Blofeld

Mike, I'm interested in what makes you exclude doubled (or redoubled) overtricks from the estimation? Do you think we're taking 3 tricks enough of the time to ignore it? --- To those who double, would you also double in the direct seat? If not, what's changed? The only differences that I can see are that partner has passed (which decreases the chance that acting is right) and that RHO has passed (which is hardly a surprise when we hold AK AQ. The normal logic for making balancing actions lighter is that opener's partner passed, limiting the points held by their side and so suggesting that our side has something[1]. This doesn't seem to apply here as they're already in game. [1] Isn't it? Maybe there's some more logic which I've always missed or just isn't coming to mind right now.

I think if you're going to rescue then 2♥ is better than XX. Are you privy to some information the rest of us aren't, Richard? Matt stated that the 1♥ opening denied as many as four hearts, in which case 2♥ certainly shouldn't show longer hearts. And I don't think the 5431s should be pulling, so this suggests 5305 pretty exactly -- possibly 6304 or 4306, but the latter won't pass 2♠ if it's doubled.

Move a spade into a diamond and you might see some discussion.

Having initially decided to pass and come in later, can't there now be a question of whether it's too dangerous to do so?

It's not very nice, but I think I'd raise to 6♣ directly on the north hand.

If you uncheck 'show neutrals' then you'll avoid that problem. Though possibly you want to see the neutrals. Which would make it trickier.

I think the benefit is that partner might have a stiff in a minor.

I lead the 9, but I haven't thought about this terribly much. Partner can't read it as a 4th highest, at any rate.

Robert, Your use of inverted commas for emphasis (at least I assume that's why you're using them) comes across as rather snobbish and patronising, as though the debate were beneath you. You can use italics, bold, underlined, or *starred* text for emphasis (or even UPPER CASE, though that needs a degree of care or it looks like you're shouting the whole time). But 'inverted commas' are traditionally for when you don't want to commit to using the term, either because you don't fully understand it or you don't approve of it. At any rate, I found your post patronising, but when I analysed why I did so I realised that this was one of the major reasons. If you could stop using inverted commas I'd be really grateful. Thanks, Owen

Yes; I'll try 2NT. I passed 1NT so this is scrambling, not lebensohl. I should mention that I might prefer double (pulling 2♠ to 2NT if p bids that) as partner might pass 2♥x for what may be a nice result. What I'm worried about if I double is the opponents competing to 3♥ and partner bidding 3♠ over the top of that. Maybe I'm being paranoid for no good reason.

To be able to block it you need some sort of ad-blocking integrated into your browser. I think sensible browsers like Firefox come with one by default. Thanks to rona for pointing it out, though - it hadn't occurred to me.

My order of preference: Pass 1NT 2♦ DBL Actually I think it's pretty close between the first two.

Interesting idea. What do minimum 5♣4♦ hands rebid after 1♣:1♦? Or are these opened 1♦ to avoid that difficulty?

Oh, that's rich -- implicit assumption that the internet is based on Microsoft standards. I also don't get the bit about "connection with AOL". :P

The range of hands where you want to bid 4NT for the minors (or a couple of other things ... what does 4NT then 5♠ mean as opposed to a direct 5♠?) is hugely bigger than the range where you want 4NT as natural ... I'm not sure that I'd bid a natural 4NT on the hand you suggest even if it were available. 4NT as keycard blackwood doesn't even appear to make sense ... don't we need to have a suit in mind? Or do you think this would implicitly agree ♠s? I think if it were blackwood, then regular blackwood would make most sense -- but then it would never occur to me that it was blackwood in the first place. FWIW I bid 4N rather than 5♣.

Sorry, yes, this is what I was trying to get at. I didn't phrase it very well. I agree that it's still basically a brute force method, but it should be a good bit faster than the naïve brute force method.

I agree that it's a nasty problem. FWIW I bid 4♦ but I'm not happy with this, and can easily imagine 3♠ being better. But I'm a bit surprised at your suggestion that you're guaranteed a 7-card fit. What's partner bidding with 3154, 3145, 3244 (and a 15 count, say, in each case)? Perhaps you read it as partner having passed initially? In which case I'd agree that partner is just about certain to have 4 ♠s.

I think the 1♥ bid was fine, but I don't like the 2♥ rebid. If 1♠ isn't forcing, I'll just pass; if it is, I think I'll pick 1NT as my distortion of choice. Having bid 2♥, I'll now own up to some spade support with 3♠ ... I can hardly have three.

Stay. I don't think I can have a pure spade hand for this action, so I'll hope partner pulls when it's right.

For shape constraints, can't you do something like: Pick all the acceptable shapes (relatively small finite number). You know all the absolute probabilities of these, so can work out the probability of any of them given that it's one of them easily enough. Do this, then deal cards according to these constraints, and finally throw out any that don't match your other constraints. ? Or does that also fail? Obviously it's still a bit of a hassle, but it's better than the pure brute force approach.

7♥. I've no idea what's making. My disclaimer is that I can't play matchpoints. :blink:

I definitely accept that there will be a reasonably large number of hands where they'll just double 4♠, and also double 5♠. Obviously in this case 5♠ loses. I think it will only tend to lose 200, though -- if it's losing 300 then partner's hand provided no tricks for us, which somewhat decreases the chances that it was right for them to penalise us (though obviously partner could have a stack of hearts, so this isn't always true) -- but 200 is still 5 IMPs. But there are various other cases. Reasonably often they'd be bidding at the 5-level over 4♠ but doubling 5♠. This is a good score for the 5♠ bid if they were making at the 5-level and partner can provide us with a trick (3 or 4 IMPs) or two (7 or 8). Obviously it's a bad score otherwise. When they bid the same thing at the six (or seven!) level over either bid, it makes no difference what they did. But it seems that even if by and large they do the same thing, they're more likely to get it wrong over 5♠, where they have more space. Either they'll reach the wrong slam, or they'll overreach after 5♠ and go down ... or alternatively neither will be able to bid a slam they could reach after 4♠. This may backfire and get them into a good slam or keep them out of a bad one they wouldn't/would reach after 4♠. But on balance I think good opponents will be more likely to reach the right spot when they've got more space to investigate it. --- Overall I think that 5♠ is more a statement of a belief that they can make at the 5-level than the 6-level. This could be wrong, but my guess is that the balance of probability is with the 5♠ bid. This would be a fun hand to try a simulation on, I think. If only so we can argue about what our opps would do in the ensuing auction!

If you thought the opps had a sure slam, wouldn't you be bidding 6♠ to make them guess about the grand? I like 5♠ precisely because it won't always be right for the opponents to bid over it, and they can't tell because they've got no room. I strongly disagree with Winston's suggestion that a 5♠ bid is a statement that we know the bid is right. --- Second choice is 4♠, but I think my third choice is a psyche rather than 6♠.

Double ; pass.

Pass; 5♣. I'm a sucker.