bid_em_up

All I will say is somebody once said (don't ask me who, 'cause I don't remember): Always place the suit led on the table last. This way partner is forced to inspect all of the cards in dummy before selecting a card to play in the suit led. It made perfect sense to me, so thats what I do.

I can't help but wonder. What did you get for the pig?

..

The 100% line is to win the Ace of hearts, cross to a diamond honor, and take the club finesse. At worst, you are scoring 2 spades, 1 heart, 4 diamonds and 2 clubs. Even if the club finesse loses, North cannot profitably continue hearts. Then worry about making your overtricks. (Not really sure how this is even a problem).

If you say so. As far as I can tell, there are only 4 relevant holdings, and the last time I checked, each is equally likely. K♦ - J♥ K♦J♥ - neither J♥ - K♦ Neither - K♦J♥ With the finesse you win in 2/4 cases, diamond King with West (50%) and the other way, you still win in 2/4 cases (KJ with East or West), same 50%. Excuse my math, but I am too dumb to understand anything else.

This is essentially the same as my given line, however, you do not cash the 2nd heart early in the hand, but instead at trick 11. The fact that the diamond finesse is 50% in your line B is an illusion. K - J KJ - - J - K - - KJ In your given line B (with the finesse), you win whenever West started with the K (50%). In (our) line A, you win if West started with KJ (25%) or East started with KJ (25%) which is the same combined 50% of the cases, just in a different manner. In Line A, it doesn't matter how many hearts or diamonds the hand started with, as long as both honors are in the same hand, but I think you stated that it does matter in your line B.

I'm surprised noone has asked what four pitches West has made on the play of the black suits. Anyway, I don't think one can be far off the mark by coming down to this three card ending, and then trying to read the position. [hv=n=shq93dc&s=sha8djc]133|200|[/hv] and then cashing the Ace of hearts. Unless I am missing something (and I frequently do), this wins automatically whenever: Hearts were 3-3 (and you can read the end position) or, The diamond K is in the same hand as the heart J regardless of how many diamonds and hearts the person originally started with (he will have to be down to the Diamond K and Jx of hearts at trick 10, or will have had to pitch the diamond King to retain Jxx in hearts) or, the heart J was originally singleton or doubleton in either hand or, the diamond King was stiff in either hand (however unlikely it is) or, East started with a singleton heart as the heart finesse becomes marked against West now (and it's quite possible that East was originally 4-1-5-3). If nothing else, at this point, you can no longer play RHO for Jxxx of hearts, but you may have a better idea whether or not you need to play LHO for the same holding than you do about taking the diamond finesse at any point in time. At trick 11, if the heart J has not shown up and neither has the diamond King, I will play a heart to the Queen, which loses to Jxxx(xx) in either hand (unless I have some reason to believe LHO started with Jxxx). Otherwise, I never had any intentions of finessing the heart J on either side. If LHO started with the diamond K, and RHO originally had four or more hearts to the Jack, then the diamond finesse would have won and I go down one. Oh well. But I think thats the only case where this line loses and the finesse actually gains. Now I'm terrible at calculating percentages, but surely this is better than taking the diamond finesse at any point in time.

It is in print somewhere, but at the moment, I cannot recall where I've seen it. When partner leads an honor vs. a suit contract, you play the higher of touching honors in order for partner to know that it is safe to underlead his remaining honor (if necessary). You will either have the next lower honor, or your honor was originally stiff, in which case you will be ruffing the trick. When partner leads small in a suit, standard is to play the lower of touching honors. The play of a higher honor denies any lower honor. However, there are occasions here where you may wish to deceive either declarer or your partner and choose to deviate from the norm.

Nobody played DO-RE-MI? (I watched it while at work and my sound is off, I assume it actually played scales?)

Hopefully one day I'll be able to laugh at such a silly attempt at raw humor. I'm not sure if one can really understand what is being said here . He should also have told everyone that how much he appreciated such fine members in the house and that of course, he could use more of their brilliant logic in determining how best to proceed. having said that, it is all well and good and makes me very happy that everyone is now typing this way. to believe that the old way of typing was lovely is simply refusing to display the ability to think vertically. the very thought that he could possibly be sending everyone a subliminal message is mind boggling. that he would have to send such a letter to his own legislature is truly saddening. Ken Rexford is the only person who should be able to see the logic of this situation. his method of encoding hidden messages is something that we should all aspire to be capable of. as usual, such brilliance is susceptible to misuse and should only be used sparingly. after all, our military needs to learn a new secret code that obeys no sense of grammar .

I bid 2♠. imo, the only way passing 2♦ will win is if 2♠ is going down. Holding the Q10♠, a great fit in diamonds and the KQ♥, I think it is highly unlikely for this to be a possibility. Otherwise, 2♦ needs to make four if 2♠ is making in order for it to win, and it needs to make five (unlikely) if 2♠ is making three (more likely). Plus, sometimes partner is 6-4 on this auction with a better than minimum hand and you will actually get to game. Even if you don't, but you make four spades, you still outscore any number of diamonds. jmoo. edit: And if they balance in 3♣, I can still bid 3♦ and partner will have a better picture of my hand. edit#2: I consider this to be a wtp at IMP's. At matchpoints, it's a little closer, but not by much.

I suspect Claus is referring more to this: and not this: It's real easy to think that your first statement is pure rubbish. While it is true that some players and TD's feel like this, it shouldn't be that way. I doubt that Claus really disagrees with the second statement. I think it just appears that he does because he quoted the whole paragraph. (Of course, I could be wrong also).

yes, unfortunately.

I had this one occur the other night: 1N (2♦!)* 2N!** (p) 3♣! - (3♦!)***!!!!! 2♦ = Cappelleti 2N = Leb 3♣ = forced Now comes the explanation of 3♦ 3♦ = 5+♠, 5+♥, 4+♦ Huh? Turns out he was 4-5-4-0, I just thought the explanation was amusing. :lol:

Ok. This TD cannot be serious. I'd be screaming to, but not about North being able to change her call. (Ok, maybe I wouldn't....I'd be afraid the director will change their mind and award 6♣ making instead.) Ummm, any West who does not bid 4♥ immediately NV vs. V when he knows partner has hearts needs to review Bridge Basics 101. Any director who thinks N/S will be able to play 3N when West understands and explains the 2♦ call correctly also needs to do the same. So if West understood and explained the bid correctly, N/S will never be able to play 3N. The best N/S can do at this point is to bid 6♣ making but is it really realistic? If you think so, award N/S +1370. Otherwise, they get 600, 620 or 640, whichever you think is most likely after West bids 4♥. 3N making 7 should never be an option, imo. Even if South bid 3N as some form of Leb, West should still 4H. I really dont believe North will bid 4N to play here, but maybe you do.

I blame South 100% for not simply bidding 2♦ and passing 2H if thats what partner bids. If he bids anything else (accepting hearts), then I will get to 4H (retransfer, if available).

..

Why is this relevant? As usual I carefully worded my statement that barmar thought this article was harsh towards the PLAYERS not towards just them. I agree with you that if you're gonna go off about one of the bids in this auction it is partners 3S bid though lol. And notice, I didn't quote your "carefully worded statement" either. I put that there because it appeared to me that several posters think that it was barmar or someone on his team who bid 4S and that reporter was being critical of them. I was simply clarifying who it was that made the bid and who the "irrational exubarance" comment was referring to. You may not think that has any relevance, and maybe it doesn't, but I thought that it did.

..

fwiw, It was Cable, a member of the opposing team, who the reporter says showed "irrational exubarance" when they bid 4S. So the report of this particular hand was "harsh" towards the other team, if anybody. North's Hand [hv=d=s&v=n&s=saq8hq974dk74ca95]133|100|[/hv] North has nothing remotely resembling a 3S bid, imo. I would expect a better hand than some 3-4-3-3 minimum with only one tenace and no combination of honors anywhere (other than AQ in trumps). If you play a style where North can bid 3S freely on this holding, then there is some validity in thinking that South was being overly optimistic on the board. Lastly, after the opening lead of the club 10 (which was certainly reasonable given the auction), it would take exceptional defense (and somewhat abnormal, imo) to be able to beat the game on the lie of the cards. With all of that being said, I really didn't see where the guy was overly critical of either side. As with any journalist, you can tell that his own "flavor" is injected in the commentary, and he doesn't appear to be any worse than the average BBO Vugraph commentator. He pointed out what he thought were good plays, and what he thought were bad plays. His analysis obviously isn't perfect either. I think once North bids 3S, that 4S is absolutely clear, but as I said, I really do not believe that North should bid 3S. And I doubt that many of you will disagree with that sentiment. jmoo

Everyone else seemed to understannd this but I don't. I take it to mean that partner cannot be 4-4-3-2, as he would open 1♣ (in their system) on that holding, and not 1♦. edit: Later, it occured to me that it could also mean that partner would have opened a weak NT with that pattern, so he should be unbalanced. Maybe he should tell us which it is. :)

Yea, but they are all "non-experts" so it doesn't matter what they think. :lol:

You can send me some cash. Small bills please.

What a joke. I can't remember which Amendment it is, I always get confused between the one about carrying guns and the one about free speech, but isn't freedom of speech and freedom of the press a fairly fundamental part of the Amercian legal system and culture? Ummm, Freedom of the Press means that the government is not supposed to interfere with what is published, it does not mean that somebody HAS to publish everything just because they can. In this case, they were still free to publish the information. They simply chose not to do so because one of the players objected. There's a big difference in the two. Not to mention that by going ahead and publishing it over a players objection is a good way to alienate your members.

Actually, they said that a player can bar any one person without cause. If they wished to bar more than one, they had to be able to provide an acceptable cause to the director, and "I don't want them here" is not a valid cause. But this also dealt with "live" kibitzers, and not with being on vugraph.