uva72uva72

My link Does the play of this hand represent an example of Morton's Fork? The ♠ play at trick 2 looks like it, since it gives West the option of conceding the 12th trick immediately or subsequently. However, every example I have found in the literature involves discarding the threat card (♠K in this instance) while here it is retained in order to endplay West.

My link IMPS, ACBL robot individual I earned my 10-IMP loss here because I failed to follow my own rule of ALWAYS checking the notes before making a bid. Still, I had a lot of company in missing this game. Presumably my fellow underbidders were also unaware that the robots play negative free bids in this sequence.

My link IMPs, ACBL robot individual North's bidding cost very few IMPs here. Still, I'm curious as to why North gave a false preference to 2♥, abandoning a known 8+-card fit in ♣s for what was almost certain to be a 7-card fit in ♥s. This matchpoint-oriented strategy makes no sense at IMPs, where the upside potential is a 1-IMP gain but the downside risk is a 4-IMP loss (5 if vulnerable).

My link IMPs, ACBL robot individual Since BBO seems to lack either the ability or the inclination to fix the oft-reported problem with this sequence (North has no way to bid hands of 6 points with 3 ♠s or 6-9 points with 2♠s) I am here reporting this hand only to highlight North's puzzling decision to bid 2 ♠ over South's 2♥. Given that North does not have the hand specified for a 2♠ bid and has found a great landing place in 2♥, why the false preference? And why does North's hand suddenly get better for play in ♥s when South shows values in the minors by bidding 2NT? For the record, of the 33 participants, 5 opened this hand opened with 1NT - only they were permitted to play 2♥. In addition, 2 of the 14 participants who did not make a game try over North's 2♠ made that contract. Two additional participants passed North's forcing NT and were allowed to make their contracts (down 5 is the result on other-than-ridiculous defense).

IMPs, ACBL robot individual Late in the defense of a hand, North breaks a suit in which it holds K832. It leads the 8. Is this standard robot practice or might it lead the 3 or the 2 on other occasions from the same holding?

My link Matchpoints, ACBL robot individual I'd be interested to know what might cause West to pass East's unusual NT overcall.

Your analysis of my defense is, of course, correct. I must lead a ♠ at trick one (or, perhaps, exactly one high ♣ followed by a ♠) . Otherwise, the contract is no longer beatable. While you say this is "clear cut," none of the 11 defenders of 4♠ contracts in this tournament found the ♠ lead. Unless you are completely discounting what is contained in the notes (8-10 total points for the cue bid), North does not have "way more than it should have." As for my bidding sequence, discounting the ♦Q, I am squarely in the 14-18 total point range specified by the notes.

My link Matchpoints, ACBL robot individual This hand did not influence my result in the set, but North's cue bid with a Queen and two Jacks is a pretty stark example of not having your bid. What does North have that a direct raise would not show (the raise having the added benefit of a degree of pre-emption)?

My link IMPS, ACBL robot individual Difficulties in handling of balanced hands in balancing position have been documented recently, to the effect that South has no way of bidding hands in certain ranges. This hand documents an issue in North's responses to a balancing bid of 1NT. In this instance, 1NT showed 11-15 HCP (over a 1♣ opening the notes say 11-14 - see earlier posting "Yes Virginia there is a gap"). North passes, knowing that N/S have 23-27 HCP as a partnership, and misses a shot at a very high-percentage vulnerable game at IMPs. However, if South doubles, guaranteeing only 9 HCP, North invites while knowing that the partnership could have as few as 21 HCP. My link Predictably, 3NT is much easier to play with the South hand, since West must lead. North as declarer must win the ♥10 opening lead with the ♥A or the contract fails. 7 of 8 3NT declarers failed to make that play and went down, whereas 3NT from the South hand virtually plays itself. Note that the balancing 1NT call does not give up on a ♠ game since systems are on over balancing 1NT.

Stop whining about what? That I lucked into a good result? That, depending on how the auction develops, there may be no way to describe balanced hands of 15-21 HCP in balancing seat? That it's common to require more than 9 HCP for a jump in response to a balancing double? And if you offered me the opportunity to poll my "views" (whatever they may have been and on whatever topic) I can't recall it; nor can I recall ever having had an exchange with you of any kind, to include rejecting said offer.

My link IMPs, ACBL robot individual I got a great result on this board, but I didn't earn it. I was maneuvered into it by the state of the match and by the balancing no trump gap that's been documented previously and in several posts recently. I needed a substantial gain on this board, so I couldn't afford to defend 1♥ and I couldn't afford to pass 3♣. Note, though, that my non-jump 3NT rebid showed 22-25 HCP. That's how I (and 2 other desperados) got to 6♣. But that means that on this sequence there is no way for South to bid a balanced hand of 15-21 HCP. This is even more egregious than the gap that exists when North cue bids, which previously-documented hands show to be the 15-17 HCP range. IMHO this merits BBO's attention. As a side note, given that South's balancing double shows only 9+, should North be jumping to 3♣ with such slender values? According to all the documentation I can find, and in my own partnerships, North needs an opening bid of its own to jump in response to a balancing double. A benefit of this approach is it leaves a strong South hand with room to rebid in a suit and especially to rebid in NT at more than 1 level to show ranges above the 11-14 required for a balancing bid of 1NT.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. My objection is not that the ♠A is offside, but that for no reason other than knowing that South has 4+ ♣ North opted for an 11-trick contract in lieu of a 100% 9-trick contract. What was the point of bidding 3♥ if it was going to bid 5♣ all along?

I'm not concerned that North bid 3NT in response to 2NT - I frequently complain when North bids less in response to stronger bids. I do think that North's bidding is lousy on both hands. On the first hand, I think North should double or pass, depending on which one shows values. South can see the vulnerability and is in a better position to decide where the hand should be played. North lacks a stopper and will play 6NT from the wrong side, so that just can't be right.

Below are two hands from the same set (IMPs, ACBL robot individual) on which the robot savages Souths who make the system bid and rewards those who do not. My link In a classic application of the robot enthusiasm factor, North credits itself with 3 extra HCP and a ♠ stopper that it does not have to come up with its hideous 6NT bid. Imagine if South has ♠Ax and 6NT (or any other contract) makes only with South declaring. Those Souths who lose the ♣Q and open only 2NT with their 23-count are allowed to play in 3NT. My link If you show your ♣ suit in response to minor-suit Stayman on this hand, you're cooked. Despite hearing about South's ♥ stopper and holding a ♠ stopper of its own, North plows ahead to 5♣, which dies quickly on the actual layout. Those Souths who suppress their ♣ suit are allowed to play in 3NT. North's unilateral actions on this hands result in a 25-IMP penalty imposed on those Souths who make the system bid.

My link IMPs, ACBL robot individual Knowing that South has 22-24 HCP and a balanced hand, North raises 3NT all the way to 4NT with its rockcrusher. My link Knowing that South has 20-21 HCP (and 4-4 in the majors, to be sure), North drives the same hand to slam. This is a recurrent issue.