eyhung

My advice on the same lines is : "Don't play your opponent to be a genius." This sounds similar to "play your opponents to have done something stupid" but is actually not the same. In general I think it's ok to play opponents, especially good ones, to be competent -- this includes classic "greek gift" situations where the opponent offers you a finesse he didn't need to give you. But to play opponents to be stupid is a different mindset entirely, and can be very dangerous to one's technique. I notice that when I feel contempt towards my opponents, I tend to take technically flawed but psychologically superior lines. This may be correct from a results perspective but it's bad from a skill development perspective. In a good event, I find it helpful to credit most of my opponents with a brain, but not a great one. For example, at notrump, I will give my opponents credit for ducking a finesse of AQJTx in dummy with Kxx(x) in tempo, but not Kx [which is either brilliant or foolish]. Similarly, if I lead up to AJ9 in dummy and LHO goes up Royal, it's a guess to me as to whether he holds RRx or RTx -- but if I lead up to AJ7 with 986 in hand and LHO inserts a Royal, he's probably splitting from KQx.

Quite a bit has been updated, especially with regards to advancer's bids. Lawrence now advocates a more modern advancing structure, with preemptive jump raises, mixed raises, jump to 2NT as a 4-trump limit raise, and discussions of various cue-bids. I think it's worth reading.

With 1.5 QT I strive very hard to avoid opening at the 1-level playing 2/1. Frequent downsides of opening light in that context include getting to low-play 3NTs and doubling off the opponents when they're making. So the original hand is always a 2♠ bid for me at these colors. It's ok to be max for your bid. With the change to a 2QT hand, it has enough defense but still doesn't have enough offense for me to be comfortable opening 1♠ instead of 2. In fact 2♠ unfav is a very good description of the hand. When partner opens 2♠ unfav, the first hand I visualize is KQJxxx and an outside control -- pretty close to the actual hand. I can definitely see a 1♠ NV though if your 2♠ NV bids tend to be free-wheeling -- it's hard for partner to cater to this hand as well as something like KJT9x Axx x xxxx.

I don't agree with your numbers. P (singleton T or Q) = 2 cases out of 6 (6C1) = 1/3 * 15 = 5 P (doubleton T or Q) = 9 cases out of 15 (6C2) = 3/5 * 48 = 28.8 P (QTx) = [EDIT: 8] cases out of 20 (6C3) = 2/5 * 36 = 14.4 P (diamonds coming in) = 48% When diamonds don't come in (52%) then you win approximately half the time (too lazy to do a full calc on clubs) or another 26%, so the total chance is approximately 74%, not 90%. You can't add a straight 50% to 48%, you are double-counting the times when diamonds come in. Later edit: Note: this assumes clubs are a total guess and that short honor in the LHO is impossible (obviating the guess). In practice I do not think the clubs are a total guess -- LHO should have the ace more often than not for preempting on a jack-high suit, unfavorable.

My personal definitions are: Takeout: "I expect partner to bid". Penalty: "I expect partner to pass". Optional: "I have no idea whether partner will bid or pass and will be happy with either option." To clarify the last, that means partner will probably only pull with significant but not ridiculous shape. Root and Pavlicek (which was written a long time ago) define the requirements to pull 4S-X as a 6-card suit. I do not expect my partners to need that much to pull, so that's why I said "modern trend is takeout" -- but then again, I also expect my partner to pass with no 5-card suit or 5332 shape, so my 4S takeout double is more optional than I implied. What we need is another adjective for a semi-takeout double, where you "prefer that partner bids but understand if he passes". Definitions aside, on the actual hand, the spade void indicates to me that the most probable outcome is pass (because partner will have some spades to improve the chances of his holding a balanced hand), but if partner bids, we should be in a great spot.

It's my understanding that historically, the double of 4♠ was values/optional, but the modern trend is for the double of 4♠ to be takeout. I know in all my partnerships I play double of 4♠ as takeout. So I would double, and no adjectives would be needed. (Maybe a belated expletive, though.)

I thought that this could be a problem with the (inexplicably) hugely popular bracketed knockouts. I rarely play in bracketed KOs, my time is limited to pairs events and Swisses. But I am pretty sure that one can always play up into the top bracket, especially if you have good credentials. I know the juniors in the US junior program are able to play top bracket without having the requisite masterpoints.

As a working stiff who does not have time to accumulate masterpoints, I have never run into a problem with "playing up", so I don't think it's a problem at all, at least not in the SF Bay Area or NABCs. The ACBL recognizes that the masterpoint system is not a definitive ranking system so they are willing to be accomodating. And mbodell, nothing prevents you from playing up in GNT or NAP (although you are restricted to one flight for NAP). I myself am planning to play in Flt Open, A, and B in your district this year, so you can do the same. If the ACBL wants to give me three chances to win some money, I figure, why not?

I'm a 2♣ bidder too. I consider the opening marginal with no spades (if they have the spades, we have to go one level higher; if partner has the spades, my hand doesn't fit), and below-average defense (only 1.5 quick tricks). Since we are not vulnerable and we have a little extra high-card strength, I will grudgingly accept the open but then I would not dare reopen with double. My hand has sub-par defense, it has no trump (so dummy will not be so bad for declarer and I can't lead trump for partner), they are at the 1-level, and they are not vulnerable. Partner pretty much needs to have 6+ defensive tricks in hand for us to do well vs. 1S-X. Instead of trying to take 7 tricks with a void in their trump suit, how about trying to take 8 tricks with the better fit of one of my 5-card minors as trump? The clubs are not good, but all I need is one extra trick on offense, and bidding 2♣ will identify our longest minor suit fit. Double does have some upside : it gives us the best chance of finding hearts if that's right and still gives us the opportunity to get to clubs or diamonds as well. I just hate the prospect of 1S-X for the reasons mentioned above. If you could guarantee to me that partner would not pass 1S-X, then double is clear. Unfortunately that's not realistic, so I take the 2♣ road.

Right back at ya. Reread what I said : Most of the time, I expect partner to rebid a [non-forcing] 3NT, 4♣, or 5♣. If 3M makes playing 4♣ impossible, partner darn well better not bid it without being ready for a contract higher than 4♣. If partner rebids 4♣, he has a minimum 3♣ rebid without a heart stop. I think I made that pretty clear in my post, and I think this is a natural and understandable interpretation -- when in doubt, a bid that can be natural nf is natural nf. If you need me to dot the i's and cross the t's, well, what call do you make with something like AJ Jx KJx AQJxxx. Do you really want to force to 5♣ off the top two hearts? If partner rebids 3M, he has an unusual hand. A hand that doesn't mind forcing us past 4♣ because it's prime and has shape. Something like KQx x Kx AQxxxxx, or x Ax KQJx AQTxxx, or AK x Kxx AQxxxxx [slam try, cold opposite CK, DA and a pointy queen]. So it's a false analogy to compare 3NT vs. 5♣, because we only reach 5♣ or higher when partner wants us to. Really, I think I have been very explicit in what I expect from partner after 3♦. More so than the other 3♦ advocates. And you didn't even bother to rebut my argument that the major advantage of 3♦ lies in avoiding some obvious disasters and right-siding the contract.

There is no denying that 3NT may have a psychological advantage in that they may lead the wrong suit. In my opinion, this advantage is grossly overrated on this hand. Of the three suits they might lead, my hand has nothing in 2 of them, and a mostly non-positional holding in the third. The opponents are not random suit leaders -- given the relative weakness of my majors, they will lead a heart more than 1/3 of the time, and a spade when it's right a significant portion of the time (because they hold good or long spades). And when they do, we rate to lose a trick to the field. Even when they lead a diamond, we might lose a trick to the field not in diamonds, but because of failing to give them the opportunity to blow a trick by leading into a major-suit tenace! Finally, if you think that bidding 3NT might deflect them into leading the wrong suit, consider that LHO (who could not overcall at the 1-level) is more likely to hold a long, strong suit than RHO (who could overcall any suit at the 1-level). I repeat, I think the _technical_ problem of wrong-siding the contract is far worse than any _psychological_ benefit we gain by concealing where our stoppers lie. At the very least, one cannot say with a straight face that 3♦ has almost no chance of improving the score -- at matchpoints, getting the strong hand with the tenaces to declare will likely improve your score. You say that sometimes 3NT > 5♣ when hearts are unstopped. And yet: 1) Bidding 3♦ does not force us to game. It is merely a probe for a heart-stop for 3NT, analogous to checking for keycards before bidding slam. Partner can bid 3NT with the heart stop, pull to 4♣ without one, or even drive to 5♣ with no stop and extra values. So comparing 3NT to 5♣ is a false analogy because you should not be in 5♣ unless you are likely to make 5♣. Rather, the correct comparison is 3NT to 4♣. (The earlier hand you gave gets us to 5♣ because that is a hand with extras -- a 7-card club suit, a source of tricks in diamonds, and the spade ace.) 2) Hands where 3NT > 4♣ when we are wide-open in hearts seem rare to me. Remember this is matchpoints: worship the plus, the plus is good. For every fluke 3NT that makes because hearts break 4-4 / 4-3 and they have no other fast trick, there rate to be multiple hands where you will be in 3NT off the first 5 or 6 tricks while I am in 4♣ going plus or down less than 3NT because I identified we are wide open in hearts. Matchpoints is about frequency of win, not magnitude. I think it is foolish to bash into a game where you are frequently costing your side trick(s) from the bad positioning, when a slower approach would eliminate a significant amount of disasters and also right-side the contract. Finally, if you are going to invoke misunderstanding as an argument against 3♦, all I can say is, you are making a forcing bid and showing your values. If your partnership cannot survive this then perhaps your bidding fundamentals need work. The followups are not rocket science. Most of the time, I expect opener to rebid 3NT with a heart stop and 4/5♣ without, and life is simple (you pass). If opener throws a curveball with 3♠ or 3♥, he is clearly not interested in 3NT and must have an unusual hand. While this is not an easy auction, you can take comfort in that whatever action you take next, you will be ahead of the 3NT bashers, because partner has gone out of his way to indicate that despite your diamond card, he sees rocky waters ahead for 3NT. Since you have no extras for him, he'll be right.

My experience tells me that they often won't be in a position to "switch". If partner declares, I expect the most common sequence of play will be: RHO leads a non-winner, partner wins, and rattles off at least 9 fast ones : 6 clubs, the trick from the opening lead, the diamond ace, and either an ace or the DK or a D finesse. If I declare, a frequent sequence of play is : LHO leads through partner's tenace, and they get an extra trick relative to the tables who declare from the other side. (Remember, this is matchpoints, so even if we make, we get a bad board any time we wrong-side the majors and they lead through a vulnerable stopper.) Even if they do get into a "switch" position later in the play, a good opponent will frequently be able to use information from signals, their hand, and declarer's line of play to work out my spade weakness. So concealing the spades has far less upside than you might think, and frequent downside via losing an extra trick by force when they lead through a tenace.

I think the problem of wrong-siding 3NT is far worse than pinpointing the heart weakness...especially since we also have spade weakness!

So what? By any chance are you playing a different game? To use your own example, if partner has A xx KQx AQJxxxx and you hold T9xx xxx Axx Kxx I can think of a much, much better contract than 3NT at any form of vul or scoring. And this contract is easy to reach after 3♦. Partner will think : "hm, he has a diamond card (the ace) and didn't bid 3NT, so he probably doesn't have a heart card. Gee, should I bid 3NT? No way, but 5♣ is probably on a finesse at worst." It boggles my mind that the vast majority of posters in this thread want to shoot out 3NT with almost no positional values and two prime cards that work well in a club contract. What on earth is wrong with the flexible 3♦ call? Remember, you can still reach 3NT (with a heart stopper, no less!) after you bid 3♦. It's hard to reach 5♣ when that's right after you bid 3NT -- for every time partner is right to pull, he'll be wrong approximately as often. 3♦ isn't even clearly lead-directing -- partner will now only bid 3NT with a heart card, so it feels even money whether spades or hearts are the best suit for the defense. Sometimes in bridge you have to guess. Sometimes you don't. I think it's good bridge to avoid guessing when you don't have to.

I agreed with gnasher's evaluation, there were a lot of red flags, so I went low. I tried pass then 2S and this was a winner, as partner had : K2 J9xxx x JTxxx Booked for down 2, made on atrocious defense, but it really didn't matter as everyone else is getting clobbered for 500s and 800s. Once we get to the 3-level the opponents will start doubling as LHO has QJxxx of diamonds and RHO has QJTx of spades. In hindsight I think I got lucky. Looks like dake50 is the only other person to survive. Upon reflection his plan of direct 2S with a followup of 3D works well, it gets both suits on the table and gives you a shot at staying at the 2-level when there's a misfit. Direct 2S might also preempt the hearts, giving you an advantage in some spade/heart competition.

You know, after the recent "Why play in the Reisinger?" thread that eventually morphed into "Why are women not playing in high-level bridge?" I am wondering whether this thread is exhibit A for the prosecution. I do have a sense of humor, but I don't quite see the benefit of a locker-room-mentality environment. Am I being too sensitive here?

If you prefer that partner declares NT with Axx or Kxx of diamonds, you'll be likely playing with partners who might take an undiscussed 3♥ as promising 5 cards. Even though I am not a 3NT bidder, the biggest benefit of an immediate 3NT is because you are hoping that partner has Axx or Kxx of diamonds. Think hard about both suit combinations, and what happens if the diamond length and strength is on lead. Then consider what happens if the other hand is on lead. You'll find that the Qx wants to be declarer. It's not 100% like AQ, but it's a strong percentage play -- and even if the opening leader has something like JT98xx of diamonds and partner has Axx, you still get two tricks eventually (at the cost of a tempo). It is this situation which has induced people to gamble 3NT; the gains are excellent when partner has this holding. My argument is that you don't need to commit this early for a potential win when you have a flexible call that keeps all possible games open and still leads to 3NT sometimes when it is right. In a way, this situation is similar to defending after leading a top honor to look at the dummy. Say you win, and you see that you hold Kxx in a suit where dummy holds xxx. You should be thinking about whether you should switch to that suit. The upside is if partner has a touching honor (A or Q), you are establishing or cashing tricks. The downside is that declarer has both touching honors and you blow a trick. Sometimes, you need to commit right away because dummy has a long strong side suit that is going to be used for discards -- in that case if declarer has both touching honors, the trick is likely going away anyway. But if dummy is flat and declarer has not shown a source of tricks in the bidding, there is often no need to commit -- the suit isn't going anywhere, and you can attack the suit later if necessary. Similarly, here there are definite benefits to bidding 3♥ or 3NT. But 3NT frequently forecloses the other game contracts of 4♥ and 5♣, while 3♥ frequently does not, so it is the better call. In summary, during the bidding and the play, you should always be asking yourself: 1) What is going on? [What are the possible good outcomes remaining?] 2) What do I need to do? [What is my plan to realize each possible good outcome? Do some of these plans foreclose alternative good outcomes?] 3) Do I need to do it NOW? [EDIT: I believe this process was originally mentioned by Grant Baze in one of his articles.] If you can apply these three steps consistently and accurately, I think you will find your scores improving.

Come on now, you know that is not necessarily true. :) Ugh, I noticed that mistake and was about to edit it but you reply way too fast. Brain still hasn't woken up, apparently.

The game would be quite simple if the goal was to find your longest combined trump fit. Obviously 2♦ is the call that gives you the best chance of finding a fit -- it is your longest suit. But remember, you get a big bonus for games. Overcalling diamonds is unlikely to get you to game when the enemy can open the bidding and you do not have shortness. This is why the potential reward for 2♦ is small but the potential risk (getting doubled in 2♦ or missing game in hearts or notrump) is large. Double has low risk (you are offering partner a choice of 4 strains (notrump, hearts, diamonds, clubs) and has great potential reward because it allows partner to bid game in 2 strains.

Well, let's say partner has : xx KQxx xx AKTxx or Q Kxx xxx AKQxxx How are you going to get out of 3NT once you bid 3NT? Point being: there are upsides and downsides to both bids. 3NT is not ridiculous. But 3♥ is more flexible: you can still reach 3NT if it is right (after 3♠) but you're unlikely to reach hearts or clubs after 3NT. Bashing into a potential no-play game at IMPs while a couple of good alternatives are still possible doesn't strike me as the percentage action.

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sa8743h4dak9643c5]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] RHO opens 2♦ mini-roman (any three-suiter, 11-15 HCP) in 2nd seat at pairs. Partner is expert but you have not discussed a defense, the opponents are neither especially good or bad. You decide to pass and await developments. LHO bids 2♥, pass or correct. All pass to you. 1) Do you agree with the original pass? If not, what call would you have made? 2) What call would you make now?

Maybe we're just arguing semantics, but my definition of an offshape double after the enemy has bid two suits is 4-3 in the unbid suits. I understand why one might want to double with 4-3, but I expect my partner to have at least 4 cards in each of the unbid suits, and will bid accordingly. Similarly, in direct chair, I would define a double containing a 2-card unbid minor as offshape -- partner doesn't expect a 2cm when responding. I frequently make offshape doubles in direct, but have never had the guts to do it in sandwich. Perhaps this is a hole in my game. And in case you were wondering, I would define a double containing a 2-card unbid major and standard values as ridiculous.

BTW, I hate 1NT and I really hate 2D. Enough has been said already about why 2D is bad, but not 1NT. My general rule of thumb : if the hand is in range but lacks potential for a double-stopper, it probably isn't a 1NT bid over 1M if there's any reasonable alternative. Here we do have one: double. Why do I want a double stop? The opponents will be leading a 5-card suit with plenty of entries to the suit -- you don't get rich at notrump when the opening lead tends to set up 4 tricks for the defense to your 1. So I do not see why we should charge into notrump while we still have multiple playable strains (diamonds, hearts). In general it's harder to get out of notrump than it is to get in.

My opinion is that this ought to win the award for best self-referential quote of the new year.

Did he make it btw? They never played 1NT : Meckstroth jumped to 3♣ with K2 8753 7 QJT876 and made it for +110. Win 9 IMP when teammates opened 1NT 15-17 with the 5-heart hand and the Meckwell hands interfered and got to 2♥, going down 3 vul after trying to set up clubs -- the 5-1 trump break doomed them.