Yu18772

100% South http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

You are not doubling on clubs pre se, but i think it should be a hand that does not want to play at 5 level. I would think its penalty oriented. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

I think that partner is not distributional 5 card spade "nothing useful" type of hand. Bidding 4♠ with Kxxx, Ax, QJxx, xxx at bad vulnerability seems completely normal to me - he is bidding what he thinks you make, based on minmal opening. If anything partner is marked with 2-3 clubs and E is unlimited yet, and still made the raise, so real values seems logical. If pass is not forcing I would definitely want to bid - to beat 5♣ 4 down means that they dont have anything outside ♣, meaning that we have ice cold slam, in my worst scenario it may even go pass pass pass..... 2 down. In any case - I dont think we may let them play this, so like Phil - 5♦ for me, and 5♠ over 5♥. If pass is forcing I would consider pass (assuming its the extras type of hand) and would have hard time sitting for the double if that would be partners choice. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

This comes down to wether you have methods - which from the discussion is clearly not.... DSIP is "I have enough cards not to pass and I dont know what to bid, but I dont want them to steal our hand cheaply" - and all 3 hands I gave fit that description. It is more than reasonable for west to think that without agreement and any particular extras he can leave the double in - just like opening 4♠-X is take out in its nature, but holding empty hand partner can leave it in. From west point of view his singelton in ♠ is almost always obvious to partner (unless they hold 11-12 cards and will bid 5♠ anyway). "I think we might have game on, but I don't know whether to bid to the five-level or not" is not good enough at 5 level, it should either show or deny a trick in opponents suit. Without any agreements with expert partner I would expect 4NT to be take out and X penalty oriented, but then again last time this happened he thought that 4NT is RKCB and X is takeout - basically without agreement I might double and might not, and might take it out or not, but whatever comes after the double can not, imo, be blamed on the overcaller. If it is someone I play with somewhat regularly, I would make sure we are on the same page next time, but would not risk an ambigous call at 5 level - after all my guess of what he will take 4NT for is as good as his guess of what double is. If this is a one time pickup I would double, or bid, but I would never blame the result on partner - if I make an ambiguous bid, whatever comes after is my fault. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

I agree with all of the above - you need a good partner, discuss defense with them and follow your signaling system. You shold also understand that signaling does not come at the expense of potential tricks, and that partners preference signals should not override obvious plays, taking setting tricks etc...They are there to help you, not as absolute. Another advise that I heard from a top player was that if you really want to try to become better defender, and you are already an advanced player in a regular partnership - try to play a 100 hands with no signaling system at all..... I must admit that I never got to try it out. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

I cant blame W at all...really. I understand E double, although imo he could have foreseen the problem. Imo DSIP dbl at 5 level as your first bid in the auction without any agreement on expected honor position is a poor bid - you know that partner will have to make a blind guess while you have at least some info about his hand. So its just looking to transfer responsibility, because you feel uncomfortable passing, but not sure about your agreements on bidding alternatives. That is if E knows that Dbl is DSIP.....he might have been convinced that it is take out, then I cant blame him as well. There is a great difference in defense and offense potential between: ♠KQx, ♥Axxxx, ♦-,♣Qxxxx or ♠x, ♥AJxxx, ♦xx, ♣AJxxx or ♠AJ, ♥AJxxx, ♦x, ♣Jxxxx if E would double with any of these, west decision is unlucky guess at worse, and i cant blame him at all. If you ask partner to guess at 5 level with no info except opponent bidding, he will not always get it right....if you are not playing often together he will not even usually get it right. So if E was sure that X is to - I dont blame him, but rather the lack of agreement. If E was aware that X is unclear, and bid because he was unsure of what 4NT is I think he is even more to blame than west. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Semantics of terminology, but ok...though its the "law of large numbers" and " as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality..." - I dont mind being in the same boat with that guy. Theorems are proven under a certain set of axioms, and hold only within this set of assumptions and as long as the logical inference rules used to prove it are valid .....a mathematical proof for a theorem that is accepted today, may potentially later be disputed or shown to be incomplete. Nothing assumed to hold forever, even in math, if a hole in logic can be shown - assumption that something in the proof may had been overlooked and that someday a smarter person may point that out is kind of the basis of all scientific philosophy - including the queen. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Really? Why dont you enlighten me please? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

First - I think that if p doesn't have spade control and diamond q was shortness he is pretty much bound to have A♥ and AK♣ 6th. Of course he could have exactly QJxx,xx,Q,AKxxxx, but thats pretty much the only holding that I could come up with that would fit your understanding of the auction and not make slam.... on the other hand you potentially may be missing a grand if partner holds 7 clubs and diamond void, so 6♣ seems to me like a good bid regardless. Rebidding 4th suit without prior discussion may lead to greater disasters than missing 6♣....but personally i didnt like the 4♣ bid, unless 3♣ secured 6 clubs. What would random partner rebid with Qxxx, Ax, xxx, AKxx over 4th suit? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Preemptive weak raises have an extra value of just that - preempt, and even so you wont find a lot of experts that would bid them religiously at any vulnerability and any distribution......its ill advised for example to raise 1♠ to 3 with xxxx,KQx,xxx,xxx red vs white. So even with the additional value of preempt - good players still use judgement. Some authors call judgement "adjustments" some call it "hand (re)evaluation" some "common sense", but essentially these are the same. It is easier to convey the idea and convince less experienced players to use it if you present it as "law" and an ordered list of "adjustments", than just list factors that come into consideration when you are competing - which will improve the judgement of these players, just because it makes them pay attention to some of the relevant info they weren't using before. Experts use this kind of logic and these factors in competetive situation regardless of the law concept. They dont think "I have extra trump - so I am protected by law", they reevaluate their hand with every round of bidding, and extra trump length is one of the things that typically makes your hand better for offense....just like holding tricks in opponents trump makes your hand better for defense etc...another important factor is ow likely you to get doubled? MP or IMPs? So using the law will either improve or worsen your results, based on what type of factors influenced your bidding before it - if trump length, position of honors and vulnerability are something you neglected and the "law" gets you to consider them - by all means be lawfull, if this is something you used to account for, but now would bid to lawfull level based on trumps count alone -this is unlikely to improve your results :) Personally, I find that calling something that describes only a portion of cases as "law" is misleading - math laws hold till shown otherwise, and this one was shown otherwise plenty of times.....so at best it is a guideline. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Pass. I think I told my hand, partner chose to double...let him have fun. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Thanks! Good to know....then I would change it to 5♦. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

The fact that the slam goes down, should not in any way influence your assessment wether its a good slam to be in. In fact if you dont go down in slams thats a very bad sign.....as long as you fail in less than 50% of them :) My favorite saying on it was mikeh (a GREAT player imo) after his team did not do well in the bermuda bowl: "…..we didn't fail in any slam, which shows how badly we bid them!" http://www.bridgebas...%2Bbowl__st__40 http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Whatever partner has its not 2 aces....pass. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif Yu

Hi Adam :) I am missing something, what does 3♠-X-P-4♥ P-5♦ or 3♠-X-4♠-P P-5♦ show? I mean may be one needs better suit for this, but is that really a different type of hand ? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

As I said in my post - I dont think declarer is 5440 - sorry I just dont buy that bidding and play in MP with Jxxxx,A(K)xxx,AKxx,V. Best player in the club would give up a chance of 4-4 major fit to play in 5-2 or in minor in MP? Competent declarer shortened his trump enough to give us control of the hand and then graciously let us in, on a position where we draw trumps and then the clubs? Or he has the AJ♠ and partner preferred underlead Q 5th to AK♥ lead? Or declarer is 5:4:4 with AJ♠, A or K♥, AK♦ and void - and did not invite over 2♠? all of this do not make a lot of sense to me - may be I will be wrong, but without prior knowledge about declarer personal style that would be my line of thought at the table. If I got the distribution right (6340) - playing Q♠ is a disaster. True - when declarer throws me in with the last spade I will play a heart smoothly and he will have to guess (thats if he holds the K and not A), nothing I can do about it, but give declarer the chance to err. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Thanks! just fixed, then the play should be small ♠. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

I think declarer started with 6:3:4:V (with 4 hearts he might rebid 2♥ in MP, and with 7 spades 2♠) and partner with 2:4:2:5. From the missing honors - A♠ and AK♥ - declarer holds only one card (otherwise its really insane not to invite to game), and partner holds two. My guess partner holds A♠ and one of the missing heart honors (a lead of AK♥ would be more appealing to me than Q 5th) So declarer started with Jxxxxx, A(/K)xx, AKxx, -, partner was Ax, K(/A)xxx, Qx, Qxxxx (is that something partner may hold and not double over 2♦?). By trick 8: Partner is: A, Kxx, - , QT Declarer: JTx, Ax, x, V Dummy is: x, Jx, 9, 9x It looks to me that if declarer holds the A ♥ we can get at most 4 tricks, ad heart looser is not going anywhere, if declarer holds the K♥ we shouldn't touch the suit....so small ♠ and let partner play clubs. Thanks to gnasher for pointing out my mistake about trick one.... http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

It is not about "light" - i dont balance because of distribution, two Aces and 2 Jacks are plenty to balance 1m. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Thank you! ...on the actual layout (T-Qxx) everyone goes down :( I payed Phil's line at the table, and wanted to see if there is something to do about Q 3rd split. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

LHO is a good player, but not expert, RHO is a weaker player among the two, club level team game both vul (IMP). During the action N skipped diamond control, S still asked aces. A♦ looked more like taking the trick while its still there, than anything else. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

You got to 6♣ on the following hand (South is declaring): [hv=pc=n&s=sathjdkj97caj9872&n=skj97haqt98d5ck53]133|200[/hv] Lead A♦ and switch to small ♥. What would be the best line of play? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

I would pass, its true that we might go down in 3-1 fit, but 1♣ X is not a possible contract. I am worried that if I bid anything else, partner will get excited with a good hand, and we will be doubled in 2 (or worse 3) whatever after some competition. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

holding 6 spades and 5 hearts GIB forgets to bid the heart suit? http://tinyurl.com/c8a7q3v http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

Assuming partner doesnt play forcing passes, pass as an opening bid shows that he doesn't have an opening hand.... http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu