KingCovert

The player taking the pass is the hand with two rag majors, AK♦, and A♣ of course. So, they know full well what their hand is when they decide to pass. Given that the opening bid is 10-14, game forcing values are somewhere around a good 13+ for responder. Obviously, things like suit texture and distribution can influence whether responder thinks their hand is game-forcing or not when they hold less. The point is though, systemically, this is a minimum on strength for responder. Add in a singleton queen, admittedly in a suit that partner is known to hold, and the fact that you hold 10 minor suit cards and partner holds at least 9 major suit cards, and I think it's a pretty clear downgrade to an invitational hand. This hand is seemingly a misfit, and hands like this usually do horrible in no-trump. So, responder would rebid diamonds to show invitational values with diamonds in my system. Now that responder has shown invitational values, and remember it's invitational opposite 10-14 so it's not a mediocre hand by any stretch. Yet, I don't really see how anyone is being fair in saying that opener choosing pass here is unreasonable. If anyone looks at that hand with two rag majors, and knows that their hand is limited to 10-14 HCP, and decides that this hand is supposed to drive to game... Well... I fail to see the justification for it. Perhaps in your methods you'd be forced to play game, and I sympathize with that, but, not in mine.

I suppose I didn't provide an auction for this hand. It would go: 1♠ = 10-14 (in 1st/2nd seat) 4+♠. 2♦ = Invitational or better with ♦. Forcing to at least 3♦. 2♥ = 5+♥. 3♦ = Narrows the 2♦ bid to invitational values with 6+♦. Seems like a good place to stop.

My preferred system happens to be a strong club system that opens possibly every 10+ HCP hand... So, I'm probably being a little hypocritical in saying that I agree that pass looks rather attractive on this hand. 1) It has defensive strength against virtually every contract the opponents could play 2) It holds both the majors, so, it's a rather easy to compete later Of course, I'm opening it 100/100. So, it's easy for me to say this with hindsight...

Good play? As CyberYeti has pointed out, EW really should be taking 500. So, no. AK♠, J♥, AK♦, ♦ ruff, and K/Q♣. Lucky? I'd usually consider a favourable lay of the cards as lucky, or, a completely speculative bid that finds a magic dummy. Poor defense and judgement in the auction by opps? *shrug* I think that if so many people respond to this thread stating how any call except pass is crazy, perhaps, you'd be well served to go see if it is crazy. I think it's pretty clear from your line of questioning that you've failed to do this. Probably too caught up chasing the confirmation of your suspicions of cheating to utilize any objectivity. To answer the last question: No, I don't think my opponents are cheating when they do stupid things that would result in bottom boards.

Yes, true enough, that player is called the advancer! I always forget. Thanks.

I'm going to put this in terms that I prefer, but, obviously it depends somewhat on agreements. 1y = An overcall 1z = Advancing the overcall. I like to play that any new suit that advances overcall is a one round force. It should show either the shape or values to warrant that force. I don't want to ever have to wonder if partner is bidding a new suit on air, and if I'm the one advancing the overcall, I want a way to both force partner and show my distribution. Weak jump shifts and PASS are always available when you don't have the hand worthy of a one round force. I don't think this treatment is uncommon, perhaps it's common. Okay, so... If the overcaller re-bids either their suit or No Trump, we know that these bids aren't forcing, and they are non-forcing while acknowledging that their partner's advancing bid is a one round force as described. Perhaps the overcaller didn't like hearing their partner bid whatever suit Z was, and may in fact have some extra values but is electing to downgrade the hand. Perhaps the overcaller just simply had minimal or mediocre values for their overcall, which is fine. It's contextual. That all being said, I think that if I had the right 14 points or better, I'd find a forcing bid, or make some sort of invitational raise. So, if I had good fit with Z, if my hand had good texture (aka intermediate value) or if I felt that my hand was well positioned behind the opener given the context/inferences/probable leads that result from the auction, I'd consider this a good hand. (Note: There will always be the distributional exceptions to comments like "the right 14 points or better". Obviously there are some 6-5 10 HCP hands that are better than many 17 HCP hands you'll hold. So, I'm mostly talking about somewhat normal/common hands.) Edit: Using Advancer as suggested by David.

I think this is the source of the confusion. That's clearly what you meant to write in your original post, but, not what you wrote. I think what you're not understanding is that you don't get to "offer" to change it back. It must be corrected. There is no choice in the matter, not from any player, assuming that nobody contests which card was called.

I'm sure a director can come through and cite you the proper section of the laws, but, it's quite clear that the K♣ is the correct card to be played. Declarer called for the K♣, such that you all agreed, dummy's actions are irrelevant. As you've described it, declarer clearly did not misspeak, nor did you play to the trick prior to asking for clarification. So, there aren't really any complex considerations here. After the irregularity was raised by you, every player at the table was wrong for allowing the 6 to be played, and for not calling the director. The fact that your partner won this botched trick is really not relevant. Sorry :(

While I'm not saying pass is a particularly sound bid, I find it a little strange that people think have this much suspicion surrounding the choice to pass 3C. You have a somewhat poor 16 HCP hand. You have no major suit fit. Your partner has already taken a pass in this auction. Your partner's bid of 3C should show distribution, but, more importantly, suggests that 3NT is not a great contract. Your diamond holding sucks, and if you don't think you're getting a diamond lead... You're getting a diamond lead. It's not the weirdest pass I've seen.

I'm a little shocked that this post was even made. We can consider the fact that you're holding a very minimal amount of HCP, have perfectly flat shape, have a 1NT bid behind partner's overcall, but we really don't need to... This question was prefaced with, "you're doing fairly well on board 17 out of 20 in a MP tournament". Is this really the hand to make an anti-field call? How often is any call other than pass here right? Do you even want to make an anti-field call while you're doing well? You're most often going from fairly well to close to average if you don't pass on this hand. This really isn't the hand to be a hero on, you're going to lose so often.

This is common in my limited experience. As with all things Bridge, if you want fairness, you basically have to call the Director no matter how small the infraction every time, as a matter of record. Most people won't do that, and can be abused for their easy-going-ness.

I'm more intrigued by your choice to bid 1♠ instead of 1♦. I've long since quit on the robot bidding being justifiable.

This is a duplicate of a previous discussion on the board. I believe it has to do with the surcharges on the App store. You may well be better off ordering your BB$ on a computer? I'm sure someone more in the know will chime in soon.

As I understand it, you cannot "friend" someone. You can follow them, and if they follow you back, the word "follow" will change to "friend". Perhaps I'm wrong though.

Obviously it depends on your agreements, but, I think in the absence of any non-standard agreements, double looks pretty normal. If I had to rank them: 1) double 2) 1♥ 3) 2♣

Yeah Mikeh, seems like a reasonable analysis. I'm definitely not so familiar with constructive sequences in competition when playing something like 2/1. I do agree though, this auction is pretty nonsense. Better players will make the wrong lead to this layout, but ultimately slaughter players who bid like EW

The 3♠ is, I think, an easy lead if you weigh the right considerations. 1NT over the double is not the same as 1NT without the double. You should expect that dummy is something like 2425 or 2524. Declarer doesn't know this when they bid 2♦, but, after the suit preference, it's pretty clear. 1NT with a singleton diamond is lunacy, and correcting to spades is also silly if they had 3 diamonds. So, it's super limited. So, we have nice diamonds, we need to prevent dummy from ruffing any of them out. Partner is marked for seemingly 5 spades. So, the hand should go spade lead, probably won by declarer/dummy, diamond switch by declarer, you win it, you then try to break hearts or clubs as appropriate (look at dummy) and try get partner in to collect the last trump in dummy prior to the ruff of any diamonds by dummy.

Why not double instead of 5♣? Your partner passes with heart length, this isn't a bad thing. Your partner bids 4NT with no minor suit preference and bad major suit holdings, given the auction. Your partner bids 5♦ on hands where which minor suit game you play is not likely to make a difference, quite like this one, but in this case that's rather flukey. Or, on hands like this one, your partner bids 4♠. Which is exactly what you want. Double doesn't promise both minors by the way, it is takeout and says that defending 4♥ is wrong unless you have a stack, in which case, I'd like to penalize, and I don't want to bid past 4♠ as it could be the best spot.

I mean, I can imagine some 6♥-5♠ hand with like 8 HCP in West... But, I'm with you on this one, I don't really believe that West has it, and I wouldn't agree with pass on such a hand.

Well, it seems like you're end-played into bidding here because you hold far too much to take a 4th pass. Your partner would shoot you. I think you have a pretty clear double of 2♦. 3 suits have been bid, this should be penalty without discussion, but it's penalty in the sense that you're showing diamond length and values. It's certainly not forcing partner to pass. You should have some tolerance for hearts, and more tolerance for spades when partner has to run. Now your partner can re-evaluate his hand. You're protected by your two previous passes when you double. You clearly have 4♠, and 2♥, as you couldn't overcall 1♣, and you are not supporting hearts. You should have 10-11 HCP for your double, it's rather straightforward. Your partner will now have the information to make a decision, because, clearly, your hand has no idea what contract is right. Upon reflection, I guess you could simply have more clubs and less spades, but, that hand might prefer to pass 2♦, paradoxically.

As an idea, sometimes X can be used to show natural hearts, and 2♥ can be used to show natural spades. A transfer sequence, not that your partner is forced to accept, might help you find games when it's simply a weak two-suiter. Major suit game is often going to make, and your opponents have given you valuable information about how every suit is splitting before you've seen dummy. Not sure what the complete defense could be, I don't have the time to think about it now, but this occurred to me almost immediately and I wanted to share.

Most systems are opening that hand 1♦ to begin with, and they'd have a much better time trying to find 5♦. :( Usually, with two-suited hands, I'd bypass the diamonds on hands that aren't worth two bids, and bid the diamonds on hands worth two bids. This assumes that I don't hold a 5 card major. So, 1♦ is just generally good news when I look at this hand in West. The opponent freely bidding clubs over a 1♣ opener is basically telegraphing that we have no wastage in clubs, and partner really figures for a singleton and a hand worth two bids. West's hand has grown up so much after South bids 2♣ that passing is criminal. After South bids 2♣, as West I'd be doing almost everything I can to play 5♦. Of course, you're going to need a constructive auction to get there, it's not guaranteed just yet.

I could craft some snarky post about how this is the most immature statement that I've ever seen in any discussion on this bridge forum, but, really...? I'm not sure what you were hoping to achieve with this post, but, I can assure you that you either failed, or succeeded in being an ass. The Coronavirus is less deadly than many other common illnesses out there, Felicity is right about that. That being said, it is particularly contagious, and less deadly * more contagious quite possibly equates to more catastrophic. We should exercise caution, but shutting down the whole world is a bit too doomsday for a rational person. You're a bridge player, I'm sure you have some mathematical faculties, I'd wager that you can appreciate the considerations at hand here. This is mostly a rather sensitive issue in the bridge community due to its advanced age, and the fact that people at that age are at an increased risk of a bad outcome. For my demographic, the risk is incredibly low. It's 0.2%. And it's 0.4% (or better) for all demographics under 50. This all assumes that you contract it, of course. Now, the risk is much higher for people over 50. This is a large portion of the bridge demographic. It's a serious concern in the bridge community. This is sensible. But, I think you should do more research...

I think the problem with a layout like this is this: Is there any serious line of play that you would take that doesn't make? 3 rounds of clubs makes, a finesse of the spades makes in that when your spade is covered, the discussed line of A♠ and then playing for the club finesse makes. Instead, if diamonds are 6-2, with LHO holding 3-1-2-7 shape, and you take your line, now you're down instead of making. (Note that you have no entries to discard your losing club on the diamond winner you've established) This hand really just boils down to the fact that you have 5 spades, 1 heart, 1 diamond, 2 clubs, and a club ruff. If your 2nd round of clubs gets ruffed, opponents grant you 6 spades, 1 heart, 1 diamond, 1 club, and a club ruff. The only threat to this is a 4-0 trump break, or KQX in the hand of the opponent with club shortness, who would then ruff your 2nd round of clubs (with a high trump honor) and collect your last trump on the board. But, you may now hold a club loser if you misplayed the club suit. You can guard against this by winning the King of clubs first and playing through RHO when attempting to take the 2nd round of clubs, as that is the hand most likely to have club shortness after LHO has known heart shortness. This way, your opponent cannot ruff the good A♣. Since your opponent has now spent a guaranteed winner, one of their two high trump honours, your opponent has traded their trump winner for their club winner. It's a wash.

I agree. This makes the most sense to me. If trumps are breaking badly, they're almost always breaking badly offside. You don't lead a stiff from a hand that has no interest in ruffing, KQ 2 XXX XXXXXXX or KX 2 XXX XXXXXXX, for example, would not lead a heart in an auction where partner has shown hearts, this is just a bad idea, you're going to set up heart tricks sometimes and you're ruffing in such a way as to not create any additional winners. Also, consider that a spade holding like KX♠ is well positioned on the auction. You might lead your stiff from QX♠ though. KQXX 2 XXX XXXXX or KXX 2 XXX XXXXXX would totally lead a heart though, that would create an additional spade trick. Interestingly, there is little point in leading the stiff from KQX though, not on this auction, you don't actually want a ruff. Given the singleton lead, I'd consider it a bad idea to cater to a 3-1 trump break onside. So, the finesse in spades gains nothing. I'll cater to a singleton honour onside (pointless to finesse this), or a 2-2 break, and take a line that gives nothing up to KQXX♠, KQX♠, KXX♠, QXX♠ offside. I'd like to be able to take a pitch using the diamonds somehow, but, it seems unlikely that LHO has a spade honour and the K♦. And, it's not necessary. After the A♠ at trick 2, intending to play clubs after, I should have 1 heart loser, and 1 spade loser, and either a 2nd spade loser or a club ruff of the 2nd round of clubs. But, this ruff (if it ever occurs) is likely going to occur by RHO in a 2-2 break, which is absolutely fine.