daveharty

Maybe you're right, but unless partner is a really light opener in this position, we have at least half the deck on a possible misfit hand; isn't that the ideal time to be defending? Didn't see whether this was MP or IMPs, that might factor in my decision.

Turn to your left and say "Which major does your partner have?" :P Anyway I would double. I hope partner will think I want to penalize them in at least one of their suits.

Was this hesitation agreed to by EW? I don't know what the rules are where you were playing, but here in ACBL-land, West is supposed to pause for 8-10 seconds after a skip bid has been made. Of course, there are pauses and there are pauses...but a "hesitation" is not necessarily cut and dried. That being said, if the director determined that there had indeed been a hesitation, I agree that it should be rolled back to 3S. Double is nowhere near automatic with the East hand. If EW appealed such a ruling, they should be given an AWM.

You did see it was RHO that bid spades, right? That doesn't mean your lead is impossible but I wanted to be sure you didn't read the auction incorrectly.

[hv=pc=n&e=sqj75h64dj83caqt4&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1dp1hp2dp2sp4hppp]133|200[/hv] What do you lead and why?

By "any excuse" I mean "any hand with diamond shortness", even if the rest of his shape is awkward.

My first thought was the same as ArtK78's, that 4S was the obvious spot. I'm pretty sure that's what I would bid at the table. But on reflection partner doesn't need much for 6D; even a hand like x/Qxxx/KJxx/Kxxx is pretty good, and that's a subminimum redouble in my book. Plus I can still bid 4S if the opps push on. So I'll bite and bid 4D, fully prepared to apologize.

Could you elaborate? Is this because you expect +800 to be a good score vs. games, or because you expect to go +1100 often enough to compensate for missing slam? I think I agree that it's much less of a problem at IMPs, but at MP it seemed pretty close to the borderline to me. Also there is Gerben's point about partner occasionally passing out 3D.

[hv=pc=n&e=sq6hakq98dkt94ck7&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c3d]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints, nobody vulnerable. Partner can be trusted to reopen with a double on any excuse. Are you out for blood, or is this hand too slammish?

I agree that splitting these hairs doesn't matter much when we are buying the contract, but in the actual case the opps bought the contract at 4C, and a disastrous diamond lead was made. I guess that's neither here nor there; what I was really curious about was whether there is some treatment that is "standard enough" here that I should expect it to apply in a relatively new partnership without discussion, or whether it is murky enough that we should default to some meta-agreement like "any undiscussed bid that could reasonably be interpreted as natural, is." JLOGIC's comment makes me think the latter might be true.

My mistake...4C would be RKC for us after a 3D preempt.

LOL...few agreements yes, but one of them is "systems on over 2C unless it shows both majors".

Undiscussed. This is a pretty new partnership that hasn't gone much further than new suits below game being forcing and 4D is RKC. Would you suggest 3S as a fragment, or a possible entry, or some other meaning?

Playing in a new partnership with few agreements, how would you interpret the following auction: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n2c2h3c3d]133|100[/hv] Your notrump range is 15-17. 2C was alerted and explained as "diamonds OR a major-minor two suiter". 2H is a transfer by agreement (your hand: Q9xxx JTxx Txx x). You have no agreements re. superaccepting in competition. Should the "default" agreement here be: 1. Natural, no implications regarding spade fit 2. Natural with a fit 3. superaccepting with stuff in diamonds 4. advance control bid superaccepting spades (more slammish than 3 I guess?) 5. something else ?

Nobody vul, IMPs. You hold: AJ9x AT9xxx AK x Partner in first seat opens 3D. What if anything do you bid? What is your plan? If you bid 3H (forcing by agreement), partner bids 3NT. What then?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uLHm9LGjbT4/Tb8uYx04VVI/AAAAAAAADTE/v-4jbVHUCCo/s1600/gandalf-you-shall-not-pass.jpg

C'mon Han, more like 99%, everyone knows you lead trumps against a grand slam.

[hv=pc=n&s=sat7h72d8cajt9753&w=s5hakqj543dqj975c&n=sk8432ht986dt63c8&e=sqj96hdak42ckq642]399|300[/hv] My friend was West and made the (to my mind) strange call of double. EW lurched to 6H, but East didn't like the looks of that and converted to 6NT. South then got greedy and doubled. West didn't like the looks of THAT and pulled to 7D, which South also doubled. After some agonizing North led his stiff, and that was that.

4H might end the auction, but you're right. Plus there's a funny story.

[hv=pc=n&w=s5hakqj543dqj975c&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1c]133|200[/hv] EDIT: Sorry the 2C option was supposed to be 2NT.

I posted about a similar game I had recently: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/42355-strange-statistical-anomaly A week or two after that game, I played in a club game where I declared 11 out of 24 boards. Maybe I was overcompensating.

Interested in your answer to #5 nige1, do you have a conventional treatment here? I kind of assumed this particular question was a two-horse race.

Last year I posted the questions from the MSC-style bidding contest in one of the issues of my local unit's newsletter, "Table Talk", with the intention of submitting a "forum consensus" set of answers (which scored pretty well by the way). I thought it generated some interesting discussion, so I'm going to do it again, as I just received the latest issue yesterday. Here are the five questions: All questions are MATCHPOINTS. 1. None vul, South holds: AKQJ3 A4 87 KQ54 West North East South 1H 3C 3H ? 2. None vul, South holds: KQT9 AK42 73 T85 West North East South 2S dbl pass ? 3. Both vul, South holds: 2 K754 K832 A732 West North East South -- -- -- pass pass 1C 2D ? 4. None vul, South holds: A73 J4 J654 Q532 West North East South 2H dbl 3H ? 5. NS vul, South holds: AJ74 AKJT6 KQ85 -- West North East South pass pass pass 1H pass 1NT pass ? As before, bidding is presumed to be 2/1 with standard (but minimal) gadgetry. Also as before, I'm more interested in the discussion generated than anything else, but I will tally the results and submit a set of answers to be compared with the expert panel, so if anyone is really concerned about biasing the results, feel free to PM me if you wish. I will also keep track of individual sets of answers and tell everyone what the top scores were. Last time around, there was only one question which didn't receive a significant majority vote (or at least a standout plurality), and in that case I submitted a "split vote", taking the average of the two scores assigned by the moderator. Here's the old thread if anyone is interested, or if you missed it when I announced the results (there was a pretty long delay as I waited for the next issue to come out): http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/39367-bidding-contest

This is true if the hand has two five-card suits, or two four card minors (for many people anyway), but is not true for a hand with a four card major and a four card minor, at least not in a 5 card major system. Then there is the case where you have two four-card majors; then you are advised to open your third longest suit, or even your fourth longest for some people who open 4=4=3=2 with 1C.

Welcome OBSugar. This is the sort of situation I had in mind when I devised the "Bridge Personality" index. Here's the thread if you are interested: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/42338-whats-your-bridge-personality Basically it describes six axes on which you locate your own bridge preferences or tendencies, to help determine whether you would be compatible with a prospective partner. It does NOT attempt to measure skill or experience. It hasn't exactly caught on like wildfire, but I actually have come across a couple of people who include their "BP" in their profile. Of course this doesn't help with the problem of actually locating prospective partners; others have mentioned good ideas for that. Look me up sometime, I'll happily play with you. Dave