MrGoodwin

Tim asked about 2C vs. 3C on the first round because I had told him that I thought 3C was indicated. I still think so, even though now I see that Phantom agreed with Tim. It is one thing to say that 2C is a "free bid" and therefore implies some values, and another thing to say that those values can be as much as a true limit raise of clubs, with a decent five-card suit besides. Anyway, that is how this old-fashioned player sees it. On the other question, I'm not at all sure that it would be right to double 1D for takeout if the diamonds were KQx and one of the other suits were Jxx. The double on 4-3-3-3 is already "impure," and putting much of the honor strength in diamonds makes it even more so. (And don't even think about overcalling 1NT with the hypothetical hand.)

We had a chance on 15, if I had followed through with my original intention to raise spades on the second round. I chickened out when Tim raised to 4H, because 4S now would be a slam-try and I didn't think we had five-level security. Ref. challenges outstanding: it is hard to imagine 37MP worth of changes, so I urge you not to spend a lot of time/effort on revising scores. Congrats to Phantom/Han, who were clearly superior to us. /TLG

In a sense, we were ahead of you on 11 after opener's 3C. Both openers had shown a strong hand with strong clubs (our 3C, like yours, was game-forcing), but we had in addition shown a positive response with a heart suit. Our responder could bid 3D. I thought Tim fell from grace by bidding 3H here, not 3S. We don't play a lot of preference bids on two-card support, so I assumed he had three hearts -- and not AKx, with which he would have bid a "picture" 4H. That made me think we would have to use the hearts for any slam, and that we wouldn't be able to bring them in without loss. I could certainly accept that I was over-thinking all of this, and that the agreements weren't as clear as I have made them sound.

I feel pretty strongly about both 9 and 10. Ref. 9, I believe the Phantom is on to something about the 1NT overcall with so much of the hand in the opponent's suit, and without a real source of tricks elsewhere. Especially white vs. red, I have had positive experience passing such hands (although the occasional missed game, I admit). Passing such a hand is anti-field, but justified in this case (even though a game is in fact missed). On 10, I cannot quite see where the 2C overcaller who gets raised to 3C in the weakest way possible expects, or even hopes, to find nine tricks for notrump or eleven tricks for clubs. Yes, there might be a spade fit: but trying to find it will usually just get you too high, as it did here. Sorry, Phantom & Tim, but I think bidding over 3C is just a mistake. (Not that my 3NT bid was a thing of beauty, either.)

Well, fighting spirit ought to apply to the bidding, not to the scoring. On the scoring, we should all just want to see some sort of accuracy, so that good bidding is rewarded and bad bidding is not.

I'm persuaded, and withdraw any objection based on the script on Bd. 3. We earned our bad result. Mea Culpa.

No problem on 5 & 6 as far as I am concerned. I do think scoring adjustments are merited on 1, 3, and 4, though. (I don't mean to be litigious, although it probably sounds that way.) On 1, I agree that we wrong-sided and they right-sided it, but I don't think the difference is as much as 4MP; maybe 2 (or, as someone else has suggested, 1)? Bd. 3 should just be tossed out, for reasons stated in the thread on that deal. (I believe we would have been in 3NT absent that natural 2H overcall of our 1H opening bid. Probably 1H-2C; 2NT-3S; 3NT-P.) Anyway, the flawed script makes comparisons pretty meaningless. On Bd. 4, I agree with other people here that 6D is better than 5D, not the other way around. So if all of that is right, we were actually leading after six boards. But don't worry, they had plenty of scope for retaking the lead in the last 10 deals!

My jump-shift on Bd. 4 was close to minimum for the bid: we play that the 1NT response may be very weak, so opener must be close to a strong two-bid to jump-shift after that response. I could have had more (we don't have any strong forcing opening bids), and that is why I didn't control-bid 4H over Tim's raise to 4D. No, our style isn't Acol. It is basically "Churchill" with canape appended. Not that our results in this contest will win any converts to the style . . . .

And with regard to Bd. 4, I assume PhantomSac is asking about 1S-1NT; 3D-4C (not 4C over 4D, an obvious typo). 4C would be natural with us, as we could well respond 1NT holding a fistful of clubs.

I think he bid 6D (on 4) because he thought we would make it: he had the best possible hand he could have for responding 1NT in our style. It would feel a bit unlucky to go down in this slam. Bd. 3 would be messy if different contracts had been reached, and probably should have been thrown out (with a 17th board bid by both pairs to substitute in case a "fouled board" like this one happens?). As it was, we were faced with a situation we've never encountered at the table, although we've played canape style for many years. "Natural cue-bid overcalls" is a possible defensive agreement vs. canape, but (as I said) we've never run into it.

"The Expert Game" and "Master Play" (by Reese) are the same book. It was published originally in England with the former title, later in America with the latter title.

Not to worry, you've got a good chance no matter how bad you think you were . . . .

If somebody wants to post the hands and scoring before Wed. at 9:00 EST, TimG and I might find that helpful . . . .

It might be fun (for the four of us left) to bid Round 5 simultaneously. Is that something that can be managed/arranged?

Notice that Tim didn't suggest that he expected to be around for a hypothetical Round 6 . . . .