HighLow21

Well, semi-balanced with some bad honors and a weak doubleton. I can't imagine opening 2♣ with this hand in spite of the 3.5-4 losers and 5 QT's. For me the litmus test is that I won't vomit if 1♥ is passed out. The long suit isn't great, there are too many points wasted in short suits, and I don't fancy bidding NT right away. Plus I feel this hand is easier to bid opening with 1♥, forcing over any response; opening 2♣ will make it difficult to get across my semi-balanced hand or my 2 suits when NT might be the right spot. Remove the K♠ and add the Q♣ and I would open 2♣, intending to show a powerful 2-suiter that can make game opposite many nothing hands, like ♠xxx ♥Jx ♦xxxx ♣xxxx.

You had me at "asterisk." I agree there are similarities and differences. This is another hand I don't like for which 3NT may be best or may be horrendous. Curse those rotten preempts! And you don't need to worry about upsetting me with your expertise, Mike. B-) I had a rough first week on the forums here but I feel I've done a good at job at correcting my errors in it, and you and many others have been very respectful towards me ever since I started showing some respect and deference to "all y'all."

Indeed. :-)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this problem feel like the same problem as in the other 3NT-over-preempt post, except we're looking at advancer seat rather than direct seat? If you can't bid 3NT on one you can't bid 3NT on the other, IMO. Mike raises an excellent point about the possibility of a 4-3 fit being a better than 3NT, but either way I think game is 50-50 roughly, maybe worse. I bid 3NT just because I didn't on the other one, and because 9 tricks seems more likely than 10. :-) Please, partner, don't have a minimum on this one!!

I'd like to second this notion; I don't understand why the lobby feature isn't available as, at the very least, a somewhat-deprecated backward compatibility feature on the web client. Doesn't seem like it would take long to integrate as a by-default disabled feature that can be activated as a "check-box" option in the Chat Preferences window. 2 hours of programming time? Tops?? The reason I want it is I have been advised by more than one experienced/expert on the forums to use it to find high-quality games, but I can no longer stomach the Windows client.

You can also leave notes on each person when you click their profile. These notes can only be seen by you. Notes like "chronic overbidder," "too quiet," "real name is Michael and he's super-nice." These can be immensely helpful when you see their name 3 weeks later and need some context!

Gordon, Finally a post I am qualified to answer! You are right. Most do not talk. This is in general a bad sign; as bad a sign, or worse, than a person who self-rates as Beginner. To me the most important thing a new person can do across from me is have some basic level of communication, given that we obviously have never played together and have some basic things to sort out (you are playing transfers, right? Your jump-shift in competition is weak? Your jump raises are invitational?) The other great barometer is: defend one hand with them. If they single signal at all, or make one switch that makes sense or one continuation that makes sense; avoid setting up a truckload of winners in dummy by trick 2; and discard reasonably, the person has some potential. ESPECIALLY if they are willing to answer the basic question or two that will come up on the first couple of hands, and also seem to have a reasonable demeanor. At that point, I don't even care whether they speak much English. Heck, I'll even employ Google translate in a side window if I need to. I know I've got a competent partner and that we'll do fine. Note that the defend-one-hand test is a better barometer for me than watching them declare one hand. Some people fold under tricky contracts as declarer, but still can do decently well as your partner if they can give you the basic scraps you need to defend a hand decently well. Besides, you can always walk out for a smoke when they're declaring if need be, or hog the bidding so that you declare more. I certainly do both. ;-)

But still, 3% or whatever it is, is higher than 0%. And in the extremely unlikely case that the A♣ does get ruffed, you've just created a real problem.

I see what you're getting at Michael; it's not really a safety play in the classic sense (i.e. sacrificing a possible trick to ensure the contract.) It's more like choosing one line for 12 tricks over a different one. In this case, it's playing clubs as described as opposed to guessing wrong twice on the missing heart honors.

Excellent points; I could be letting the severity of specific hands that really turned sour affect my decision making here. (I think it's a cognitive bias called something like the pessimism bias: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases). Also, recency bias. I did just get positively nailed coming in over a preempt recently. The contract? 3NT. A very sound 3NT, even more sound than this case, that was wrongly doubled and duly socked 3 tricks. It is so hard to main objectivity at this game sometimes.

One doesn't always shun safety plays at MP. If you get to a good contract for which making exactly will ensure a good score, and you have a risk of going down without the safety play, then take the safety play. It's only when you feel that everybody else will make the contract and that the only way to get a HIGH score is to be to go for an overtrick, that safety plays may go by the wayside. Here, there might be a pair or two that don't find the good slam, and there should be quite a few pairs who don't get a lead that makes the slam basically certain. In those cases, ensure the contract whenever you can. Here, the main risk is actually that spades are 3-0. If they are not, the contract is certain: ruff the opening lead and play a spade honor from hand. If both opponents follow, lead a trump to dummy's Q♠, cash A♣ pitching a heart, and lead J♣ letting it ride (again pitching a heart) except in the very unlikely case that East covers. The 10♣ enables another heart loser to disappear, and you can ruff 2 more hearts in hand. If spades are 3-0, then there is more risk of going down. You should still play the same way but need to leave a trump outstanding while you do your rounded suit work. You may end up needing to switch lines and ruff 3 diamonds in dummy if the 3 spades are on your left.

Silly question time... What does the acronym ATB stand for? Seen it a few times, context tells me it's "Attach The Blame" or some such thing... Couldn't find this in the Useful Abbreviations list. Thx!

Agreed with all the comments so far. North's spade intermediates seem fine for a 2♠ opener, and I don't like the low-percentage 5♠ call. Is the question: what is South's 100% line for defeating the contract?

Ya I thought about this one some more and I probably would compete with 3♠ too. My shape is decent, and if I had a 4th trump I'd bid a limit 3♠ over no competition. My only thought was that a 3♠ call now might turn partner off to game if he's got a decent minimum with a little shape, if he takes 3♠ as strictly competitive with no game interest. 4♠ might still be the right spot. I think I'll backtrack and say 3♠ trusting partner to count on a hand like this when he's worth a stab at game.

Not me.

Hahahahahaha!!

I might not have put Italy in the Top 2, and I would have put China higher, but #1 I could have guessed without pausing.

This is a pretty good hand. 8 HCP but 3 tens, trump support, a doubleton heart and a 4-card weak diamond side suit. Nice. Partner's going to like our 3 non-♦ tens quite a bit. If your partner has a decent hand he should hopefully know to reopen with a double or bid 3♥ (or rebid 3♠) next, playing you for about 6-10 points with no clear action over 3♦. (With more than that, you would bid at the 4 level over his reopening double.) He, like you, knows your side almost certainly has half the deck or more. I would pass and trust that if 3♦ is passed out, you didn't miss a making 3♠. Maybe he has something like AQ9xx♠ Jxx♥ xx♦ Axx♣. But I think this is pretty unlikely. Why? Partner should have 2 diamonds at most and likely only 1; if he cannot reopen, you probably missed nothing, and he almost certainly opened on a bad 11 or 12 and no longer likes the hand. Jdeegan makes a good point: partner should not be light on these colors, and the auction confirms this. LHO and RHO have sub-openers, so partner will have 12+ points at least 90% of the time in my estimation, and may have a 20-count. To me that all makes this pass maximum or even slightly super-max. In other words, pass only with a partner you trust to reopen whenever even remotely reasonable. By the way... if partner reopens with a double, I'm as tempted to go 4♠ as 3♠ in response. If you are NOT 100% sure your partner would reopen whenever possible, I would bid 3♠. Your red suit distributions will line up well for crossruffing (you rate to have some heats to ruff in partner's hand, and both red suits will be ruff-right), and you have nothing wasted in diamonds. You would adore another small trump, but sometimes life isn't like that. Partner will probably bid game most of the time there is a play for it. If you respond 3♠, or partner doubles and you respond 3♠, and then partner goes game over your 3♠ bid, expect to make it nearly always.

LOL yes this is one I forgot --> in general establish tricks for the opponents before knocking their stoppers out :lol: :lol:

Yes and no--> the point I'm trying to argue is that the game bonus at IMP scoring is juicier, yes, but the cost of a large penalty against your side also is larger at IMPs. Reward at teams is higher and risk is also higher on this hand. The comparison you're thinking of is whether to bid game or stay one level below game; it's almost always wrong to stay at the level below game at IMPs, especially vulnerable, because the reward is large and the downside, say -1 undoubled vs. making a partscore, is much smaller. +620 vs. +170 is a +350 swing; -50 vs. +140 is only a -190 swing. Here, I'm saying it's possible that the downside is much more substantial than one down undoubled, and the upside is only about +270 or +300 relative to 4♣ making. But since I seem to be the only one who lands on the minuses side of the ledger for this hand, I will diminish. B-) By the way, original poster, I'm interested to see what the actual result on this hand was.

Alright, since I rarely need much encouragement to continue, here are the top 10 things to know about sitting dummy for a less-than-astute declarer: 1. The play at trick 1 must be hasty. Declarer can sit and huddle and trance all he wants when, later in the hand, a crucial decision needs to be made and it's obvious exactly what he is thinking about. 2. There is absolutely no reason to delay drawing trumps at trick 2... unless, of course, you don't need ruffs in dummy and your trump suit is solid. Then, it's perfectly acceptable to continue leading side suits until a low defensive crossruff is established. 3. Any time the opening lead has revealed key information about the way an important suit breaks, the declarer will either fail to observe that information, fail to utilize it, or play the suit exactly backwards from what the information has revealed (so that he can't be accused of "falling for the ruse.") 4. Once the bidding is over, any information provided therein is to be completely dismissed as "irrelevant" and/or "BS." 5. Finesses are fun; always take them even if there's a guaranteed line to make the contract without the finesse. 6. Entries are completely unimportant, and should be utilized solely to take unnecessary finesses as described in (5), above. 7. A great way to make a trump contract is to force the long trump hand to ruff repeatedly BEFORE the long side suit is established. 8. Counting the hand is completely unnecessary (not to mention impossible). 9. When several rounds of trumps have been drawn and there is one defender trump outstanding which happens to be the master trump, the only acceptable continuation is to play another round of trumps immediately, forcing the defender to win his master trump now in the hopes that he will "do something helpful." 10. Probably the most important one of all: When doubled in what will obviously be a borderline, tricky contract, and you will be sitting dummy for it, get up and leave before opening lead. It will add years to your life. Ask a friend or neutral observer to reveal dummy on your behalf. Never return to the table.

Small diamond. Very close to leading a small club. Any major suit has almost no chance of defeating the contract and leading A or K from AKxxx is not good practice in most cases. Partner had a chance to overcall with a decent major and didn't do so. An opening major lead is likely to expose that suit's lie at trick 1 and, in all likelihood, finesse partner. 1NT bidder is practically guaranteed to have 4 clubs. If they are good clubs, like QJTx or even QJ8x, leading them doesn't get us very far. If I had the 10 of clubs instead of the 3, I would lead a club. Diamonds may actually be the best suit for our side. 1D opener may have 4-4-3-2 shape (in which case diamonds are definitely the suit to lead), but in any other case he will have 4+ diamonds. When leading dummy's 4-card suit, you should lead 4th best unless you hold a 4-card sequence.

The best retort would be that he was playing RHO to have made a Grosvenor gambit. But I imagine he wouldn't understand that anyway.

To say that "hubby was basically as skilled as the average advanced pickup" is a severe insult to advanced pickup players everywhere, "average" or otherwise...

While I agree that 4333 is usually a terrible shape for a limit raise or preemptive raise, particularly when very weak, the LAW is actually particularly poor in general whenever both hands are weak, and/or when the trumps are very weak, often regardless of shape, and/or when the trumps break badly. In "I Fought the LAW..." Mike Lawrence and Anders Wirgren (spelling?) write up a great example of this wherein both sides have around 20 HCP and a 4-4 fit. However, in both cases, one of the opponents holds AKQJ in the other side's trump suit. That defender can draw trumps and then lead over to his partner's long suit, running 8 tricks to start the defense. It's a great example of how terribly off the LAW can be on some deals. 16 trumps but only 10 total tricks. (In fact, Richard Pavlicek has some examples where the Law can be off by 12 tricks!)