HighLow21

If you bid 4♣ making here, it is among the luckiest makes I've ever seen. If the defense is best and starts with AK♥, A♦, and another heart, you are down as of trick 4. A♦ followed by AK♥ and another diamond could potentially make you guess clubs. The only reason the guess doesn't materialize is that East has QJ♣ which won't happen most of the time to any length. If the defenders cash A♦ then exit in spades you must guess the clubs, and advocates of restricted choice will get it wrong most of the time (on the auction, East is likely to be shorter in clubs, so the best play is A♣ and a finesse, losing a trump trick correctly.) You are guaranteed to go down if either defender has QJx(x) in clubs, which will happen almost half the time. It just so happens not to be here. There are plenty of layouts with these cards where either 3♦ makes and 4♣ is (doubled) down 2, or neither contract makes. Thus all in all, 4♣ is a horrendous bid and the contract just happens to make ONLY IF declarer play is perfect and the defense isn't; and if you never bid it, you will gain a lot of IMPs in the long run.

Thank you for all the feedback; looks like we have some broad consensus here. I have posted the full hand below. 4♠ is unbeatable and I was dummy. The responder carried on to 4♥, but then doubled 4♠ when it came back to him. My partner played a few tricks and claimed. Responder, a self-rated "expert", then started bawling his partner out for his bidding. I tried to reason with him saying that 3♥ was suspect, but one could argue that it's best to show a modicum of support while one safely can. Furthermore, his double was completely ridiculous. It seems to me like everyone agrees that 3♥ was a bad bid (but primarily because opener is minimum and responder had only shown hearts at the one level --> maybe on a bad 4-card suit), that 4♥ was eminently correct (I agree wholeheartedly), and that doubling 4♠ was by far the worst offense. Simply put, East's ODR was far too high to double. He has 5 offensive tricks in hand in hearts and none whatsoever in spades. Partner would need to supply all the defense and declarer is known to have at least a 6-card spade suit. There is no reason to believe declarer will not make. As it turns out, West panicked when he took the A♦ and cashed A♣ (what else could East have for his double but club tricks?!), giving us 11 tricks. The best thing for East to do is to carry on the 5♥, going down 2 if doubled or, better, maybe pushing us to 5♠ which should be 1 down. A side note: if the overcaller had bid 1♠, then 2♥ by opener is best, no? Or would it STILL be pass? (Assuming no support doubles in use of course.) The full hand and play: [hv=pc=n&s=skt76542h6d97ckq7&w=sq8h973daqjt2cat6&n=saj9ha82dk863c543&e=s3hkqjt54d54cj982&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dp1h2s3h3s4h4sppd(%3F%3F%3F%3F)ppp&p=h3hah4h6sas3s2s8s9hksksqd7dad3d4cac3c2c7]399|300[/hv]

No, I'm Tate. :-) Careful though --> what jdeegan was talking about was a ROUTER, not a modem. The modem translates signals from the cable into TCP/IP communication (basically, TCP/IP is the languages computers speak to each other over the internet). Routers then allow multiple computers to connect to that Internet connection. You can't do wireless without that wireless router, unless your modem has built-in router capabilities. Either way, your provider will be able to tell you what you have and whether you need a new installation of some sort.

This is why I don't use the LOTT. (In fact I was even going to suggest I do a hypothetical analysis using LOTT before the answer was published, and thought better of it because I know so many people have so much disdain for it...) All in all, seems like a very close hand and it may be that if this situation occurred 1,000 times, the long-run IMP winner would be passing 3♦. All depends on the weights of the above scenarios (and some others not yet mentioned) and some stuff I mention below. Very good analysis by Ben. -Assuming, as I was going to, that there are 17 trumps, and assuming that Tricks = Trumps, then it is right to bid 4♠ if we have 10 tricks and they have 7. This will be true an awful lot of the time on this auction. It also makes sense to bid spades if they are taking 9 tricks and we're taking 8 (even doubled down 2, it is better than giving up the vul game). So it's right in 2 of the 4 common cases (We make 10 or 8) and wrong in the other two (We make 11 or 9). -Assuming negative adjustments, then it will never be better to bid the game, assuming we always get doubled when we're going down. -Assuming positive adjustments (unlikely here, but possible), it will almost always be right to bid game. -I know that Jxx in the opponents' trump suit is a potential indicator that there is a negative adjustment (schmooze speak for "random fudge factor") but there's no reason at all that partner's ♦ singleton has to be a minor honor (and statistically, it's far less likely to be Q or K than to be A or T thru 2). But nothing about my hand suggests partner has wasted HCP. I seem to have only 1 wasted HCP and since partner basically just bid 3 suits simultaneously, I'm willing to dump 1 HCP for an upgrade in the other 9. -Defensive ruffs can totally throw the LAW off. So do a number of other factors, which can make the difference between Total Trumps and Total Tricks as high as TWELVE. (Yes, 12.) It shouldn't be called the LAW at all. It should be called "the occasional coincidence of total trumps" because it's only right about 40% of the time and frequently off by 2 or more, and the relationship between the two variables is only coincidental, not causal. -The LAW assumes perfect defense which isn't always the case; it also assumes perfect declarer play, which isn't always the case. Some other thoughts: -I will be embarrassed as heck at IMPs if my side is making 4 spades (or only 1 off) and, due to a defensive error, they make 3♦. Defending 3 of a minor doubled is my least favorite activity in the world, especially without a trump trick. (I realize it's unlikely to make, but make dummy a bit more shapely, for example, or give it more entries to establish clubs...) -The fact that my hand happens to be flat doesn't mean partner's is. 4333 hands can play fine in a suit opposite a shapely dummy with no wasted honors. -If I were partner, I do not think I'd be doubling 3♦ on that hand. I've got bad spots, only 1 ace, a wasted queen, and at most 12 working points. (As it turns out, only 9 HCP are working.) Not enough for me to force partner to respond at the 9-trick level. Make my Q♦ the T♦ and change my spades to KJ93♠ and I'd double. Granted, it's right to play partner for 8-9 in this spot, but he has 9 working HCP and we still cannot make game. Anyway, I think this particular hand is on one far end of the spectrum of potential outcomes. Here's a counterexample. Keep N/S hands exactly the same and change West to: Kx♠ Jxxx♥ Kxx♦ xxxx♣ Now, on a trump lead, 3♦ is only 1 off and the defense would have to be fairly slick to defeat 4♠ (they must lead a club to start, or lead a diamond and then switch to ace and a club at trick 2). Or: Kxx♠ Jxx♥ Kxx♦ xxxx♣ Now there is no club ruff, so 4♠ makes and 3♦ is only 1 off on a trump lead. There is no reason that the hand cannot be one of these examples and not the actual layout. We would make the game most of the time on layout 1 and all the time on layout 2. And I haven't even analyzed swapping North's Q♦ for some other useful honor, such as J♠. Notice also that with only N/S visible, on the auction West is a favorite to hold both the spade K and the longer spades on the auction. The fact that East holds a side suit singleton, the K of spades, and longer spades, is just unfortunate. Anyway I still think the game is maybe a slightly better bet if none of partner's HCP are in diamonds. With 2 or 3 HCP wasted in diamonds, maybe partner will refrain from doubling in this spot, recognizing the defensive value of 4-4-4-1 shape and the bad Q♦ flaw. It's the real negative adjustment on this hand. It cost us 1-2 tricks on offense and gained us nothing on defense. Maybe we should send this hand (along with umpteen others) to Larry Cohen and see if he'll retract THE LAW for us. Don't hold your breath. As Mike Lawrence would say, "Lovely game, this bridge."

Apparently I can't count to 9 with my head cold. :( (And I thought the contract was 3nt)

Call me crazy, but on a ♥ opening lead, isn't ducking the 1st spade a 100% line? Well, 99% --> it can fail if opener has 5 spades in addition to 5 hearts.

As is your right... :) I hereby reserve the right to be wrong! B-)

Technically all are forcing for one round. You might take a view and pass the rebid under special circumstances, but only under VERY rare circumstances. Maybe once every 50 hands. And be fully prepared to apologize to partner if a cold game is missed. One exception for me personally is (3), particularly if non-vulnerable. I bid 3NT instead of 2NT if I have 14+ points and partial stoppers in the unbids, because 3NT is really hard to defend. Plus, I don't want to linger in 2NT at IMPs, especially vulnerable. Thus 2NT says "I am dead minimum, I have exactly 5 hearts, and I don't like clubs." Responder can then leave me in 2NT on a minimum and suspicions of a semi-misfit. Thus for me, (1), (2), and (4) are forcing except for the rare exception, and (3) is somewhere between invitational and semi-forcing.

MikeH don't lie... this preempt is a fantastic action, in my book, given the state of the match. So we missed our heart fit? So what? It's the opponents' hand and 3♠ gives us the best chance to create a swing.

I cannot imagine anyone voluntarily bidding this hand alone at the 9-trick level, even non-vul, even (maybe) at matchpoints. To bid it red at IMPs is asking to go -1100 to save a partscore. You have 8 losers and no guarantee of a sufficient trump fit. Terrible. Let this one go.

Agreed. Slam is fair at best. It requires finding the Q♠, avoiding a ruff, and ruffing a heart. Disagreed. 2♥ to me suggests a better hand, a better suit, or both in my book. If you are playing 2/1, you're better off defining 1M-2m-2M as one example of a 2/1 auction that does not force game. That makes 2♥ rebid a game force, which you don't want to do with this hand if you have no fit. Funny. To me this hand is an example of the reason I DON'T play 2/1. (you're missing an x somewhere, btw --> I assume it should be in ♦.)

This hand stinks. Pass and lead K♠ hoping to take 5 tricks on defense.

Unless partner's singleton diamond is an honor, they have 5 trump tricks, and unless that honor is the A♦, they may have 6. If dummy has shortness in the right place, it may be 7. Add that all together and I expect them to make 7-8 tricks in diamonds and I expect us to make 10-11 tricks in spades. Thus pass nets 200-500 and 4♠ nets 620-650. If we really can set it 3 then we might have a play for 6♠.

I assume this is Cthulhu stuff.

Wow. So google is now using its ranking technology to search the contents of your email and make an assessment of whether it's important. That's awesome and invasive at the same time. I have no idea how to take it if it's there or not there, because I've never seen this message myself.

Nope. Configuring routers can be a pain but your DSL provider should have an option to install one for you. If you want to do it yourself, you can get them as cheap as $20, but if you're not computer savvy, I do suggest having someone else do it....

Actually I'm kind of amazed that 4th seat 2-level bids are indeed not covered in the SAYC booklet. Maybe the guardians of SAYC disagree on the treatment of them.

4♠. Don't want to miss game, ♠ is our most likely game, and if the opponents aren't fools, we have at most 1 diamond loser. My 10 HCP are all working except for the JD, a small give-up.

(1) Yes. It's close, but jumping the bidding with that anemic suit is not my idea of a good idea. Plus your long side suit won't generate tricks unless.... (2) Nothing. Pass 3NT expecting to make 9 or 10 tricks. ...unless you are fielding a psyche here, which might be why this hand is here.

It sounds to me like you have a cable modem, correct? If so, you can get a wireless router or, in most cases, ask the cable company to set up a wireless router in your home for you. The way it works is this: currently, the internet feed goes from your cable coax, to your modem, to your computer. With a router, it will go: cable --> modem --> router. Then you can plug in your desktop to the router with an ethernet cable while SIMULTANEOUSLY also connecting to the router via wireless, no cables involved.

Spoken like a true teacher. This is absolutely the case, and I can testify it from my 5 years as a teacher (not at bridge, but at a similar discipline: Math sections for standardized exams). Thank goodness it's not year-end yet, because if it were it would be tough to allocate my vote for poster of the year among MrAce, Phil, MikeH, and a slew of others.

First bid, opener has a choice to make at first rebid after enemy preemption: [hv=pc=n&w=sq8h973daqjt2cat6&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dp1h2s]133|200[/hv] WWYD? Next bid. Same deal, hand opposite the opener above: [hv=pc=n&e=s3hkqjt54d54cj982&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dp1h2s3h3s4h4spp]133|200[/hv] WWYD? Next question: was the 4♥ bid by East reasonable, yes or no? Final question: as you can imagine, the hand did not end well for E/W. What do you think happened and how do you ATB?

There are people who actually do this; I was asked to do it once for the SATs, I was offered $20,000, and I completely rejected the idea for anything short of $500,000.

I think one such word is 'jerk.'

Agreed with wyman on this, though I have a small refinement: if we have no need whatsoever for preemption in 4th seat, why bid a weak 2♥ in 4th seat at all? One reason, as wyman pointed out, is that it is an accurate description of the hand. The other reason is subtle: 2♥ opening in 4th seat is harder to compete over than 1♥, intending to rebid 2♥ over any non-raise response by partner. Thus 2♥ is slightly preemptive in the sense that it makes it harder for LHO/RHO to contest the partscore (which is where you will want to play most of the time: a partscore in hearts). It will be a lot more common in this situation, if you open with these 4th seat hands, that you will wind up defending a making 2♠ or 3♠ or 3♦/♣, when you open 1♥ than when you open 2♥.