Leaderboard

If the double of 2♠ by South is for penalty, then North's pull is a serious error. I am certainly not going to award any compensation to North-South. Also, if the double of 2♠ by South is for penalty, I don't believe South's statement that he would not have doubled 2♠ if given a "proper" explanation of the double of 2♥. How can South not double 2♠? Partner has an opening bid, you have a near opening bid and a trump stack, and it seems unlikely that the opponents have a playable spot to run to. South's statement that he would not have doubled 2♠ given a "proper" explanation of the double of 2♥ is self-serving, and, quite frankly, is unbelievable.

[hv=pc=n&s=s85hk5djt83cak982&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp]133|200[/hv] IMPs. Partnership agreement is for "light" pre-empts non-vul. 2/1 context: 2C is strong/forcing, 2D is weak/pre-emptive. Partner is likely NOT opening 11s unless they are Rule of 20. If it matters, you are playing a bad team in a 7-board segment of a Swiss. What is your call?

Important to note 4♥ doesn't really repeat the the heart message but shows the club control. This seems kinda obvious. Maybe I should take charge since is a pretty nice hand and partners slow 4♠ bars me.

Many would consider the inability to play support doubles an advantage of the weak NT...

I think these times are fine for a west coast event, but they're terrible for an east coast event. Those of us traveling from the west have to be ready to play at the body clock equivalent of 7am. I'm an early riser, and this is still too early. My partner is not, and it is even worse for her. So I am faced with the choice of coming in early, which requires taking extra vacation, or playing badly the first day because of particularly bad jet lag issues.

South's thought process over 3S should be akin to: "North believes I have a long club suit, at least within the confines of my opening 1D, and has therefore bid 3S. This presumably denies values in clubs, and is likely to show a minimum or a hand with no biddable 4-card red suit. If he had bid 3S after correctly alerting my splinter, that would DENY* game interest. "My hand has improved substantially based on what partner most likely has, compared to what he has shown. This suggests bidding 4S: so I need to decide whether it's at all plausible for me to pass 3S. 3C is not forcing to game, because a GF splinter would go to 4C. Partner has shown (absent UI) something like QJTxxx/xx/Qxx/Kx, and I can expect game to be around 50% at best. That makes passing a logical alternative, even if partner's hand is a little better than this." *: this assumes they don't play 3C as GF, and therefore 3S as a slam try. My opinion (both as a player and as a director) is that 4S IS demonstrably suggested by the UI; it is less clear to me that passing is an LA as I had to try quite hard to construct a hand for North that didn't make game a decent contract. Edit: Barmar's posited hand is indeed one that makes passing an LA. I had assumed North promises 8+ for his bid.

Was this MPC agreed among consenting adults? If the defence actively participated and agreed to the ruling that it was a MPC, and then accepted the advice that it had to be played, then I'll tell them that the card is now played and it is nothing to do with me: as far as I'm concerned the card was played voluntarily when they agreed with the advice the ops gave them. They could have taken my advice at the proper time but it is too late now. But if it was declarer who told the defender it was a minor penalty card, and effectively misdirected them from calling the director for a proper ruling, for example by talking with apparent authority (knowing phrases like Minor Penalty Card), then I will protect the defence by adjusting the score under L23, as a previous poster said.

I think maybe yes. Even if records were kept (and I suspect that they are not), the opponents will feel it churlish to call the director while recording +800. So it is never established whether the players get it right often enough to be considered to be actually playing the method. Playing these bids as two-way may or may not be legal in various jurisdictions, but playing them as two-way without disclosing it is, of course, illegal everywhere. Even if it is never fielded. When two-suited bids are misbid (or psyched), the opponents will, when they do not have a big penalty to collect, be in an impossible position.

Can you explain why? 3D looks completely normal to me and allows partner to compete further if suitable. How is partner supposed to save, having already shown a 2-suiter, if we don't tell her about the fit? FWIW I think it is way closer to 4D than pass even though 4D is a definite stretch. If I were to conduct a poll, it would find that 3D was an LA. No doubt others could conduct one to find the opposite.

What do rethinkers do? Ditch sandwich notrump?

Have to agree. while the transfer sytem is good if its hard to penalize 3 level overcall its just a license to steal.

I played 7 of 8 boards and was 1st ranking in #6334 Robot Duplicate - (IMP); then i had to go to door and stayed far for some minutes; when i was back the clock showed still 7 minutes to the end of tourney, but there was a pop up telling that for bbo i was far away and it was going to close: i hadn't time to study the board to bid, when it has been suddenly closed. I asked the very kind yellow Chas_P, who told me that "those games are timed for inactivity. obviously you were away for too long." So i expressed my doubts about the reason to time those games for inactivity: they are already timed to a maximum to play; i mean: i cannot occupy the table indefinitely, so where is the danger for the system? Chas_P kindly replied that there is no "danger to the system". the purpose for the timer is to keep the game moving for ALL the players. Pls allow me to observe that i can understand this necessity for long tourneys, i miss the reason of it for short ones - i had often to wait more than 10 mins to have my final result , while other player were finishing a robot-duplicate and accepted it as part of those tourneys way of being. (please believe me: i feel worst for my good ranking wasting than for my quarter) TY for caring. PeppeA

This has turned into a discussion in semantics, playing professionally and being a bridge professional are obviously two different things. If I misunderstood your post then I apologize.

[hv=pc=n&s=sak92hajt65dcakt2&n=sthq8dkj93cqj9753&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1hp1np2sp2np3cp5cppp]266|200[/hv]

Yes, 1NT denies 4 spades but is that any reason to refuse to describe your hand? The auction thru 3C described opener's hand perfectly (alghough he might have had 4513). Ii never entered my mind that anyone would object to the auction up to that point. (I should have known better :)) We were not playing Lebensohl in that situation so 2NT seemed pretty normal, 3C may have veered the auction away from 3NT and at that point the most likely contracts seemed to be 3NT or 4H. 2NT gave opener a chance to round out his hand which he did. It was at the point where responder was to bid over 3C that the auction became interesting and it was at that point that I wanted the discussion to begin. I should have clarified what I wanted, sorry.

There's nothing wrong with making an agreement for 1♠-1N(f)-2X-3N that includes this hand or another balanced NT range that seems troublesome. You do tend to right-side NT as well. If you do include some GF hands in 1NT, which I used to do in an experiment at one point, we would alert it and describe as "forcing, could be game forcing" in case they wanted to inquire further. Without special discussion, I think it's "standard" to bid 2♣ here despite the short suit.

If "missing AK10xx" means "missing AK1032", then you had better lead to the queen first. If the queen loses to the ace or king, lead low on the next round. If RHO plays high in front of the queen, play low on this round and high on the next. The way to think about these things at the table is to consider cases where one line wins and the other loses. We compare "queen then low" with "finesse the nine" and we see that the former: Wins when RHO has AKx, Ax, Kx (six of the possible 3-2 breaks); Loses when RHO has A10x, K10x, 10x (six of the possible 3-2 breaks); Breaks even when RHO has AK10, AK, A10, K10, Axx, Kxx, 10xx, xx (eight of the possible 3-2 breaks). We are on the verge of tossing a coin when we realise that "queen then low" also wins when LHO has the singleton ten. Since this is the only 4-1 break that we can handle (once RHO has failed to play the ten on the first round), we conclude (correctly) that "queen then low" is better than "finesse the nine". Similar calculations for combinations missing the nine, missing the eight etc. are left as an exercise for the reader.

It sure that in MP it make little sense to use 2C as a strong bid because of frequency reason. A quick fix would be play 1C forcing or something like 2NT is strong and forcing and 1C can be bal up to 22 pts and you respond light. Note there is about 5 times more hands that are borderline GF than true GF hands.

I think N was a bit shy leaping to 5C. While I like the idea of 2NT being a lebensohl relay it is hardly a standard treatment, after all 2S is a GF. Basically it seems to me the N player must have felt that a simple raise in C either was not forcing or jumping showed extra length. In any case I like the 2N rebid as it allows the strong hand to show more, it's not like I am concerned about missing a game.

I can understand 1NT because of the "ugly rebid", but one shouldn't really be ashamed of rebidding AK98x, and I don't like 1NT with 2-2 in the majors. So 1C for me. ahydra

♥ finesse is 50% chance. Taking top 2 ♥s then playing for ♥Q hand to hold 3 or 4 ♦s appears to count out as: 33% (♥Q falls in 2 rounds) + 67%(36% 3-3♦s + 24% ♥Q has 4♦s) = 72%. Cashing top trumps and pitching ♣ loser on long ♦ is better line. BTW I would have ruffed the 3rd♠ after cashing 2 top ♥s before playing ♦ to dummy.

Having played AK of diamonds and knowing West to be short in D, I would play east for longer spades (as with 4-5 maojors, west is more likely to double) and shorter club. So place spade king on right... Play club ace (just in case singleton king on right), club jack to queen. Planning to take spade finesse and set up a club winner in dummy and ruff dummy's heart for 2S, 5D, 3C...

This depends on agreements still. Even if 4♣ is forcing do they play slow/fast arrival or picture style bidding. In picture bidding: direct 5♣: good trumps 4♣ then 5♣ over a cue bid: worst possible hand 4♣ then cue bid over cue bid: decent hand, outside control (just shown) but not good trumps 4♣ then slam force over cue bid: decent hand, outside control and good trumps. In slow/fast arrival: direct 5♣: worst hand 4♣ then 5♣ over a cue bid: good trumps? maybe? 4♣ then cue bid over cue bid: decent hand outside control, but not good trumps? 4♣ then slam force over cue bid: as above. I guess it's all the same, but I prefer the picture bidding style. I'm not even sure why.

Interesting play problem. But firstly, lol@2S. Come on, what hand doubles? Bidding 2S shows that you don't trust partner to be declarer. You deserve to have partner be a 2425 and preference Diamonds and get doubled and have to play it. 2S shows a 4+S/6+D hand. After cashing ♦AK you need to find one of the black kings onside. If it's the Spade King, exit in clubs (overtaking the ♣J if necessary) to take the Spade finesse and ruff two Spades. If it's the Club King then Exit with the ♠Q! and then ruff two Spades and take the Club finesse. Unfortunately, you have to guess which King is on your right, and there's nothing to go on. 50% chance. Maybe cashing the ♦AK was wrong (especially since Hearts rate to be 6-3, so the percentage play must be to finesse in Diamonds .... if Hearts are 5-4 then on the bidding I'd say it's even clearer to hook in Diamonds - RHO bidding conservatively with 4 trumps and LHO bidding aggressively). So ♦Ace and then .... I'd play to take 5 Diamond tricks, one Spade and a Spade ruff, and three Club tricks. so exit with the ♣J (overtaking with the Queen). Worst case RHO wins and plays one back - win in dummy and hook the Diamond. And that loses too :( (ugh, partner is going to be pissed if I go down ...). They exit in Hearts, I ruff, unblock the ♣A, cross to dummy in trumps and take the Spade finesse. I guess that's about the same as playing ♦A and then exiting with the ♠Q except I might have problems with my 4th spade now.

If you want something simple, take a 2/1 system, make a 1♣ opening Forcing and throw all the Strong hands in it, and make 2♣ opener 10-14 HCP, 6+ ♣ . Over the 1♣ opener, 1♦ would have a negative in it like 0-5 (could put other hands into it of course), and other bids would be positive and generally natural. If I put a few minutes into it, I bet I could have a decent structure that wouldn't be a burden on the memory.

If 2NT is lebensohl then is 3C even Natural? Why wouldn't you bid 3C with a 4522 or even a 4531!?

good start but I admit I dont understand the bidding 1h 1n 2s 3n 4c 4s(cue)4n would have been sign off 6c too hard to imagine 7c

In the given auction, can North bid 4♣ instead of 5♣? Assuming it's forcing (maybe it's not). He's got a maximum for clubs.

Does 1NT deny four ♠'s? I would prefer a 3♣ rebid (GF) by South rather than 2♠. But, I suppose if you have a special meaning for 2♠ in this auction it can work. So: 1♥ - 1NT 3♣ - 4♣* [insert favorite RKC gadget here] ...to 6♣ * = Agrees ♣'s shows slam interest. :huh:

Amusing that 2/1 players treat their gadgets like Flannery and Kaplan inversion as "Natural Bidding" :) :) :)

Start by cashing the ♣ hoping to throw 2 ♥ from dummy. If successful we can cross-ruff the red suits. If LHO ruffs the 3rd round of ♣, overruff, draw trumps, then hope to find LHO with at least one ♥ honor, running ♥Q from hand. One ♥ from hand can always go on ♦K.

I'm finessing. You have 22 HCP and LHO has shown up with ♠ K at trick 1. Then RHO (opener) led a low ♣ at trick 3. That indicates the RHO is unlikely to hold ♣ KQ(J)x, giving LHO either ♣ K or ♣ Q. Therefore, LHO looks to have at least 5 or 6 HCP. Added to the 22 HCP your side already had, that leaves 12 or 13 HCP for opener. So it's unlikely that RHO has enough for an opener if LHO also has ♥ Q. BTW, it's better the lead ♥ J on the second lead of the ♥s. First of all, it might induce RHO to cover with the ♥ Q. Secondly, it's the start of a safety play in ♥s. An alarm bell should go off in your head when LHO plays the ♥ 8 under your ♥ A. There is a possibility it just might be a stiff. If RHO fails to cover from an original ♥ Q965, then you can repeat the finesse. If RHO properly covers the ♥ J with the ♥ Q with that holding, you win with the ♥ K. Your only hope is that RHO held at least 2 ♦s. You try to transport back to dummy with a ♦. If successful, you can lead your last ♥ from dummy and finesse the ♥ 7 from your holding of ♥ 107x to capture RHO's ♥ 9x.

I'd have avoided the problem by passing out 1♣x, not because I expect to beat it particularly, but because 1♥ is almost certain to lead to a 3-3 fit, a 4-3 fit at a high level, or a number of notrumps going down.

Really? He isn't paid by Nickell?

After giving this some thought, I realize that Justin was probably referring to team games where Bob Hamman may not play professionally.

Excellent observations. One reason why even good players develop these habits is that the issue of accountability is more serious in a team game than a pairs game, even you are not a Pro. You don't want to lose the match at your table, even more than you don't want to be the one who ruined your prospects in a Pairs game. How to deal with failure fairly is a very difficult issue at every level, individual, pair and especially team. I have a feeling sucsessful players deal with this differently than the rest of us.