temp3600

♥4

1. You hold -- AKQ975 A87 KT94 in 3rd seat, white vs white at IMPS, and the bidding goes : pass pass 1H 1S pass 4S ? How do you like Pass, X, 4NT, 5C, 5H? Would you act differently at other vulnerabilities? 2. You hold KT765 Q6 AJ8 AK6 in 3rd seat, red vs white at IMPS, and opponents are silent throughout : 1H 1S 2D ? What do you bid? If you choose 3C, partner replies 3D, which tends to show a fifth diamond, but partner could have been stuck with a 2=5=4=2 or 1=5=4=3. What now? Thanks for your time, Michael

I like this line : diamond lead to the T, overtaken with the J. Run the CQ. Then small spade to the J, and play on clubs.

First, can declarer have less than Jxx in diamonds? It is unlikely. With Ax KJTx Txx AQ9x, conceding an unnecessary spade trick seems very risky, as it would likely lead to one more undertrick than the rest of the field. Then again, if opponents don't switch to diamonds, maybe following this train of thought, it can win a lot! How much of a gambler is East? Now let's suppose declarer has something in diamonds. We are probably trying to prevent an overtrick then. Let's give declarer Ax KJTx KTxx Axx. He has 4 tricks in spades, 2 in hearts already, 2 top clubs, and at least one coming in diamonds. One sure way of preventing the overtrick is to setup our own heart suit, before the DA is knocked out. What about Ax KJTx Jxx AQ9x? Declarer's play is risky, as he is likely down if spades are 4-2 - setting up the third heart trick seems better. I'm plaing declarer for Ax KJTx KTxx Axx. HA and a heart.

I think it is standard to play this as residual count, when there are no concerns about unblocking. Note that original 4th best matches residual count when third hand started with four or five cards. Also, i don't think udca or standard considerations apply when leading to a trick. I would return the 2 playing either.

1. Pass the first time, 2S now. 2. 1NT. Qx is lovely.

I would cash two top clubs, or one if the lead was a trump. Now : If clubs are 3-2 and the SA is still in dummy, i pull the last trump and play on diamonds, hoping for a 3-2 break. If clubs are 3-2, the SA is gone but the CJ fell (as is the case here on a spade lead), i cash the DK, pull the last trump while ending in dummy, and again play on diamonds. If clubs are 3-2, the SA is gone and the CJ did not fall, i plan to ruff two hearts in dummy, hoping for a 4-3 break in the suit, and discard the spade loser on the DA. This line requires a 4-3 heart break, and that the defender with Jxx also holds three diamonds. It would work here if West had started with CJxx and had the SA been removed on the first trick. If clubs are 4-1, i don't think i can make. As to 7NT, i think it's a no no. We know that we are misfitted in hearts in diamonds, so we are going to need trumps to set up some tricks from lenght in these suits, or to crossruff. Partner has only shown 10+ HCP ; if he is minimum for his bid with an ordinary hand, 7NT will have no play. A thought : if we are interested in 7NT, maybe 5NT asking for kings is a good idea. First, if partner has a good diamond suit (KQJTxx for example), he'll probably bid 7NT himself. Secondly, we have all four kings, so when we bid 7C after hearing partner's "i don't have any kings", he should understand that we are offering him a choice between 7C and 7NT. This is probably only available when playing 3041.

After 1C - 3C in sayc, you cannot make another voluntary bid. You can only bid if partner asks you to describe another feature of your hand. So 4NT over 3NT is an impossible bid. If you feel like you have something in reserve after 1C - 3C -- enough in reserve to actually make another bid -- then 1C - 3C (especially 3C) was likely an underbid. Now to the actual hand. To me, this hand is too strong for 1C - 3C. Looking at this hand, before the auction starts, I'm thinking 1C - 2D - 3C. The 1S reply from partner slows me down slightly, but not enough to downgrade the hand to 1C - 3C.

What would 1H - 2S have been ? Assuming a weak jump-shift, I think pard is showing a strong hand with a self-sufficient spade suit. I'd bid 6C.

1. 1S 2. 3S 3. pass

Todd's original suggestion was a 'no undos' binary choice in a table's options. I think that's a good idea. But I think any more complex behaviour about the undo system will gain very little (if it does gain anything) and will lose a lot in simplicity. I really like the simple binary choice that we have right now : If the event is 'serious', then no undos. If it's serious, stay focused, and don't misclick. And if it's not that serious, allow any undo! And afterwards see what it was all about. A simple misclick ? Ok, no problem. A defender changed his card to signal more clearly ? Hmm... A bad/wrong bid due to inattention or too short reflexion and corrected ten seconds later ? Well, depending on your mood, you can let it pass, offer some friendly advice, comment harshly, boot the player, etc. To sum up, you learn the most about what happened and can do whatever you want about it.

However, West doubled 1D for takeout, so that increases his chances of not having the stiff CA. And, if we lead a minor spot from our hand, he is more likely to be suspicious of a diamond than of a club. But I think it is better to let the ST win. I place West with the two minor aces. With 5 spades and an ace, East might have competed to 2S. Overtaking with the K in my view clearly tells West that they have 3 spade tricks coming, and almost completely destroys our chances of West ducking a trick. So I'd win the ST and let the DJ run.

This hand screams 'outrageous psyche'. 2NT. How often do you get the chance to be void in both the suits you promise ?

It is obviously possible to implement an automatic detection of 'illegitimate' undo requests, and the more time invested in the design of this system, the more accurate the detection will be. But is that really necessary, or even desirable ?

About hand 1 : If you have all three, slam is likely to be good - and you have them here. I don't think that's the best approach. I see it this way : we are likely to have 6 in clubs, 4+ in spades, DA, possible ruffs and maybe some high cards (DK) in partner's hand, so obtaining 12 tricks won't be difficult. The real problem I think is not losing 2. So, in my view, we only have to estimate how likely we are of losing two tricks. It would be nice to check how good partner's clubs are, or what his spade holding is (does he have the K ?). Unfortunately, opponent's preemption has denied us that possibility. But because of the richness of our hand in controls, I think slam is a big favorite. As a side note, i don't like opener's 1C-followed-by-3C description. After 1C, and the 2H intervention on opener's right, I find 3NT way better than 3C. (I also like a direct 3NT opening with this hand. I don't think it wrongsides 3NT that much, but I'm digressing).

I would play it this way : HA, SA, SQ, CA, heart ruffed small, DA, heart ruffed with the SJ, CK, SK and S9 (discarding diamonds). Then CQ. This line works when there are no (over)ruffs, and when either the CJ falls in three rounds or East is squeezed in the minors.

2S now.

Double! I like to double in this situation whenever i can. Spades can wait, and pretty much anything else for that matter, except double.

2C. When the bidding comes back to partner, and LHO hasn't raised spades, he'll place us with 5+ clubs and 4+ spades, and is likely to understand that the clubs are good and the spades weak.

I double with all the given hands (-> 8). We might have a heart fit. I don't have any holding to protect. NT can wait and is likely to play at least as well from partner's hand. And if it goes 1D (1S) X (p), i have a good chance of endplaying partner into bidding 1NT without a stopper, which is satisfying on several levels.

An easy way to remedy to this problem would be this. When a host sets up a table, s/he specifies either a number of hands to be dealt, or a certain duration. This value determines the lenght of the game between the two players. If a player is disconnected and does not reconnect within a certain amount of time, no money is exchanged, but the incident is of course recorded, and repeated violations, ..., you get the idea. Because I felt this very static way of setting up a table wasn't very friendly, I was wondering if a minimum number of hands (or minimum duration) was enough, i.e. players would have to play 20 hands, or 2 hours, and then could leave after any hand. But even the slightest flexibility gives a player the possibility of simply leaving just after scoring a grand slam. So, for this mechanism, I don't see any good alternative to static, pre-determined game lengths.

I've been playing a little on the 'money server' and have two suggestions so far. One is very obvious : indicate the result of the previous hand. More interesting : when GIB becomes declarer, it plays the hand. It might be a good idea to give the option, when setting up a table, to always have the players declare.

Don't you mean 2NT ? 2NT lets the opponents off the hook. XX on the contrary retains the possibility of punishing them, and at the very least forces them to reveal something about their hands.

Here's the meaning I like most : "I have enough strength that I want to compete, but no natural call available."

1. 3NT is tempting, but I think it's too much of a gamble. The hand is missing a little something everywhere : skinny club suit, poor diamond stopper, and the major honors' usefulness might be lessened by the doubletons. Also, partner hasn't spoken yet, and there is some space available beneath 3NT. 2. ambiguous : pick a major first, but could be a strong hand with any shape. 3. We probably wouldn't have gone beyond the 4 level.