BillPatch

Sorry, failed to see that "c" was an abbreviation for cards. Normally it stands for clubs, though I could see that was wrong here.

But the club raise increases the chance of an even split in clubs, so it might make it slightly more likely.

While I agree that pass is normally the correct action at IMPs there is something to be said for the redouble. 1NT doubled is not game, and even if we know they will not sit the double of the runout might average +300for 2 down. And perhaps they are clueless enough to sit. Only normally at IMPs, State of the match may influence this decision both at IMP pairs and IMP teams.

So 3♠ and 4♠ both show the same hand???

So with the 3NT bid, "Suicide is Painless," as the theme song from Mash goes.

On the given hand, the major A leads are the winners. I am certain that the ♥A is not the long run winner, and I doubt that the A♠ is superior to the ♠J/10. Simulation time? I should note in advance of seeing any simulation results that on some sims that the DD results may overstate the A lead single dummy results since after cashing an A it is often too early in the play to find the DD defense. Not that I suspect the A of ♠ to lead the DD results.

Yes, but was the slam try the best way to coax the double in game.

While I have a lot of pretty cards, starting a cue-bidding sequence on a possible 5-3 fit scares me. And partner's anticipated diamond cue in this auction reveals duplicated values.

Reversing the minors in the responder's hand. would create a more interesting problem. Then the acol auction might go: 1♠(2♥dble p 3♦p 3NT Opener can have either the strong balanced hand without a full heart stopper or the weak unbalanced hand with long spades and biddable diamonds. Responder must not risk the 4-2 spade suit, but if opener also has the strong hand, and also an opposing half stopper, 3 NT may have a play. If they double responder will run to 4♣.

While I suppose that partner may have only three spade support, my LTC of 6 indicates we have a probable game in that case, so game would be probably be percentage. And partners have been known to raise on four! So I raise to 4♠.

Most people round the 67.83% up to 68% rather than truncate down to 67%. It is scientifically sound and eve the accountants do it.

With our 3 quick tricks and a potential ruffing trick we have defender's book in our hand, and if partner has a trick it will set the contract. So, passing is likely to lead to our surest plus, usually defending, but if partner can act, game is likely our way. If partner does not have a trick, it would have been a good idea to have stayed out of the auction.

A double by partner in rebalancing position would be for penalty, as it is of a natural NT bid and not an exceptional auction. It would show length and strength in dummy's suit and relative shortness in the no trump bidder's suit. It would suggest a lead in dummy's suit, which with the current hand I would do.

A club lead may give up a tempo if it is one of opponents suits, but it is fairly safe, and even in that case it sets up a defensive trick. Partner, almost as likely has a fourth club, and, either we can force a length trick, or have another stopper or a running suit and can prevent the four two split from taking their length trick. Even when the club lead gives up a tempo, in the race to amass seven tricks first often two of the other suits will fare worst, and until we can see dummy, some signals from partner, and some play from declarer, we will not have a good idea which other suit would have been better, and then we might be able to develop it. Unless you have a long, unbid suit in your hand, leading against one no trump contracts is a time foe caution, and so QJT from an unbid suit lead is marked.

Another great book on matchpoints with a good section on choice of games is David Bird. Winning Duplicate Tactics. Toronto: Master Point Press, 2014. It is also oriented, like the Woolsey work cited above, to intermediates and advanced players. Although the editorial material in Amazon and at other booksellers indicate this is an introductory work for bright beginners, nothing could be further from the truth. It is for those developing the skills to be one of the top dogs at a good bridge club, where many have substantial tournament experience, or to improve their tournament MP odds of winning. I would recommend this Bird book to most intermediate+ players, especially to those who already have a copy of the older edition of Woolsey's work.

If opener had passed according to the rule of a queen popularized by Root and Pavlichek. Modern Bridge Conventions. advancer's jump would 12 to 14 declarer's points. I thought this was fairly standard. Except with a 12, even a terrible 5 card suit would rate to have been an overcall, so I expect a four card spade suit in partner's hand. I see no reason to adjust my expected strength down due to the fact he made a free bid.

Perhaps we can improve our odds slightly of avoiding a losing 7NT with the 20 HCP hand with Gerber to check whether they have an A.

Agreed!

While the overcaller must be aware that the 2♣ bid will frequently have a good diamond raise, this particular 2♣ bidder has alternative contracts in mind if overcaller were to show extras, in spades when that happens to be overcaller's 2nd suit, or in NT.

If a player at this level does not appreciate the wisdom in wank's post, may I suggest a study of Kit Woolsey. Matchpoints. If you have the first edition, the 2015 edition does not contain much new material, so it might be superfluous.

Jinksey reported that you made this mistake repetitively. Look at LHO in 3)

According to the Bridge World polls, globally a majority play 1♠ over an overcall as non-forcing, so you would be unsure of a next round.

2NT throws a monkey wrench in the works. It does not accept the game try and shows a minimum opening. So a slam try by responder over 2NT is ludicrous. Surely a 3NT rebid is appropriate, after which responder should find the 4NT quantitative and a good slam should be found.

Silly me. Did not consider finding the par score before assigning blame. Since 4♥ is cold for an overtrick EW have blundered. My analysis would have been relevant if somehow responder had found the penalty double for a matchpoint top.

East-West explanation for responder's bid say one thing, responder's hand shows another. Did the opponents receive the discordant. The explanation would make the 4♦ to make that bid. If the explanation is the error a correction is required on the board for "Misinformation". If responder wittingly or un-wittingly deviated from the partnership agreements in making the board should be scored as played. I do not understand scoring by "swiss mp". Does this imply we are playing a team game. If an adjustment were required it would be different in a team or a non-team game.