MFA

I think it's safer to bid at IMPs. For it to be a disaster, they have to double us and take us down two. At matchpoints, either one down doubled or two down undoubled is a disaster. But I'd balance at either form of scoring. I agree with both statements.

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=skqhaj9xxdxxcajxx&w=shkdakqtxxxxckqxx&e=sajxht8xdjxxct9xx&s=st98xxxxxhq6xxdcx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] This was the layout. Not my brightest efford. I chose 4♥, and when it continued 5♦ - huddle pass - huddle pass, I let it go there, since I didn't know what to think. Partner led the ♠K of course :) I think that 4♠ followed by 5♥ is right. 5♠ makes, and we should get there. Selling with 8-4 is just utterly pathetic :rolleyes:.

Usually 3♠ is a stopper ask. So I would surely bid 4♣ here. Most play leaping michaels 4m here. It has a lot of merit though to play leaping michaels AND 3♠ as bad michaels. Because even quite weak 2-suiters really want to get into the auction.

As always, alert requirements depend on the agreements, not on the actual hand. For all we know 2♠ could be a (legal) psychic action to avoid a spade lead. Values in a 3-card suit doesn't by itself need alert, since it is by default considered a natural bid. At least in my jurisdiction and in wbf. But if agreements dictate bidding 2♠ on this hand, then I think it should be alerted. It's not natural bidding to bid xxx in spades before AKx in diamonds in this situation.

D then 4♣ is a cuebid, while a direct 4♣ would show a suit (but not necessarily a strong hand, since there would (or should be) no force after 4♠ by the opps). 4♣ then 5♣ would be a 2-suited slam try imo. This is a possible approach with this hand, while the chosen sequence (double first) doesn't show a club suit but seems to suggest ♣AK. But I think the best, practical approach here is to shoot for the slam after partner's limit raise. 5♦ exclusion to perhaps find a grand (5♦-5N-6♣!) or stay low opposite an unlikely 0 keycards. Even if we normally play 1430, exclusion must be 0314 since 1 keycard is usually enough in these situations.

I am certainly not the only one who follows the following rule in defense to Multi: If our partnership shows one major then we automatically put the other major in the hands of the 2♦ opener. If you follow that rule then 2♠ is a cue (typically LROB), 3♠ a splinter and 4♠ exclusion. Please don't ask what 5♠ would be. I use Rik's principle, but as to 4♠ a different principle prevails. A jump to 4M in the first round of bidding is always natural.

I goofed this one last night, but the tactical situation is interesting and very unusual. [hv=d=w&v=b&s=st9875432hq652dc8]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (2♦) - 2♥ - (pass) - ?? 2♦ was multi. Weak two in ♥ or ♠, 22-24 bal, or strong Acol in ♦. 2♥ was a natural overcall limited by the failure to X+bid (about 17+). What is your bid now? And do you have a plan if west is about to bid diamonds?

4♦, almost perfect for a fit jump. I have a very mild slam try (4 keycards and ♦stuff? Thank you very nice partner!), 5-5, interest in 5♥ over 4♠, my ♦ honour is secondary (not the ace) etc. If I'm not fit jumping because I lack the ♦J then I suggest deleting this convention from our card.

If it goes p-p-3♠-3NT I think north should try 4♠. No guarantees to work but I think it will much more often than not. I would open 1♦. If you play aggressive openers, that's fine, but then don't expect people who aren't as aggressive to draw your conclusions. My simulation opens at the 1-level if the hand fits the rule of 24 : HCP + longest two + quick tricks * 2 = 24. Not perfect but I think "good enough" for simulating lots of hands. void AJxx KQxxx xxxx is a clear 2nd seat pass to me -- you have no spades! If the opponents have 8+ spades, they are going to be able to outbid you cheaply and partner will probably misjudge what to do. If partner has enough spades to stop the opponents, your hand does not fit his and is thus worth less than it might appear -- the auction 1D 1S 2C XS seems likely and your hand doesn't have the extras to compensate for the trump void. If partner bids hearts or clubs voluntarily while the opps persist in spades, we have a monster :lol:. He might even have ♣AKxxxx + ♦A, why not?

Yes, X+bid is flexible, but I disagree with "without showing any extra values". I think we do need a little extra to compensate for the bad shape, since X+bid is much more likely to land us in a bad spot than when we can comfortably accept partner's choice of strain. I think that the E-W hands are inversed or something. I would have opened the north hand 1♦ btw.

Hmm, I realize I might be wrong about the rules about taking back passes. So that the TD decision might be right after all. I don't have time to investigate this now, but perhaps somebody else remembers these procedure rules better than I do? :o

There might be more nuances to this, but basically: The TD made an illegal ruling. Only a final pass can be taken back, not the one before that. So both NS and EW should be considered non-offending sides and get compensation if the TD ruling works to their respective disadvantage. So if 3NTX makes, EW are damaged by the TD fault. NS keep their 3NTX=, EW get NS 3♦+1 (or pehaps weighted with NS 3♦=). Their unsuccesful defense against 3NTX is not "a serious error" in the sense that they should lose their compensation. If 3NT goes down, NS are damaged by the TD fault. EW keep their 3NTX-2 while NS get a 3♦ score. I don't think they are entitled to more here based on the failures to alert. If 3NT goes down, only a penalty against 1NT could be better, but I don't think north was damaged when he made the decision to remove his partner's double. So 3♦ is as good for NS as anything.

I'd try 3NT. I would make it 3NT>4♥>X>>pass. Have to stay optimistic, but it's very close as to the three possible active choices.

I think Jallerton's arguments are very convincing. Including the reference to 74C7, which seems to forbid a defender to try to play poker with declarer, as it is described in this case. This is not the way bridge should be played, and luckily the laws seem to agree.

This is somewhat about trust. The opponents are having a very strong auction. If they are good players I agree that ♦A is likely to be the percentage lead. But a not-so-good player will often not have a 'blackwood hand' as responder. Maybe because he just overbid or maybe because he didn't really have the tools for doing anything else and had to stab (with blackwood being a mandatory ritual). Against such players I think it is sensible to go passive (♥) and hope for a reasonably balanced dummy. Were it not for the ♦T I would have no qualms about the ♦A lead at all.

I would bid 4. Partner is favourite to show up with a very useful red doubleton, and then there is not that far to 10 tricks. 'Hopeless' is a tad pessimistic, I think.

I've played reasonably serious bridge matches online, and for me it doesn't feel the same. Like Elianna, I find that it feels like another computer game, and I have trouble taking it seriously. I'm having the same problem. Part of this is due to sitting at home with lots of things to distract me, though, so the computer format might be better under other circumstances.

Rik The Swanson book contains a good dozen, I think. He is partly referring to an article by Sheinwold about the 1958 Bermuda Bowl final. Swanson's chapter on the Blue Team didn't impress me that much the two times I've read it, and it doesn't now either when I make another quick run through his hands.

I would bid 4♠ now. Too speculative to guess 3NT with this 7-5. Agree with 2♦ and 3♠.

I am also in the anti-forcing pass camp, and none of the sequences so far in this thread would be forcing in my partnership. Here our default rule would apply that whenever we make a strength-showing (defensive oriented) double or redouble, and the opps jump, passes are NF and doubles by both sides take-out. Unless we are in a gameforcing auction obviously.

I am surprised by your impression. FWIW my impression is that the game is very clean at its highest levels these days. I have had a lot of experience playing against almost all of the world's most successful professional partnerships during the past 10+ years. In that time, the number of leading pro pairs who have left me with a clear impression of "cheating" could be counted on one finger - I don't recall how many hearts that shows in the R-S methods... :) Almost all of the others top pro pairs (probably several dozen) have left me with a clear impression of "honest". Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Happy to read this. It's my view too. I certainly don't have Fred's experience, but in Europe I have played against almost all todays top pairs including the top Italians. The greatest pairs and players seem to have flawless ethics, and nobody has given me any reason to think that they don't play an honest game.

My style is much different here, I would have bid 2♥ over 2♣. So from what I'm used to, I can understand, if partner is pessimistic with an empty suit, since he can't really expect as much as Qx after 2♦ followed by 2NT. But again, a question of style. I would try 7 now. +1

Pass, I expect partner to be quick to shoot 4♠. Don't see why we shouldn't have a decent chance at defense, we might even cash 2 spades sometimes.

I'm also used to X of Drury is takeout.

Bidding after a penalty double of a weak NT is difficult. It's hard to investigate strain and level and also cater to defending their possible runout. But imo there is no way out. We have lots of games to bid and lots of penalties to extract. We can't afford the luxury of thinking that it's usually just a partscore battle, because often it's not. That goes for MP as well. After a penX I'm used to playing one negative double in total for the partnership (if they run), forcing passes until 2♥ (advancer is allowed to pass out a complete bust though). This gives us many options in he bidding. Lebensohl in the first round - scramble in the second round. 2NT from doubler is always natural. Free bids (not escapes) at 2-lvl from advancer shows some values, but is not invitational as such. Advancer's runout to 2♣ is often suspect with a balanced hand. Aggressive penalty hunt after their runouts, especially if their bidding suggests two balanced hands.