karlson

Assign the blame for not getting to spades at matchpoints: [hv=pc=n&s=sakthjt852dq8653c&n=sqj953h74dk72ca62&d=e&v=0&b=8&a=1c1h2cdp2dpp3c3dppp]266|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=sh98765da6caj7432&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1hdp]133|200[/hv] IMPs, 32-board match

I would expect everyone to assume transfers are still on over the double.

Sorry, I'm retarded and decided overtricks get scored the same as undertricks.

Is it so obvious to double if you play it as takeout and pass non-forcing? This hand is really trashy, we could easily go minus in 2♠ or 3m, and partner is not all that likely to penalty pass in front of the hearts.

My experience is that partners that start yelling at each other continue to do so regardless of whether the table result ends up being good for them, so I'm not just going to throw away 2 or 3 imps the times teammates also stay out of slam.

I think 2n should just be scrambling here, but I would probably bid 2♠ anyway.

I like the idea but it feels a little weird to me -- quite often in a local tournament (even a serious one) many people play the same methods whether those methods are weak 2s or multi. It doesn't seem to make much sense to enter imps won/lost if the opening was the same at the other table. For more offbeat methods of course it could work well. Perhaps using archives of international competitions makes more sense.

I think control asking bids are probably a good idea after partner preempts, such as this 1♥-4♥ auctions, but barring that, I agree opener should just bid slam. I would play on spades (♠A,♥T,♦K,♠ ruff high). Seems to require only 3-2 spades or 4-1 spades and 2-2 hearts.

They do, yes. Joon's taping was about a month ago I think.

I would also have passed both times.

I'd just bid 4 also.

Of course it's a legitimate line, and I completely disagree with the poster above who thinks that playing for opponents' mistakes impedes your development as a bridge player. All good players think about how they can induce their opponents to make a mistake. It's just the type/difficulty of mistake that changes. As to this hand, I don't think anything is going to work against all but the weakest opponents, but I think running the trumps is better than playing a spade to the jack. You can still have stiff spade and three diamonds, so the opponents will have to at least pay attention to the discards to be sure of what to do. Unfortunately even if they pay no attention at all they will probably get it right. I don't know which diamond was led, but it sure looks like the best legitimate chance to begin with was finding ♦QJx by ruffing a diamond. You can still lead up to either black suit afterwards if you want.

I think partner should bid 4♥ with that shape. The risk of playing a 3-3 fit is quite small (2335 is the only really plausible shape (and maybe with some of those doubler bids 4s anyway?)) and a 4-3 fit with the short diamond in the right hand is probably as much as we can ask for.

I think the best thing given the circumstances you've described is to let it go and find a different venue when you want to play competitive bridge. But I do think there is a middle of the road where you can say "look, I don't want to be a total stickler for the rules here, but you did basically just tell your partner what to bid". But whether this is sensible depends much more on the personalities of the people at your club and not on anything to do with bridge. So you will have a much better idea yourself of whether it will work well. I can say that I have never played at a club where table talk quite this explicit was tolerated. If most of the other players also play elsewhere, you can expect some backup. On the other hand if over 50% of them play 90% of their bridge in this club, I would strongly advise you to forget/accept it.

Don't you think this is quite unlikely when the opponents have passed 1♣X?

The diagram suggests we're north. I'd double.

You're really making a mountain out of a molehill here by trying to work out whether 4♥ should be a slam try on these various sequences. After, for instance, 1♥-(1♠)-2♠-3♣-3♥, if opener still has slam interest, there are at least 3 other bids below 4♥ which show that.

I like 4♥ now but I would have doubled 2♦.

4♥ seems normal to me.

1♠-2♥ 3♣-3♥ 4♦-4♠ 4NT-5♠ 5NT-6♦ 7♥ 4♦ showing a good raise to 4♥. At matchpoints I think south should just gamble on 7N. I think north has 7 hearts for 3♥ the vast majority of the time, and if he doesn't there are other chances. 7♥ has more chances of course, with the spades ruffing out. If north instead just gambles on the club control and keycards himself, it should also work (4n-5d-5n-6c-6d-6n-7n perhaps?) If south starts with 2♠ instead of 3♣ it'll be even smoother (2♠-3♥-4♣-4♦)

1. 3♠, I think this rates to give them at least something of a problem. 2. 2♣

♣AJ9x ♣KQ You decide to start the suit by cashing one from your hand and lead the Q. After lefty follows small you realize you made a mistake in your analysis and perhaps it's better to win this trick in dummy to save your hand entry. However it's going to take you some time to figure it out now. What should you do? At the table declarer thought for quite a while before playing the ace from dummy. I was pretty shocked when he turned up with the ♣K, but no harm was done. His play seems quite unethical (presumably unintentionally), but I'm not sure exactly what he should have done. Is "sorry about the tank, I have the ♣K" reasonable or over the top?

I can't believe you just called minion useless. I also have to admit that I don't see why any of the cards you mentioned are overpowered. I can imagine plenty of boards where I would not buy any of those cards if they were available. But anyway, we'll just have to get a game in sometime. PS. The card you were thinking of instead of bureaucrat is "moneylender" in the english version.

I admit that my multi defense also said the second double was 18+ but Han's argument is pretty convincing. The biggest downside is perhaps that with the larger range for the second double, you really have to play lebensohl (2n as scrambling seeemed best before).