jodepp

Players will be debating this until the end of time. There are advantages and disadvantages to both choices, so you 'pays your money and you takes your choice.' What I find fascinating is that proponents of both choices vehemently defend them. I finally decided to take Matt Granovetter's advice - don't have an agreement in this area. Open whatever you want. If you want to bid the better minor, fine. If you want to bid the weaker minor to inhibit the lead, fine. This approach also has the advantage of giving the opponents no information; if asked 'which minor do you open with 4=4', you can honestly reply 'we have no agreement.'

Absent discussion, the double is penalty (if we haven't discussed it, it's as natural as possible').

I think whatever you want to do is fine; nothing's wrong. I would open 1♣ but would hardly call 1NT an error.

With a low singleton, I don't like 1NT much. With South's hand, a solution that seems to serve me is to open 1♠. If we belong in notrump it's likely better from partner's side.

I'm not sure that analogy applies. If we follow the 'kindergarten' thought concerning experience, it's more like kindergartners playing against high schoolers. Speaking from purely competitive position, I agree that as far as national-level competition goes, 'all's fair.' I was attempting to get people to consider the 'psychees' position before passing judgment.

I'm a bit surprised that nobody - so far - has spoken for the side that was psyched against. The argument that 'it was a national event' does carry weight, a position I have taught learning players in an effort to prepare them for 'playing up'. However, given the state of our game I wonder how many people would say psyching here was forgivable if the other pair decided to give up the game as a result. Playing this game as competitively as we do, I think it's hard to 'shift gears' and put ourselves in the shoes of much less experienced pairs. Many such pairs - not all, true - feel embarrassed when a psych works against them and they get frustrated. Rather than work to build their bridge skills, they take the view - understandably IMO - that they'd rather spend their leisure time doing something else than getting embarrassed by what they think - rightfully or not - are 'sharp practices'. Many former students of mine confess to getting irked because of psyches, and a few have given up the game for this reason. So, before we all blindly support such actions, let's be sure to consider the health of the game at large before we say 'yea' or 'nay' here.

I'd have led the ♣Q and think everything else is a random stab in the dark, but wouldn't this hand have been easier to defend if North had just bid what was in front of his nose? So what if responder bid 1♠? Doesn't North have spades?

I'm in full agreement with Mr. Rexford about 2♣ compared to 2♥ as responder's initial call. I might assign a tiny bit of blame to opener with the ambiguous 4♥. If it's 'last train', fine, but if responder can be slamming missing the AKQJ of hearts then responder must have 'the rest of the bases covered'. Opener should just take over at that point rather than the 4♥ 'punt'.

I wouldn't have bid earlier, but I wouldn't say it was wrong. There is NO WAY I would balance. The opponents have exchanged information and are in position to punish an indiscretion. North should hit 1NT at matchpoints I think (if double would be penalty). I wonder why North didn't open 1NT...(ironically I think I would balance automatically after 1NT - Pass - Pass)

Al Roth proposed that 3♦ here after the transfer be invitational only. That solves the problem, but you need to work out how you wish to force as responder.

If South can bid 6♦ missing all that North has, surely North can bid one more...

If this was IMP scoring, there's plenty of blame to go around: 1) East's 3♥ started rolling the ball in the wrong direction. 4♦ is preferable, but I confess I'm surprised to read anybody suggesting a 4♠ splinter. 2) West's passing 4NT is simply laughable. East's 4♦ is slammish, period. Also, the thread author didn't state methods over the strong opening. If 2♥ was available as a natural positive, that has to be preferable to 2♦.

No question that can happen, but if opener responds 1NT or 2NT you 'know' you have a diamond fit so the danger isn't as bad as it first appears (this is assuming you can get to 3♦ via a Wolff signoff over 2NT). It also sends the message 'stop bidding' when opener reverses into 2♥ (presumably you can lebensohl into 3♦).

If playing a Walsh-style system, you respond 1S almost with impunity. Responder's secondary jump to 3D shows a hand like the thread hand.

I don't think I would accept the insufficient bid. UI does not attach as West has already described the nature of the hand. This puts North in a pickle: 1) Bridge laws state North may not double; 2) North can Pass and throw the board in the air (as South is now barred); if North is bidding 4♠ to make it hardly seems likely that North would Pass now; 3) North can bid 5♥ and bar South (we can double if we want); 4) North can bid 5♠ which we could double, sending an unequivocal message to West (Pass!). Also, if North is 'operating' a director is present at hand so you can lodge any complaint. Hopefully West decides not to bid on with 0175 (which he should not be bidding 4NT anyway).

Interesting hand. If partner is 2=4=4=3 you win by bidding 3C (especially if it implies values - some play 2NT as artificial here). Double could work but is probably responsive, so that's out. 3♥ has some appeal and I might try it if partner was the forgiving sort, but 3♥ has a big strike against it - if everyone at the table is serious, partner's heart length will be tapped early (pard's hand will be ruffing spades before mine). I'll go with 3♣, hoping partner fields it as natural.

Personally, I think clubs should be played upside down, meaning lead low from dummy first. If East has the ♣K and hops, you have twelve tricks assuming diamonds are not 5-0.

If partner returned the ♣Q, I confess I can't see a defense that matters. I might falsecard with the ♠10 on the first trump, but I'd look mighty silly if partner had the stiff jack instead of the queen (declarer having the ♣K implies declarer's trumps are full of holes). I'd just cash out at that point, I guess.

If you trust your partner... Partner should have the ♣K. If partner had the ♣Q without the king he/she should have led it at trick two to clarify the situation for you. You can cash the ♥A, cross to partner's ♣K to let partner play the ♥Q so you can shake a diamond and make a trump trick (maybe a second one if partner has a stiff ♠Q).

You can't discuss every contingency when playing a convention, even a simple one like Michaels. Personally I think the answer to the author's question shouldn't be a list of how 'one should do this or that'; this is a situation where default agreements should take precedence. "If we haven't discussed an ambiguous bid, it's natural" is an example of such a default agreement (I'm not saying that 2♣/2♦ should be anything - this is just an example). Default agreements aren't perfect, but at least they eliminate doubt as to what undiscussed bids mean and in my experience promote stronger partnership trust. I'd recommend that it would be more effective to discuss such defaults with the author and their partner.

How West can not bid 4♥ with that picture gallery is beyond me. I have sympathy for East's regressive 3♥; beyond opening values, little is known about West's hand. For all East knew, West only wanted to be in 4♥ opposite a specific shortness (say, a stiff spade or diamond). East can't tell that West is interested in high cards or shortness or both, so East cannot mastermind; he has to do what the system says. I blame West 80% and the system 20%, as maybe 2♠ on this sequence should ask for shortness. Responder can conveniently show any shortness and imply 'a scrap or two' (like the ♣QJ) with a 3♥ rebid (not 2NT wrongsiding the hand - 2NT can be reserved for the 'dud' hand and opener can sign off in 3♥).

I'll agree with you in principle, because I think we're saying the same thing.

Everything you do at a bridge table is 'gambling', even if you take a 90% action. Maybe the wording of the thread should be 'is 4♠ advisable?' There's been an erudite discussion of IMP odds, so I won't rehash it. When you look at the thread hand, ask yourself: "will 4♠ (assuming you're vul) make the requisite one-third of the time to show a profit?" That is a totally subjective view, so I wouldn't throw anybody under a bus for saying 'no' (even though I'm a bit more optimistic about game chances - I like the 4-5 shape). Also, since the hand came up in a long match, the IMP odds bear out - aggression pays. If the thread hand came up in a 6-board Swiss match, the IMP odds may not bear fruit. To illustrate, suppose the match was one board long; now, the IMP odds mean nothing. It becomes an equation of percentages. Thus one might wish to only invite in a short match; let's be honest, there are some major holes in the thread hand.

Agree with those who blame mostly East for a silly jump to 4♠, but West could (perhaps should) try RKC too.

This is not a new complaint. How you enforce the 'even tempo' online I have no idea, other than a recorder-type system that might track habitual offenders. I have been fighting (no understatement) in my f2f environment with a player who repeatedly does this (and everybody knows it), but he continues to hesitate anyway and simply denies any wrongdoing when called on it, even by his partner. Some players apparently believe that the bridge table is the same environment as the poker table, where such 'coffeehousing' is considered part of game. Nothing is further from the truth of course, but some players just don't care and will continue to hesitate. Maybe the solution is a movement among conscientious players simply to refuse to play with such offenders.