Echognome

The context of the auction involves us showing the weakest possible 2NT opening with 3 hearts and partner making a further slam try. Given that, how bad is our hand?

I was also wondering whether 5♦ should be LTTC. If so, I think we need to bid it (especially as we have boxed our interest with 4♥ last round). If not, I guess I try to bid an in tempo 5♥. Good luck me.

Agree with the rest of your post, so am glad I asked. I had a question on this one part though. If partner takes 5♥ as slam try with a control and 5♠ as slam try without one (agree?), then wouldn't a hand with a void heart be downgraded relative to a hand with a stiff that had compensating values elsewhere? Alternatively, partner should live this hand if no control is shown versus not liking it as much if one is shown.

Thanks Justin. Appreciate knowing what you had in mind. I know it's all guesswork and judgment. I think with the hand you gave 5♠ should make on a (likely?) heart lead or if we add the ♣9, but that doesn't take away from the fact that we run some risk at the 5-level. I just need to generate some more hands mentally on these.

If you don't mind, I'd be interested in the sets of hands you are considering in your decision. When I started coming up with hands, I couldn't think of ones that would not give us 5-level safety that I thought were reasonable for 4♠. This is one area I'd like to improve (i.e. my internal simulations).

I'm implying that I didn't consider that I would be hanging partner in some situations before. I think it quite useful that you made me think about it.

Feels borderline to me. Jdonn has convinced me it's winning bridge to not hang partner. There's a good chance our ♠Q is wasted (although possible partner has 5 or partner has 6 and spades are 3-0). And A AK with JT filling in clubs all seem very good. Imagine a hand such as AKxxxx xx Qx KQx where slam is great or even without the ♣Q where we're on a hook. I'm trying to think of hands where the 5-level isn't safe. Maybe AKJTx Qx QJx xxx? There are also hands where partner doesn't have the ♠A or K, but then he should have the rest of the goods. So although I started out with thinking I would pass, I think there is sufficient 5-level safety to make a try. So I go with 5♥ and will pass 5♠.

I'm not quite sure I understand all of what Adam is asserting. From my experience in England playing in the Swiss Pairs at Brighton and in various congresses, it sure seemed that the best pairs were winning. Of course, which of the top pairs that won varied, but I attributed that to who was playing well at the time and of course there is always some luck. I actually made a long post some time ago how I thought that we lacked some variety in bridge in the U.S. (although since I play very little club bridge these days I really have no complaints).

The actual hand. http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...8926-1265004615 Opening 1♦ and doubling didn't work out this time.

Here's the actual hand. (Again, feel free to not look before responding) http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...2894-1265956183 Bonus question: Would partner's double of 2♣ be a pure penalty double or just extra values for the original takeout double? 2nd Bonus question: Would our double of 2♣ be takeout or cooperative/optional/values?

Fred once made a post that resonated with me (and I hope I'm not misquoting him or taking it out of context), but my recollection was that to raise partner you should have something for him. You should have an A or a K or shortness or extra trump. I always thought that was useful advice. Here we have nothing to offer partner, so it's an easy pass.

I think there's something to it personally, although I would only make and adjustment in a more extreme case. So in that sense I think it is outdated. For example, say I had xxxx Kxx QTx Kxx and partner opens 1m, I would prefer to bid 1NT rather than 1♠. I don't believe what I'm saying here is contradictory to what Josh has said. I'm just stating that I think the modern approach is only to make an exception when the rest of the hand makes another bid more descriptive.

Well, here is the link to the actual hand (don't look if you don't want a spoiler): http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...2896-1265956183 As you can see, 5♦ is the place you want to be. So, the question is how do we think the other 3 suits might be distributed. For example, switch the length in the red suits and spades will play better (although both contracts will be off). Also, as I mentioned in the OP, maybe there's not much to think about after all.

Well he won't have the ♠T (as we have it), but you came pretty darn close to his actual holding.

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sthak74dakqt732c6]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦ - (P) - 4♠ - (P); ?[/hv] Anything to think about here?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sq93hkt765dat96c4]133|100|Scoring: IMP (1♥) - Dbl - (1♠) - ?[/hv] 1. What's your prefered call here? 2. I chose 1NT (which you may or may not agree with). LHO bids 2♣ and it comes back to you. What now?

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sha32dkqt85cjt842]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦ - (2♠) - P - (P); ?[/hv] You are playing 2/1. What now? As an aside, you can state your disgust or admiration in opening 1♦.

Congrats David! I had no idea they had TD contests.

Happy Birthday to the Architect. (a la The Matrix)

As the BIT was agreed, seems an easy ruling back to 7♥X. I also agree with the TD that East will not find the diamond lead. Why would east lead from shortness with no trumps?

Looks like you take it down 5 on the heart lead. 1. Heart ruff 2. ♦ to K 3. Heart ruff 4. ♦ to A 5. Heart ruff 6. ♣A 7. ♣K if ruffed, over-ruffed with the A, then 8a. Instead if ♥A discarded, then you still score ♠A in 8b. 8a. Heart uppercut 8b. ♠A

It could mean "I have 7 good spades and I don't care that my LHO has 5 bad ones." I'm not saying that's how it will be interpreted or if it's useful to have that meaning, but it's certainly a viable one. Edit: Except for W/R where it would be silly to have it mean that. Oops! R/W maybe.

I would think 4NT would be interpreted either as minors or a big 2-suiter. Edit: That being said, I wouldn't like the call with a 2-card discrepancy.

Then I would try to use my superior bridge skill/knowledge/intellect combined with my friend's (aka the forums) collective knowledge and wisdom to initiate a debate after which I would have a better idea of which A, B, and C were. Isn't this the case for every bridge situation? My answer was intended tongue-in-cheek.

Sure, but there is another school of thought that says if you aren't sure what is best, then doing what worked best last time will have you do the best overall. I.e., if you have 3 actions and A will be best 40% of the time, B best 35% of the time and C best 25% of the time then you'll end up doing A 40% of the time, B 35% of the time, and C 25% of the time and thus you'll do the better thing more often. I would rather do the one that works 40 % 100 % of the time. What if you didn't know which was A, which was B, and which was C? Obviously then you won't know if you are "mixing correctly", but should we mix our strategy since we have uncertainty, so we can at least do better than if we happen to be picking C 100% of the time? Cue Hrothgar. :)