[apollo1201]

A few deals later, another competitve action with same player holding ♣

---

5♠ was our limit, as ♦AQ are with E, but you need to finesse W's ♠K to make it.

This implies that against 6♣, 2 rounds of ♥ cash, however, the S♠ lead is ruffed in dummy, and the ♦ suit is established for +1...

Lots of things can be said for this auction:
- open the South hand (except regretting you don't play major weak 2-suiter openings)?
- 1♠ vs. X on North?
- 4♣ cue w/ S instead of 4♠ to suggest ♥ contracts could also be in the target?
- no X on South (is it really a lightner "don't lead ♠)? or a brave 6♥ bid for the lead against 7♣?
- final pass with N? and what do you lead?

Any comment will be appreciated. Or is it just bad luck at the end?

[DavidKok]

Interesting hands and a very exciting auction, let's take it step by step:

• I would not open the south hand, at any vulnerability. The spade suit is too weak, and the king of clubs is not worth the paper it is printed on. Even a weak two bid showing both majors is not appealing (if you have this available to you), although at favourable vulnerability I might be tempted. I probably still wouldn't - it is too likely opponents bid to 3NT, and partner plays me for values in spades on the defence.
  
• The north hand is too strong for a 1♠ bid in my opinion, so I fully support the X. Plus, this has the added flexibility of offering partner to play in either of the red suits.
  
• I don't like the 4♠ bid. I think in general jump bids like this should be reserved for shapely hands with a single suit, not just to help partner with the possible subsequent decisions but also because the X could be based on points or an own strong suit, and eating all this bidding space makes it impossible to untangle what overcaller has. Furthermore the lonely king of clubs should be a wake-up call - if partner doesn't have the clubs, and you don't have them, where are they? It is more than likely that opponents will continue bidding over your 4♠, in which case you have failed to show your strong suit (hearts)! Although perhaps slightly unusual, I would consider 2♣ or 3♣, suggesting both majors (or perhaps 2NT - what would this promise in your system?). You can jump on the next round of the bidding with no harm done.
  
• Continuing with the bidding in the original post, North is in a tough spot after 5♣. I would assume that this jump to 4♠ solidly confirms what suit will be trump, so why not try out 5♥ over 5♣? The risk is that south might interpret this as "long hearts, too strong to overcall 1♥", but as I said I think the jump to 4♠ forbids overcaller to bid with that hand (or he has to content himself with going to 6). I admit that 5♥ instead of 5♦ is mostly a guess (in fact, on the current auction 5♦ might make more sense, as partner probably doesn't have the hearts for his jump bid). After a bid like this south is allowed to consider bidding on over 6♣.
  
• The final double by south redeems some of the mistakes so far. North should pause and consider why south is doubling - it is clearly not based on a solid spade holding! The most likely explanations are a void in either red suit or values in hearts, and after this auction I would slam down the ♥A to see what's what. The spade lead is a disaster and north should know it, with a suspected 11-card fit and holding AQJxx.
  
• You mention that south could have braved 6♥, but this is a problem entirely of his own making. The only one who jumped was south (and by 3 levels at that!), don't come crying if afterwards there is not enough room to describe your hand.
  
• North's pass at the end seems most sensible, with 1.5 plausible tricks and south promising 'something' on the defence is it silly to trade a plus for a minus. Maybe on a south pass after 6♣ north could consider something more, but here there is absolutely no reason to.

[Cyberyeti]

I think you should have presented this as a lead problem first, ♠A would have been low on my list, A♥ would have been quite likely.

I disagree with some of David's analysis.

I agree I would not open the south hand (unless I had a weak 5-4 majors bid)

I disagree the N hand is too strong for 1♠, we play sound overcalls, and if we'd respond to a 1♠ opening bid, we'd respond to the overcall, so I'd do that.

I would prefer 3♣ (splinter) or 2♥ (bent fit bid) or 2m (good raise, not sure what the difference between the 2 is) to 4♠

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 I pass with the south hand, no regrets, even if I had a weak 2-suited OF opening av.
#2 1S by North. An alternative would be a Michaels Cue, showing both majors, but given suit length and suit quality, this is a distant 2nd.
#3 4S looks ok, ..., you could go slower, I am not sure, you want to be in 4S facing a weak NT, 3S will lead to 4S if it is on
5H instead of 5S as lead director, but than ... do we really expect them to sac. against 5S? So it may just be hindsight.
#4 X is not a lightner, ..., and I sure dont bid 6H
#5 Final Pass by North is ok, what else?
Ace of hearts as a lead? North knowes, that N/S have at least a 55 fit in spades, he did already know this with 4S, so a spade void
is possible, esp. give the bidding of the opponents.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-April-30, 03:38, said:

I think you should have presented this as a lead problem first, ♠A would have been low on my list, A♥ would have been quite likely.

I disagree with some of David's analysis.

I agree I would not open the south hand (unless I had a weak 5-4 majors bid)

I disagree the N hand is too strong for 1♠, we play sound overcalls, and if we'd respond to a 1♠ opening bid, we'd respond to the overcall, so I'd do that.

I would prefer 3♣ (splinter) or 2♥ (bent fit bid) or 2m (good raise, not sure what the difference between the 2 is) to 4♠

Ah, a difference in style I suppose. I play weak overcalls, as little as AQJxx and out is sufficient (though not ideal at this vulnerability, on average I will have about a king more). If north overcalls 1♠ south is spoilt for choice - I would probably bid 3♥ (fitbid), showing a solid heart suit, length in spades and the playing strength for 3♠ with little else to mention (and then correct a 3♠ answer by partner to 4♠, if the opponents would be so kind as to leave us alone). This time the jump is warranted because it describes about 11 cards of the hand at once, only the 6th spade and the fact that the singleton club is not a small one are hidden. Plus it explicitly requests a heart lead.

[apollo1201]

Thanks all. I was S and slightly regretted jumping the auction - thinking green opps would go to the 5 level anyway. Any knd of cue bid and correction of ❤️bids to ♠️ is probably better indeed.

I think N is better described by 1S and X rather than the reverse (a bit weak for that) but would not object X and X if need be if majors were Axxxx vs. AQJx.

I thought leading ❤️ with our auction was overthinking too much but glad to learn it is actually not the case.

New match this afternoon (and despite those 2 horrible broads, we managed to win😀)

[Cyberyeti]

 DavidKok, on 2020-April-30, 06:03, said:

Ah, a difference in style I suppose. I play weak overcalls, as little as AQJxx and out is sufficient (though not ideal at this vulnerability, on average I will have about a king more). If north overcalls 1♠ south is spoilt for choice - I would probably bid 3♥ (fitbid), showing a solid heart suit, length in spades and the playing strength for 3♠ with little else to mention (and then correct a 3♠ answer by partner to 4♠, if the opponents would be so kind as to leave us alone). This time the jump is warranted because it describes about 11 cards of the hand at once, only the 6th spade and the fact that the singleton club is not a small one are hidden. Plus it explicitly requests a heart lead.

Do you have agreements about what 1♣-X-1♦-3m means ? I don't know what is standard here, but if they're some sort of splinter showing both majors or distinguish 5-4 from 4-5 then I'm happy.

[DavidKok]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-April-30, 06:40, said:

Do you have agreements about what 1♣-X-1♦-3m means ? I don't know what is standard here, but if they're some sort of splinter showing both majors or distinguish 5-4 from 4-5 then I'm happy.

I have never discussed this particular sequence with my partner, but here is how my reasoning would go:

After this sequence (assuming 1♣ and 1♦ natural), we have the following agreements:
pass - any weak hand, or strong hands with no good bid available
X - points and no good bid available. Often 3-3 or 4-3 in the majors.
1♥ - natural, 4+ hearts and around 6-9 points. Does not deny spades. Lead-directing.
1♠ - natural, 4+ spades and around 6-9 points. Lead-directing.
1NT - to play, around (8)9-11 points and values in both minors.
2♣ - an invitational hand (or stronger) with 4+ hearts, 10+ points.
2♦ - an invitational hand (or stronger) with 4+ spades, 10+ points.
2♥ - a preemptive raise in hearts, promises at least 5 and about 0-6 points
2♠ - a preemptive raise in spades, promises at least 5 and about 0-6 points

With that in mind I think it is entirely reasonable to play 2NT, 3♣ and 3♦ as different shades of both majors and/or shortness. Without prior discuss ion I think my partner would interpret 2NT as both majors, 3♣ as a strong offensive hand with hearts (and urgency to put the pressure on, because the strength is based on shape instead of values) and 3♦ a similar hand but with spades instead. Both these last bids imply shortness somewhere. It sounds better to me to reserve these bids for either locating the shortness or distinguishing 5-4's in the majors, but unfortunately I have never discussed this (but will do so at the next opportunity).

[monikrazy]

I prefer 1♠ to double.
As played, a strong game-force like 4♣> 4♠.

[pescetom]

 monikrazy, on 2020-May-15, 22:09, said:

I prefer 1♠ to double.

It's tempting to agree but smacks of resulting.
My gut preference is Michaels even 5-4 vulnerable with a passed partner, but I'm trying to get out of that habit
Double is a good compromise I think.

[pescetom]

 monikrazy, on 2020-May-15, 22:09, said:

I prefer 1♠ to double.

It's tempting to agree but smacks of resulting.
My gut preference is Michaels even vulnerable with a passed partner, but I'm trying to get out of that habit
Double is a valid and flexible compromise I think.