dburn

Reverting for a moment to the original topic (in order to save having to explain that anyone who plays support doubles is at best an aardvark and certainly not an expert), I am reminded of a story. Sami Kehela and Eric Murray entered a tournament where they were required to indicate on the entry form for a particular event how many master points they held. "Not many", wrote Kehela, but the brasher Murray wrote "Plenty".

Yes, really. I would not actually fear a heart shift - West cannot know that South has a heart, and if he does not, the shift may give him a free finesse that would cost the contract. His trump shift is a perfectly logical defence, and to be anticipated. I would know, however, that after winning the trump shift as cheaply as possible in the South hand, I would have ten tricks available - five spades, two hearts with the finesse, ♦A, a diamond ruffed high, and ♣A. A triple squeeze on West will produce one extra trick - but not two, because the conditions under which a triple squeeze repeats are not present. The end position will be: [hv=d=s&v=b&n=shaqjxdcq&w=shk109dqck&e=shxxxdc10x&s=s3hxdj9c7]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] On the last spade West is defending double dummy and knows that he must pitch a club, so that there will be no chance of a defensive error in the endgame (all this assumes, of course, that East has a higher club than South's seven, which was not explicitly stated in the original post). Now, I am nowhere near as good a declarer as Fantoni or Rosenberg or Helgemo, but none of this is beyond my powers of projection. I would also know, for completeness, that if East held ♣K I could duck the first diamond and, unless West shifted to a heart, later squeeze West in the red suits after taking the club finesse. But in view of the overcall (to which, unlike another correspondent, I take no exception at all) I would not be inclined to place East with ♣K. At the table, I would probably play as gnasher suggests (mutatis mutandis, since I think that diamonds are more likely than hearts to be 3-3), in the hope that West would have two or three diamonds only. As I remarked, though, the possibility that I would find the successful line is not non-existent, since it is not beyond my powers of projection either - the question is simply one of what distributions for West are more likely than others. This, therefore: is false, insulting, and pointless.

I don't think I'd have tried to squeeze anyone in anything, since I don't see how that could work (obviously, West could break any communication for a squeeze or for anything else by shifting to a heart). It's not so far-fetched to play for the layout that actually exists, with West having a 2=5=4=2 shape and all the missing honours. Would have been very pleased with myself if I actually found it at the table, though. As to "where you went wrong" - for what distribution of the outstanding cards were you playing? How did you plan to make your contract if that distribution existed?

The words of the great Ogden Nash, America's finest (perhaps only) poet spring irrepressibly to mind. He was writing about golf, not bridge, but he might as well not have been. I never beheld you, O pawky Scot, And I only guess your name, Who first propounded the popular rot That golf is a humbling game. You putted perhaps with a mutton bone, And hammered a gutty ball, But I think that you sat in the bar alone And never played at all. Ye ha'e spoken a braw bricht mouthfu’, Jamie, Ye didna ken ye erred. Ye’re richt that golf is a something gamie, But humble is not the word. Try arrogant, insolent, supercilious, And if invention fades, Add uppity, hoity-toity, bilious, And double them all in spades. Oh, pride of rank is a fearsome thing, And pride of riches a bore, But they both of them bow on lea and ling To the Prussian pride of score. Better the beggar with fleas to scratch Than the unassuming dub Trying to pick up a Saturday match In the locker room of the club. The Hollywood snob will look you through And stalk back into his clique, For he knows that he is better than you By so many grand a week. And the high-caste Hindu's fangs are bared If the low-caste Hindu blinks - But they're just like one of the boys, compared With the nabobs of the links. Ah, where this side of the river Styx Will you find an equal mate For the scorn of a man with a seventy six For a man with a seventy eight? I will tell you a scorn that matches it fine As the welkin matches the sun - The scorn of a man with a ninety nine For a man with a hundred and one. And that is why I wander alone From tee to green to tee, For every golfer I've ever known Is too good, or too bad, for me. Indeed, I sometimes wonder, Jamie, Slicing into the heather, In such an unhumble, contemptfu' gamie, How anyone plays together.

Interesting. Assuming no trump spots in North-South, the answer to "can this hand be made"? is "no". The answer to "can this hand be made on the lead of ♦K?" is "yes", but the answer to "can this hand be made after ducking ♦K at trick one?" is "no". However, the answer to "can this hand be made after ducking ♦K at trick one and receiving a shift to ♠J?" is "yes". Suffice to say for the moment that as long as East has ♠9, West can beat the contract by leading a non-king heart, or by shifting to one after being allowed to hold the first trick in diamonds. Remaining details left as an exercise for the reader.

If diamonds are 3-2, 6NT will make regardless of the club division (one spade, two hearts, six diamonds, three clubs). But worrying about whether or not 6NT will make is folly - if you score a bottom in 6♦ because the rest of the field makes 6NT, you should find an easier event to play in next time. Meanwhile, you should take your best shot at making 6♦, which is the one suggested by CSGibson. Perhaps the same hand will have a doubleton club and four diamonds to the jack, in which case you will score a top in the tough event where everyone else was in 6NT. Perhaps diamonds will be 3-2 and clubs 5-1, in which case you will go down in 6♦ while the good pairs your way make 6NT and the bad pairs your way make 6♦ by drawing trumps and cashing winners. If this sort of thing bothers you, perhaps you should have taken up chess.

Not really sure what the priorities should be here. I don't mind using 3♥ as Frances does (quite an interesting treatment) but it seems to me that very often, responder will want to sort out the question of stoppers for 3NT. Thus, I prefer 3♥ shows: [A] a 3NT bid with either no unstopped suit, or hearts unstopped; a good hand for either spades or diamonds or both. 3NT shows a 3NT bid with clubs unstopped. Over 3♥, 3♠ denies a heart stop. This kind of thing has wider applications. For example, over 1♦-3♦, 3♥ shows: [A] a 3NT bid with either everything stopped or hearts unstopped; a slam try in diamonds. 3♠ is a 3NT bid with spades unstopped, 3NT is a 3NT bid with clubs unstopped. Over 3♥, 3♠ denies a heart stop.

Could be right. But if I had only one bid, it would be 4♠ - when two suits (hearts and diamonds) are potential weak spots in 3NT, and when my spades can survive a bad break, I'd abandon my principle of playing all hands in 3NT. Still, don't mind using checkback and bidding 3NT over 2♥. That way, it won't so obviously be my fault as it would be if I made the wrong unilateral decision now. For well it was said by the bard: When the One Great Scorer comes To write against your name, He marks not if you won or lost, But how you placed the blame.

Not familiar with the methods here - would 2♣ be checkback? If so, then partner may intend 3♣ as to play. Edit: sorry - forget all that. Missed a pass. But still not familiar with the methods - what does Pass-Pass-1♥-Pass-Pass-2♥ mean?

How will you make it if East has five or six hearts to the Q10? To answer my own question (apologies for premature pushing of the Add Reply button), you might adopt one of two lines: If West has ♠K, lead a spade towards the queen. If East has ♠K, ruff the third heart, cross to a trump and play the fourth heart discarding a spade from dummy. Other things being equal, one would adopt the first line (if East has long hearts, West is more likely to have ♠K). But in the case where West has bid 3♦ over a 1♣ opening, and shown up with two trumps to East's one, the second line is better (and of course also succeeds when East has ♥Q10xx and ♠K).

How will you make it if East has five or six hearts to the Q10?

Very good idea.

In that case, the line I suggested will work unless East has ♠K and West has ♥Q10 to four or more hearts, or ♥Qx. Closer examination reveals that this is about an 88% chance of success (fractionally more if East would have doubled with a heart void, but after this kind of auction East might not realise that he is not on lead). Alternatives worthy of consideration are: simply play for three heart tricks by cashing ace and king before leading to the jack (about 84%); pitch a heart on the second diamond, then play ♥AK and ruff a heart (even if East drops the ten on the second round), falling back on a spade to the queen if hearts do not produce three tricks (about 86%); something else I haven't thought of yet. Alternatives unworthy of consideration are: take two heart finesses; play a spade to the queen and if this fails, a heart to the jack. These are both around 78%. Complicated hand. On the jack of spades lead you should probably cover, then later pitch a spade on the second diamond before trying first a spade to the seven, then a heart to the jack.

More information required. How are clubs divided? Assuming 2-1, then: two trumps; ♥A; ♦K for a spade pitch; trump to dummy; heart to the jack. If West wins, try the queen on his (forced) spade shift and if East covers, play hearts from the top. If trumps are 3-0, cash ♥A and ♦K before drawing trumps ending in dummy and playing as above. Seems as though this should be about 85%.

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=skqj95ht943dacaj8&w=s876hj652dj742c97&e=st42h7dt8653cq432&s=sa3hakq8dkq9ckt65]399|300|Scoring: IMP The full auction at one table (Hallberg North, McIntosh South) was 1♠-2♣-2♥-3♥-4♣-4♦-4♥-4NT-5♥-5NT-7♥. The full auction at the other table (Justin North, Jason South) was 1♠-2♣-2♥-3♥-4♣-4NT-5♥-5NT-6♣-7♥. [/hv] This is not quite what the original post suggested, since both Norths bid 4♣ and neither 4♦, and at the first table North appeared to make the final decision for his side. I don't know why North bid 7♥ rather than 7NT at the first table, nor what 6♣ meant at the second table, but perhaps following 6♣ South imagined North with the queen of clubs in a hand such as ♠Kxxxx ♥Jxxx ♦Ax ♣AQ (when 7NT would not be a very good contract at all, while 7♥ would not be a bad one).

I would. But you would bid blackwood after one cuebid from partner with that hand, rather than cuebidding 4♠ so partner can use blackwood and you can show your whole hand? If that's true then I think 'figurative' you should sign up for bidding lessons with 'actual' you. One of the bidding lessons I would give myself is "when you have the ace-king-queen of trumps, don't expect partner to take control of the auction". Certainly on this occasion, with partner having solid spades and both minor-suit aces, he would be well placed to do so once I went beyond game - but that is not something I could have predicted in advance.

I think responder was a bit unlucky that opener's spades did not include the ten (when a fair slam would have been reached on a good auction). I think he was more than a bit unlucky to be playing with someone whose spades did not include the ten, but whose bidding box had the redouble card (used earlier) still mixed in with the pass cards.

I've thought of another. Maybe North was worried about A AKQx KQx xxxxx or Ax AKQx KQxx xxxx. On these hands 7♥ is better, because you don't need the long spade. South might have explored for an eight-level contract with the second hand, of course. But might not South have held ♠A10x ♥AKQ8 ♦xxx ♣Kxx? 7NT requires both the club finesse and four heart tricks opposite that, while 7♥ needs only 3-2 hearts, or 4-1 with the length in East. If South's clubs happen to be ♣Qxx 7NT is very poor, 7♥ still good (though a spade lead may complicate matters when it comes to taking two diamond ruffs). You would not respond 2♣ with those South hands? Well, what would you respond? For myself, I think it highly dangerous for North to go around overruling South after the latter has used Blackwood and placed the contract. Maybe he knew what he was doing.

I don't "give" the advantage to 2♦; that advantage simply exists. A 5-1 fit nearly always plays better than a 3-3 fit, and a 5-2 fit usually plays better than a 4-3 fit. These advantages are greater when, as in this case, the 3-3 or 4-3 fit is likely to attract a trump lead, and when you don't have great high card strength. Yes but your post/simulation does not account for the fact that in the cases where clubs is better than diamonds that you allow for, clubs will be MUCH better. There is a bigger difference in playing the 4-3 rather than the 5-1 as opposed to the 5-1 and the 3-3, especially "when you don't have that many HCP." There is a much bigger difference when you find a 5-3 also. To me your own numbers make a very strong case for bidding 2C since it gets you to the better fit more often, and the better fit based on your assumptions will be a much better fit, and have a bigger difference than the cases when diamonds are a better fit. I am not sure which of 1NT, 2♣ or 2♦ is likely to result in the best partscore for our side - the arguments by Jlall and gnasher are interesting. To me, 1NT seems obvious because it is the least lie, and if our best partscore happens to be 2♥, the only way I can get there is to bid 1NT now. More sophisticated players would already have got there by responding 2♥ in the first place (a very common treatment among European experts, showing a weakish hand with 5+-4+ in the majors) but I am not a sophisticated player. Of this I am sure, though: if I rebid 2♣ and partner happens to have a very good hand, I have done something very bad indeed for our side by showing nine cards in the minors when in fact I have nine cards in the red suits. Opener's rebid with a minimum hand should, in my view, not be a wilful distortion of opener's shape for no good reason, especially when (as in this case) it runs the risk of burying a 4-4 major-suit fit.

Not really. Suppose that instead of opening 1♣, partner had opened 1NT (weak), which is after all by far the most likely hand type for him when the auction starts in this way. Would you be amused if I, as your partner, failed to consider the idea of playing in 3NT? Would you fail to consider the idea yourself?

It is a bit difficult to answer questions of this kind without knowing what partner would expect me to have for a first-seat, game-all 1♠ opening at matchpoints. If he expects me to have a sound opening bid in these circumstances, I would not contemplate 3♠, but if he expects me to open 1♠ with a small diamond instead of the king, then I might rebid 3♠ (though I probably would not). I confess that I don't understand at all rebidding diamonds at matchpoints (even at IMPs I wouldn't do it, though I would have a lot more sympathy with it). Quite a lot of the time this will get me to 2♦ facing a singleton spade and three or four diamonds, and at matchpoint scoring that will be a disaster on stilts. Sure, there are hands where rebidding 2♦ will get me to a cold game (or even slam) in diamonds when rebidding 2♠ would have got me to a partscore in spades (imagine partner with ♠x ♥xxx ♦Axxxxx ♣Axx). But for every time partner has that, there will be a few hundred times when he has such as ♠x ♥Q10xx ♦Qxx ♣Kxxxx, and if you want to play those hands in 2♦ instead of 2♠, good luck to you. Of course, I would not have this problem. I would rebid 2♣ (diamonds) and over 2♦ I would bid 2♠. For some reason, though, I suspect I would be in a minority even among experts.

That the contract is 3NT, that East has led whatever he has led, and that North should get on with the play. Whereas strictly speaking North and East have not passed after South's 3NT, they have picked up their bidding cards, which is equivalent to passing. Maybe North would not have passed 3NT, maybe East would have led something different against 3NT than against 3♠, but too bad. "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding." [Law 21A, 2007 code]

I am not sure what is meant by this. Whereas there is no uniform probability distribution over the infinite number of rational numbers between 0 and 1, there is such a distribution over the (greater) infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1. This means, as I understand the literature, that if the money in the envelopes had been determined by a rational person there would be no paradox, but if it were real money there would be. It is possible, though, that I may have misunderstood.

Although the number of private messages one receives can at times seem overwhelming, and a small percentage of them are merely irritating, most are either from genuine seekers after knowledge or from helpful people who know the methods being played or have spotted an obvious mistake in one's analysis. I try to reply to all of them (even the irritating ones) but I am sure that I miss a few from time to time, and I apologise to anyone whose insights I have overlooked at critical moments. As has been suggested, it is highly desirable to have a mixture of commentators who address the more abstruse features of a deal and those who are good at explaining the more basic points. I am hopeless at the latter, which is why it is always a pleasure to work with fellow commentators such as David Bird, Debbie Rosenberg or Sabine Auken, who are very good at it indeed (others also fall into this category). I will try to do better on occasions when such fine commentators are not sharing the "microphone". It is, I suppose, inevitable that a group such as the BBO commentary team (which must be many hundred strong by now) will develop certain idiosyncrasies, "in-jokes" and the like, which may be off-putting to those who are unaware of them. I don't think it would help to get rid of these altogether, but I certainly think that they should not distract the commentators (and thereby the spectators) from following the play. Again, I will try to improve my own behaviour in this respect. One tendency that I personally find vexing is when commentators interrupt a deal by informing everyone what is happening at the other table. If people want to go and watch the other table, they can go and watch it - without leaving the current table, thanks to BBO-TV. But suddenly having to analyse the play at two tables at once is a little trying. Finally, as the originator of the by-now-infamous Burn's Law, I find myself in the position of the American humorist Gelett Burgess. A multi-talented Bostonian who made many contributions to American culture, Burgess achieved overnight fame for this piece of doggerel: I never saw a Purple Cow. I never hope to see one. But I can tell you anyhow, I'd rather see than be one. Dismayed when everyone he met would gleefully recite this poem, Burgess wrote a recantation that I often feel like using when the topic of Burn's Law comes up in the course of commentary (which seems to happen with depressing regularity): Ah yes, I wrote The Purple Cow. I'm sorry now I wrote it. But I can tell you anyhow, I'll kill you if you quote it.

2/1 auctions are forcing to game, with the exception of auctions beginning 1M-2♣. This shows either a limit raise of the major (usually with three-card support) or a game force with clubs. Opener rebids his major with four cards and a minimum (thus either a canapé opening or a weak no trump), bids 2♦ with five of his major and a hand unsuitable for any other call, or makes a call above two of his major to show various above-minimum openings with five cards in the major or with 17-19 balanced. This two-way 2♣ response is not a new idea, but it took me and the Hacketts some time to work out a way of playing it in their four-card major structure. So far, it has earned its keep.