nielsfoged

First, I thought ArtK78 used irony/sarchasm, then when I noticed he didn't, I went to check his profile expecting 78 to be his age, but then I found that he is a tax attorney, which surely explains "It just is - you don't have to agree with it"! :rolleyes: /Niels

Your analysis of opponents hands is fine, but it seems that your trump holding in hand could become (almost?) too short. I believe there is a better card to be played in trick 3..., but maybe I am not right? /Niels

[hv=pc=n&s=sthqt642d82caj754&n=saq6hk873dqj9ck86&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1s1n2s3hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] Lead ♠4 (4th best) You successfully finess with ♠Q (RHO plays ♠2 showing and even number), and you continue with ♠A discarding ♦2. What do you play in trick 3, and how do you expect the continuation to be?

Sorry all, if stating the bidding confused my (sole) aim of this post. Including the bidding wasn't meant for discussing the 2♥ opening and how to respond, but simply how to make the best declarer play in 3♠/4♠. Anyone (else) who want to explain their choice of setting up a particular red suit? /Niels

I would have made the 2NT relay in IMPs particularly after partner's 2nd hand red vs white - in MP I am not so sure (I have a few scars already from partner's 2♥ knife, and from my own joggling with chainsaws when being declarer). So how do you play 4♠ (and/or 3♠)?

[hv=pc=n&s=sk974ht2dak973ckt&n=sat32hq9843d64ca2&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p2h(5+H%2C%204+S%2C%205-10)p2s(Pref)pp3c3sppp]266|200[/hv] Matchpoints. Maybe South should have made an invitation to game after RHO bid 3♣? - If so, North would definitely have accepted. So please feel free to make your suggestions to best Declarer play in 3♠ as well as in 4♠. (OBS: MP). Lead ♣Q ("highest in partner's")! Thanks from Niels

I like discarding once from Qxx - it makes 7NT down 2! :P /Niels

Not necessarily "always" 9 tricks if East if 5440 - at least not with me as Declarer :P Remember this is MP, so what are you discarding from Hand in trick 5 (on the ♥ return from LHO)? Admittedly, I pitched ♣7, thereby destroying the chance of playing two more rounds of ♣ before setting up ♣ T on an endplay. My reason for not discarding a ♦ from hand was the obvious chance of making 4 ♦ tricks, but maybe I could have discarded ♠9 instead, though I in the actual situation thought I may need to execute the endplay from hand, while keeping the communications in ♣ open. Probably, that was a mistake, too! PS: Based on your previous valuable comment on the most likely distribution of ♥, I now fully realize that unless RHO is a really tricky guy (=super-expert ...or beginner?), his ♠ discard rather than an easy ♥ on the first round of ♣ in trick 3 places him with either exactly Qxx or 9xxxx(x) in ♥. The former (=5-3-5-0) can be excluded after having seen at least 2 ♦ in LHO, so it appears that the actual distribution (RHO: 5-5-3-0) was an open book already in trick 3! I look forward to the day, when I see that at the table and not 5 days later :D

Hi Michael You and Adam (and probably also Nigel) hit the head of the nail: caching ♦ is at least almost unlikely to be wrong. However, in the heat of (MP-)play, my analysis stopped at the excitement of endplaying a RHO holding a 5-4-4-0 distribution for the 9th trick. So after the first 6 tricks (♠Q-2-3-8; ♠7-5-J-A; ♣4-3-Q-♠4, ♦2-3-Q-K; ♥6-K-2-♣7; and ♦9-T-A-5, I erroneously played ♠9 and hoped for something like the following distribution (where the position of ♥Q is irrelevant): [hv=pc=n&s=s9hdj74cat8&w=sh974dcj965&n=sthkjt3dcq3&e=sk6hq85d86c]399|300[/hv] Actually LHO pitched ♦6 when I played the third ♠, and after RHO had catched his 2 ♠ tricks, I had to settle for 9 tricks, where at least 10 would have resulted from just continuing ♦, which were distributed 3-3. What would have been even more emberassing was that if LHO had held ♦8 (iso ♦6) and pitched ♥4 and ♣5 on his partners two ♠ tricks (thereby keeping -/9/8/J96), I would have finessed ♦, when RHO continued with ♦6! - 1 down!! :unsure: PS: Michael, I am impressed with your logic conclusion that RHO early ♠ discard shows that he does not hold Qxxx (or Qxxxx) in ♥. It is a wonderful simple argument, but I missed it - of course it would be easy for him to discard 1 (respectively 2) ♥ with one of those holdings, rather than dropping a potential ♠-trick. Actually RHO had KJ643/98742/T83/-. So only if RHO made an exotic/unlikely ♠-discard from a holding of KJ643/9872/T863/- or KJ643/Q982/T863/-, we will end up having to guess whether to endplay LHO or RHO, respectively. Apparently, you would go for the first, and Nigel for the second endplay. Still, both of these situations are unlikely with the early ♠-discard. Best regards Niels

Thanks Nigel I am not 100% sure I understand what you mean, though I see that your plan secures 9 tricks, which is fine in IMPs, but maybe not enough in the actual MP situation. As mentioned RHO produces ♦T when ♦ are played from the table for the second time. Niels

Thank you Adam I think your plan is good. If ♦ break you will most likely make 1+2+4+3=10 tricks (maybe even more), and if ♦ are 2-4 you will have 9 trick on an endplay ensuring you 3 ♥ tricks independently of the position of ♥Q, but the opponents will have their 2+0+2+0=4 tricks. Niels

[hv=pc=n&s=sa98hdaqj74cat874&n=st52hakjt3d92ckq2&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1dp1h1s2cp2sp3nppp]266|200[/hv] Regional Matchplay Championships Lead ♠Q-2-3-8; ♠7-5-J-A; ♣4-3-Q-♠4! What now? If you continue ♦2-3-Q-K; then LHO returns with ♥6. If you then play ♥6-K-2-♣7; and continue ♦, it goes ♦9-T-A-5. What now? Your opponents are national open team level! Does that influence your plan? Kind regards from Niels, who - obviously! - chose the wrong continuation.

Hello Mike Thank you for your comment even if it shows that you disagree with my actions. My reason for calling the TD was astonishment of finding South with a - in my view! - perfect shape for a re-opening with a double, a bid which I expected to be not only systematic, but also consistently bid by almost all pairs, who have decided to play and declare "Negative Doubles over preempts". Whenever I read "Stayman" on opponent's convention card and 1NT-opener replies 2♦ to 2♣, I base my subsequent decisions of that board on the expectation of 1NT-opener having no major 4(5) card suit. I know that 1NT opener can choose not to show his major over 2♣, but almost all pairs "display consistency in their actions" in that situation. Admittedly, my expectation of consistency in re-opening with 4-4-4-1 and 12 hcp is more speculative than replying correctly to Stayman, but for me the actual hand was a text book Double. Also, I have to admit, that I (East) had no more decisions to make on the actual board, since I became dummy in 3♣. Alone for that reason, I should probably not have called the TD, but I did since my partner did not (he is kinder than me, and understands the rules better than I do). There are a couple of issues you bring up, Mike, which I like to comment on: * You say: "One calls a director... ...when one thinks that something untoward has happened, whether intentionally or otherwise...". I am not sure I know what "untoward" exactly means (Webster's has 3 defintions: "unruly/intractable", "unlucky/adverse" and "improper/indecorous" - I guess it is the later meaning you refer to). However, with my admittedly little insights in the bridge laws, I felt that "pass" included all 3 of those aspects, and simply wanted the TD to look at it with competence. * You say: "If I were the director, I'd look bemused. If I were an opp, I'd be pissed.". That is exactly what happened :P Yesterday, I appologized in writing to my opponents, and referred them to this post. Today, I consider doing the same to the TD - maybe he will then comment here on how he interpreted my explanation, which obviously was less detailed and well-considered compared to this post mortem post (we were in an important MP-tournament with 21 minutes per round of 3 boards). * You ask: "...what if defending undoubled got a good result [for my opponents]?". Actually, I am very happy that I called the TD even though we got 90% on the board. If we had scored poorly, I am sure that most of you in this forum, my opponents, and probably also the TD would have been very concerned, that I was trying to make up for a bad result by trying to get compensation from the TD. This was obviously not the case! PS: I am almost certain, that South did not perceive any break in tempo, and that he passed because he in any circumstance believed it to be the best bridge decision (and obviously did not find any obligations to double with the actual hand despite playing Negative Doubles) - maybe he will comment on that here too? /Niels

ohhhh Gnasher You are putting me in a difficult position there! In your footnote you write: "No need to repeat your uninformed, vacuous opinion 32159 times. We understood you the first time. - Gwnn", and at the same time you make a guess of what I tried to state, and probably expect me to confirm that... :rolleyes: However, you are absolutely right: that is the issue that I am raising in my post. As you do, also I foresee the problems for players and TDs, that such a policy would cause. That is: not being allowed to use table presence in certain well defined situations, as a consequence of the conventions you have freely decided to play and declare. Today, most high level players have given up the direct penalty double after opponent's preemptive bid, and their conventional agreement (e.g. "negative double") will give them more points if they administer it well. However, everyone agrees that the advantages (and disadvantages) of conventions must derive from the biddings and definitely not from UI associated with that, such as hesitations before passing the preemptive bid. The difficult part is when there is a substantial risk of subtle unintended hints your partner may give even when trying his best to avoid giving UI, and which actually may be picked up only by a long-time partner, and even then maybe only subconsciously. That is practically impossible to regulate for (except by use of screens, which at least help a lot). So one possible solution (good or bad: that is the discussion!) is to accept that when having agreed to playing "negative doubles over preempts", that convention includes automatically re-opening a regular 4-4-4-1 hand with a Double. I would be willing to accept that tiny reduction in to my freedom-to-operate, if that would be a requirement for being allowed to play such negative doubles. Would you? /Niels

Dear Justin You scared me a bit there by starting your reply by categorizing my post as rediculous - not your normal style - and as I read your edit, you later found out that you misunderstood me, something you rarely do either :) Just to be absolutely precise: * According to my interpretation North acted absolutely correct after the "Stop 3♣ bid": about 10-15 seconds of break showing a regular interest in the bid and his own considerations, then passing. What I was searching from this Expert Forum and players of your caliber was comments on whether a Double by South should be a "mandatory"/"automatic"/"no judgement" situation with a normal opening hand and 4441-distribution, simply to avoid any speculations about unauthorized information (which is really hard not to give in this situation, and may happen at a very subtle level for partners in a long-time partnership, when playing without screens). So, I hope and think the discussion has some merit. None of us like to be in mandatory situations when playing bridge. However, when we decide which conventions to play and declare them to our opponents, we make the decisions in advance to always reply to Stayman and Blackwood, and almost always open a 12-counter (put in the number you prefer!). Obviously we do that in order to score as much as possible, and passing in those situations would almost by guarantee lead to a poorer score for us. In practice, these bids therefore become "mandatory". The reason for making a "mandatory" double in my example is quite different. It may lead to a better score (in my opinion it will in most cases), but there is a subtantial risk, it will not. However, I believe we have made the decision to "always" double with hands like that, already on the day we decided to play negative doubles over preemptive bidding. So in my opinion, there should be no judgement/table feeling/score considerations involved in South decision to double, it is not just the arguably best bridge decision, it is an automatic consequence of the conventional agreement and simply must be made to avoid the risk of being accused of acting differently due to some unintended small hint from partner. Kind regards Niels