PhilKing

The penalty is for "fielding" a psyche - not for working out partner has psyched and taking appropriate evasive action. Even in England you are allowed to use your brain! (Though it is rare.)

The answer could be that 100% is fine. The equation would involve not just the proportion of boards, but the number played (for example, if every team played one million boards in a marathon round-robin, luck would clearly even out even if different boards were played in each match). For smaller numbers, the nature of the boards themselves becomes a critical variable factor. Say the boards missed were all swing hands favouring accurate bidding judgment or play, that would make a difference. You can't pluck "24.6%" out of a hat - the answer to your question is "nobody knows". With every side playing 24 boards, the result would rarely be "worthless" even if no teams played the same boards in different matches, but obviously some teams will have the "advantage" of swingier boards. Think of a Swiss in the old days with boards dealt at the table.

You could have moved on by not replying. :P And I did read it before concluding it was basically wrong.

If Bridgeguys say it is a strip squeeze then it must be true. Oh wait ... There's no strip. We have 11 on top and West is just squeezed without the count.

But Leonard Cohen argues that this leads to errors in assessing total tricks. ;)

I would bid 4♦ and respect a sign-off. In situations where we have a shortage ask available (3NT here), the steps above that show shortage. BTW, the shortage ask is a little high, since over 3NT you have only 3 steps available, and four hands to show. As a practical matter, pard "never" has short spades here (with a stiff spade just pot game or make a light splinter), so responses are: 4♣ = no shortage 4♦/♥ = minor shortages, whichever way round is most comfortable in your system I would actually go further and suggest having no shortages going through the stronger bergen variant, since it is a lottery whether game is cold opposite a minimum.

Just treat it as natural: x = to 2♠ = nat 2NT = lebensohl (or transfer if that's what you normally do) Trying to come up with a "perfect" defence to every defensive variant is an exercise in futility.

What possible reason is there to invent a load of gumph for this auction?

My head hurts. Why can't I just bid 2♠ then 3♥?

Which happily matches the hand we have been dealt.

I dont see why he can't be 6-4. 2♦ should be 5-4 5-5 or 6-4 with bad hearts etc. ♠x ♥AKTxxx ♦AKxx ♣Ax Is a fairly cold grand. Over 4♠ partner uses my special club - Sand Wedge RKCB (5♥), since 4NT would be DI, suggesting x AKQxxx AKxx Qx.

The conditions in OP seem crazy to me. If opener bids 2♣ on a 5242, what on earth does responder do on a 1444 opposite that? The theory of bidding lowest playable suit is potty - it's OK to say that bidding 2♣ on a weakish 5143 will work OK, and that is probably true, but then what is opener supposed to do with the same shape and 16 or 17 points, where the normal plan is to bid 2♦ then 3♣. Can't pard have that? In which case we could be playing in 2♦ when cold for 6♣. Anyway, even on the Nige scale Pass is a 3 and 2♠ the same. This hand is worth zilch in diamonds if they lead a trump (even if pard is 5251, you probably want to play in clubs) and about four tricks in clubs. I can see no merit whatsoever in either choice.

Against me, they bid 2NT-3♠-4♦-5♦-Pass. :( Opener had a clear raise to slam even on a non-invitational auction imo, but whatever.

I'm struggling to see an alternative to 3♣ other than, er, 3♣.

I would start with a jump shift of 3♣. Your hand is huge! That would probably lead to 6NT by South at pairs. As bid, it costs nothing to say 4♣ over 3♠, though it would make little difference here.

East opened 1♦ because he felt he was not strong enough for 2NT. I agree - it's difficult to imagine missing game by opening 1♦, and 2NT will routinely get you to game opposite five points or a good four, and you rate to go off almost always. But he should have passed on the next round. As it happens, doubling pushed them one higher, but then he got greedy. 3♠ one down would have been a huge result, but even defending 2♠ making would have been good, with 2NT destined to go two down.

I think South should double 4♥ for take-out. Pass is not terrible though, but this is the kind of auction where stretching a bit can work in more than one way, and is rarely a disaster.

One of us is being a bit thick - are you sure you don't mean Pass is 0-8 or 15+?

Companion hand was: ♠A982 ♥QJ94 ♦873 ♣AJ 5♦ goes for 1100. Fantoni drove slam and recorded -100 in 6♥. That's all from the database, which is now in lockdown mode!

If only someone had a searchable database of hands from top level competition that might shed light on this situation. Oh wait - they have! Try this one: ♠KT74 ♥AK63 ♦AQ ♣T98 You are at red, of course. Lefty opens Five Diamonds and pard doubles. Righty passes - your go. Partner is Nunes if that helps.

They just tap your hand with a diamond and you can kiss the spades goodbye - which is precisely why 3♣ is so wrong.

1) I assume North was not dealer, otherwise he should certainly respond 2♥ as a passed hand. 2) South should bid 4♦ (autosplinter) after the 1NT response. I hate the jump on a three-card suit. 3) I would open 2♣, but 1♠ is OK.

I am going to stand on my chair and pass in a loud voice.

Yes, I understand that. You have given up the benefit of having two layers of rebid (via a multi-way forcing completion) for the ability to stop in a triumphant contract of 1M. Anyway, 1M is forcing for me because it is consistent with a 21 count with clubs and diamonds.

Point 1. No. a) Passing 1♣ allows you to play any 1-level contract. When you pass with weakness opposite a likely weak no trump (the alternative is that partner has, er, clubs), you are freerolling their plus score. That is not true opposite the stronger balanced hand, where you need to escape from the non fit. b) Bidding on rubbish is fine opposite 1♦ when pard has the balanced strong hand, whereas it is a suicide job opposite the weak balanced hand. When pard is unbalanced, you just don't get hammered - all the time I have been clobbered are when pard responds to 1♣ for no reason whatsoever. Point 2, it is not my experience, but that may be because I can't stop. Are you sure this does not just apply versus plankton? Anyway, I like the idea of 1NT rebid as 15-17 nv, since I can easily incorporate that into my raise to two structure when we find a fit.