pretzalz

I really don't understand pass being anything but a desire to defend. Why can't with no clear direction you just bid 1N? Or is 1N supposed to be natural with the opponents forced to double? The issue isn't that pass is frequent[though I think perhaps since two people have expressed shortness in spades as XX usually denies a fit, the odds are better that 4th hand has some spade length], but that the hand is otherwise unbiddable. If 4th hand has QJT985 xx Kxx xx would you rather be playing a seven card fit at the 1 level or another 7 card fit for which this hand might take 1 trick at the 2-level. Perhaps I've seen partner struggle to down 1 after a misunderstanding pass out of 1SXX playing his 5-1 with with 22 points one two many time to be afraid of defending when I actually have the goods. Travis

The purpose of calling a director over a psyche is not to get a ruling; generally you aren't entitled to one. The purpose is to make the director aware of it in case a pattern develops. Otherwise you could psyche 13 times a session and noone would be the wiser.

On 5, don't most people play 3N as forcing[surely 4N is always safe on this auction]? I think 3N is normal and is the best preparation for the rest of the auction. 4C seems a distortion to me.

North should rebid 2S. It's a very ugly 10 count.

I don't understand why double is takeout. Shouldn't 2N be for the minors and double strong balanced?

You are essentially prealerting your passes, not your actual bids, so you don't have to alert every pass.

On the first one, how many would you have made in a minor? Perhaps the director meant with his statement that you likely would have gotten too high in a minor even if you had avoided NT after the strong NT.

http://www.techhouse.org/~pretzalz/bboforum.jpg

What about this hypothetical. Say every board you played you had a 93% line for a 1 IMP gain/10 IMP loss and a 100% line for a push. length of match ------------------------- odds of winning 1 board 93% 2 boards 86% 3 boards 80% 4 boards 75% 5 boards 70% 6 boards 65% 7 boards 60% 8 boards 56% 9 boards 52% 10 boards 48% 11 boards 45% ***TIE == 37% 12 boards 80% 13 boards 77% ... 21 boards 56% 23 boards 78% I know this is wildly unrealistic, but does it have no relevance whatsoever? Travis

A psychological aspect that I don't think has been mentioned: I never feel more demoralized at the half then for it to seem like we've lost 1 or 2 on almost every board. Most overtricks aren't taking a chance; they are simply better technique or careless defense. I'd rather be down 20 with the dribs and drabs coming our way than down 10 with the dribs and drabs ebbing away from us.

Did you consider double hooking the spades? None of the various squeezes and endplays seem terribly better than 50%[plus the diamond hook which I don't see a way around].. Double hooking spades is at least 74% and even has unlikely play for 7[though I assume this is IMPs where that consideration is largely irrelevant].

...

Why is KJ with LHO more likely than KJxx with RHO? Both have exactly one layout. Because presumably RHO has shown up with club length, making a few more vacant spaces available for LHO to have spade length. Just a guess, but it feels right. KJ is more likely than KJxx because 22C11 is a bigger number than 22C9.

I'm surprised no one has suggested opening 2N. Is that really that horrible? I just really don't like jump-shifting into a semi-non suit on this auction.

Cross in diamonds and run the HQ. Assuming I haven't either lost or pinned the jack, AC, ruff a club and start running diamonds.

1)3D -> 4H 2) I cash out, no reason not to think 430 isn't already an average plus

Yes, for declarer. As for rusinow, I play them. I like them for a couple reasons, none of which is 'clarifying AK vs KQ'. Unsupported aces are led infrequently enough and in specific situations that leading A from AK is just as good. Alarm clock leads[leading the honors in reverse sequence] are more obvious. And it seems more consistent to me when I play 2/4 spot leads. These really aren't huge advantages. You also have the added problem of doubleton/stiff honor leads. This can be partially solved by having rusinow off when leading partner's unsupported suit, but this is another subtlety only for experienced partnerships.

[hv=n=sk32hdtc&w=sqhqdqck&e=s987h3dc&s=sajthdcj]399|300|[/hv] If you start with the Jack, how are you going to make it? It seems to me SA, spake to K is the correct line. [After dropping the Q you have a high crossruff]

To be clear, while I think that play is primarily a coffee house, I would never call it an 'unethical' coffee house. The presence of the 9 in dummy does change things, I assumed if relevant cards were missing they were in the defense. My main problem is that declarer for the most part controls the tempo of the hand, and declarer is now trying to exploit tempo to gain information. While I may use this 'gambit' to induce a cover in some situations, I try not to take inferences from the tempo[perhaps I play too much with and against people who, without malice, can't play in tempo even when they have no problem]. Another possibility is that LHO was thinking of something and needed a couple of seconds to finish his train of thought.

Ken, you were the one coffee housing, not LHO. In the 4 card ending as described, leading the SJ is a clear error whose only purpose is to try to get a reaction from LHO. You were looking for a reaction and consequently saw one where one may or may not have existed. If there was a 'hitch', LHO was probably pausing because it is now clear to him that you've misplayed the position, but since he regrettably doesn't have the stiff SQ it won't matter and he missed out on a good board through poor luck. Or from general annoyance that you thought he was stupid enough to fall for this stupid play instead of taking a legitimate line.

I think it's possible that two good players don't have an agreement. But not a seasoned partnership, though. As a mildly amusing aside, I had this disaster with a partner once[what is 2M-3M]. This was a good partner of several years. I thought it was western cue, he thought it was OM+minor. This was not solved by a simple 'oh now I remember you're right' by one party after the hand, but was quite possibly our longest argument over the meaning of a bid[we waited til after the event to have the argument or at least most of it].

This is what I got for 2000 simulated deals. Major is the major that takes the most tricks so is probably on the optimistic side since you won't always get to the 'right' major. The first number is how many tricks you take. Also the strong NT is always declarer even though on some auctions responder will play 2H. notrump:9:13 notrump:8:137 notrump:7:439 notrump:6:718 notrump:5:532 notrump:4:131 notrump:3:26 notrump:2:3 notrump:1:1 major:11:2 major:10:61 major:9:335 major:8:670 major:7:664 major:6:240 major:5:27 major:4:1 I was surprised how much better you seem to do in the major. Not only does it make more often, it more often makes overtricks, and less often goes down more than 1. Even with the bias in the results it seems clear to bid stayman.

I'd disagree that the opponents haven't bid clubs.

You mis-spelled club. Though I'd still bid 3N. B)