JSilver

I can't argue with sucess, but I doubt I'd've been so creative. A ♥ lead will succeed if partner has ♥Jxx and one trick in the black suits. In this scenario, a ♠ lead might give away the show, if decarer has, say ♥KTx and partner's entry was in clubs. But the ♠J is a credible try, obviously. Behind in the match, some creatvity may be justified, if you think the contract is likely to be the same in the other room.

I hope no one minds if I don't respond to the questions in order. 2♠ is game forcing for me. 2NT would be invitational, and I'd bid 3♦ with the 4-5-2-2 11-count. Since partner has forced game, I'll try to make the most descriptive bid available while conserving space, as it's unclear where we belong. So I'd prefer 3♦ to 3♠. Then I can find out if partner has more major cards than he's already shown. 3♣would show 6-4 minors. If I had that shape and partner is 4-5-0-4, we may well belong in clubs.

My sense is that passive defense is more likely to set 1nt than 3nt. In 3nt, declarer usually has a source of tricks and the defense needs to establish theirs first. In 1nt, declarer tends to have to scrounge tricks wherever he can find them. Entries to dummy will be scarce, so underleading honors into the strong hand is riskier. Nevertheless, I'd probably lead a spade at IMPs. But I agree it's not clearcut.

Sounds good to me. Unless you play that 1♦ categorically denies a 4-card major (and that's not SAYC as I know it), I can't see a reason to skip over a longer diamond suit with a better than average hand. You won't lose a heart fit if you have one.

Or redouble. Maybe everyone will pass and you'll get a fine score, or an even better one if there happen to be 12 tricks.

I don't think so, it says East was dealer, so he opened the weak two. Arend Moreover, South declared (West was on lead), so that can't be the auction.

Well played!

I don't see it this way. If you look at the deal in question, 3NT should be down on a club lead. Meanwhile, adding a club to partner's hand won't save you from -500 when 3NT is even more likely to fail.

The oracle replies This was Lawrence's response: My guess is to play the ace and then the eight toward the queen. But I am not sure. I looked it up in the Bridge Encyclopedia but it was not there. Then I gave him the line I chose at the table: I led the 5, and lho played the 9. I put in the queen, losing to the king. On the second round, lho played the 4 under the 8. I decided she must've started with J94 and ducked, sucessfully. I suppose the 9 was a silly play, but if she plays low, I have various options. He responded as follows: Your line could be right (assuming you intended to finesse the eight) Of course, that loses to K9x offside. If you ever work it out for sure, let me know. What I found more interesting than the technical issue involved were two observations: --Bridge is such a difficult game that even some seemingly simple questions don't have definitive answers. --You don't have to be an egotist to be a world champion. (Obviously the converse also applies.)

Speaking of Mike Lawrence's Complete Book of Card Combinations in the book review topic reminded me of a correspondence I had with the author not long ago. [Lest anyone think I'm implying that Lawrence is a pal of mine, I'll say that although I've had numerous opportunities to meet him at the table (since he used to live across the Bay from me in Berkeley), I'm sure he doesn't remember me and simply responded to an email from an unknown fan.] Anyway, after an appropriate bit of flattery I asked him the following: [hv=n=saq763&w=s&e=s&s=st85]399|300|[/hv] This is the trump suit in a small slam after a transfer sequence. :) Given ample entries (and no need for ruffs), what's the optimum way to play this suit for one loser? I'll give the forumites a chance to cogitate before I post his response.

You did.. all i did was add J Silver's two post to the Book Review thread.... I appreciate that. I was at risk of looking like an ass by appearing to presume that my book recommendations were worthy of a new topic.

Thanks, Gerardo. It seems to me I tried that before with no effect. But it works now.

:) Meant to add this to the book reviews topic. Fixed... even though it means subtracting one from our new thread count. -- inquiry

I'd recommend anything by Mike Lawrence. His Complete Book of Balancing, mentioned by ArcLight, is a thorough treatment of a topic that is highly practical, yet poorly covered in the literature. Lawrence has a talent for identifying and exploring these subjects. The Complete Book of Card Combinations is another example. There may be reasons for not admiring Terrence Reese as a person, but one can certainly learn a lot from him about declarer play. My favorite is Play These Hands With Me. Reading it is like having a perch inside the mind of a master. I've enjoyed many of Hugh Kelsey's books, but have not read Killing Defense. A good book on this topic is Frank Stewart's Winning Defense for the Advancing Bridge Player. It systematically explores and exemplifies the major themes of defense. Kit Woolsey's Matchpoints is a great examination of the decisions peculiar to that form of the game. Among other topics, it covers the law of total tricks.

I find the door-opening sound made when kibitzers appear to be damn distracting, particularly at the end of a tournament, when it tends to occur every few seconds. Yet there doesn't seem to be a way to disable this particular sound, although many others can be turned off. Or have I missed something?

Certainly partner should use his judgment. But if he doesn't have better judgment than to pass a 2♣ opener, then he won't be my partner often.

This is also my understanding. I don't expect partner to have a trump stack--rather a balanced hand with 4-6 quick tricks. "No matter what you have, pard has spoken and you don't need to contribute any tricks to his penalty double. :rolleyes:" However, I'd consider pulling it if I had a long suit and no defense, since some of his tricks may not cash and we might be able to make 5 of my suit.

This hand is a far different matter. Your expectation is -1, so a X won't gain much, particularly if the slam isn't bid at the other table, which seems likely. And the loss from letting them make it by telling them where the trumps are is much greater. Also, I don't understand the auction, but it seems possible they could take it out to 6nt and make it.

I agree with whereagles that you shouldn't allow strong opponents to intimidate you. Once in the first round of an NABC open pairs, my partner and I (flight C at the time) sat down against Meyers-Montin. On both deals, we collected 300 doubling part scores. I'd double 4S. I expect 3 or 4 tricks from my hand and 1 or 2 from partner's, but then I'm a believer in sound overcalls. Call me an optimist. Yes, they freely bid game, but they didn't know they were running into a trump stack. Sure, once in a while, they'll make it, but I'd expect it to go down 2 often enough to make up for those times. I'd lead a top diamond, with the ♥8 as a second choice.

Good suggestion.

I'll present this double dummy, but perhaps it could be made at the table. [hv=d=e&v=n&n=sa42hj8dj87cqjt43&w=sq96ht53dat96532c&e=skj3hakq42dkqca96&s=st875h976d4ck8752]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] Obviously 6♦ would be much easier, but 6♥ was a more popular spot. How do you make it on a ♦ lead? You ruff a club in dummy, and the only safe return is in trumps. Now a second ♣ ruff will endplay dummy, so you must draw trump. Now what? If you unblock the ♦Q and attempt to reach dummy in spades, the defenders can frustrate you. (On a low ♠, South must insert the T.) So...? ;) :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: The solution is a strip squeeze, but the timing must be precise. Before playing the last ♥, you play one high ♠, North ducking. Now the 5th ♥, coming down to the following ending: [hv=d=e&v=n&n=sa42hj8dj87cqjt43&w=sq96ht53dat96532c&e=skj3hakq42dkqca96&s=st875h976d4ck8752]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] North must throw a club, to maintain the spade holdup and stop the overtake of the ♦Q. Only now can you unblock the ♦Q, then cash the ♣A, and lead ♠J, endplaying North at trick 12 or 13.

I don't see how to make it even double dummy. I suppose you ruff the ♣, return to hand with a ♠ ruff, and ruff another ♣. Now how can you get rid of the last ♣ and manage the trumps? If you ditch the last ♣ on the ♠A, there's no safe reentry to your hand. If you ruff a ♠ with a middle trump, West will pitch and get 2 trump tricks. What am I missing?

I think you both took a position. I wouldn't bid 3NT with your hand, nor would I pass it with your partner's. There's no reason for him to think 3NT, even if it makes, will score more matchpoints than a ♥ contract. A ♥ slam is not out of the question if you have one of the black aces.

Is this trip really necessary? It seems to me there are plenty of winners in these tournaments without stratification to provide smaller awards to more people. If you play consistently, you are sure to scratch eventually, regardless of skill level. Meanwhile, players who want to be rewarded for beating a limited field can choose the recently added 299er game. As someone with a tad over 1000 masterpoints (which, IMO, are a poor measure of skill), I've found myself in any stratum from A to C from one tourney to the next. It seems to me the only rational way to stratify, assuming it's really necessary, is to set fixed boundaries and forget equalizing the numbers in each, just as is done at face-to-face tournaments.

I think there are really two types of people who call themselves TDs. There are those who really function as directors. Then there are those who could more appropriately be called tournament sponsors. They do the administrative work necessary to get a tourney going under certain conditions, so they can then enjoy the pleasure of playing in it. Given BBO's free-market approach to tourneys, I'd say that players who are happy playing in a tourney with no functioning director should be free to do so, as long as they know that's what they're getting into. After all, this is little different than playing in the main club, where there is no director to call. But there is a fixed number of deals, a fixed group of players, and a competitive result.