You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

The problem in this quiz is the following: How to check the possibility of our 4♠? NOW IN THE SECOND ROUND we know that pd has 4+ spades. However there exists a very small that pd has only 3 spades. So NOW I'm not happy that earlier I did not bid 1NT. After 1NT I'd know everything.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

The only dilemma for me is to choose between 6♦ and 6NT. 4♥ is theoretically possible assuming pd has a weak hand with 4 hearts. Probability of this is low.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

This is at MPs. Pd with shortness in clubs can think that they may win. Especially that 3♣ was said in adverse vulnerability. Therefore arguments in favor of: extras or being forcing, are VERY WEAK.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

This hand was played with a really very good player, but only occasional as my partner. Our agreements were (and are) not very sophisticated. But once we have certain agreements we must follow them…

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Sorry, I raised this particular case erronously. Nevertheless thanks for discussion, which is most the important aspect of this Forum (at least from my viewpoint). The only hope of N is our ♠10. Even with our ♠10 singleton declarer has to guess or everyting depends on: who holds ♠8. Wether N cashes ♥A or not declarer must be set, it seems.

After ♦Q and diamonds continuation, N played another diamond. Declarer has to ruff high. He continued with the next high spade. N won and continued with diamonds. This promoted N's ♠8!!!

It is interesting that this promotion does not work if distribution of spades between N and S is: A10x

8x In this case declarer - after the first ruff - enters to dummy with clubs and plays ♠9!!!

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

4♣ or 4♦ is obvious forcing at IMPs. It is non-sense to look for other partial at the level 4. But such arrangment is not obligatory at MPs. If we would have it I did not put this bidding problem.

Andrzej Matuszewski

Your concept of passing in the first round is also effective!

Pd will bid 1♠ or double. Then it will be a possibility to reach 4♠!

Andrzej Matuszewski

How to check the possibility of our 4♠?

NOW IN THE SECOND ROUND we know that pd has 4+ spades. However there exists a very small that pd has only 3 spades.

So NOW I'm not happy that earlier I did not bid 1NT. After 1NT I'd know everything.

Andrzej Matuszewski

4♥ is theoretically possible assuming pd has a weak hand with 4 hearts. Probability of this is low.

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Nevertheless thanks for discussion, which

is most the important aspect of this Forum (at least from my viewpoint).

The only hope of N is our ♠10. Even with our ♠10 singleton declarer has to guess or everyting depends on: who holds ♠8.

Wether N cashes ♥A or not declarer must be set, it seems.

Andrzej Matuszewski

This might not work in case declarer has a small singleton in hearts.

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

_______________A8x

_______________10xx

_______________AJxx3

_______________xx

97___________________________KQJxxx

7____________________________Ax

K1087________________________9x

KQJ742_______________________Axx

_______________106

_______________KQJ8654

_______________Q5

_______________96

After ♦Q and diamonds continuation, N played another diamond.

Declarer has to ruff high. He continued with the next high spade.

N won and continued with diamonds. This promoted N's ♠8!!!

It is interesting that this promotion does not work if distribution of spades between N and S is:

A10x

8x

In this case declarer - after the first ruff - enters to dummy with clubs and plays ♠9!!!

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski

OK. May this strategy is more appropriate at MPs.

Andrzej Matuszewski

Andrzej Matuszewski