GreenMan

Thanks, WS. I suppose end-position analysis is a worthy topic for this forum. I suspect the OP was asking "Is my analysis right?" rather than "How do I execute a hexagon squeeze?" Also, it's kind of fun as an I/A to learn about these positions. I still remember when I was still in Flight C recognizing a Vienna Coup position. I'd have had quite a story to tell if only one opponent had been guarding both suits. :P

Hmm, at the linked page, declarer discards a ♦ from dummy instead of the ♥J., and the squeeze on East operates right away instead of on the next trick. At first glance it appears that both lines work. Am I missing something? ETA: Looks as if discarding the ♥J just eliminates the "double guard" aspect. The ♦ discard creates a more elegant position.

What's supposed to happen in that situation is that it's not supposed to happen. :blink: The ACBL will tell you that each set of deals is independently generated from a starting key generated by the order of a hand-shuffled deck of cards. Someone once told of a tournament in Australia where the deals were repeats from a couple of weeks earlier; their deal generator apparently used something from the previous set to generate the next set, and when their computer crashed and they restored a slightly outdated backup, the cycle restarted at its earlier point.

At a sectional this weekend at least one player picked up her bid cards several times in next-to-last seat, but each time it was after a mundane 1NT-3NT auction or similar. I also noticed, with this thread in mind, that she looked to her left to see if the passout seat actually passed. I found it quite unremarkable. I never saw anyone do it in a competitive auction where the final contract was in doubt before the final pass.

I consider myself a wit. My friends say I'm half right.

Sectional KO, Bracket 2, finals 2♣-2♦ (positive) 2NT with 3=5=0=5. Afterward she said she just wanted to hear more about her partner's hand. Which, OK, it's a weird psyche but whatever, but then she said, "I do this all the time!" Next day, sectional Flight A Swiss, a pair plays 3♦ over both natural *and* artificial 2♦ openings is Michaels. (In this case it was a Precision 2♦ showing the other three suits.)

What I meant was, you can't change your system just because you've changed table opponents. Or to put it another way, "opponents" meant "the people and their bidding agreements". That's a useful summary. Thanks. In my thinking I treat defensive and constructive bidding differently, one is "system" and one is "reaction", but you make a good point that the Laws do not so we are where we are.

Thanks for this, I didn't know the situation was covered in the rulebook. (Maybe it wasn't at the time I read about the incident -- that was <cough> years ago.) But don't most sponsoring authorities have a similar rule, namely, that you must declare a system, including NT range(s), at the start of a session (or match or segment in a team game) and not change it until the next? System can vary by seat and vulnerability but not by opponent? Wouldn't that break the Loop right at the start? Maybe I missed that discussion earlier in the thread ...

That's what I was thinking too. Take the money. If partner has enough to make 5♥, you're going to get rich defending 10♦.

The "act first, commit first" principle seems like a normal approach to resolving the loop situation, and has at least a penumbra of support in the Laws. I read about another situation with a similar loop, in a minor-league baseball game, where a switch-hitting batter faced a pitcher who could throw with either hand. (For the non-Yanks, batting from one side of home plate has a slight advantage over the other depending on whether the pitcher is right- or left-handed. Some batters can hit from either side and thus choose according to which hand the pitcher throws with.) Anyway, switch hitters are not uncommon in baseball but ambidextrous pitchers are rare, and in this case neither wanted to commit first. The umpire quite sensibly told the pitcher to choose.

Thanks for the replies. I can see I didn't put as much thought into it as I could have. This helps!

[hv=pc=n&s=sat764hk9dak93c97&n=skj5h74dqt64cqjt6&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1sp2sp3dp4spp]266|200[/hv] Lead: ♥Q to the A, East returns a low club to the A, club back to East's K, and a third club, West following. Is finding the ♠Q anything more than a guess? I thought that East might have been trying for a club ruff, and thus was marginally more likely to be short in spades, so I played West for the ♠Q. West did have it, but doubleton (and he had the remaining club, too). Was there a better way to approach this?

I'm a wimp. :) Also some first-board jitters. No excuse, really, but there it is.

South was JEC, who plays strong initial actions, so if he gets in on this hand at all it's on the second time around. I agree that that should get you in trouble.

[hv=pc=n&s=sak5haq6dkt76cak9&n=sqt84hj7dq954c743&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p2cp2dp2np3nppp]266|200[/hv] Lead: ♣5 I seriously butchered the play on this one. Upon reflection I believe should duck the first club, win the second, and play ♦K, then at the next opportunity play a ♦ to the 9. This keeps lots of chances open for the ninth trick.

We were victims of our system and my wimpery at the other table. Over 1NT, E overcalled 2♣ showing a major-minor two-suiter or long diamonds, S transferred, N superaccepted, passed out. I (West) could have bid 4♥ figuring my partner to have them, but took the low road. [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n2c(M+m%20or%20%21d)2h(Xfr)p3sppp]133|100[/hv]

Or we have to start bidding games as if we're not going to make, to draw the doubles. :) Thanks again, was loads of fun.

Woulda been a lot closer with a better pair in the open room. :) jillybean and kristen33 played a great game.

I use the rule of 20 and I don't care who knows it. I also devalue unprotected honors, discount for quacks and upgrade for extra aces, all judiciously. Lots of people do the same. Lots of people who don't use that rule or similar also don't know know to count Qx as less than 2 whole points. The one doesn't necessarily have to do with the other. The Ro20 is a useful heuristic. So is "open with 13 HCP" or whatever else you may use. I'd rather see people taught to apply them intelligently than told not to use them at all.

And when's the last time they won anything? :)

Time for the obligatory call to require the bidding cards to stay on the table till the opening lead is faced. I think that procedure change would solve a lot of problems. I know it's been said before ...

Confirmed: Me and Dakota Byl. Thanks!

I must be trailing behind everyone else's reasoning. I'll just sit back and watch now.

But in this case you will NEVER play the jack so it should not be included in the calculations. Right?

Right, that's called "playing results". Some games are simply not meant to be bid. "Just a magic hand" is what my partner and I say when we score an unlikely +150 or 170. Sometimes I say "Meckwell would have bid it," referring to the expert pair well-known for regularly making game on 22 points. In my partnerships that means, "No one in their right mind would bid that game." :P