pretzalz

The test was it is cold if declarer just ducks the ♥Q? Cute. Amazing how long it took me to notice that since I was focusing on the defense.

Overtaking and continuing doesn't get you to 5 tricks. You have 2 tricks in the bag, an established winner, and presumably your entry. You aren't unhappy at a spade switch with QTx in front of xx. From your perspective a club switch from partner is safe from any holding as I think from the bidding declarer is marked with 4=2=4=3 so is left with only 2 clubs.

Let's compare 2 ways to get to 18 points, 3 aces and 2 kings or 1 ace, 1 king, 4 queens, and 3 jacks. For 3 aces and 2 kings there are 24 permutations of the honors and 36C8 permutations of the spots or 726248160. For 1 ace, 1 king, 4 queens, and 3 jacks there are 64 permutations of the honors and 36C4 permuations of the spots or 3769920. 3 aces and 2 kings is 192 times more likely. 3 aces and 2 kings will be slightly less likely to be notrump shape, but I don't think nearly enough to make a dent in the advantage.

Taking it trick by trick. 1) I would probably have led a club, the unbid suit, but that seems slightly random. 4) I'm not sure I see the rationale for ducking the HJ. It gets declarer to play a 3rd round giving East 2 heart tricks, but this is illusory as East isn't in a position to cash them. 6/7) If this is IMPs it is hard to see how overtaking the DT is right. Slightly more sympathy at MPs. East will start clubs if he is allowed to hold the DT. Hard to see how this could be wrong once declarer pitches a club seeing as how JT5 is still intact. 8) East should overtake and shift to clubs. 9) West's 'error' here in cashing the diamond is due to 8.

ACBL's definition of "Semi-forcing": if a 1NT response to a major is simply forcing except when opener has a balanced minimum. Not sure if that helps with the debate, but semi-forcing is certainly a real term. I agree with Wank's definition.

Sorry I was confused. I only played the first day of the Blue Ribbons ;). It was "Peter Weichsel Rama Linz" that I was referring to who got a full board penalty.

This was against me. The lady's phone went off 3 times. She didn't know how to turn it off. I didn't actually say anything until she sat there for about 20 seconds and in a seemingly dazed state refused to play the card from dummy that her partner called. At this point I called the director and reported the cell phone which was still lying on top of her bag in an on state. Oh, and all this made us late for the next round despite coming off a hospitality break. And she argued with the director about it. Not sure how much of the penalty was allocated to each offense.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa9hkqdq8532cq864&w=sj72h9dkj9764caj7&n=sqt86ha873dckt952&e=sk543hjt6542datc3]399|300[/hv] Sorry I missed it. Hard to see if you guess right it goes down. Win the lead, club to the T and continue trump as necessary. Win whatever, draw trump. Unblock the heart, SA, spade to the ten, and ruff a heart whenever. Losing only a spade and a club; winning 5 trump, 3 spades, and 3 hearts. Out of 8 tables, clubs were played 6 times, and made 11 tricks 3 times. But all on a spade lead away from the SK, so my line doesn't really apply. Presumably the double tipped off the club suit, and getting spades right seems the only legitimate play for 3 spade tricks. Of course various cross ruff lines are attractive and on the surface the suggested line doesn't seem high percentage. The Vugraph record seems corrupted. Presumably the same problem that caused me to stop watching around board 23. How did the play and bidding actually go?

And yet, from what we've been told about partner's hand, it seems clear that he didn't interpret it as a SJS. The most likely conclusion from the snippets leaked is that opener has something like AQJxx Axxx x Axx and interpreted 3H as a weak jump shift[which at least around here people neglect to alert in excess of 95% of the time]. In this context it is bidding <b>more</b> than 4S that might be prohibited... Which sort of speaks to the absurdity of also suggesting that 4S should be prohibited.

Why? Because he raised hearts? Surely that is authorized information. The issue is that almost regardless of partner's interpretation of 3H he should have alerted it. So the fact that he hasn't alerted isn't particularly informative, UI or otherwise. In my jurisdiction, the unalertable meaning is a strong jump shift. Now most of my partner's have never played strong jump shifts and don't even know how to play strong jump shifts so I would be 100% certain that partner didn't think it was a strong jump shift therefor his failure to alert wouldn't suggest any possible interpretation over any other possible interpretation. The problem with an argument like 'what would opener do after hearing his partner explain it as a splinter' is that that would be UI as well.

Even if I agreed with you, doesn't that just mean NS gets -600 and EW +170?

I don't understand. The result was entirely caused by the insufficient bid; why would you ever adjust in E/W's favor?

Are there different variations of the rules or was I just taught the wrong rules? a) The scoring is completely different from how I learned it. B) Are suicide moves legal? I had learned that they were explicitly illegal, but the rules seem to explicitly endorse them. c) The end of game rule seems a complete mess. You agree the game is over, disagree on dead stones, disagree on whose turn it is, thereby throwing the scoring into complete chaos. Additionally the method of deciding the game is over seems confrontational[instead of say two consecutive passes ending the game]. Can players pass back and forth in a game of chicken while not agreeing the game is over thereby extending the game indefinitely?

I don't understand. On any lead isn't the desired end position: [hv=pc=n&s=s6hdcaj&n=sha9dc8]133|200[/hv] The A♥ squeezes east in spades/clubs and west has presumably already been squeezed in hearts/clubs. This works whenever East has 7 spades and less than 4 hearts. This end position is easily reached on any lead from either side. Or am I completely misunderstanding how the hand is supposed to be played?

I'd just point out that the hand isn't hopeless on 4-1 hearts. Say South is 5152 instead of his actual hand. Ruff trick 2, play a heart to dummy, and a diamond off. South rises ace to play a third round of spades which you ruff and cash a trump in West getting the bad news. Now start playing clubs. North has to follow to the first 3, but what does he do on the fourth? If he ruffs, you overruff, cross to the DK, draw the last trump, and claim the last club. So he pitches a diamond. Now cash the DK and crossruff the last 2 tricks...

I don't understand why 4♠ would need to be alerted playing namyats. I open 4♦ on hands I would otherwise open 1♠, not 4♠. The range of hands I open 4♠ is pretty much the same whether or not I'm playing namyats. In third seat I need a borderline 2♣ opener to open 4♦ so from that perspective the question is particularly bizarre.

Regularly discuss the hands afterwards. Once you can remember what happened to every trick 3 hours later, remembering what has happened for 5 minutes will seem easy.

Am I the only one that just wants to respond 2N to 2C and be done with it?

It's not J9 tight of diamonds, it's J9(xxxxx) of diamonds...

Surely the spade finesse is inferior to the squeeze. A diamond to the Q, losing, and a spade comes back. You fly ace and play for the double simple squeeze. Assuming 4-1 hearts for calculation simplicity, SK with long hearts is 9/21, J9 of diamonds[ignoring unlikely Hx in unsqueezed hand] is 9/20*8/19. Combined we get +(9/21)+(12/21)*(9/20)*(8/19) = 53.7%, 5-0 hearts since this is closer than I expected gives +(8/21)+(13/21)*(8/20)*(7/19) = 47.2. Averaging the 2 gives about 52.6% since 4-1 is roughly 5:1 more likely than 5-0. Not much of a difference to an on-average 50% spade finesse, but it is certainly wrong to say leading to the DQ is clearly wrong since they might return a spade. Playing to the DQ also allows the possibility of playing for the strip squeeze in spades/diamonds if West has the short hearts if it looks right instead of finessing spades though it might be hard to judge the diamond count depending on how estute the defenders are. Can you please state a complete line of play so we have some context? Also, you seem to be getting J9 diamonds to be ~19% which seems quite a bit. In any case, if your calculations are correct, I would be surprised, but still would take the line stated earlier. As PhantomSac pointed out it would be quite difficult for LHO to duck the A etc. Also, from the lead, the club length is probably with LHO than with RHO. Cash winners to - AKQx - - opposite Q xx 8 -. If neither the SQ nor D8 are good play on hearts. What did you expect the diamond/heart squeeze to be? I actually thought it would be higher. :P Remember that the long heart hand essentially gets an empty space back by virtue of assuming the spade/heart squeeze didn't work so the SK is in the other hand. Not sure if I should have done anything with the fact that there is no club void in either hand, but normally you don't use incomplete knowledge of suits in calculations.

Surely the spade finesse is inferior to the squeeze. A diamond to the Q, losing, and a spade comes back. You fly ace and play for the double simple squeeze. Assuming 4-1 hearts for calculation simplicity, SK with long hearts is 9/21, J9 of diamonds[ignoring unlikely Hx in unsqueezed hand] is 9/20*8/19. Combined we get +(9/21)+(12/21)*(9/20)*(8/19) = 53.7%, 5-0 hearts since this is closer than I expected gives +(8/21)+(13/21)*(8/20)*(7/19) = 47.2. Averaging the 2 gives about 52.6% since 4-1 is roughly 5:1 more likely than 5-0. Not much of a difference to an on-average 50% spade finesse, but it is certainly wrong to say leading to the DQ is clearly wrong since they might return a spade. Playing to the DQ also allows the possibility of playing for the strip squeeze in spades/diamonds if West has the short hearts if it looks right instead of finessing spades though it might be hard to judge the diamond count depending on how estute the defenders are.

The reason partner didn't double the first round is their is something wrong with his double. Either it is off-shape or understrength. In my experience the off-shape flaw is slightly more likely or at worst equally likely. For this reason, doubler's partner should strain not to bid 3m on a 4 card suit. Either with 43 or 44 or 54 in the minors bid 2N and with 3 spades and no five card suit bid 2S. On this basis doubler would expect to land on his feet doubling with the actual hand most of the time.

The answer is yes, but it has nothing to do with the 2D bid but the 2C bid. The 2C bid does not show invitational values - it is only a relay to 2D which can then be passed. It is subsequent bidding after the 2C-2D relay that announces invitational strength. Therefore, the is no reason not to use 2D as forcing. (Note, this "relay" concept of 2C is slightly different from 2-way checkback or 2-way new minor forcing, as the ONLY bid possible in x,y,z after 2C is 2D.) The way I learned 2-way NMF, 2D is the only bid over 2C. You only need to catch relayer with x xxxx KJxxxx Qx once to learn breaking the relay is a bad idea.

How often do you actually get that hand? Much more likely is having a flat hand, and wanting the pass the buck back to the doubler. a) I was clearly talking about 1S-X-XX so silently switching to 1C-X-XX is slightly disingenuous, but no big deal :ph34r: If the goal is to play something undoubled or be taken off the hook, I'd rather confidently feign a fit then advertise weakness. If 4th hand is 4-4 than playing the 4-3 instead of the 4-4 is frequently not a disaster. c) a crude simulation suggests that after 1C-X-XX 4th hand will have 6+ clubs 5-10% of the time depending on your assumptions. Your view of the frequencies is clouded by the fact that the auction in the first place isn't that common.