TimG

Are you sure about that? Responder transferred to spades, but then didn't seem to let the partnership get out in 6♠ even if opener had some preference for playing in spades. The transfer might simply have been a misdirection. Or, maybe responder has three kings and figured he could find out everything he wanted to know by setting spades and asking for keycards (whoops, I have a king, I guess that's not it). I don't know, but I'm far from confident that responder actually has spades. Unlike Free, I'm far from confident that a heart lead kills them even if partner does have the queen. And, a heart lead could easily blow up a trick, possibly declarer's 12th. I'd probably lead a middle spade, like hrothgar. Mostly because it looks like the lead least likely to give away a trick or take away a guess from declarer. Tim

How about Ralph Katz?

Why do you feel the Laws should be ignored in an ACBL tourney? The Laws say that a call may be changed if done "without pause for thought". The purpose seems to be to allow for the correction of an inadvertent call -- a misclick or a misthumb (when pulling the bidding cards out of the bidding box) or a mis-tongue (when bidding verbally). Why should this right be taken away when playing in an online tourney? Tim

I don't recall ever seeing a player in ftf bridge attempt to change their call after LHO had made a call. And, if you read the Laws, you will find that such a change is not without possible penalty.

I pick 3♠. It is possible that opener passes and we miss a good 4♠, though I would not rate it as very likely. There is also a danger in bidding 4♠ -- partner could expect more in high cards and bid on to the five level when four is the limit of the hand. So, I just make the value bid. Tim

That's not all the Laws have to say on the matter, in fact I cannot find that exact quote in the Laws. Here is what I found: "A. Immediate Correction of Inadvertency: Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the applicable Law." There is also a section for "Delayed or Purposeful Correction". My opinion is that a misclick falls under section A and that correction of the inadvetent call should be allowed, especially in sanctioned events. (It is less important in non-sanctioned events because there is no "prize" available.) Since the correction (or attempted correction) must be immediate, I would suggest that when the next player has made a call, the period available to correct the inadvertent call has expired. This may preclude some cases of attempting correction "without pause for thought" but the line must be drawn somewhere and the determination of "without pause for thought" is much more difficult online than it is in person. Corrections that follow this thought process: "Wait, we're playing 1430, not 0314, I need an undo" are not made "without pause for thought". I believe that in the pickup atmosphere of online bridge, there are many of these types of undo requests. And, that these requests are an abuse of undos. My general approach is to allow any undo request regardless of whether I think the correction would be lawful. But, I can certainly understand some players' frustration with being asked to grant an undo that they think is not "without pause for thought". Tim

I do not believe a jump shift implies a suit length difference of one. Equal suit lengths are common, and 6-4 is also. I do agree, however, that it is seldom useful to jump shift into a three-card suit.

I'm quite happy with 2♥. I wouldn't make a mixed raise even if one were available. And, 4♥ seems hyper aggressive, inviting -200 on a partscore hand even when they can't double us.

hmm, how do you delete a post?

And, after all that they were just one call (6♣ over 5NT) away from getting to the grand.

I think hand one does sort of play itself. Ruff the opening lead, ♠A, ruff a spade, high club. I think you're home even if west has all the trumps as long as you guess to play your winners in the right order. You know LHO will be the one ruffing any clubs and presume RHO will be the one ruffing any spades, so you're not in danger of an over ruff. So, I don't think this will cost when trumps are 22 or 31. But, there could be some point where you have to decide whether to play for trumps 40.

Partner was lazy not to bid 6♣ over 5N.

♥A is by necessity in E, otherwise he will be able to return a heart after an unsuccessful diamond finesse, or even if it is successful W must hold only one other diamond in order for us to make the contract. Imagine what happens when ♠J is played, and E wins with the queen. The only safe exit for him is to take his ♥A and return a heart. Now I cash all the remaining hearts, ♠AK, and my last spade. This wins if spades are 3:3, if ♠10 is doubleton in either opponent, or if E started with ♠QTxx because in the last case he's thrown in hand, and is left with nothing but diamonds, where I get my last trick. Petko East doesn't have to hold the ♥A if clubs are 4-3. If you take ♣K at trick two and then play ♥K and ♠J, east could win the ♠Q, cash the ♥A, and then play a club. I suppose I also fail when clubs are 4-3, LHO ducks the ♥A, and the diamond hook is off. Your line may be best if you wait until trick three to win the ♣K and find out that clubs are, indeed, 5-2. But, as someone pointed out, RHO should play the T from ATx, so maybe you don't have to wait to find out. When RHO has the ♠Q and five hearts, he can get out with a spade when in with the ♠Q. And, you come to only 3 spades, 3 hearts, 1 diamond and 1 club. If you've won the second club you can endplay RHO into leading a diamond (if you win the 3rd club, the defense will already have five tricks). Yes, I guess your line is better. Tim

Ah yes, in SAYC a direct limit raise does not promise four-card support.

Isn't responder allowed to rebid 2N with that hand? If you play the direct 2M as maximum, won't you be faced with a similar problem when it goes 1N-2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠ (opener holding a 5233 minimum)? If opener is 53 in the majors and passes 2♥, you could play in a 43 heart fit instead of a 53 spade fit.

I think it shows a balanced minimum. Surely you can at least bid 6♥.

I don't think partner is looking for grand, but I can cater to the possibility by bidding 5♠ now. If partner is looking for the grand and wants to hear about my ace of clubs, he can bid 5N over 5♠ and I will happily bid 6♣. I don't think I have quite enough to bid the grand over 5N, make my ♦J the ♣J and maybe. But, I'm certainly accepting the invitation to slam, so I might as well try to cater to a grand slam search along the way. BTW, is it clear that 3♥ is forcing in SAYC? Isn't this the way you show a three-card limit raise? I'm sure partner intended it as forcing since he bid 5♦ over 4♥, but I would have thought 3♥ was non-forcing. Tim PS The state of the match does not matter to me.

OK, I win the ♣K and play the ♥K. Yes, it is possible that I can win 8 more tricks in diamonds and spades without ever touching hearts, but that takes some luck, while east will have the ♥A about 50% of the time. If east does have the ♥A, the diamond finesse becomes odds on (else east would have opened the bidding). So, I play on hearts, then the diamond finesse and fall back on spades for the 9th trick if hearts don't behave. I'm going to guess that this is the line taken at the table and it failed, west holding ♦Kx all along. Tim

Assuming a spade lead, doesn't West certainly lose at least 2 spades, 3 diamonds, and a heart against any defense? Btw, this is another example where a forcing defense doesn't work, because it allows W to score his low trumps for one down (if North shifts to ♣A after spade lead to the king, heart finesse losing to North). Arend Yes, I think so. But, I also think it takes a diamond play from north at trick three (and a spade from south at trick 4 or 5) to set it 2 tricks. Maybe the diamond play is obvious, but I expect many norths would try to cash a high club (maybe thinking that south will discourage if he has the King of Diamonds).

I'm curious about the spot lead. The three and two are missing. Does west lead 3rd best from a five card suit? Or, is this some sort of attitude lead and west chose to lead middle from something like Q7432 rather than a more encouraging two? If it's attitude, I expect west not to have the ace of hearts, low seems right then so that east will continue the suit if east wins the first side trick. If east has the Ace of Hearts and Ace of Clubs, that likely means the King of Diamonds is onside (since east failed to open the bidding). Doesn't this mean that: win ♣K, ♥K (ducked, I suppose), diamond finesse, establish hearts, produces nine tricks (1♣, 2♦, 4♥, 2♠) when hearts break? If hearts don't break, you can cash the ♦A to see if there is a doubleton king before looking to spades for the ninth trick.

I'm one of the two people who voted for 3♣, which appears to be a make. Of course, 2♠ likely goes down one (two if north can find a diamond underlead when in with a heart). The redouble strikes me as odd. Did east really think 2♠ was making?

Not really. As there have been a few votes for 3S, the opponents probably did the rigth thing by not bouncing to 4H over which 3S would not be an option.

I think this is one of those hands on which jlall wouldn't even bother counting his HCP. 4♠ stands out in my opinion.

I have no problem with opening that hand, but it seems clear to accept the transfer to clubs rather than bid 2♥. IMO, opener must be 55 in the majors. 56 is more likely than 54. (Of course, once we are given all the hands, we're going to take exception to someone's choices.)

This wasn't my partner, it was Free's partner (or Free)! I do think redouble is nuts with the ♠K, a couple of queens and a ruffing value, especially with only two trumps and an obvious trump lead coming. I think it's more likely that my pickup partner has made a questionable balance than RHO made a questionable redouble. Anyway, I justsaid I could imagine 840. I didn't say there was anything to be done about it. I mostly agree with those that suggest any three-level contract could be just as bad or worse. And, I really don't see +1600 unless one of the opponents has simply gone crazy.