to stand, but NS seemed quite dissatisfied with this outcome. Did I handle this correctly? Is there anything else I should have done/said? I'm still quite new at this, so any feedback is most appreciated.

I've occasionally seen the converse of this: "Be sure to lead face down, partner; I have some questions." I think, and the tone of this thread seems to agree with me, that this is clearly inappropriate. The question is...what should be done about it? As declarer, would you call the TD if this happened, have a polite word with RHO after the hand, or what?

We have a winner. Suffice it to say that I did not find this line at the table. On reflection, there are a couple of things that I failed to consider at the table that I probably should have: 1) Upon seeing dummy, it seems likely that at the other table the contract will be 3NT by S. On a heart lead, this contract is doomed to fail, but on the more likely minor-suit lead it looks likely to make. (As it happens, this was the contract at the other table, and it made 4 on a club lead.) Thus, while my contract looks safe-ish, with only 3 sure losers (with the chance of pitching the heart on a club), I need to think long and hard about any adverse distributions that might set me. 2) In particular, I need to consider the trump suit. I want to play trumps before clubs; if I have 3 trump losers I need to finesse the club or hope for a discard on the 13th diamond. I'm not an expert on suit combinations, but leading low to the queen loses to stiff ace or king offside and low to the 10 loses to the stiff jack. However, I wasn't really thinking about 5-1 breaks; I was just trying for an extra trick if the jack happened to be onside. Perhaps if I had given this more thought I would have come up with the right answer. Full credit to my RHO for passing in tempo over 4♠ holding ♠AK8xx, and for playing low smoothly when I led the spade at trick 2. Unfortunately, apart from the spade break everything on the hand is friendly. The diamonds are 3-3, the club KJ are in front of the AQ, and the hand with ♠AKxxx has only one heart to play when she wins her spade tricks. So my counterpart at the other table had no trouble making 3NT while I went down in 4♠, which I think is cold double-dummy despite the 5-1 break. Live and learn.

Fair point. I posted it "upside down" because I was North on the actual hand, and was afraid I'd reverse East and West if I made South the declarer. So to avoid confusing myself, I confused everyone else. Sorry about that.

They only agreed AFTER the hand in question was over. I agree, that absent any discussion, natural would be the correct interpretation, and that this is a misbid and not MI. West, however, believed that they had discussed it and agreed minors; East did not recall having any such discussion.

This is the last board of a Swiss match; the preceding boards have seemed quite flat. [hv=pc=n&s=s7hk74dak84caq742&n=sqt9653ha83dq73c8&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=2sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] You may or may not approve of the bidding. South's leap to game is predicated on the fact that North (me) is known to be a fairly solid bidder. In first seat vul, South is entitled to expect a "real" hand; the actual hand is about the worst he could expect to catch. East leads the ♥Q. Plan the play. If you win in hand and finesse a club, If you win in dummy and lead a trump, Now what?

We had this "auction" yesterday in an ACBL sectional Swiss: [hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2s2n(Note%201)p3d(Note%202)p4cp4hp5cppp]133|100[/hv] You can probably predict where the issue arose. 1: 2NT was intended to show the minors but was explained by East (upon questioning from North at his turn) as natural 2: 3♦ was intended by East as a transfer (systems on after natural NT overcalls). 5♣ went quietly two off, +100 NS. MI issues: It turns out that East and West disagreed as to the correct meaning of 2NT. (In discussion after the hand, they agreed to play it as for the minors). So East's explanation to North (I was North) was MI. Had the call been explained as showing the minors, I would likely have bid 3♠, and it is by no means clear where the auction would have gone from there. UI issues: I thought at the time that West's failure to pass over partner's 3♦ was blatant use of UI. If you make a bid showing the minors, and partner prefers ♦, why would you ever bid on unless you had an enormous hand? (he did not have such a hand). However, 3♦ is a likely make, so NS were clearly not damaged. 3♠ for NS may or may not have been on, but 4♠ certainly would have failed. I think it's unlikely that West, with 0256 shape, would have sold out to 3♠ anyway. Considering the above, I just scored up +100 and went on to the next board. Should I have summoned the TD?

Thanks for all the replies. To be honest, balancing with a double didn't occur to me. In assessing the hand after trick one (I was declarer), I figured I had 3 top trump losers, a long diamond loser (not enough trumps in dummy to ruff them all) and a spade loser. I can discard one of those on the ♣A, but I have no entry to that card. I thus played a diamond at trick two, planning to eventually ruff a diamond as an entry to dummy for a discard. As it turns out, this contract has no legitimate play against best defense. The defense was closer to worst; opening leader held ♠Qxxx ♥KQ ♦J ♣Kxxxxx. A spade opening lead will set the hand immediately. When I continued a high diamond at trick two, west ruffed and played a spade. I won and played a third diamond, ruffed with the ♥K for another spade play. I won and played a fourth diamond, ruffed in dummy, and discarded my spade on the ♣A. I can now ruff a spade in hand and the last diamond in dummy.

[hv=pc=n&s=sak5hjt764dakt64c&n=s8643h83d82cajt53&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=ppp1h2cpp2dp2hpp3cpp3hppp]266|200[/hv] Comments on the auction are welcome. (Should S bid 3♥, 3♦, or pass at his final turn?) West leads the ♦J, a presumed singleton. Assuming you win the opening lead in hand, what do you play to trick 2? I can see a case for just about any card in your hand except the low spade. How do you like your chances of making this contract?

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2c(Precision-style%3B%20natural%20and%20limited)d(Takeout)r(See%20below)2sp]133|100[/hv] I was called to the table by South at his 2nd turn to call. East's 2♣ was natural and limited and was alerted as such. North bid 2♠ without enquiring about the redouble. South, at his turn, asked about the XX and received a response which began with something like "I think it means...". Not being satisfied with this answer, he called me to the table. The actual meaning of the redouble, as clearly indicated on EW's convention cards, is that it indicates a desire to play 2♣XX. This was established to South's satsifaction. South, however, was very insistent that pairs playing an unusual system (EW is the only pair in our club that plays any kind of big club) have an extra responsibility to be sure of all actions and explanations, particularly on the first round of a not-uncommon auction. I think his whole purpose in calling me to the table was to have me lecture EW on this point. He kept restating his position and I kept agreeing with him that yes, they should have firm agreements in place on this auction. I didn't feel like there was anything I could add at this point. South had received a correct explanation, so there was no MI. West had UI from the explanation and all the discussion, but he would have had UI anyway after a concise explanation. So I told them to carry on with the auction, but I wanted to throw the book at all four of them: South for his attempt to badger me into badgering EW about their agreements East for her momentary indecision in explaining what should have been a straightforward call North for bidding 2♠ on a fairly nondescript hand without making any attempt to find out what redouble was West for redoubling 2♣ "to play" holding ♣Kx and a balanced 5-count When I stopped by the table at the end of the hand to make sure there were no further issues, South reiterated his point about EW needing to have firm agreements because they were playing an unusual system. Any thoughts? Suggestions for dealing with similar Souths?

I suspect South reacted to the alert in some fashion, thus giving UI to North that the bid was intended as natural. In the putative behind-screens auction, S explains 3♦ to W as natural, N alerts it to E as showing the majors and bids 3♠. East doubles and I think South is now allowed to run to 4♦, doubled by W. E may pass this for 500. If for some reason S passes 3♠X, that's 1400.

One further thought about question #1... From partner's point of view, your 3♥ call without asking about the 2♣ bid means either: (a) you assumed 2♣ was Michaels (and are now bidding 3♥ as some sort of control bid showing a strong hand) OR (b) you knew 2♣ was natural (perhaps you saw your opponents' convention card, or have played against this pair before) and are now bidding 3♥ naturally, showing a strong hand with probably 6 clubs and 5 hearts (yes, a natural 2♣ overcall would be unlikely if you held that hand, but not impossible) Provided that you don't make any kind of startled reaction (which definitely WOULD be UI) when 2♣ is revealed to be natural, partner has no way of knowing how you interpreted the 2♣ bid, and is thus unconstrained by UI.

Just one club director's humble opinion... I don't know the answer to your question #1 either, but in #2 the fact that 2♣ is natural is definitely NOT UI. Partner's question at his second turn to call is entirely appropriate (NOT made solely for your benefit as per L20G1) and of course you are entitled to know your opponents' agreements in any case.

West was dummy on the hand, so there was no confusion about what his bid was intended to show. South led his singleton diamond. North failed to give South a ruff upon obtaining the lead. It simply didn't make sense to North that East could bid 3♣, ostensibly naturally, and have three diamonds in her hand. (In any interpretation of West's 2NT call, he has shown diamonds.) Of course, North should be able to work this out anyway. Unless South has psyched his 1♣ opener (almost impossible for this South), East can have no more than three clubs and can't have intended her bid as natural.

My partner and I got this situation wrong and I'm wondering what the "correct" answer is. I'm interested in responses both in terms of (a) "standard" leads and carding (in ACBL-land) absent in-depth discussion; and (b) your personally preferred methods. Holding ♣AKQx and a hand too big for a strong notrump, you open 1♣. You and your partner are then silent, and the opponents bid all three other suits, ostensibly naturally, and end up in 3NT on your right. You decide to lead a club; RHO has bid 3♣ as part of their probe for 3NT, but this bid did not promise any specific suit length or quality. (1) Which club do you lead? Move over to partner's seat. Partner leads the ♣K and you hold a complete yarborough. Dummy has some suits you'd like to lead up to, but you have absolutely no possible entry in any suit other than clubs. Your club holding is ♣1098x; dummy has two small clubs. (2) Which club do you play? Back to the opening leader's POV. Dummy has enough values to convince you that partner must be completely broke, or very nearly so. Between this and partner's card at trick one you decide to continue clubs. (3) Which club do you lead to trick 2? Back to third hand. Partner has continued with another high club. Dummy follows low. (4a) Which club do you play if partner has led the Ace? (4b) Which club do you play if partner has led the Queen? I forgot to mention that this is at IMPs, if that matters. Needless to say (or I wouldn't be posting this), we didn't find the sequence of leads and signals that resulted in cashing the first four club tricks. Please help us to not repeat this debacle.

Spots approximate [hv=pc=n&s=sat93haqt4d2ca985&w=s5h95dkq985ckqj63&n=sqj74hk63dt643c42&e=sk862hj872daj7ct7]399|300[/hv]

3♣ was intended as a cue-bid; vulnerable at IMPs she thought her hand was too good to simply sign off at 3♥. It may or may not be relevant that in response to the question "on the auction (1♣)-1NT showing redsuits-(P)-, what would 2♣ have shown?" West responded "natural".

ACBL IMPs EW vul The following auction ensued [hv=d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1c2n(Alerted%2C%20see%20below)p3cppp]133|100[/hv] 2NT was alerted by E. North enquired and was told ♥+♦ (ie two lower unbid). 3♣ was not alerted; when South asked the bid was described as natural. South made the opening lead. Dummy came down with ♠x ♥xx ♦KQ98x ♣KQJxx. EW's actual agreement regarding 2NT is that it shows the minors. (1NT is also unusual, showing 2 lower unbid). This is clearly a mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid. The correct agreement did not come to light until after the lead was faced and the dummy was tabled. Due to some MI influenced misdefense, 3♣ was made (it should be set one trick). NS may or may not be on for 3♠. East's hand is ♠Kxxx ♥Jxxx ♦AJx ♣xx. Thoughts?

She didn't make this argument, but I think this is a good summary of her thought process when 5♣ came back to her. Surely, her partner has shown a non-minimum hand by bidding beyond 4♠.

Well this gets back to my original question. Yes I did ask, and she didn't know what 5C meant. I'm fairly confident that they don't play Exclusion on this auction. I probably gave the UI question insufficient thought at the table. NS were only interested in protection from MI; the fact that West may have used UI did not occur to them. Or to West herself, for that matter. I think (and those of you who are better bidders than me can refute this) that if West thinks she has made a control bid in clubs, then 5♣ (to this West) would be second-round club control and, by implication, first-round control of both red suits. This is not far from East's actual hand (there's no reason he couldn't have the ♦A instead of the king) but it doesn't make sense in the context of North doubling 4♣ for the lead. It's clear to me that pass is not an LA for West over 5♣. She has a known spade fit and, in this partnership, is not going to play in any strain other than spades. Is 6♠ demonstrably suggested over 5♠? I don't know. If we impose 5♠ on West, will East now bid 6♠? My initial thought was that he probably has more than a minimum for his 3♠ call. He also knows he's probably getting a club lead into his void. In the ACBL you could probably make a case that West passing 5♠ was "at all probable" but not "likely" and award NS -1430 (the table result) and EW +680.

This is true, albeit somewhat ironic in that this particular East was easily the most experienced/competent player in this game. The hand was (spots approximate) [hv=pc=n&s=s8hq985dqj752cj75&w=sajhkj62d64caqt82&n=s932ht3da83ck9643&e=skqt7654ha74dkt9c]399|300[/hv] South led the ♣J, covered by the Q and King and ruffed by East. Declarer played a trump to the dummy and ruffed the ♣2, North following with the 4. Another trump to dummy was followed by the ♣A, on which North played the ♣9 as declarer discarded a diamond. East can now make all 13 tricks by discarding his remaining diamonds on the ♣10-8 and taking a (now risk-free) heart finesse. I think North was concealing his lowest club spot in the hope that declarer would play South for that card and suffer an overruff. Obviously, on the actual lie of the cards that makes no sense.

These pretty much echo my own thoughts. North held Axx of diamonds and K9xxx of clubs, which is not a lead-directing double (of clubs) in my book no matter what 4♣ showed. When he called the director at the end of the auction, he was basically saying "now that I've heard EW explain what their bids were really intended to mean, I don't want a club lead any more". In fact, if South had now led a non-club when a club was a LA (and this had damaged EW), there might have been a UI adjustment.

Forgot to respond to this part. North's defense was not impacted by the MI. However, if North had received a correct explanation of 4♣ ("no agreement"), he would not have doubled and South would have led a diamond. Are you saying that North's defense after the club lead must be caused by MI to be considered SEWOG?