Huibertus

True. But in this case there is a conflicting standard practise. When you suspect you can beat the contract by defenders becoming masters in trump, lead the partnerships best suit in order to do so even more so when that suit is in the sam hand as the long trumps. If the original assessment of a mistfit is correct then south has ♦ and ♣, so that would ask for a ♦ lead.

My guess is with the introduction of AI the black-outs that come with intelligens are being introduced too? :D

I've had my doubts about the MP's tournaments result BBO calculates But now I have prove they must be wrong (at least sometimes). Here are the hands. https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/daylong_hands.php?tourney=ARDARD%3Ad3c18104.046c.11eb.b96d.0cc47a39aeb4-1601615102-&username=Huibertus I had the feeling I did well, so I checked the results. Had the (shared) top result on 7 of the 8 boards, and the second best result (shared) on the 8th board was only topped by 1 player. That means mathematicaly in MP's it is impossible to have finished any lower then (shared) runner up. And that only if the one player with the better score on the 8th board had the same top results on all other board, otherwise I must have finished (shared) winner. However, according to BBO I finished 392nd ! Can anybody explain what the issue is, and how it is being adressed?

This hand illustrates why I like playing 5card M/ weak NT systems. Partner either has extra values or is unballanced in this situation. But now that we do play a strong NT, I feel you have to double. And yes, it might be -800. However, you can't afford to miss 4♥ Partner holding a 12-/13 hcp 3442, and partner is not going to bid again. You also can't afford + 100 as that likely is not enough, so you have to present partner the option of making that +200 with a pass, he cannot do that himself. Then if partner bids 3NT, that might lead to the -800 mentioned but could also sometimes be a magical +600 due to the informative bidding of East on a combined 22 HCP. On balance you can expect to score more if you double on these hands, but you have to accept the occasional bottom. Then, if you do decide to pass and Partner bids 4♦? Now that is the tough one. You should try not to hang partner for balancing by raising him, but that seems difficult, can you really have more then you do? I would expect partner is allowed to doubvle on a 1363, so I don't expect him to be real short in ♠, hence I'll pass, my heart values will not be that helpfull and the rest is what partner would expect anyway. Nice problem!

Speaking for myself only. There was a reason not to mention the passed hand. South still has a powerhouse, there is no way north should settle for anything less then game. Ye,s hands can be constructed where North reponds 1♠ and 2 is the last makeable contract. However, there are also hands that would pass 2♠ without a thought that would be enough for a very reasonable slam (♠AJXXX, ♥QXXX, ♦XXX, ♣X) . So leaving south the option to pass 2♠ is losing bridge.

As for any other sport or game, players are allowed to make mistakes, if that were not allowed no skill difference would be allowed. And for psychs, they are regulated and allowed. So using a psyche is not cheating (unless it is known a bid can be a psych and this is not disclosed) Bridge law 40; C. Deviation from System and Psychic Action 1. A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation [but see B2(a)(v) above]. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may assess a procedural penalty. 2. Other than in C1 above, no player is obliged to disclose to the opponents that he has deviated from his announced methods. As for this (type off) bidding sequence, remember who did it. I used to regularly play against a partnership where we basically knew, we were very likely to be able to cash the first two tricks in the suit of the first control bid N/W player of the pair, very usefull knowledge ;)

About a decade ago I had a partner where 1X - 1 Major - 2♠/3Z promissed a mini splinter with in a 5+/4 hand. I found that to be a very effecitve bidding tool, and would have probably risked it here with only 4 ♣...

This hand is huge. 2♠ on it is serious underbidding. Now that partner bids a trial, you have no way to describe your hand to partner, and should just gamble to only raise to game or to ask for keycards. Partner of course should have given a short suit trial, when you have a choice, alwyas pick the SST. This would have allowed North to go to slam confidently.

I like the comment "3♣: No, really, this is a minimum, and only plays in clubs. I should have opened this 3♣ opposite a passed hand." and agree to it. However, if there is partnership agreement 3rd hand 3♣ has to be less than a minimum 1♣ opening, then this 3♣ should show 6 clubs with at least 2 of AKQ, and then North, with a 3 card support with 1 of the 3 top clubs and two stop (I.e. ♠Axxx, ♥ XXX, ♦ Axx, ♣ Qxx, has a reasonable guess at a three aces, 6 clubs 3NT, south having ♣ AKxxxx and the 3rd ace, or similar.

Given 1 ♠ and your hand, partner will have 0-8 HCP, on average about 4HCP. This will not be a slam, there's no way you are getting rid of the spade losers. Also, on average it will not be 5 ♣ for the same reason. The only conceivable game is 3 NT, so I'm asking for a ♠ stopper with 3♠. In case that is not available, sure, bidding 3 NT might be a working gamble. Bidding 2 ♣ will work fine if partner doesn't have a spade stopper, in such a case it will be passed around most of the time for a decent score. But even if it works, it will still damage partners trust in you. There has to be an upper limit somewhere to an overcall, some will have 16HCP at most, some will agree to around 19-20 HCP, this hand is too strong whatever the agreed uppper limit is.

On this example hand you are giving, there is no need to act. Surely W will double 2H-P, 2H-3H and 2H-4H?

Close, but it being MP's makes me pass. At IMP's I would double, not risking to miss a vulnerable game. But, you need a partner who takes out take out doubles. And you need a partner who, looking at 3, maybe 4 hearts realizes you may be stretching, so is not putting us in a game automatically on invitational+ values without consultation. If you happen to be so lucky that 2NT here is scrambling (not the ususal NAT or Lebensohl), then double becomes a big favorite.

That would make no sense at all. IMPs and MP's require different tactics. At MP's it is good tactics to bid game that have 50% + chance, at IMP you'd require less. At MP's you'd frequently risk going down for an overtrick, at IMPs you'd almost never do that. These are just two different games.

On this hand, I like the small club lead, dummy could have KJXX of clubs instead of KQXX in which case partner could make ♣ Q and would get a ♣ ruff. Also patner holding Trump Ace instead of ♦ Ace would get him a ruff that he couldn't otherwise get. In general, when Dummy is strong and one would expect partner to hold about a queen and nothing more, and you have no attractive lead, sure underlead an ace. Also i've seen great results underleading aces in dummys known side suit when leader had a known void.

Surely north does not have a hand unsuitable to play both minors, otherwise he would have bid 2NT for south to show which minor he holds. If north has a hand suitable to support ♦ he'll be the one to bid 3♦ as 3♣ and the pass made clear which minor south holds. If he has neither minor, happy to defend 3♣ or anything they may bid, having escaped the misfit massacre. If he has defense in ♣ he might inform everybody about that with a welcome double... So, no not worth another bid for now (once north bids ♦ one could consider to outcompete them).

A lot of yarbouroughs with a 7 card hard would give 4♥ a chance to make, provided you have a real balanced hand (AX+ of hearts) where 3NT does not have any chance and if it doesn't make, it will be less downtricks then 3NT. It's standard practise to bid 4♥ and hand types like that. However, when partner has a singleton Ace, on hands like that you'll have no chance at all, may go down the same number or more, and will get doubled more often...

Not convinced Hamman's rule applies. Given the vulnerability expect 1 spade stopper, EW to clear ♠ and W to get in with diamonds, also clubs may not run even if you have an entry for a finess. Also expect partner will correct to 4♥ with long and poor ♥ which will be down if he does that. If partners ♥ are good enough for 4 ♥ he'll pass 3NT expecting to provide ♥ tricks and may not have an entry. Bidding may not be over, East might bid 4♠ which is likely down. And if E does not bid 4♠, then 3♠ may also be down enough, in that case partner will not protect holding too many ♠, but hey, it's 100 a trick. So I would pass.

Things like this happen at bridge, and the implications as to what is allowed or not have been explained. In a matchpoint game when this happens (and you know it did, looking at your hand), you can expect 0%. So you might want to risk a double, informing partner he should lead something special. If partner is void in clubs your 0% will remain 0%. If he does have a club and leads it, you can expect to have your score improved to 100%. Or opps might work out they made a mistake and run to 4♦ for an average score... This only has to work a small percentage of the times for it to pay off in the long run.

I would double 2♣ (and be very happy to defend in case partner passes) and rebid ♥ thereafter. Expecting partner to raise with trump QX and an ace, which I would think should be done after bidding 2♥ as well 2♥ implies a similar hand with no tolerance to defend. Two very valuable cards is too much to pass.

Although I like the 3♥ on the hand you played, that hand doesn't compare at all to the hand in this thread, so I wouldn't claim it's putting the money where the mouth is. Apart from that, once you did bid 3 ♥, why not double 4 ♠ too? I used to have a partner who used to bid like that to great succes...

No, no double instead of 1♥. First, the hand is too weak, you add the compensation for the singleton only after you have a known fit. Second you want to encourage a ♥ lead or switch from partner, third you want to inform partner you have 5 ♥ and there is no way you are bidding ♥ second turn if partner bids a minor. This had in principal can bid once, so ♥ it is. If 2♠ is passed around to you then partner has some implied strengt and then you might decide to balance with a take out double to suggest he can bid ♦/♣, but given the vulnarability I personally would not risk it on this hand. For the same reason I migh consider a pass on this hand instead of 2♥, i'd always overcall 1♥ but 2 is close here. 2 ♠ limit? No clue, I guess the always bid 3 ♠ on weaker hand even on 3 cards support.

Utterly bizarre! This proves the bots are not able to count to 13. Leaders Three ♠ (and no more) are known, 4♥ are assumed (if leader has 5 ♥ the contract has been made), 3 ♣ ({assuming not 4 as in that case again the contract has been made). Therefore leader must have a diamond remaining...

I would check what 4♣ means according to the bots. I suspect it shows ♣ Ace in which case I'd bid3♣. I'd also check the meaning of 3♣, does it promiss spade fit or not? If it does I'd pass 6♦ too, if it doesn't I'll show my 5th spade bidding 6 ♠. In MP's I'd always correct to 6♠. BtW I don't think the N bot is mad. My guess is the system doesn't allow the bot to bid 4♦ as that would either be passable (I've seen bots pass on 4 minor even after having checked the annotation promising a GF situation, the system seems to think 4 minor is a game) or promisses ♦ Ace, and of course following 3♣ North does have slam values. Furthermore, I very much like the tone of your post! Well done.

The thing with these "apperently can make" contracts it that the way you have to play it to actually make it, in a lot of cases isn't the right play. The 4♠, yes you can make it if you make six tricks in the side suit and for trumps by shortening dummy. And that will only work if ♦ Q is an entry. So you have to play towards it some time during play. And you have to do it before you have played a second round of trumps and know of the 4-1 split, so would be asuming 4-1 right from the start. However, ♦ K in east, and not getting over ruffed with a small trump while shortening dummy is surely less then 50%. The play I would take is a double finess in ♦ and play ♠ to be 3-2, losing a diamond and 2 ♠, let ♦ Q run trick 2, take the return from E in dummy, play A,T of trumps and use ♥ Ace for a diamond to the T. That would succeed a bit over 50% of the time. Not sure about the exact percentages but my feeling is the difference is about 8%. Bad luck, on this hand it fails, but the play is superior.

After 2♣ has been opened most frequently the partnership will play openers suit in the opening hand regardless of the response style. The exception being hands too strong for a 1 level opening without a long suit (5431 patterns) that could end up in a 5-3 fit in responders suit, in this case the response style could make a difference. And the other exception being opener having a strong balanced hand and the partnership plays responders suit. In that case yes, transfers may prevent being wrong sided. But the drawback is the unknown suit ends up being dummy and it is always an advantage to have the known hand (pattern/strength) in dummy. That evens out. What is IMHO opinion far more important is to protect constructive bidding by not having an opening that is strong in all cases. If for instance 2♣ is weak in ♦ or strong, opponents cannot preempt after 2♣ as preempting over preempts is bad tactics. So rather then focussing on transfers, protect your partnerships bidding by scrapping the unilaterely strong 2♣ opening. The same comment obviously applies to a strong 1♣ opening that should be protected by adding a weak or mini NT hand into it.