mfa1010

4♣ is clear, but south's bid over that is very diffucult. I can see merit in 4♦, 4♥, 5♥ and 5NT(COS). If south goes for 4♥ only and is passed out (not here - north should bid 5♣ with his extreme shape), then I would expect to have missed a slam very, very often. Maybe this should have been a poll instead, wtd after 4♣. 6♦ is good, since a club lead is unlikely. 7♦ is not that bad either, since 6♦ will take 13 a lot of the time it makes anyway. I assume it is best to play on hearts after a nonclub lead.

I also play precision and in the comparable sequence 4♥ would be natural for us.

That system criticism is open for debate. 1N as a response to 1C has to mean something (or would you forbid responder to bid NTs?), and even though a balanced hand is frequent, being balanced means that the wrongsiding is much-much less bad on average than if 1N was some unbalanced type with some shortage(s). The actual hand is fine as declarer for instance, with honours in every suit to get the lead around to.

I like that you call partner's bidding "staymanic". That is probably accurate.

"Guess my system" is a tough quiz, but I would take any undiscussed leap to 4M as natural if at all feasible. It is feasible here.

I must resist the urge to duck the spade... must resist, it is indeed at horrible play...

I think I would double, but having minimum. I much prefer pass to 5♦. 5♦ looks very desperate and could go for a huge number if we buy a bad dummy. X will occasionally concede 590, but that is only 5 imps away, no big deal at all. X is not penalty.

Pass but close. I would have doubled at mps.

It was stuff like this I was looking for. Thanks.

Thanks for the posting. Had a discussion lately about the merits of dropping the T behind AJ to induce playing for the drop. In my experience everyone seems to just take their a priori best shot of finessing the jack and not worry to much about all this. That makes the falsecard rather useless in practice. I think there is a definite advantage to be had if ones knows this combination throughoutly, but it is tough. Thanks for the reference to the Roudinesco book.

Yeah maybe, but I did post in the Expert forum... :) I'm fortunate enough to play in a club game, where just about everyone is fully capable of this false card.

If we are only discussing cheating the doctors' way, with transmitting abnorm information like shortages, then yes. It would be hard to use it without making suspicious bids or plays. But what if a partnership is just helping its decisions once in a while? When pard goes in the tank, I will often be rooting for something. "Bid", "pass", "play spade" etc. If only I could communicate this with some gesture, perhaps having many to choose from so it won't look suspicious. All I would need is probably a binary message like "high" or "low" (good hand/bad hand or lavinthal in the play), and then maybe a way to emphasize my message. Bingo, partner suddenly guesses a whole lot better, and we won't really be doing something that looks different from good judgement or lucky guessing - unless we take it to extremes. A player I talked to from country X once told me that in country X some players would hold their hand high with good cards and low with bad cards. --- As to when a bridge organization should act on rumours, that's an extremely delicate question.

Right. I should have made the long suit dummy.

Right. On the other hand we have been learned that we should always falsecard T from Tx etc to trick declarer into playing for the drop. Maybe then if we don't see the T from LHO it means he doesn't have it? --- And what if we have Kxx AJ9xx If LHO will often play T from Tx, then it can't be right to play K, low to J when we see only low cards. Either we should go 9 or we should go A. There is a lot more than meets the eye with these combos.

Evidence? Uhh, scary :unsure: My expert partner once found a magic lead of a small from AKxx against a suit contract. With QTx in dummy declarer misguessed to my jack. Later in the same segment, inspired as I had become, I found the lead of small from Qx in trumps. It was the only setting lead, since partner had the ace and could chop the head off declarer's king in a side suit on the way back before declarer could take discards. Judged from your post, it seems I should be lucky not yet to have been erradicated. But maybe it is just a matter of time before my luck runs out: One of my not so expert bridge students playing with me once found the lead of the ♦J from AKJxxxx against a 2♣(!) contract ... which happen to run to declarer's ♦Qx. Phew ... otherwise I would probably still be in jail by now. :rolleyes:

It doesn't even remotely for me. I miss the social factor. I miss the table presence. When I play online it is one long, hard struggle to keep my focus. When I play in real life, the game just sucks me in completely, and that flow is what makes the game so magical for me.

Well yes, the reason to play the ace is that LHO might have Qx. My question is a general one unrelated to a given board. Could anything be read from the spot cards?

Dummy: ♦K86 Declarer: ♦AJ432 We are in 3NT and need the whole diamond suit to come in. Small to the king and small from dummy. What now? Expert opponents, but maybe not world class. A) LHO plays the ♦T, and RHO ♦5-9? B) LHO plays the ♦7, and RHO ♦5-9? C) LHO plays the ♦7, and RHO ♦5-T?

Note that if East is 5440, we will always get 9 tricks. After the third diamond, seeing the split, we play ♣A club to dummy. If east keeps 2 hearts, we will endplay him in spades. If east has kept only 1 heart, we play ♥K, ♥J. Whatever west has kept, he will have to give us trick 13 in dummy (♥T) or in hand (♣T). They get one trick in each suit only.

Hi Niels Cashing the third diamond can't be wrong, can it? If diamonds are not 3-3, awm's plan works also with W having the ♥Q, because we have full count. Tempting to finesse ♥J when west returned a heart, because east's spade discard suggests east doesn't have ♥Qxxx or ♥Qxxxx. But that is probably too big a play.

I would tend to pass, but this a situation where I would be influenced by how I percieve RHO's preempts.

Right. The "I" here is very real, since it made us conclude that partner has diamonds and not takeout, when he doubled 2♦ after 1N-p-2♦, in spite of the fact that our system says it is takeout given the correct meaning of 2♦ (= to play). So what left is only to find out if this "I" was "A" or "U".

You have lost me. Say we have a huddle. Then it is usually irrelevant if we call the huddle itself "UI" or the implications of the huddle "UI". Why is the distinction relevant here? Or are you aiming at something else?

I think responder should bid 6♥ after the queen-ask on the basis that opener might have six or the actual holding, where slam is 65%.

Other. Inattention is not a serious error. Inattention could lead to a serious error. We don't care if inattention is the cause for a serious error. We evaluate the error on its own seriousness. (And if it is related to the infraction when we are adjusting.) It takes a greal deal to rule that an alert was properly made, if it is claimed by an opponent not to have been made or seen. But if an alert was ruled to have been made as a matter of fact, then the opponents are assumed to have the information that lies with the alert. If they later make a serious error, we don't care if it is because of the inattention of the alert or some other random brain fart.