ochinko

I pass. There are better ways to end a partnership than insulting partner with pulling his penalty double. I don't mind if passing is a losing decision here. In a long term it seems right, unless you support with 3 cards only. Petko

20-22 is too wide a range. Partner has 22 in 1/6 of the deals, yet you have to cater to the possibility every time. Anyway, even if we assume maximum points in partner's hand, the Jacks are the most overvalued honors in the Work's schema. Besides, 2 of them are unprotected. Unless I strongly need a swing, I pass, and pray partner can make 2NT, because it won't be easy. I'd consider showing signs of life with something like: 10982 xx K10932 xx Same points, same distribution, only a 10 more, but a slightly better hand IMO. Petko

While I agree with what you say it's inaplicable to this case since a a star has nothing to gain from any points that are attributed in tourneys. 1. Most players don't cheat. 2. Obviously the participants in payed tourneys like the points they receive, and thankfully that brings some revenue into BBO. However, we should not be concerned as long as there is no limit for free tourneys which don't add points to players. Really, the situation at the moment is the best I could think of. Everyone gets something of a value to him/her. Petko

There was a recent poll by Ricard Pavlicek (rpbridge.net). The hand was simillar if not the same. I don't consider 1NT a proper bid here. Our best contract may be in NT, but it certainly would be wrong sided if we bid it. 2C - 10 Pass - 1 1NT - 0 Petko

I was sitting South. We were playing SAYC, so I assumed 2C to be most likely 3+ clubs. Since it was a sure round forcing, I proceeded to describe my hand. It's not like I had 5 clubs, and didn't give a fit because I knew partner was short there. I guess partner preferred a diamond lead, that's why he bid clubs instead. Since he's not likely to become a declarer, the lead won't matter in most hands. Or he was afraid that 2D would show more than 3 diamonds. Or he was really psyching to avoid a club sacrifice. I can't say. All I can say is that we didn't have a special agreement here. I don't know if there is a way to prove that unless someone analyses the history of our partnership bidding. Since it was pointless to try to convince the TD that we didn't have such agreement, I asked whether he believed that opps were in any way damaged by the missing alert, and he said 'YES'. Maybe his shift key was stuck, I don't know. At the point where the TD stopped the play by adjusting it wasn't even clear whether opps would be denied of a club trick which they would make for sure with a club lead. Petko ---Added--- To mr1303: No, we don't play Jacoby 2NT with that partner. To all: Thank you for your answers. I'll try to find the TD and give him a link to this thread. He may have something to add. It's not my intention to rub anyone's nose. I am really grateful to all the TDs because I find tourneys more exciting than table play. But as we all strive to become better players, why not try to improve the directing too.

I reluctantly pass. Whatever happens this looks like a winning decision in the long run.

Why won't LHO pass out 1club, we have length in the majors and partner has a huge hand. I pass 1c or 1d often in pass out seat. Now we should get good score if opp make 3h and partner cannot overcall 1club. BTW what hand does partner have to bid 5d and cannot bid over one club? It was exactly my point that the bidding won't be that fast so that we would miss our chance to bid if we start with passing 1C. Most of the points are obviously divided in the opponent's line. Who wouldn't balance in LHO's position, and risk missing a game after such a timid bidding? I would find it very hard to construct a hand where passing from LHO is possible after his partner didn't find values to overcall. When I now appear in the bidding it would be much more obvious that 1. I don't fit the clubs. 2. I bid on distribution just competing for the part score, and do not guarantee a defensive trick. Petko

I am temped to bid 1H too, but there's no way that 1C is going to be passed by LHO, so you could appear later in the bidding. Unless it goes 1C - (P) - P - (1D) P - (5D) or 1C - (P) - P - (Dbl) P - (5D) which is not very likely. Petko

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sj876hq986daq6caj&w=s94h1042d10742ck1074&e=sa2hk753dk5cq9862&s=skq1053hajdj983c53]399|300|Scoring: MP Uncontested bidding: 1Sp - 2C 2D - 4Sp West leads H2[/hv] In the middle of the play E/W call the director, and complain about the 2C bid from North. The TD adjusts the score to Ave-/Ave+, and says he firmly believes (capital letters) that the defenders were harmed by that bid. There are no rules specific to the tourney, so we assume BBO rules. Now, the tourney is unpaid, so kudos to the TD for being there for all the players, but I suspect he was wrong, so please share your opinion. Many thanks. Petko ---Edited--- Sorry, meant to say that defenders were harmed by North not alerting the 2C bid, not by the bid itself.

All the bids sound strange after 2H, but should mean a maximum (or close to maximum) passed hand. The only exception is the last one which is the strangest. First five contain 4 hearts, the last one - 5. They sound like we didn't see an Ace in our cards, and all of a sudden invite to game. rdbl - just points, no direction 2Sp - cue bid, forcing to 3H 2NT - I stop the spades (twice ?), but don't guarantee a diamond stopper 3C - I have 4 clubs as well. Could be even 5 at MP, or if much weaker than the hearts 3D - I stop the diamonds (twice ?), you can consider 3NT 3H - competitive, 5 hearts, following the LOTT. This is the weakest of all HCP-wise. I don't expect LHO to pass 2Hx, and I don't expect to make a defensive trick, so please partner either sacrifice or pass, don't double them. I could even have 6 hearts and a hand that was too weak even for a 2H opening. Petko

I think the opposite assuming most other tables play SAYC or 2/1. If partner has only 17 HCP only we know that, because the opening would be 1NT. Others would know partner could have 15 as well, and will most likely stop at 2Sp. We have to take advantage of that extra information, otherwise why do we bother to play precision? This is our chance to nail the other pairs. If partner has 18/19 there's a big chance that after 1D 1Sp is going to be bid, then a game will be reached, and with pretty good chances to make as well. So now we have to catch up with all the others fighting for 50% otherwise we'll score a clear zero. Petko

I transfer to spades, then bid my clubs. Partner won't pass 3C at MP even after the negative response. We should be playing a game here, 3NT, 4Sp, maybe even 5C. Yes, I like my hand that much. I don't care if it's MP, and we're not vuln, and we only have half of the points. Petko

It's not the level, it's the suit. Can't double without four hearts, can't bid a 4-suit minor at the 2nd level either. I not only pass 2Sp, I'd pass 1Sp as well. This, of course, is valid only in a direct position. In a balancing position I bid 1NT (playing 15-17 NT). Petko Added: Just to be clear, because 1NT is insufficient after 2Sp: I pass in all positions. Overcalling 2NT after a weak 2 is an exception of the rule of balancing. It requires the same strength both in direct and in balancing position (16-18) because you have no guarantee that the responder is weak too.

3D from me. If you transform one small diamond into a heart, then the double is clear. Doubling now places too much confidence in partner having a stack of spades. There is a big danger that partner would be 4=3=3=3, and pass our double, or 3=4=3=3, bidding 3H, or 3=3=3=4 when he wouldn't know what to do, and could become even more depressed. Depending on what caused his depression in the first place he could even become suicidal or homicidal after this hand :) But passing is even worse than doubling. First, partner is extra timid, second, it's MP so another move from us should be obligatory. Partner could even have 5 spades, and 2Sp could still make. I once witnessed a disaster when partner opened 2D(multi), doubled 2Sp from LHO because she had 6 spades, and opps still made it +1 with 4:3 spades. Petko

Nice game but your bidding has nothing to do with LTC. You had 6 loser hand? How many trumps did you expect for 2h and how many losers? You seem to assume 8 loser hand for partner's 2h bid? 24-6-8=10 tricks. Again nice bid but your bidding on this one has nothing to do with LTC. Well, I have to expect 3 trumps, and 9 losers which is enough only for 3H. But as I said, it was the vulnerability and the IMPs that pushed me further. Many good things can happen. We could have a second fit in clubs, opps could misdefend, etc. I saw that LTC guarantee the 3rd level, that's why I mentioned them. Just because Zar or TSP and whatnot would suggest the same doesn't mean LTC are not relevant. For me they were. Petko I am not a blind believer of LTC, however I think that your example is a misapplication of the LTC. If you do believe (or want to verify) that LTC works, then your hand is 5.5 losers, and pard has 9+ losers (with 8-8.5 losers he'd start an invitatonal sequence). Now, as your hand has 5.5 losers and pard is 9-9.5 +, your expected number of tricks is 24-14.5/15= at most 9.5. Now, knowing the limitations of LTC, I would understand a game try, to check whether the honors are fitting, but a leap to game is distinct overbid to me, regardless of whether using LTC or not. As in most bidding sequience, the problem is not the algorithm, but the evaluation of the hand by one of the 2 players. ===== BTW it is worth observing that the game here depends on honors fitting (e.g. if opener's void covers worthless cards of dummy, then game is laydown). A game try should be enough to check this. Yoda: There is no try :) Seriously, what are you going to ask partner? He limited his hand already. If you go the scientific way (short suit spade trial), you'd stop at 3H, and that is all you could make double dummy, since SpJ is offside, Ace and King divided. But you can't know that, and there's no way to find out. The only chance of making 4H is to jump in the dark leaving your opponents in the dark as well. The lead was a club, RHO put his Queen, you take it with the Ace, and lead 2 rounds of trumps. After taking his Ace on the second round LHO should play two rounds of spades (having Axx there) in order to set the contract. He played a second club instead, because he was given the chance to err. He could've played a diamond with the same result. You could have had SpJxx with fewer clubs, and then defenders should not touch the spades. Looking only at the two hands the game is 50% which is not bad at all, even if there is one line of defending that brings the contract down. Petko

Nice game but your bidding has nothing to do with LTC. You had 6 loser hand? How many trumps did you expect for 2h and how many losers? You seem to assume 8 loser hand for partner's 2h bid? 24-6-8=10 tricks. Again nice bid but your bidding on this one has nothing to do with LTC. Well, I have to expect 3 trumps, and 9 losers which is enough only for 3H. But as I said, it was the vulnerability and the IMPs that pushed me further. Many good things can happen. We could have a second fit in clubs, opps could misdefend, etc. I saw that LTC guarantee the 3rd level, that's why I mentioned them. Just because Zar or TSP and whatnot would suggest the same doesn't mean LTC are not relevant. For me they were. Petko

You're absolutely right. I'm not saying that you can't reach the same conclusion with many other methods of evaluation. LTC are the fastest to count though, in any other position except on opening. There they could mislead you. I am somewhere around intermediate level, that's why it amazes me that so many others missed that game. Petko

I can't get enough of this loser count. Vuln vs. NV at IMPs just got dealt: 1097 KJ1064 - AKJ43 Opened 1H in 2nd position, partner raised to 2H. With 6 losers a game is not certain, but it's worth to try at this vulnerability and being IMPs, clubs look like a nice source of tricks, so with my puny opening points I bid 4H. Partner's hand was Q84 Q972 Q1032 96 7.2 IMPs with 18 HCP. I'm glad for all the players that don't count their losers. Petko

Now, where is Luis when you need him? B) Never mind, my point is that the spade lead was fairly obvoius. He's made a simulation of his own showing that with similar bids and with 6-8 HCP more often than not the best lead is in your shorter major. And it makes a lot of sense if you think about it. A lead in a major is always to be considered when opps skip Stayman. Plus, what good is leading from your longest suit if you won't have the entries when it gets established? I would consider leading the CT only at MP. Petko

I was a sub at a MP tourney when I was dealt: Kxx xx AKJxxx K10 None vul I often open off-shape 1NT but almost never outside of the 15-17 range. Being matchpoints, however, I decided it was worth opening 1NT here. LHO bid 2H, unalerted, so I assumed a natural overcall. Partner doubled, which should be for penalties, RHO passed. I thought that if 2H go down it won't be more than 1, maximum 2, and with partner stopping hearts we might make 3NT, so I just bid them, and all passed. Partner's hand was: Axxx Qxx x Qxxxx The lead was Ace, King, and a small heart. Seemed pretty obvious that LHO had the CA, so my only chance were diamonds. They turned out to split 3:3 with DQ onside, so 3NT made. Was surprised and happy to see that we scored 100% but wonder whether I made the best decision, since the game looks less than 9%. What do you think? Should I pat myself on the back, or it was pure luck? Petko

Normally, you know when both you and your partner have an opening hand, you have a game. Counting losers, though, you can reach a game even with a hand below opening strength. I just got dealt: QJT6 JT86 - AT984 Not even counting Zar points is this hand an opener for me, so I passed. LHO passed too. Partner opened 1♠, 2♠ from RHO, 4♠ from me, comfortably made from my partner, a GIB bot. Petko

I am on this side as well, 6-4 opposite balanced is very likelly to play better on the 6-2 than 4-4 Me too. I play Smolen only with 5:4 in the majors. Petko

Funny, I've never thought about it, but learning is indeed more fun. Learning the end play, or the simple squeeze is like a revelation, doing it at the table - just technique. I think I benefitted most from the Law, and counting the losers. Knowing how far to compete, making a low point game or slam, or a good sacrifice is most rewarding. What I need to master is counting during the play :( And I've been a grown up since many years now. Petko

I take the lead with ♦A, cash the ♥K, and lead the ♥10 to dummy's Ace retaining the ♥x as a next entry to dummy's 9. Now I have two possible routes: (1) Take a spade finesse. (2) Draw ♣AK to discard a diamond from hand, then take the first spade finesse. If both opponents folowed to the two rounds of trumps there is only one outstanding heart, so now (2) seems best because even if our second club gets ruffed opps can't play another trump, and we make whenever we catch one of the spade honors onside, or find spades in opps 3:3. I admit that even if trumps are 4:1 in the opps, I'll still try (2), because finding the clubs 6:1 (assuming they weren't bid) is less probable than having ♠KQ at my back. Here I am probably wrong, and that is what Ben means as a better line only at matchpoints. Petko

Something like: Qx x AJx KQxxxxx I bid 5C. Vulns are important too. Since 3 of the suits are bid the double is for penalties, or at least cooperative. I play that pulling a penalty double when we are vulnerable and opps aren't is a game forcing. If opps are vuln, and we are not - serious slam intentions. Any other vuln - at least mild slam intentions. Petko