HighLow21

2NT, showing a hand that would have opened 1NT. I like the positional value of the hearts but hate everything else about this. I would not be surprised if partner has 8-9 HCP and 2NT is still not cold. But I can't pass and I definitely can't double.

You forgot a very important piece in your analysis--the 6-ish IMPs swings that you lose the other way. I.e., they can't make 3♦ and we go down as well. The Qx is a defensive asset primarily. A stronger argument for passing. Finally don't forget, partner is still over there. He will have complete information if it is passed through to him, and he'll be better equipped to decide whether it is best to compete. As it is.

12 HCP (I count AJT as 6 points), good suit, boss suit. The power of opening 1♠ is that you rob the opponents of the initiative AND several bids. If your partnership requires ultrasound openers, fine. But if you're going to overcall no matter what if 1♠ is available, then you might as well open it. It makes it much harder for the opponents to find their possible heart fit.

Probability=1%. Unless you lead a trump of course.

Didn't say leading a club was retarded. I said GiB's defense in general is. I said leading a club was speculative at best and could turn out extremely poorly.

Missed that; apologies. In that case, it's probably best to take out. Partner is far less likely to change the contract from 2C.

1C-1H-3C-3NT would be the most likely start to this. From there it's system-dependent, but I would bid 4NT if my partner knew it was not a quant invite to 6NT. Also, if it starts 1C-1H-3C, South has to feel like 3NT is a massive underbid, so perhaps he bids Blackwood. Either way this is a good challenge hands for newer/average partnerships to get to 6C and for advanced partnerships to find 7C. I strongly recommend that beginners never, ever bid 7 of anything unless it's an absolute certainty on simple bidding. This will happen maybe once every 1,000 deals. An example: your partner opens the bidding with 1H and you hold: ♠AKQJ953 ♥K7 ♦AKQ ♣7 Partner opened and you're staring at a solid spade suit and 22 HCP. Ask him how many aces he has and bid either 6♠ or 7♠ (or 7NT) depending on his answer.

Depending on the strength of your partner, you may want to sit 1NT doubled if it does come back to you. If you bid 2C, he may very well respond with 2NT or 3C or some other monstrosity if he doesn't get what your bid means. Just sit tight and let him try to take 7 tricks in peace. You do have half the deck, give or take 1-2 points. Also keep in mind that 1NT is the single hardest contract on the face of the earth to defend against. And if you're not playing Stayman, learn it and play it. It's far better than the ability to make weak, natural takeouts with hands like this.

Yes, it is, but the question is about how to play for 5, not 4. 4 tricks doesn't belong in the N/B forum.

My response is that you're a good player, and defense is difficult.

Q♠ gives nothing away; a club is speculative at best and the only lead to give away the contract at worst. I am sure GiB led a club because, frankly (and I'm putting this mildly), its defense is indecipherably retarded.

I will take the opposite side of the debate on this--I feel LTC is extremely effective if it is backed by judgment, and this feels like an ideal hand for it. (I actually did the LTC when deciding on my vote here.) Further, I think HCP adjustment systems, no matter how sophisticated, entirely miss the point... HCP is effective for defense (sometimes) and for balanced-hand NT bidding (usually, but even there, it has problems). It's glaringly wrong for unbalanced suit contract bidding, in my experience, because it starts with a system designed for a certain hand type, and then tries to adapt it for a completely different hand type. Why not just use an evaluation system geared around counting winners or losers with a known, sufficient trump fit?

3 spades or 3 clubs, help-suit trial, if that's in your system. (Partner will them go 4♠ with anything but the worst of what he's already described... call it 75% of the time.) 4 spades is an overbid but not unreasonable given the vulnerability.

That's precisely the point. It's not ONLY that several things can go right and only one wrong. It's that combined with the likelihood and severity of the punishment if they do go wrong vs. the benefits if they go right. And in North's seat, I feel the risks far outweigh the benefits of acting. I simply hate taking -1100s.

Completely disagreed. When it's North's turn to bid, he has no idea how the other points in the deck are distributed. When it's South's turn, he knows 2 things: (1) He has a lot of tricks in hearts. (2) North has values and almost certainly sufficient support to venture 3♥. Doubling 3♦ on the North hand risks getting slaughtered while bidding on the South hand is much, much safer.

As I said, I have no qualms with people who wouldn't double. I would on this hand; I'd be wrong in this hand; but I think I'd be a winner in the long run. Your opinion may differ and that's just fine. And in terms of the rubber bridge thing--I don't play for money. But I wouldn't be so cocky. Your results are pretty good, but they're not THAT good.

Look, I respectfully disagree with all of your comments. I have no qualms with anyone who does not double, but to me, anyone who argues that the double is poor is 'resulting', not being honest. They bid and made a 21-point, 11-trick game, and there are plenty of reasons for thinking it will not make. Plenty. But it does happen to make because it's a perfect fit. So be it. I'd double the next time, too. I simply can't afford to leave it undoubled when the auction proceeds like this and I hold that hand. It gives up too much profit.

OK. I think you're all wrong and that's your prerogative.

Excellent response. I accept your apology and I will extend my own: I simply meant to say that ducking seemed foolish to me, and that was flippant. My response that Hand #2 should have been: "Hand #2 seems iffy to me; I think covering is wiser but it could go either way." I probably should add that if I go down on Hand #2 I will have to compliment RHO on his brilliant defense. He put me to an early guess and I guessed wrong. Excellent job. Final thought: in my book, it takes a big person to apologize when they're called out on something, rather than firing back or defending. Thank you for your mature, thoughtful reply. :)

Agreed with everything you said... I was simply stating my full position on the issue and backing it up with argument, evidence, and facts... since I figured that's what this post was for in the first place! :) And yes, whenever I go down in a cold contract it's always my partner's fault. B-) ;)

Well for one thing, it risks going down in a cold contract whenever the heart is from Jx(x). It also creates a guess on the next round when RHO leads a small heart. Not sure I need to see how deep the rabbit hole goes when the obvious thing to play for loses if I duck, and I will STILL face a guess on the next heart if I duck. I also caveated that in Hand #2 the decision was iffy, in strong contrast to Hand #1, wherein there is absolutely no logical guess whatsoever in my mind. In Hand #1, you are dead meat if the K♦ is singleton. So you must assume it isn't. I also said in Hand #2 that not covering SEEMED foolish TO ME. Seemed. But that doesn't mean that ducking isn't the right play. It is definitely correct if the lead is a deceptive one from QJ9x(x). And seriously, there's no need to get nasty with me by making assumptions about how weak my thought process may be in your mind, or what my motives for posting a lot may be. Especially when I've been complimentary to you here and elsewhere. You don't know me, and I don't presume to know you. I also presume these boards are for learning about and debating bridge decisions. Not attacking people. Attack the argument, not the person. You would be wise to take this advice to heart.

Strongly disagreed. The auction is unconvincing and you have defense. Partner bid at the 2 level, dummy tried as hard as possible to sign off, and declarer went to game anyway; you have the hearts behind the heart bidder and you also have the king behind the spade cuebidder. Yes, they might make it, but they're just as likely to go 2 off in my book. I recently doubled a voluntarily bid 2NT in a similar situation; yes, they might have made it, but I could tell the cards were probably badly placed based on the auction. Result: down 4, +800, 12 IMPs. Looking at the 2 hands in isolation, 2NT was a perfectly reasonable place to play. The result was extremely unlucky. The AJ sixth of trumps in dummy is unlucky. If you'd led a club, partner not overtaking and returning a heart would have been unlucky. If you don't allow the occasional contract that you double to make, you're absolutely not doubling enough. This is especially true if doubling them does not give them game. In my experience, if you set 70%+ of the contracts you double while rarely doubling them into game, your double shows a profit in the long run. A little math here: your double costs -150 if they make, and gains either +100 or +300 if they go down. Even ignoring the +300, your double gains if they fail to make at least 60% of the time. Another point: leading the singleton trump was a very bad idea. Singleton trumps are almost always a very bad idea. It probably didn't cost here, but partner will wonder why you led a single trump and not his suit. (Swap a small diamond from dummy with a small club from partner, and the opening lead very likely blew the defense.) Final note: The idea that they are playing for overtricks is sheer lunacy in my book; the only way that's true is if partner psyched his overcall.

It's not true--I've watched him, and rate him as one of the best in the world. He also plays regularly against the best in the world. He's way better and way more seasoned than I am. (He's also a lousy banker, and made millions while he abandoned his failing company in order to play golf and bridge, but that's a separate issue.) In statistical terms, jec is a complete outlier--in a regression that, in my mind, has a very strong R-squared. The reasons that he's an outlier are readily identifiable and thus removing him in the sample is justifiable. To retort by pointing out one outlier and thereby implying that my argument is invalid, however, is completely specious. My response: (1) For every one jec that plays only with and against world-class competitors, there are 1,000 players in the rest of the pool for whom knowing the stats would be very useful. (2) If jec regularly played against average opponents his IMPs average would unequivocally be higher than mine. (3) Even on bboskill.com, there is a feature allowing a player to be recognized as a "VIP." They even explain what this means, and the reasons behind it, on the website. jec is a very-well known VIP--perhaps the quintessential VIP. Your move.

... yes, you did... I don't mean to quibble. I'm simply saying that you encouraged me to rethink my position. 1. I understand the reasons why no rating system was implemented and MrAce's comment is the fulcrum-point behind those reasons. (In the end it all comes down to business, and for this business, the more members the better. It's about money. And since it's about money, their lack of a rating system is a very shrewd business move. It doesn't mean it's the best product. It means it's the product that makes the most money. Think about it.) 2. I'm indifferent between a simple averaging system and a more complicated one, such as Elo. 3. I will still play at BBO because it's the best, lack of ratings system aside. Yes, I can weed out the bad apples myself, gradually, over time. I still get aggravated every time I get whacked (in terms of IMPs) and then insulted by a self-rated Expert who cannot understand, say, transfer responses or defensive signalling. Or how to draw trumps. Because it happens constantly.

Irrespective of the results on this hand, in this spot I rate a heart lead as twice as likely to beat the contract as a club.