BillPatch

The normal minimum length for partner's bid is 6 cards. With 100 honors or a side 5 card suit to move to if doubled one might consider bidding a 5 card suit. Overcaller does not intend to be rescued.

The Bird-Anthias lead is a low club. The primary reason for this choice is that it is a passive lead in a relatively short suit. The third and fourth advantages for this lead are that the opponents did not cue bid a potential A in tne suit and that partner could double the final contract for the lead of a ♠ the suit cue bid by dummy. Also, the K tends to be the 2nd worst honor to underlead(A worst).

Partner has not shown long ♦ only support. I pass to suggest I have one trick against slam, giving captaincy to partner.

I recommend an unusual 4NT. Not Ace asking -- absence of agreed fit. Not Natural -- would have made stronger opening bid. Correct Clubs to Diamonds at any level.

I am convinced that Bird/Anthias would chose the low diamond here. While a lead from KT with length is normally worse than a lead from K with spot length, they are roughly comparable in aggressive danger. Therefore, we consider the next tiebreaker, leading the shorter of comparable side suits. From the chapter on leading against small slams where a potentially useful side suit has been shown in dummy, and it is assumed the opponents bid well enough to avoid a cashing AK.

Bird/Anthias would recommend a passive lead from an unbid suit here, assuming that the opponents are skilled enough to avoid bidding the slam off a cashing AK. This advice is given in their chapter on what to lead against small slams when responder has shown a useful side suit. Incidentally, if the two side suits have comparable top cards, the shorter is preferable. They would lead a spade here. Right again!

Bird/Anthias compared leads from kt fifth, kt fourth, and ktx against the auctions 1 major-simple raise-game in suit and 1 suit-limit raise-game in suit and their stats showed that on these auctions, the longer the suit the better. I am sure that they did not suggest that in non-similar auctions like this problem, the same results would apply.

A spade lead is less likely to blow up partner's holding there than a trump declarer's play in that suit. It also may work by leading through strength, or finding partner's strength, not possible on a lead into declarer's long suit.

I did. I was all alone in the poll. Not even Phil would join me until the hand was posted.

Taking the club finesse first is the better move. Most of the time opening leader with the A of ♣ against a no trump slam should cash it, according to Bird-Anthias. So East probably has the A, and if he doesn't there is always the chance that East holds the Q, so West in the present case may miss guess clubs after winning the A.

A real advertisement for cue bidding against a good field when possibly missing a cashing AK combination in a possible suit slam auction. With only the A in opening leader's hand 85% of those polled found the winning lead. 100% would find the lead if they had AK. With the AK in hearts in third hand it is mandatory to double 5♥ for the lead. If the A is in 3rd hand in a minor the absence of the heart double it is at least a 50% chance for a set(50% lead from cashing K + 50% leads from singleton. Only in the odd case where the missing A is in ♥ third hand and W does not double the heart reply to KKB will we miss cashing the first two tricks when we have cashing AK. Altogether it is less than a 40% slam missing a cashing AK combination. It should be noted that the OP responder's bid took up all space below game for cue bidding, so there is no room for below game slam tries, and so all cue bidding must be above game, so there was possible ambiguity in finding the missing AK combination. P.S. On this side of the pond the word is spelled "advertisement." Use an American spell checker. In Arizona, like Ohio, English is not spoken, only understood.

Shouldn't partner reevaluate PhilKing's minimums opposite the diamond limit raise? The first two have 2 1/2 QT and a side singleton control. The last has only 2 QT, but extra length in each minor and both the side singleton and an extra doubleton.

I think I would bid 2♣ rather than pass vulnerable, but the bonus at IMPs for the non-vulnerable game is not enough to sway me from the ultra-safe 1 NT, which I hope to score an IMP or 2 because it will be a high-scoring partial. I disagree that partner should have bid 2 NT on his flat 10 hcp. With most 15 hcp hands I would be balanced or semi-balanced enough to open 1NT, so to continually risk playing in 2NT opposite borderline openers for the chance I might hold such a strong hand is anti-percentage.

By the way, if you reopen in fourth seat, you are in front of preemptor's hand.

I notice that you did not specify seating position. I open 3♠ in 1st and 3rd position and pass in 2nd and 4th.

An argument against doubling is that if partner's red suits were switched, they would want the A♦ lead. And, of course, north must pass in tempo, or there will be unauthorized info.

I disagree with most of the above quote. A 2 level bid is not forcing and non-constructive. Its main purpose is to suggest a final contract. AQxxx and out is probably too good for other contracts, but might be acceptable as a tactical bid for its lead direction.

I don't understand your dialect here. In British English had no bid means he had a pass. In American English it would mean he had a dilemma. Here in Ohio we speak American, but English is usually understood.

I agree with Nige1's rankings. However, I disagree with his attitude on handling a possible 4♦ advance. Make the decision of what to do at the time of the double. Then you can avoid the deer struck by headlights look when partner chooses the one response that you fear. Incidentally, both pass and 5♣ seem bad over 4 ♦, but I see no other alternatives at that point.

I choose the 2♠NF rebid because if partner has a club invite, I do not see enough transferable values for game on a misfit. Also, the stronger bid would encourage partner more toward slam, and I don't want to do that. I would expect a slightly stronger hand to bid game on the second round. A 4♠ opening is too soft, a 4♠ rebid is too hard: the 2♠ rebid is the Goldilocks bid.

I agree with the opening 1♠ and the NF 2♠ rebid made at the table. Assuming that the 4♠ bid was weaker(fast arrival) I agree with that, and my standard partnership default agreement is 1430 last suit so I also agree with that. Since West implied a minimum opener with every rebid, I think East should be assessed blame for keycarding to the bad slam even though West was able to salvage the contract. Why not open 4♠? I think that there are too many possible hands for partner where we belong in a part score, or where he will have the right hand for a good slam.

I will cue bid 4H. Perhaps I have been listening too much to Kokish about how strong a simple overcall could be.

1 NT may show this E hand in kitchen table bridge, but most authorities prefer that in this auction it show a balanced hand. 100% blame for E for not accepting the game try on the second round.

Everyone polled on this forum disagrees with the original bidder's upgrade to a 15-17 NT. What we are evaluating now is differences in hand evaluation methods, possibly to determine if this is worth a 14-16 point NT. (I don't think so.) or to accept a raise after a NT rebid. (I accept.)