BudH

So what do you do with the first hand which had xx ajxx akxxx xx not anywhere close to 15-17? I guess you bid 1.5 {he]? Guess my problem is that I need to report to BBO that my "." is broken and I can only bid whole numbers. ;) I think the point is that xx AJxx AKxxx xx after responder's 1H bid evaluates not terribly far from 15. I have opened hands with this shape 1NT frequently playing K/S. But this hand values at close to 6 to 6 1/2 losers when you consider the aces and the heart jack. So calling this hand approximately worth 15 "points" is not much of a stretch. And I want partner declaring notrump, not me, when it's right to be in 3NT, another reason not to open 1NT with this hand.

So what do you do with the first hand which had xx ajxx akxxx xx not anywhere close to 15-17? I guess you bid 1.5 {he]? Guess my problem is that I need to report to BBO that my "." is broken and I can only bid whole numbers. ;) I think the point is that xx AJxx AKxxx xx after responder's 1♥ bid evaluates not terribly far from 15. I have opened hands with this shape 1NT frequently playing K/S. But this hand values at close to 6 to 6 1/2 losers when you consider the aces and the ♥J. So calling this hand approximately worth 15 "points" is not much of a stretch. And I want partner declaring notrump, not me, when it's right to be in 3NT, another reason not to open 1NT with this hand.

[hv=d=w&v=n&w=sakqhatxxdjxxckxx&e=shq8xxdakqxxcqjxx]266|100|Scoring: MP ♠4 (4th best) led[/hv] After a bidding sequence too embarassing to admit, you end in 6NT from the West seat. ♠4 (4th best) led. The contract was made at the table. It appears you need 3-3 clubs or a heart/club squeeze. If you play a club from hand at trick 2, South wins dummy's queen with the ace and returns the ♠5. The spot card x's are very small and insignificant. How would you play this to maximize your chances for 12 notrump tricks?

forced to bid 1s if playing walsh....... Even playing Walsh I'm leaving the spades on the shelf. Those heart forces are going to make my diamonds useless in a 4-4 fit spade contract, especially if spades split 4-1 as could easily happen on this bidding sequence.

Forget ten. He mentions this since, assuming you are playing a strong 1NT opening 15-17 HCPs so that your minimum balanced opening hand is limited to 14 HCPs, you can't hold more than a combined 24 HCPs, so there is no need to make an invitational 2NT bid with an average 10 HCP hand. Responder's 2NT invitation should show a VERY good looking 10 HCPs up to an average 12 HCPs, assuming you play about average strength minimum opening bids in a Standard American/ 2 over 1 / SAYC type system.

I admit I might be tempted to bid 3NT with ♠8732 ♥9632 ♦QJ ♣J86 (if I didn't pass 2NT) but with ♠QJ73 ♥9632 ♦32 ♣J86 I definitely use Stayman.

I think 2♠ is clearly correct. I don't believe you should be bidding stoppers "up the line". You should be bidding your solid, possible double stoppers in a 3-card or 4-card suit WELL before bidding an ♦Ax stopper! Realize your partner as responder might have a semi-balanced hand that is game forcing with stoppers in all side suits EXCEPT spades. He doesn't want to bid 2NT or 3NT directly over 1♣ when he holds xx in spades. That would look silly if the ♠Q was led and you were holding ♠Kxx that you had to put down in dummy. In that case you need to be playing notrump to keep your spade protected. ♠ xx ♥ AQx ♦ QJx ♣ AJxxx This is a hand which would bid 2♣ inverted, and after you bid 2♠ would probably bid 3NT. Note that this hand would rather not be declaring notrump if you had a flimsy ♠Kxx stopper in spades (best if YOU declared in that case). Partner should expect you to have better than a single spade stopper for the 2♠ bid, especially since you bypassed 2♦ and 2♥ to bid 2♠. The more suits you skipped, the more likely you have a double stopper.

One problem with 4♠ is that there is no guarantee of two 4-card majors after an auction begins 1♦-(2♣)-Double. You'd much rather play a 4♥ Moysian than a 4♠ Moysian. This isn't easy to solve - even if you double (takeout), responder will bid 4♥ with one or two 4-card majors and you still have to guess. (If responder bids 4♥ NOT in tempo, you will have to decide if pass is a logical alternative to bidding 4♠ - and later ending in 5D if a 4-4 spade fit isn't available.)

I don't think it can be this specific. 3H does not agree hearts, so trumps are not yet set. That means opener has the following bids: 3S-natural usually 3 spades, can be 2542 no club stopper and Hx of spades also, spades might be our fit if responder is 5-2 in the majors. 3N-natural, 3N might be our spot since we have no guaranteed fit, opener can be 1543 with clubs stopped once 4D-natural 5-5, diamonds might be our best fit still So when we want to bid 4H, we have 2 bids, 4H and 4C. 4C is the better one, but it's non specific other than that. I would bid 4C with A AKQxxx AJTx xx for instance (or whatever the maximum non 2C opener is to you). I agree 3♥ could be a doubleton preference. 4♣ could easily be a hand with a 3-card fragment that isn't right for bidding 3NT. I admit the idea of bidding 4♣ with A AKQxxx AJTx xx is very foreign to me. Not that I'm saying it's wrong. Both partners better have some good agreements to know this is a possibility.

1. Grand Slam Force There are other ways to give a choice of 6♠ or 6NT. Such as transferring to THREE spades and then jumping to 5NT. 2. Control in clubs in support of a heart contract.

Good point - is the West hand too good for a non-forcing 2NT or 3♦ bid (not that I advocate bidding 2NT with this hand)?

[hv=d=w&v=n&w=saqjthqtdkq98xxcx&e=shak87xxdt7xcaxxx]266|100|Scoring: MP 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ P 3♦ 3♠ 4♠ P ?[/hv] A few questions: 1. What in your opinion should West's third call be? 2. If you were playing in 6♥ from the East seat, would you hook the ♥10 on the first round of trumps? 3. If you were playing 6♦ from the West seat, would you play for 2-2 trumps or not if on your first diamond lead the king lost to the ace? Against 6♥, assume the ♠2 is led to the ten, king, and small heart. Against 6♦, assume the ♣2 (4th best) is led by the spade overcaller.

[hv=d=w&v=e&w=sakxhajxdaj8xxxcj&e=sqjtxhxxdkcakq8xx]266|100|Scoring: MP 1♦ 2♣ 2♦ 2♠ 3♥ 4♣ 4♠ Pass[/hv] Average club matchpoint game. East-West are playing 2/1 game forcing. Apportion the blame for being in game when 7NT makes on normal breaks. What were the worst calls of the auction?

Was 2C forcing to game? Forcing to 2NT? Could 2D have been passed? Hard to answer without knowing the answers to above. If 2C was game forcing, I think both players underbid. I'd rather raise 2NT to 4NT with the East hand and I would raise 3NT to 4NT with the West hand.

Yes, but there are plenty of hands where the doubler stretched to double the first time and will never be able to double the second time to allow for a penalty pass. But I agree the double behind the opener showing "cards" comes up more often. As long as it shows a clear majority of high cards for your side without much heart shortness, double should be OK.

Since East/West can make ten tricks in spades (and also hearts depending on the defense), going down 200 in 4NT isn't that bad!

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sxxha8xdkt8xxck9x&w=sajxxh9xxdcat87xx&e=sqt9xxhqjtxxdjxxc&s=skxhkxdaq9xxcqjxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP (2♥*)-2NT-(P)- 3NT (4♥)-P-(P)-4NT All Pass *2♥ = hearts and another suit Opening lead: ♥9[/hv] Despite being up 24 imps at the half, this board was key as teammates had a rare poor set. The north hand bid 4NT, making 5 on a heart lead after West eventually won the club ace and underled his spade ace hoping for at least ♠Kxxx in East's hand. 4♥ made 4 at the other table and 4NT made 5 for a net 1080 point difference (win 15 imps). Even if 4NT was down 2 on a spade lead, it would still have been a 220 point difference to the good (win 6 imps). If you doubled 4♥ you lose a net 170 on this hand and lose 5 imps and lose the match by 2 imps!

5C could easily be making with 4S going down. I pass, in tempo, on all calls in this auction.

I have said this a few times already but it is obvious that if there was funny business (which I am not commenting on), that BudH was not involved. Among other things, as someone else pointed out it would have been easy enough to just double and have partner bid 4D if you were really cheating with your partner (and it would have been easy to cheat on every single board also without getting caught, rather than in this manner and only on one hand). BudH, sorry if anybody cannot see that. Thanks, Justin - I think the vast majority of the forum readers realize that, but I thought I would be explicitly clear. As I said previously, I look forward to meeting you and having the opportunity to play at the same table in the future.

Mr. Wolff's publisher, Ray Lee, started this thread and provided the information you quoted through information provided by Mr. Wolff. I am aware that some of it conflicts with some of the information I was given in connection with events from about 15 years ago.

With all of this recent discussion, I feel as Mr. Piltch's partner a need to respond. First, a summary of the facts, including a few not presented previously, and then I will state an opinion in this matter. All four players were present for the shuffling of all eight boards at the start of the second quarter. All boards started with one hand face up before shuffling began. Mr. Piltch shuffled and dealt board 8 only at the start of the shuffling and dealing of the eight boards. We don’t know which of the other three players shuffled and dealt Board 5 (Board 21 of 64). Mr. Piltch and I remember this. We don’t know if opponents Mr. Krekorian or Ms. Bianco remember this. There was a 47 imp deficit after one quarter and an estimated seven imps had been gained back on the first board of the second quarter (this estimate was found to be accurate when scores were compared later) with expected pushes on Boards 2, 3 and 4. Due to medical conditions, Mr. Piltch has significant manual dexterity problems and vision problems. Those that have played against him recently have seen the importance for Mr. Piltch to have dummy’s cards properly overlapped in descending order with smaller cards overlapping the higher ranking cards. Mr. Piltch is also requesting verbal bidding due to problems seeing the bidding cards. (Verbal bidding was not requested in the Spingold match or any other event in New Orleans. But since New Orleans, Mr. Piltch has been requesting verbal bidding due to vision problems.) [i will leave it to the reader to determine in their own mind the possibility of someone with these manual dexterity and vision problems being able to “rig the deck” or somehow catch a glimpse of the ♦K or any other card or cards in his partner’s hand or an opponent’s hand during the shuffling and dealing of Board 5 or during the auction for Board 5.] Board 5 (21 of 64), North dealer, North/South vulnerable [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sxxhxxxdkxxxct98x&s=shaxxdaqxxcakq7xx]133|200|Scoring: IMPS N E S W ------------------------ P 3♠ 6♦ P P P[/hv] The 6♦ bid was not a mechanical error with the bidding box. Mr. Piltch waited the appropriate 8 to 10 seconds after the 3♠ bid, and took about three to five additional seconds to make the 6♦ bid. Mr. Piltch was at the Boston Chess Club about three decades ago when he heard about Clint Morrell’s direct and successful 6♦ bid against Lloyd Arvedon holding ♠x ♥AQ ♦AQTx ♣AKQxxx when 6♣ would have failed on the lie of the cards, dummy having ♦KJxxx and a stiff club, with clubs splitting 5-1. Now that I have presented facts above, I will give you an opinion. Until now, I have tried not to do that, but at this point, I will. I believe Mr. Piltch’s 6♦ bid was a combination of several factors. 1. The Morrell-Arvedon hand from three decades ago gave him the idea of a potential 6♦ bid with this hand. 2. The state of the match being 40 imps or more behind. (I’m aware that most would think there isn’t a reason to be “swinging” that early.) Also, if successful, a momentum swing before the dinner break would likely ensue. 3. He was playing with a partner who would not be affected in his play or demeanor if the 6♦ bid backfired. 4. He decided that partner’s hand would likely have some diamond length and therefore decided the 6♦ bid would not be a huge underdog. (Some have done the calculation of the success of a 6♦ bid – but Mr. Piltch did not have that available to him when he made the 6♦ bid and perhaps he overestimated the probability of the 6♦ bid being successful.) 5. There was a chance that his LHO would sacrifice in 6♠ and it might be a phantom save. (As it turns out on this hand, 6♠ is down no more than 500 vs. 1370 – I don’t know if clubs were 2-1 or 3-0). Yes, it’s true that the perfect dummy came down and diamonds were 3-2 allowing 6♦ to make. And if I had been an opponent, I, too, would not have been happy that this perfect dummy came down opposite a highly unusual bid. And I do not doubt that these “top experts” that were consulted (and I assume that if they were given Mr. Piltch's name at all, it wasn't until they gave their opinion of the 6♦ bid) felt that unauthorized information could be the only explanation for the 6♦ bid. But the explanation, which many do not want to hear, is simple. Mr. Piltch got lucky on this hand. And seeing that we were down 51 IMPS going into the fourth quarter and we had to take a lot of chances of which none worked in the fourth quarter, that 6♦ bid was one of the few lucky things that happened that day, at least at my table! Actually, Mr. Piltch was probably UNLUCKY that the 6♦ bid WAS successful because of all of this discussion here on BBO Forums and other places, including word of mouth, about how there must have been some “funny business” going on, plus discussions (accurate or otherwise) of other issues Mr. Piltch has had in the past which have been mentioned in this and the related threads. It is also unfortunate for me as I am now tied to this event, and there will be some that will assume if Mr. Piltch didn't get UI due to vision problems and couldn't "fix the deck" due to manual dexterity problems, then his partner must have "been in on it". Not that I should need to state this explicitly, but I will so that I am perfectly clear. The only information I gave to Mr. Piltch was my initial pass as dealer and no illegal information was transmitted in any way to Mr. Piltch by me on this hand. I have never violated Law 73B2 ("the gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication ....") playing with Mr. Piltch or any other partner in the past, nor will I ever violate this law in the future. I am aware that some players, including “top experts”, and especially those that are not fans of Mr. Piltch, will never be convinced that there wasn’t some UI connected to the 6♦ bid. Perhaps in the future, some of them will soften their view and realize that this successful 6♦ bid had a lot of luck attached to it, not UI. Bud Hinckley

Finals of a top flight regional knockout, you have a 24 imp lead at the half, and this is the 5th board of 12 second half boards. The second half so far has felt about average. You are vulnerable xx A8x KT8xx K9x 2H* 2NT Pass 3NT 4H Pass Pass ? *2H = hearts and another suit Your call?

H4 first choice, C5 second choice. NOT leading a spade or diamond.

Doesn't doubling again show a hand with this much strength with 3-card support for partner's suit, and letting partner decide whether to defend or bid on? Frankly, I'd be estatic if partner passes out 3S doubled, since K9x is a much better holding defensively than I would usually have.

1C 1D 1H 2C (relay to 2D) 2D 2NT or 1C 1D 1H 3C The 1H bid guarantees at least four clubs in the system I play. Also, in the system I play, bidding the 2C relay and 3C next shows longer clubs than diamonds. That Qx of spades is too tempting, hoping for Axx or Kxx in partner's hand, so I'd probably choose the first option.