brianshark

I don't think your pass is forcing. 4♠ might be a lott-based pre-emptive raise rather than having extra points. And you definately should have doubled with that hand. Those aces are great defensive values, as well as your texture in the minors.

3♠ direct is pre-emptive raise with 4♠s (or 3 but with sufficient lott adjustments to warrant 3-level, or 5 with sufficient lott adjustments to downgrade). 2♠ then 3♠ is constructive raise with (usually) 4♠. you don't have a constructive hand, you have a pre-emptive hand, so you should have bid 3♠ on first round. (Except at adverse vulnerability where I think I'd settle on 2♠.) Having only bid 2♠, you now must pass.

I would hazard a guess and say that because the T means nothing about the location of the Q, that the odds remain unchanged from the pure odds which are approximately 51%-drop, 50% finesse. http://www.automaton.gr/tt/en/OddsTbl.htm Table: (apologies for the layout) No W E Probability Times Total 1 - QTxx 4.783 1 4.783 2 x QTx 6.217 2 12.435 3 xx QT 6.783 1 6.783 4 T Qxx 6.217 1 6.217 5 Tx Qx 6.783 2 13.565 6 Txx Q 6.217 1 6.217 7 Q Txx 6.217 1 6.217 8 Qx Tx 6.783 2 13.565 9 Qxx T 6.217 1 6.217 10 QT xx 6.783 1 6.783 11 QTx x 6.217 2 12.435 12 QTxx - 4.783 1 4.783 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 9 and 12 are now impossible after the first round of the suit, based on your assumptions. That leaves: No W E Probability Times Total 4 T Qxx 6.217 1 6.217 5 Tx Qx 6.783 2 13.565 10 QT xx 6.783 1 6.783 11 QTx x 6.217 2 12.435 (Total points = 38.000) With layout 5, you will make and 11 you will lose, regardless of the play, so... No W E Probability Times Total 4 T Qxx 6.217 1 6.217 10 QT xx 6.783 1 6.783 So that leaves odds of 6.783 : 6.217 in favour of playing for the drop. Also note that for finessing, 4+5 = 19.782 / 38 = ~52% And for dropping, 5+10 = 20.348 / 38 = ~53.5% That seems a little off. I'm not sure why the finesse isn't still 50%. Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps it's a weighting issue regarding case 11, because as was said earlier, we don't know the frequency LHO would play T from QTx. However, I'm convinced it only changes the overall probability of succes, not the relative probabilities between the 2 relevant lines. EDIT: Ingore, I have the wrong number of missing cards so the analysis is redundant.

I too would much prefer to be able to raise with these kinds of hands without partner hanging me for competing. But if undiscussed, I can't really raise on that hand. However, I don't think 3♠ is all that bad a bid... (if it was weak... is it still a limit raise over competition?)

Partner will expect a quick trick. You have none. So just pass.

1. Flukey slam. I wouldn't worry about missing it. 2. I'll sign-off in 2♦. 3. I'll lead the big ♠.

I originally felt very strongly that 2♠ should be a stopper ask rather than a fragment, but on reflection, and reading certain people's analysis, I've been convinced. Particularly because the raise to 3♦ does the job of asking for the stopper.

I don't mind so much the 1NT rebid... it's not such a bad place to play with the great texture. It's worth a 12 point hand for NT purposes. The problem is if it ends up playing in a suit. TBH, I don't think Responder should jump to game, he should invite. Most weak 1NT hands have around 9 losers, which is too much opposite an 6 loser hand. I'd give 75% of the blame to responder.

♣s could just as easily be his side suit, and you;ve now lost tempo on the taps. Definately a ♠ for me.

Surely a stopper ask?

Your LHO won't bid 7♣ without the ♠A or void realistically imo. I don't think the spades are casheable, and as I don't think've enough values to threaten to actually make 7♣ on force (because you have values, and your partner has doubled himself) then I think after reflection a trump lead stands out to provent it making in case of freak distribution.

-14 HCP -4 cards in an side major -Solid suit Everything a pre-empt shouldn't be. I think 5♦ is a terrible bid. This is yet another example of people playing solo, falling in love with their hand, not involving partner in the decision making and punting when any number of contracts could be the right one, from partials, games, slams or grands in ♦s, ♥s, or NT, and excuse themselves by claiming that *maybe* opps have lots of spades/clubs and we'll keep them from bidding, forgetting that the reason they will bid loads of ♠s/♣s in the first place is to make you guess at the final contract, which you've done to yourself anyway. /rant

I'm quite scared that people are even contemplating opening with this hand. I'm sure it's because it was put into a poll and suggested that some might open it that people are looking for reasons to do so. Because I'm fairly sure that most of you would pass this without a second's thought if it came up at the table? Or am I just not with the current trend in suicidal openings lately?

I'm not a big fan of rebidding NT with singletons in partner's suit. It's not so much because I think that 2♣ is better that 1NT in this particular hand (this shape is awkward and there will be some lie somewhere), it's that I like my partner to know that when I rebid NT, I have at least 2 cards in his suit, always, without exception.

I was declarer in this one. Though I was in 6NT and the play was quick and painless. I ran my ♣s first, then ♠s to end in dummy so when the when RHO showed out on the 2nd round, I could fall back on the ♦ finesse for my 12th. I wasn't too bothered about the overtrick, and time was pressing, hence my rushed cashing of tricks. Maybe I can leave a ♣ in hand and still enact a double squeeze if LHO shows up with a ♠ stopper but I didn't think of it at the time. It was only afterwards I got thinking that if I was in 7NT, how I might ensure the contract against any ♠ layout assuming the ♦K was onside, hence seeing what you guys thought. Incidentally, our counterparts on the other table ended up playing 7♠x going off 2 after the same ♠ break for a nice swing to us. We ended up winning that match 25-4 (VPs), and the lead after the first round (it was swissed). Alas, it all went downhill from there. :)

♦A was my immediate thought too, and I've probably done it at the table unless I tanked for a bit. I'd give 75% of the blame to the non-pre-empter, be it the person or the style. And 25% to the Diamond Ace lead.

4♠ is very unilateral. It's the bid you make in the MBC or an indy playing with some randomer you don't trust enough to have a sensible constructive auction with so you punt what's likely to make.

2♣s for me on the first. I'll jump to 4♥ on the 2nd one.

I'll pass and lead a big ♠.

I don't think the clubs can be established, therefore yes, you do rate to make 2/3 more tricks in clubs than you would in NT. And I don't think I'm making 11 in clubs or 9 in NT, so that's why I sign-off in 3♣.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=skqj97h85dqj5caj6&s=sa4haj3da72ckqt43]133|200|Scoring: IMP Contract: 7NT by South Lead: ♥4 (and East will insert the ♥Q.)[/hv] You quickly find your way to 7NT after your RHO overcalls 2♥s in the sandwich position. Over to you.

I like 1♠.

My gut says to ask partner to play in 3♣.

Yes, it's definately a little unclear where we're going. I'm worried that partner's Dbl might not have been a genuine ♠ suit rather a place-holder for the delayed jump to 3NT. But partner shouldn't expect me to have more than 4 ♠s. If I had 6-5 shape, I'd have pulled to 4♠ rather than 4♦. That's why I think 4♠ is a safe bid... either partner genuine ♠ support, or has short spades, is trying for slam, and should interpret my bid as having an ace.