TimG

Whoops...error counting to thirteen.

I think the 3343 distribution makes it an easy pass.

My opinion is that there will be less interest in the "contest" if it is demonstration only -- people want to participate rather than just watch. Phil makes a good point about the length of the contest, while it was not too long for me (and I think my partnership was the only one to participate in all the rounds), I can see how some might not want to make the commitment to a contest that could last months. So, it would be good to set it up so that people could drop in and out, bid one month if they want to, not the next.

delete

I'm of the opinion that he has passed; I think the unintended part is much more difficult. I once opened 1♠ and partner raised to 3♠ (limit). I thought for a bit about whether to make a slam try, eventually decided not to, and passed. A few moments later, I realized that I'd be playing in a partscore as a result. When I passed, I intended to pass from a mechanical perspective, it was not a case of inadvertently saying "pass" instead of "four spades". I thought, temporarily, that "pass" was equivalent to playing 4♠. I then realized my mistake. Even though I hadn't intended to play a partscore, I had intended to pass. It seems to me that there are two different ways to look at intention: one purely mechanical; the other effectual. In my case, I intended to pass from a mechanical perspective and intended to play 4♠ from an effectual perspective. In your case, I think the player intended to pass from a mechanical perspective and intended to defend a doubled 7-level contract from an effectual perspective. I do not have any Law reference, but it feels to me like the Laws should allow a change in the case of an unintended mechanical error and not in the case of an unintended effectual error.

Received a personal note that I had been removed from their mailing list (after sending a request to sales@).

I would expect all of (3♣)-3N (3♣)-DBL-3♠-3N (3♣)-4N (3♣)-DBL-3♠-4N to be natural. Have I listed them in ascending order of strength shown? And, do any of them really do this hand justice?

Is 4♥ well defined? It sounds to me like you're lacking agreements about 3♥ vs 4♥, why would you then presume that 5♥ might be well defined?

I'm convinced too. I'm disappointed that the final was not much of a contest. But, I thoroughly enjoyed the contest as a whole and join in congratulating Han and Justin on their convincing victory.

I think you gave up too early; if opener holds ♠KQ ♥A82 ♦J4 ♣AKQJT9 there are still 14 tricks. I also gave up too early and should have converted to 6N at the end.

Upon reflection, I agree that doubling 2♥ is clear. Would you share your opinions of 2♣ vs 3♣ on the first round and how close the takeout double is? Would you double a 1♣ opening with the actual hand? How about doubling 1♦ with ♠KJ73 ♥J74 ♦KQ7 ♣KQ7? I suspect the answer is "yes" in both cases, but I wonder if either is close.

I did not take it as such.

You were watching, so you know that it took me a while to bid 6♦. 3♦ established a GF, and 4♣ over it would have been natural, so I hadn't come close to showing what I had with 4♦. I wondered about the failure to cue-bid hearts on the way to 5♦, but decided there were hands where partner would not want to insist upon a cue-bid from me (I could have had the same had with a club spot instead of the ♣K and would have bid 5♣ over 4♥); four trumps, a doubleton in partner's second suit, and the side AK were just too much, I thought, not to bid slam even though I could construct hands consistent with the bidding where we were off the cashing ♥AK. So, we got a little lucky.

That is my recollection as well; I'm pretty sure we bid the same hands.

You're not "♣Axxx and out", you're 1354 But, I concede it may be wrong, especially in a 5cM framework.

I think the trouble is with the explanation and meaning of the redouble, no? Did the redouble also specify a strength? Agree with others that if the question is merely about the failure to alert the double of 2♠ as penalty, then east cannot take back her 2♠ bid and is being quite squirrely by even suggesting it.

Whoops, my mistake.

hotShot, I don't necessarily disagree with what you have said, but I think you also need to factor in consideration that taking away the opponents' bidding space is sometimes beneficial to them. When responder has a weak hand (6-7 HCP) it may be best for them if they are not in the auction and our interference may make it easier for them to get out.

How about Kelsey's squeeze play series, which I believe has been published as one volume in recent years?

I wonder what percentage you assign to "could easily be"? I would be more inclined to bump immediately to 3♣ than to pass with ♠x ♥xxx ♦xxxxx ♣Axxx, but I come from a four-card majors background which may be leading me astray here.

Indeed, it would be bizarre if they haven't. I thought that was implicit in my post.

I wonder why the folks at BBO haven't thought of this on their own and started monitoring such activity.

They opened 1♦. A 1♠ overcall takes away a 1♥ and 1♠ response while adding the possibility of doubling. So, if they would have responded 1♥, they have a double available; if they would have responded 1♠ we have saved them the trouble (and they have NT bids available to show balanced hands with spades). What significant bidding space have you taken from the opponents?

The situation where you open and raise is very different from the situation where you overcall. When you open and raise before the opponents have had a chance to say anything other than pass is much more favorable to your side than when they have opened. Likewise, once responder has been able to define his hand narrowly with 1NT, the advantages of the raise almost go away. You're not taking them out of their constructive bidding comfort zone, they've likely said what they want to say and if they haven't, they won't have much trouble saying it now. I challenge you to produce "a lot" of examples of good results achieved when you've overcalled 1♠ on an indifferent suit and a 4=3=3=3 hand. I suspect that you haven't had the opportunity to overcall on "a lot" of such hands, much less encountered enough such hands to build a significant set of data.

Forget that...