sieong

IMprecision: 1♣ (P) 1♥ (2♥) (strong; 2-6RP, 5+hcp, 4+♠) P (4♥) X (P) (typically min with no fit. We rarely trap-pass here, but responder usually reopens on any excuse; takeout) P This type of auctions is primarily judgment. I think the double by responder is fairly clear. Whether opener should convert the double to penalty is more debatable. I think it rates to be right with singleton ♠ and KQx ♥, but a few years ago, I would have considered converting 3♥X with the same hand, yet experience suggests it is usually wrong. If opener decides to take it out, he will bid 4N pick a minor. I think it is difficult to separate the evaluation of system merits and judgment in 1♣ competitive auctions. FWIW, I think there is more to gain for West to preempt over an artificial bid that describes strength but not shape. I would likely bid 2♥ over an artificial 1♦ response, but may choose to pass over the Moscito semi-positive 2♦ response. I would probably bid 2♥ over IMprecision's 1♥ response since the shape is still vague.

IMprecision: 1♣ - 1♦ (strong; 0-4 or bal GF or 7+RP) 1♥ - 1♠ (4+♥ or 21+ bal; 0-4, not very shapely) 1NT - ? (21-23, bal) I would pass with the 4333 two jacks, but it is a judgment call. If responder invites, we will stop in 2NT. Also, note that if opener's majors were reversed, we will also end in 2NT, since opener would bid 1♠ over 1♦ and we cannot stop in 1NT then.

IMprecision: 1♣ - 1♦ (strong; 0-4 or bal GF or 7+RP) 1N - 2♦ (17-20 bal; transfer) 2♥ We play a form of Stayman where 2♥ over 2♦ would be artificial and not weak with both majors, so responder cannot look for a ♠ fit safely here.

IMprecision: 1♣ (P) 1♦ (1♥) (strong; 0-4 or bal GF or 7+RP) 2♣ (3♣) P (3♥) (less than GF, 5♣ + 4red or 6+♣; 0-4) P (P) P With 0-4, unless responder has honors and length in spades, we are unlikely to be missing a playable game (and responder can still choose to reopen). If this is a partial vs partial hand, we can try to see what LoTT would say. I think it's likely opponents have a 9-card fit in this auction. We may have anywhere from an 8-card fit to a 10-card fit. In the 19-card fit scenario, there is most to gain when they have 9 tricks and we have 10; in other trick combinations, the gains are between 1 and 2 IMPs. With less number of total tricks, pass will be clear. So I think pass rates to the best option. The problem will be tougher at MP, and I would have considered bidding 4♣.

I think you are missing 5♥332 semi-positive for responder after 1♣ - 1N - 2♣. I suppose one could try 1♣ - 1N - 2♣ - 2♥ as 5+♥, but in our experience single-suited +1 track is quite a bit of a loss to the standard track.

I will open 1♥ with the South hand as I am afraid of bidding might go 1♣ (1/2♠) P (3/4♠). If that happens, I will probably bid 4♥ over 3♠ and 4N over 4♠, but I do not like the choices. With borderline two-suited hands, I generally starts with the non-1♣ opening. Playing imprecision, the bidding for me would go 1♥ - 2♥ - 4♥.

Also very close for me on this one, but I think I will not force to game with South's hand because of small doubleton spades and doubleton AK clubs (I would have forced to game with Kx AKTx KQ9xx Ax, for example). Also, I will not blast to 3NT directly as there is a way to show the precise shape and that can help find the best game, maybe in a 5-2♠ or 4-3♥. Note that the 1NT rebid usually denies 5♥ so there is little risk of missing a 5-3♥ fit for Adam's suggestion to blast to 3NT.

Early relay breaks for us show shortness in some suit, the order determined by length in responder's suits, with ties broken in favor of earlier shown suits. The relay breaks are allowed up to +2. For the hands in question, 3♣ will show ♣ shortness, 3♦ will show ♦ shortness, and 3♥ does not exist.

Also IMprecision, with a different choice in the third round. 1♣ - 2♣ (strong; 2-6RP, 5+♣) 2♦ - 2♠ (GF; 55 minors) 3♣ - 3♦ (short ♣ and relay; short ♠) 3♥ - 3N (relay; 0355) 4♣ - 4♦ (RP ask; 0-1 RP not counting ♣K/Q) 4♠ Over 4♣, if responder bids 4♥, the hand could be - Qxx Qxxxx xxxxx or - Kxx xxxxx xxxxx. Slam is poor in the first and no play in the second. I will signoff in game but unfortunately can no longer play 4♠. I will try 4NT at MP, and probably 5♦ at IMP. If responder bids 4♠, the hand could be - KQx xxxxx xxxxx, - xxx xxxxx Axxxx, - Kxx Qxxxx xxxxx. Slam has no play in the first, so-so in the second and reasonable in the third(and pretty good if responder has ♦J, which I won't be able to find out below slam level). I will proceed with 4NT, getting 5♣ on hands 1 and 2, and 5♦ on hand 3 (over which I will bid slam). After 5♣ on hands 1 and 2, I will give up and try to play 5♠. Note that the above hand all look too weak because ♣K and Q were not included in the picture. For slam purposes, they are not useful, but for game purposes, they may still help. For example, opposite - KQx xxxxx Kxxxx, 5♠ has pretty good play.

I would have bid the hand exactly the same way Adam did. There are no branches to be taken in the auction. There was a time when I used to rebid 1NT with this type of hands (5431 with no 5 card majors and stiff honor). The results tended to be poor though, so now I usually just make the system bid.

It would be interesting to see if Adam and I agree on how IMprecision bids these hands. For me, it will go 1♣ - 1♦ (strong; DN or bal GF or 7+ AKQ pts) 1♠ - 1N (4+♠, forcing; artificial GF) 3♣ ... (6322 or 7222) Up to this point, there are no choices to be made. At this point, responder is the captain. Relevant options to me are: 3♦ ask for shape (follow up by RP), 3♥ ask for RP directly. Should responder try to find out if a 5-3 heart fit? I suppose if opener has AJxxxx AKQ Ax xx, 6♥ is just good enough and better than 6♠, but only barely so. Given that 6-2 generally plays better than 5-3, I will opt for asking for RP directly to gain a step, so the bidding will continue ... 3♥ (ask for RP) 3♠ - 4♦ (9-10 RP; too few RP to slam try, time to sign-off) 4♥ - 4♠ (forced; sign-off) Technically it is superior to have 4♠ as sign-off there, but we have not optimized the system in that respect (yet, and perhaps never will). I would like to be in 3NT, but I don't see how to get there confidently.

Thanks to all the replies. The full hand was: [handviewer=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=pn|,,,sieong|st||md|2S2489JH458TAD9C57%2CS357TH3KD348C248A%2CSKAH27QD7TJQACTJK%2C|rh||ah|Board%2024|sv|o|mb|p|mb|2N|mb|p|mb|3H|mb|p|mb|3S|mb|p|mb|4H|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|C4|pc|CJ|pc|CQ|pc|C5|pc|S6|pc|S2|pc|S3|pc|SK|pc|DA|pc|D6|pc|D9|pc|D8|pc|DQ|pc|D5|pc|C7|pc|D3|pc|SA|pc|SQ|pc|S4|pc|S5|pc|DJ|pc|DK|pc|H8|pc|D4|pc|HA|pc|H3|pc|H2|pc|H6|pc|S8|pc|ST|pc|HQ|pc|C3|pc|H7|pc|H9|pc|HT|pc|HK|mc|10|]480|360[/handviewer] At the table I went for a low ♠ shift, hoping that declarer will either misguess ♦ or believe my count in ♠ and allow me to overruff dummy. It turned out to be a weak defense and did not trouble declarer at all. Cashing the ♣A would have forced declarer to guess ♦ to make the contract. Mr. Ace made a good point about by not cashing the ♣A, East is giving away the position of ♦K. On the other hand, West has underled the ♣A and declarer did not know that. Assuming that declarer placed the ♣A with East, is there an argument for the ♦K to be more likely with West based on restricted choice (if West is going to lead from an honorless suit, he is more likely to have led from the one suit with which he has no honor, rather than holding two suits without honor), or is that invalid? Thanks.

What if declarer has AKx Axxx Jx AKx? If you do not cash your ♥K now, declarer will have 8 tricks (4♠-1♥-1♦-2♣). Or would you consider that an irrational line of play by declarer?

Thanks to Adam for reposting the hand here, and to all who have replied. I was East in this hand. At the table, I struggled to come up with hands where the contract can be set. I used to rely on instincts and general principles on defense (on this hand, I think there are two possible lines: attack the trumps of the hands with a long suit, i.e., tap declarer, or draw trumps to cut down on ruffs). I am trying to get into the habit of trying to construct hands to make sure the defense is necessary rather than just feel right. At the table, most hands that I manage to construct at the table were simply undefeatable double dummy. Do you have any tips on how to be more efficient at constructing hands that are relevant? For the responses so far, Rainer has given a line of defence along with a hand where it may be necessary (declarer has QJxx x Qx KQJxxx). Is there a hand where returning a trump is necessary? (That is what I did at the table, but I only got as far as counting ♦A, ♥K for declarer, if declarer has ♠A, he can cross ruff for 10 tricks almost for sure, so I return a trump. I felt that this heuristic was not good enough). Thanks for any feedback.

Thanks to Adam for reposting the hand here, and to all who have replied. I was East on this hand. I have a few follow-up questions: 1. What is the expected range / playing strength for the 2♥ bid? If you choose to bid 2♥ with the hand in question, what would you do with 1a. xxx KQxxx x Axxx 1b. xx KQxxx xx Axxx 1c. xxx KQxx xx Axxx 2. Opposite this 2♥ bid, if the bidding continues with 3♦ by opener, do you expect the takeout doubler to compete holding only 3♥? Should X there by takeout doubler be maximal double? 3. Back to the hand in question, if you bid 2♥ now, and bidding continues 3♦ - P - P, will you bid 3♥? What if it is MP? The full hand at the table: [hv=pc=n&w=skj32ha86dk9caq42&e=s97hkt743d63cjt93&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1cd2dp3ddp4hppp]266|200[/hv] I was not sure how wide range 2♥ should be, and decided to pass and hoped for a second change to bid (I was planning to bid 3♥ after 3♦ - P - P). I decided to jump to 4♥ over the second double because my hand was too good then. ♦A was offside so we went one down. The failure to bid 2♥ the first round put us way behind in the bidding. I think bidding 2♥ is good bridge and would like to know how people handle the follow-ups as well as how would they handle stronger hands than the one in question. Thanks.

There are probably several ways to optimize for space here. 1. 3H showing either a min (non-GF) or a max (better than GF). Responder bids 3S with a min, 3N non serious, and 4X serious cue-bids. Over 3S, opener moves on with a max. A direct 3S shows a minimum GF. 2. 3H showing a GF. Responder bids 3S with a min (5-7), 3N non serious (8-10), and 4X serious (11+). A direct 3S shows a min (non-GF). Both of these structures are predicated on excluding 3N as a contract. If one wants to offer a choice, one can probably go through 2N first (even under Rubensohl). The excluded middle (3H min or max) is generally better when there are further competition. The cheap GF is probably better for slam bidding.

We lost by 47 - 88. Thanks to Adam, Chris, and Jeff for playing. Sorry, I made a number of dumb mistakes. Here are some of the hands I find interesting in my seat (east throughout). [hv=pc=n&e=s97hkt743d63cjt93&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1cd2d(weak)p3ddp]133|200[/hv] Would you bid 2♥ the last round? What do you do now? [hv=pc=n&n=skt73hkt852da92c7&e=s2hj743dkt54ct952&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp1cdr1d1sp3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] We play 3/low leads. Lead was ♦6, went ♦2 - ♦K - ♦7. What do we play for? [hv=pc=n&s=sq865hjt63dq64c63&e=s942hkq75d753cq97&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1cp1hd(takeout%20of%20%21h)2nppp]266|200[/hv] We play udca, lavinthal (suit pref) discard. 1: ♦7 - ♦4 - ♦2 - ♦J 2: ♥A - ♥5 - ♥3 - ♥9 3: ♥2 - ♥Q - ♥6 - ♠J What do we play for? [hv=pc=n&s=sakt2hq72da2ckqt9&e=s4hak543d84cj8765&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1h(rule%20of%2018%20if%20unbal)1n2h3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] 1: ♥A - ♥2 - ♥J - ♥6 This hand is interesting as a defensive signalling hand. At the table, I see two legitimate ways of setting the contract. Partner can either have xxx Jxx xxxxxx A (club to the ace, heart back, club ruff), or Qxx JTx Kxxxx xx (♥K, then wait for slow ♠ and ♦). How would you signal in your partnership to differentiate between the two? [hv=pc=n&n=sakhq72daqjt7ckjt&e=sq6hj96dk652cq963&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p2np3hp3sp4hppp]266|200[/hv] 1: ♣4 - ♣J - ♣Q - ♣5 What do you play for? Thanks all again for the opportunity. Hope you find these hands interesting.

Thanks all for the opportunity. Here are some interesting hands from my seat. [hv=pc=n&s=sk42hk75dakqt6c98&w=s98753ha8d94cakt4&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1sp1n(constructive%2C%20F1)2dpp2hppp]266|200[/hv] Our carding agreements are udca, frequent suit preference. The first trick goes ♦A - 4 - 7 - 5. What is your plan? What hands do you play declarer for? [hv=pc=n&s=st764hq763da94cqt&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1h(rule%20of%2018%20if%20unbal)1s2hppdp3cpp]133|200[/hv] Would you bid 3♥ mixed raise the first time? For the given auction, do you compete on?

Background: I was West on that deal (non-offending side). It was the GNT-A final in Northern CA. South is an experienced player. I thought the case was clear as day: South has clearly taken advantage of the UI. The only question I have in mind is whether a procedural penalty is warranted. I didn't want one; I wanted to beat them fair and square. I have a feeling my opponents may not be on the same wavelength. I couldn't believe what the director told me when he gave the ruling. Here's the exchange: Me: "Results stand?!" Director: "Yes, it was a difficult decision ..." Me: "How's it difficult?! Is there an infraction?" Director: "Yes, North broke tempo ..." Me: "No, breaking tempo is not an infraction; question is whether South takes advantage of the break in tempo ..." Director: "Oh right, yes ..." Me: "Don't you think bidding a grand off an ace when they are up after 1 quarter illogical?" Director: "Well, South's confused ..." Me: "Is that a legitimate reason for absolving guilt?" Director: "As I said, it was difficult ... let's see if the results end up mattering" I still have no idea why this was difficult. I agree with most that NS doesn't even have merit in any appeal had the contract been rolled back My main concern in this instance, other than the ruling being awful. is that AC are not convened right away. In almost all tournaments I go to in this district, AC are never called unless the ruling is material. I can understand the logistical concerns, but this practice certainly creates problems. 1) Records are often not kept because there are no written proceedings; repeated offenders may get away. 2) AC are given tremendous pressure, because every time their ruling will materially change the outcome, and may have difficulty passing the right judgment. Take this for example; suppose director decides to roll back the result and access some amount of PP. If NS appeal, AC will have to decide two things, the roll-back (which is easy), and the PP (which is more subjective). Without the bias of the match on the line, I think the amount of PP is easier to decide; when one knows the amount of PP matters, it would be a different issue. In any case, I am going to file a player memo on this incident. I don't like doing such things, but how else can records be kept?

The problem is magically resolved! I can log in again! Yeah!

Hi, I have recently started having troubles logging onto BBO. From what I can tell, this does not seem to be a network problem as Firefox is running fine. I have tried turning off the Windows Firewall and Spy Sweeper and Norton Antivirus but I still couldn't log in. The error message I got when I attempted to log in was "The connection with Bridge Base Online has been lost. Please log in again. (99)" I usually tried three to four times then give up. I have not been able to log in for the past week! Please help! Thanks. Regards, sieong