MFA

I would like to see the result of a poll. I'm not convinced that there clearly will be enough passers. Are any of you "pass is a LA"-people passers yourselves?

Do you think team strategy should be different depending upon whether a team is playing a series of 16-board matches as opposed to a single 128 board match? If you think there should be a difference in the way teams approach these two possibilities, then I think a good case can be made for your trials to mimic the championship format. I knew that posting the question would help. I think that the 16-board match rounds are pretty much irrelevant to the team strategy and, when I've been NPC, I've told the team that they need to consider it as a 320 board tournament. The conversion to VPs make little difference in the long run. Thanks for reminding me! Since you asked the question, I was automatically assuming you have the opposite opinion! The only reason I could see to play it as 8 matches of 16 boards would have been to give players practice with the state of the match considerations. (When you are down, there is a bit of advantage to swinging.) Uh oh, sounds like very dangerous tactics. I strongly prefer to ignore such things. Swinging because of speculative match considerations would just open myself to the tilt factor, turning normal losses into blood baths. It's entirely possibile that a scientist with an appropriately effective microscope would be able to spot profitable swing options in a long round robin tournament. But for practical purposes this issue is much better ignored. I know (also very good) players who are willing to swing in a shortish round robin match. I consider this to be nothing but a giant leak in their game.

A strong argument for thinking clubs might not be 1-4 is the lack of a club lead.

As Frances says, there was a demonstrable bridge reason and this is enough to allow the score to stand, though Law 73D1 justifies warning East to be more careful. Hi, just to test your point. Can it really be right to judge that there was a sufficient bridge reason to think and then at the same time issue a warning from the TD (or AC) to the player to be more careful next time? Why is that not contradicting?

I agree that 4♠ from opener over 4♣ is natural. But when responder then blackwoods, the supported suit are trumps. Edit: Reply to shevek.

Quantitative. To go club-slamming, partner has to bid 4♣ on the way.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=st5hq843dak52cj85]133|100|Scoring: MP Pass-2♠-pass-pass[/hv] E-W play a very unusual style for their 2♠ openings. 7-11 hcp, exactly 5 spades, could be any distribution and just about any suit quality! Double or pass, how do you judge this? ---------------------------- ---------------------------- As it was, East had a clear huddle when it was his turn. 20-25 sec or so (North took his normal 10 sec). South judged that a reopening double was very marginal, and when East apparently had something, it seemed wiser to pass out 2♠. [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sj6hak7dt986cq963&w=sk9873hj92dq4ca42&e=saq42ht65dj73ckt7&s=st5hq843dak52cj85]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] South felt decieved by East's huddle. East explained he considered bidding 3♠ preemptive (which systemically could be raised by opener with a strong 5-5 for instance). Should the score stand or be corrected? Strong players.

What do you do here? [hv=d=n&v=e&n=sj5h54dkt53c98753&s=sakt862hjt7djckj6]133|200|Scoring: IMP Pass-1♣-1♠-X pass-2♥-2♠-X all pass[/hv] The first double was high-low: normal negative or just about any GF (new suits NF). The second double was for blood. ♥2 (4th) to east's king. ♣A (small-small-small), ♣T. E-W are reasonable players, but they had been overmatched in this tournament, and now it was the last match of a long 2-day team qualification (13*10 boards). What do you do? --------------------------- --------------------------- As is was, it was established that E-W didn't really have an agreement about the second double. West thought that it was just extras and east guessed it was for penalties and explained "for blood". [hv=d=n&v=e&n=sj5h54dkt53c98753&w=s97hq863daq864cq2&e=sq43hak92d972cat4&s=sakt862hjt7djckj6]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] South thought that west must have the spades, and therefore east would have to have 4 clubs (likely 1-4-4-4, signalling for a heart back). So declarer finessed clubs and went down. Should the score stand or be corrected?

In international competition this third hand opening would be regarded as HUM (highly unusual methods) and only be allowed in very few events (Bermuda Bowl knockout stage and the European team championships). The 2-openings are no-problem. The rules in Australia I don't know anything about.

Double after 4♥ but pass against Namyats. Somewhat protected by the fact that partner had available X of 4♣ as a shape-takeout not promising the world (X+X from him would be strong shapeTO, P+X strong balTO).

Maybe that a point-counter would bid 4♠. If you play strong NT's, 3♠ is fine. However, if 3♠ can contain 15-17 bal., I'd bid 4♠. But the weak NT style with which I am familiar (Kokish gets some credit for writing about this if he didn't come up with it) makes this an even clearer 3♠ call. When playing weak notrump it is common, and mandatory in the 'kokish' approach' to require 4 cards for a single raise.. and the single raise shows either 15-17 balanced or an unbalanced hand, the idea being that an unbalanced 12 count with 4 card support has approximately the same playing value as a balanced 15 count with 4 card support... one generally plays a relay thereafter to clarify hand-type. In turn, this makes the jump raise very powerful... a control rich 17 count or better.... partner will rarely pass the jump raise. In fact, if anything, I'd downgrade to 2♠, in this style, before I'd bid game... but I'd be comfortable with 3♠... as I am in the OP. I'm surprised that you say it's common to require 4card support for a single raise to 2♠. I'd say that it's rather uncommon based on my experience. Anyway, for me raising with 3-card unbalanced minimum would be default. Only if my hand had a very clear orientation towards something else, I would not raise 1♠ to 2♠ with 3 unbal. So for me 3♠ is nowhere near as strong as you suggest. But I agree that the actual hand is a 3♠ bid.

Then why is this posted here? It does say "advanced or expert-class bridge" in the top of my screen... :P

Penalty. Should I take-out double to the majors that partner has already almost denied? No, that is too far-fetched.

That was what we thought. North that he must be flexible after D. South that partner had a lot of room from 5NT to 7♥ and a majestic leap to a grand hardly could be just Qxxx. Perhaps partner was planning something technical, had the double of 4♣ been pulled to 4♠. Anyway, I (south) took half the blame, the rest went to the bad luck, we were having. :P

7♥ could have been made, but only if declarer guesses to draw exactly 1 round of trumps before running side winners. As far as I remember, west was 2-5-3-3.

I would just start to work on diamonds.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=skq3hqt85dk3cak87&s=saj872hakjdaqt82c]133|200|Scoring: IMP 3♣-X-4♣-X pass-5NT-pass-7♥ all pass[/hv] This looks very silly in writing. New partnership early in the tournament, so both were anxious to make it easy for partner. Who should have bid differently? X of 4♣ was responsive, 5NT 'pick-a-slam". No fancy agreements. Trumps were 5-1, of course, so -20 imps on this one.

I agree with Phil.

With the corrections (♥Q + 3rd hand opening), this is a gruesome problem. I admire double, but I just can't do it. Just about any improvement, and I'm there. Don't understand the semi-LOLs in this thread.

Double. Shouldn't promise the world, so for me this is quite an obvious bid.

? This is a real hand and I passed. Maybe you think this is a horrible bid, as I expected most would. I have talked to at least one regular forum poster and convinced him that how I thought about this hand was good, and that passing was indeed right (he also thought I was insane to begin with.) I posted this hand so that maybe you could try to think outside the box. I know you are also a very good player, but it doesn't mean I'm trolling for posting a hand you don't understand. Results: +1100. Partner had a balanced 21. Is this really that unexpected except for how large the plus was? Good if you were serious, since it's nicer this way. Sorry for being rude, but at least it communicated my view. Passing is crazy. Fancy play syndrome. I'll stay inside the box on this one. ;)

lol, don't feed the troll.

Partner's double of 4♥ is for take-out. So this is a non-problem.

1) 2NT. In terms of playing strength, I'm not out of range. Dbl seems to beg for an advance into a minor. I can't pass a lebensohl 2NT, if I would have wanted, since there are strong variants. Isn't that the case for almost everybody? 2) Abstain. Perhaps 4♦ splinter, then 6♣. Or something. Guessing here with no system and a not-so-strong partner is not so interesting. I'm surely not bidding 3♣ if there is any chance, he might pass (which I strongly suspect there is).

Ehm?