EricK

I'm not sure I agree with all these disparaging comments about the ace of diamonds. Granted, I'd rather the ace of diamonds be an ace of a different suit, but if partner had held the king of diamonds or the queen-jack, he's going to count them as nothing given the bidding and your ace is worth two tricks in this case - the ace itself and also the value in bringing back the honors that partner is downgrading back to life. Still not enough for a 3S bid but not trash either. The point is though, that a large proportion of the time partner won't have the ♦K or ♦QJ. The value you should assign to it must be weighted by the various probabilities, so overall you should value it less than if RHO had not bid ♦. The times you are wrong will be more than compensated by the times you are right, and that is the bestl you can hope for in any game of incomplete information. Eric

I wouldn't be surprised if some people thought that 44+♦-M meant exactly 4 diamonds and at least 4 in one of the majors (with 4+4♦-M and 4+4+♦-M being two other, distinct, possibilities) Eric

It seems very lucky. I would expect partner to have a fair number of ♥ and ♠ on the bidding. He had about the minimum number of major suit cards possible (and hence the maximum number of supporting cards for you. But as they say "If you can't be good, be lucky" B) Eric

2♠ shows the value of this hand and the sixth ♠. It also shows a little bit more than a minimum as you are not forced to bid after the 2♦ call. make the ♠4 into the ♠A and you are getting towards a 3♠ call. Eric

I think we can make a couple of assumptions. 1) West would lead a 5 card suit before a 4 card suit 2) West would lead a major before a minor. (some players would go so far as to lead a good 3 card major before a weak 4 card minor, but I shall ignore that possibility) Now, there are two possibilities to consider West has exactly a 3-3-4-3 hand, or a (23)-4-4 hand. In either case, the ♣Q is likely to be with West. Oh dear! I appear not to have used either vacant spaces or restricted choice. Eric

Does this percentage take into account the fact that South holds exactly 2♣ and 3♥? Eric

I have a point to make about West repsonding 1♠. It seems there are two main styles to responding to partner's overcall. The first says I will not rescue my partner unless/until he has been doubled. For these people a new suit opposite partner's overcall will be at least constructive, certainly inviting (but not forcing) partner to bid on if more than minimum, and will often be based on a partial fit (Hx), or a genuine but weak fit (xxx). The second group says since I will always support with support (using fit jumps, splinters, cue-raises, pre-emptive raises and so on if necessary), a new suit bid is almost a rescue. It says to partner, this might very well be a better place to play 1♥ (or whatever), and will normally be based on a misfit. I am firmly in the first camp, so for me 1♠ is a good, decriptive bid, which will help partner judge the fit. If you are in the second camp, I can understand your worrying that 1♠ might end the auction, or that partner won't know what to do if opps compete further. Eric

Did they misdefend because they counted your hand and decided you couldn't have a certain honour? Even if they did, they haven't got a case, but still I am willing to bet that they didn't! Eric

I think West should do more than simply raise to 2♥. Either 1♠, hoping to supoort ♥ later (in which case East can compete to 3♥ based on double fit), or 2♣ showing more than a pre-emptive raise. Without that, neither player has a 3♥ bid. East can't reraise especially if partner would raise to 2♥ on xxxx Jxx Kxxx xx or similar. West can't bid to 3♥ on his own in case partner has xxx Axxxx Axx xx. Eric

When I first saw this hand, I thought that the minuses outweighed the pluses. But I set up a quick simulation using Jack, and the hands I looked at showed that it was very rare for anything bad to happen. On the occasions where something bad could happen, it was very difficult for the opponents to actually realise this and penalise us rather than bid on. On the other hand, it was also rare for the bid to actually achieve something positive. Normally, the opponents could make a negative double or bid NT, and get to exactly the same contract they would have anyway. I must point out, I was doing this analysis by hand, so firstly I couldn't look at a large sample, and secondly I was assuming all players bid as well or as badly as I do. So in conclusion: I don't know. If your opponents are better than you, it is probably best not to overcall, but if they are worse, overcalling might see them slip up. Eric

If you are playing "system on" over 1NT overcall, then I would overcall 1NT. If not, then I might still overcall 1NT, or I might double with the intention of raising partner's major suit or bidding NT over partner's Diamond bid. This is a slight overbid, but increases our chances of getting to the right strain. Eric

I agree that 1♠ (5♣) are automatic. Now a lot of people play that pass is forcing in this situation, in which case, should North pass? If he doubles because of the singleton ♠ and four ♣, then South will still probably bid 5♦. Now I think North will raise to 6♦, which might make, depending on the lead. If North makes a FP on the first round, then South might gamble 6♦ on his own. Eric

I was kibitzing too. I might be wrong, but after the ♣7 (probably top of doubleton on bidding) to T 4 and 8 and 3 rounds of ♥ showing they divided 3-3, Declarer decided South was more likely to have ♦ length, so playing ♦ might not work, so he went for a strip squeeze against South in case his hand was Kxxx Jxx QTxx xx As I say, I may be wrong. Eric

I suspect there is no perfect scoring system. But there may be one which is a bit better than the others. On the other hand, I have never played any reasonably long session of bridge where I could honestly say that I lost or did badly because of the scoring. There are always plenty of hands where I could have played a bit better, and a few where I could have played much better. Once I have eliminated all those mistakes from my game, I shall return to the problem of determining the best scoring system. Eric

East has made a good pre-empt. Well done to him. It is not trivial to bid these hands to slam even without the opening pre-empt. At least not in a natural system. I can easily imagine many pairs languishing in 4♥, because they haven't diagnosed that there are two running suits. Especially if North does not consider his hand strong enough to bid 2♣ over 1♥. Eric

That's right. The truth is that hands like xx HHxx xxx HHxx opposite HHxx xx HHxx xxx will generally play much better than Hx Hxxx Hxx Hxxx opposite Hxxx Hx Hxxx Hxx So, for NT contracts (and also for suit contracts), hands with concentrated honours are not in principal worse than hands with scattered honours. Eric

If East holds up the ♣A, does 6NT make? Eric YEs.... Since his partner has the !SQ... Holding up the club ace, it still makes. Ben Yes, you're right. But is 6NT the better contract? My brain stopped working at about 3 o'clock this afternoon, and I can't work out which has a greater chance of success. Eric

If East holds up the ♣A, does 6NT make? Eric

1♠ 3♣ 3♥ 3♠ 4♣ 4♠ 5NT 6♣ North makes a SJS then reveals it was based on a spade fit. South shows the double fit. North has a poor hand for slam opposite Heart strength, so signs off in game. South then asks him to pick a slam, so he does. How dubious was that :) Eric

Are you sure nobody has game? If partner has a maximum with hearts, you might very well have a game. However, pass may be a good gamble, especially NV v V. Missing a borderline NV game at pairs isn't the greatest crime, but doubling vulnerable opponents for 200 is quite often a clear top. Maybe you should vary what you bid with this sort of hand, especially if you play against the same people all the time. Sometimes pass, sometimes bid 1NT. Keep them guessing! Eric

You are lucky that you are playing a relay system which counts a singleton K as a high card control. Eric

Does anyone think that South's Pass of 3♣ may reveal a concealed partnership understanding (that 2♣ may be weaker than standard). I don't know of any pair who play that a strong artificial 2♣ may only be forcing to 3m (I have seen 100%GF; 100% GF except for 2NT rebid; forcing to 3M or 4m). If that is a partnership agreement, then I think that it should be alerted at some point. If not the 2♣ bid, then certainly the 3♣ bid which is non-forcing in a way that the opps might not expect. Of course, E/W misbid the hand horribly, but I am not sure how relevant that is here. Also, some players, and it's not entirely their fault, believe rather strange things about the laws of bridge - generally because they have been told them by people they trust (local "experts"). It wouldn't surprise me if West genuinely believed that a standard 2♣ opening has to have 21+HCP. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if West was trying to pull a fast one. It seems that nothing surprises me any more. Without more information, I would be hesitant in penalising West for calling the director. Eric

Ah, OK. It's a confusion of language then. Sorry. In the ACBL Yellow Card sheet, which somebody was kind enough to link earlier in this thread, under "competitive bidding", it says: What I meant by it being a crutch is that it's unnecessarily restrictive. There's lots of times when a "negative" double is the best bid even when you don't have four cards in an unbid major. *I* interpret the 'negative bids up to 2♠" to mean that up to 2♠ you are promising an unbid major, and above that level you're no longer making that promise- it's just an ordinary takeout double. I don't see anything in the card to tell me if I'm right or wrong. The statement in the ACBL booklet is ambiguous. I suspect that they mean that "Negative doubles are employed up to the 2♠ level. A negative double promises 4 in an unbid major." Rather than "Negative doubles are employed. Up to the level of 2S they promise 4 cards in an unbid major." Judging from what McBruce wrote in an earlier thread, he, in his SAYC only tourneys, certainly interprets it in the former way. However, since 1♣ (2♠) and 1♦ (3♣) take up basically the same amount of space and pose responder the same problem, it seems wrong to say that you have to double negatively on the former, but for penalties on the latter. Eric

Statement ( B ) is an interesting one. A lot of people treat major suits differently to minor suits, so that a minimum 1S/1H opening will be weaker than a minimum 1C/D opening with the same general hand shape. So they might open 1S with 5/5 in the majors and about 10 HCP, but would pass if their suits were the minors etc. Does this mean that are playing a HUM? Eric

Both your first two hands have 14 cards. I assume each has one spade too many. On the second hand, what were you planning to bid on the second round if partner had bid 2♣? This hand still looks like an immediate 4♠ bid to me. I think the difference between 1H 1S 2D 4S and 1H 4S is that the former shows about an Ace more than the latter (eg KQJxxxx x xx Axx v KQJxxxx x xx xxx). Eric