mikegill

Maybe my experiences are different from everyone else's but it seems like people tend to tank way more with good hands, since it's involves more judgment rather than following some formula like "usually raise with 3 and a hand clearly less than inv". That's why I thought the tank was likely to show a good hand and therefore make it clear to pass here. There are examples from the play where you simply just can't think when you don't actually have a problem (even if you think you do) - I've had a director adjust when I had to guess to play for a finesse or drop after a hypothetical squeeze and the player who would have been squeezed tanked when they weren't squeezed (and she was honestly trying to count some suit that she should have known didn't matter). Maybe I'm asking there exists some parallel situation in the bidding? I'm sure this wasn't the best example, it just got me thinking about it - like I said we didn't actually call the director, it was just kind of annoying that he was really thinking about nothing. What about tank-passing a normal preempt with a bad hand and 3-card support? Obviously if you're doing any of these things deliberately it's a big problem but I guess there's no way to regulate this other than the recorder system and you'll never get ATT compensation?

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sxhatxxdkqxxxctxx&w=stxxhkxdtxxxcjxxx&e=saqjxxxhxxdxckqxx&s=skxxhqjxxxdajxcax]399|300|Scoring: IMP 2♠ p 3♠* AP[/hv] * = after a BIT This was actually the full hand from a post Noble made in Interesting bridge hands. I was North, and was considering whether or not to make a light double over 3♠ if it was bid. After West tanked, I thought it was clear to just pass. Anyway, maybe I have a double and maybe I don't - that's not the point here. Mostly I'm interested in whether or not West is allowed to think then bid 3♠ like this. At the table, West was someone who we think is an honest player, and he said he was considering bidding a wonky lead-directing 3♥ but ultimately decided against it (he apparently thought he was playing McCabe over passes!). Anyway, we didn't call the director, both because it wasn't a major event and because it's not clear that either of us had a bid anyway. In general, are you allowed to think then make a less than invitational bid when you are unlimited like this and your hand is actually not close to an invitation (even if you think you legitimately have a problem about whether to bid or not)?

1) Spade. I think our clubs are strong enough to warrant being somewhat passive. I might lead the ♦ A if I thought I needed a swing, since it's very likely to be either very wrong or very right. 2) I would lead a heart. Partner didn't bid 1♥ but so what. If I don't lead a heart for that reason on this hand, then I'm telling him he has to bid 1♥ on KQxx or something. Even if he doesn't have good high cards there, it's not clear that this lead is bad. I don't like the ♣A. It's our only entry and I would rather have control over when I use it.

Yes, I think "buck buck brawwwwwwwk" would have probably got the point across more clearly.

My understanding was that bids of this ilk had no standard meaning and were open to partnership agreement. I honestly don't know which meaning I prefer tbh. In this particular auction, nf makes more sense to me I suppose.

Note to self: stop attempting to learn from experiences. I had thought double would be rated higher at these colors since partner is more likely to trap pass a borderline hand figuring if he gets +300 against game it's no big deal. What are people's thoughts if you had AQxxx x Jxxx xxx? Is this still a 2♠ or is this now worth a pass?

Every time I have this decision I bid 2♠ because my defense isn't so hot and/or because I have 5 spades and that hasn't been right yet, so I will attempt to learn and double. I'm not sure how I would rate 2♠ vs X, but I'm sure I would give pass a 0.

I've been saying there should be board-a-match knockouts for a while now. C'mon it's the BAM KO, how can that not be epic?

A few points 1) I don't think there's a need to bid 4♣ with this shape. I think partner expects us to pass with just about any hand with 4 diamonds here, so he should be able to infer our shape from the 3♥ bid and bid 4♣ if that's the right contract. 2) I'm not so sure that I would completely rule out a diamond void in partner's hand. If their diamonds are 4-6, LHO shouldn't be freely raising 2♦ to 3 at IMPs with like a 4 count and 4 trumps. 2-4-20-14 seems like a perfectly reasonable distribution of the high cards to me. Now I agree a void in partner's hand still isn't very likely, but I think it's likely enough to matter in the decision. 3) I agree that if we expect -200 then passing and hoping for +100 is fine, but why should we necessarily expect that? If they have 9 diamonds (or occasionally 10) and we have 8 clubs (or hearts if you allow for partner to be 3613) then 17 total tricks means if we're 2 down in 4♣ then they're making 3♦X a lot of the time, so this is actually a win if they don't double. Of bigger concern is that frequently we will end up -100 (or sometimes -200 when one fewer total trick) instead of +100, but even that changes the IMP odds more in favor of bidding. Certainly pulling will be right if partner is void, and I suspect it's very likely to be right if he has a 6th heart, or if the law is underestimating the # of tricks on this particular deal. It seems like not pulling will be a big loss on these deals, but I dunno if this is enough to cancel out all of the -5 and -7s when we go - instead of +. Either way it's a good problem. 4) If I were going to pass I would lead a heart hoping for a ruff if they are 3-3 and partner's aren't solid. I don't think I will be getting in enough times to lead trumps to advantage. There's an outside shot I can get a promotion too if partner has a stiff honor.

I would bid 4♥ on the first one. Even if 4♥ is in trouble, they might not be able to double since RHO might have extra values given he's 3rd seat, and 3♠ could easily be making. Also 4♥ could be making, and even if it's not, LHO might save in 4♠ since he will frequently pass 3♠ here with 3. 2nd one I would pull to 3♥. Partner has a great hand with diamond shortness, so I don't see why I want to play defense here with nothing in their suit. 3♥ should at least get us to the right major. Maybe it's right to pass if he has 3523 19 or something? I'm not sure he would bid like this with that hand, though, and it seems to me more likely he has 4513 or 3613.

My first thought was definitely 4♠. I think it matters how good your opponents are to some degree. I feel like better opponents tend to double you more and take their money, so against good opponents I'd be very likely to open 4♠. Against lesser players (especially aggressive ones) I might go the pass - Michaels route since if they bid 5m over my 4♠ I will feel like I haven't done my hand justice.

I would just treat it as 22-24 balanced.

Why would I open this 3♦ in 2nd seat when I have 2♦ available? If I had to choose between 3♦ and pass, I would at least consider (but ultimately reject) 3♦, but surely there's no reason to go crazy here. The strong hand is 50/50 to be partner's, why do I want to lie to him? 1st seat fav, yeah I might jack it up another level, and I'm sure I would in 3rd seat.

Count me in for downgrading if I have even the slightest bit of respect for my opponents' defense. Surely partner is going to put us in game with two aces (or even and A and a K!) opposite 17-19, and it sure seems like that will frequently have no play whatsoever.

I'm sure that at MPs or white IMPs I would just bid 1N. At red IMPs, I'm not sure I could bring myself to only invite game, but I would certainly want to.

I once did this simulation because I played that opener always superaccepts with 3+ before. I looked at about 200 hands to see about whether this was a win or not. I found that the (usually very bad) case of opener having exactly 3-card support opposite a responder with 0-2 happens ~2% of the time. Obviously I only saw 200 hands but a few percent is probably about right. Here are my thoughts on this subject: 1) The inability to get out in 3M on these hands is small loss, but definitely nonzero. Obviously if you make your transfers forcing then you can NEVER get out in 3M, which is also certainly a (more nonzero) loss. 2) If you are using the 3-card superaccept to set the suit then you are losing opener's ability to make judgments about 3NT when he has 3-card support. Does he have to superaccept with xxx or with 4333? If the answer is yes, then you'll be playing the wrong game sometimes (this will always happen over spades - over hearts maybe you can still get to 3N if you use 3♠ as the 3-card superaccept). If no, then can you get back to 4M if opener doesn't superaccept? If yes, then you're taking up a bid to allow opener to get back and you aren't gaining that much from this treatment. If no, then you'll play the wrong game sometimes. 3) This is taking up a bid that could have been used for a more descriptive 4-card supercaccept, and preventing you from finding a 4-4 or maybe 5-4 minor suit fit if you happen to have one too. If you aren't setting the suit with this then, well, you aren't really gaining anything for your slam bidding. 4) Overall, I concluded this was not worth the trouble, nor the increased variance in score. The hands where it gained were very rare indeed, at least with the followup methods I was employing.

At pairs, I would definitely open 1N, not so much because of the value (I think it's on the border), but I think the 2 3-card majors argue strongly for opening 1N, since you will get to your 5-3 fits. Bidding 1♣ -> 2N will get you to 2N a lot when you belong in 1N or 2M. At IMPs it's a closer decision, but I think I would probably still 1N. But the style I favor involves inviting light at IMPs and accepting heavy, so maybe that's a factor. Agree that upgrading into 1N is more frequent than upgrading out.

Yes, E/W were inadvertently swapped. I talked with several people after the game and apparently 3♠ was not the field opening on the West hand but it looks auto to me.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=shajxxdkqxxxcxxxx&w=saq9xxxhxxdtcjtxx&e=sjtxxhxxdjxxckq98&s=skxxhkq8xxdaxxxca]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] On this hand, 3NT probably comes out the worst, as it gives you the hardest time bidding a slam. The table action taken with this hand was X by Steve Robinson, but I also know that he feels very strongly that X then 4♥ shows a flexible hand without showing any extra values. It seems that's very likely the best bid if those are your agreements, but I'm not sure how standard an agreement that is, nor how many of the doublers on this forum were operating under that assumption. The full auction at our table was p p 3♠ X 4♠ 4N p 5♦ p 5♥ All pass His partner (also a very good player) intended 4n then 5♥ as showing a slam try in hearts but Steve thought this also showed some flexibility in terms of strain - maybe a 1426 hand or something. Thoughts?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skxxhkq8xxdaxxxca]133|100|Scoring: MP p p 3♠ ?[/hv] Seems like X, 3N, 4♥ and pass all have at least some merit. Which will it be?

Whoops yeah thought it was matchpoints. You definitely can't pass this at IMPs. I think pass is a reasonable shot at MPs though. It seems not unreasonable to hope to take 3 tricks and for partner to have 3 sitting behind overcaller.

Looks like a normal pass to me.

I think I would lead a spade here - I just don't want to blow a trick and both diamond and heart leads seem likely to do that. Partner is marked with 4+ spades and he's behind a 4-card spade suit if it exists in the opponents' hands. Partner could actually have 0, and he will probably average about 3 HCP. Hopefully my two aces means that I will have time to switch later if I need to. On the second one I would try to improve the contract by bidding 2♦. If partner bids anything but 3♣ I'm happy.

My personal record is 7.25 for 24 boards. And I assure you it was no fun.

looks like an auto 4♠ to me.