MFA

Hmm, how about me then :) ? I make around 30 mistakes / 20 boards, what is my ranking :unsure:? 7+: newbie :) Not sure why we select you to represent Denmark :D Roland Don't know why either, Roland. But seriously, IMO is bridge a game of oodles of mistakes.

Hmm, how about me then :) ? I make around 30 mistakes / 20 boards, what is my ranking :unsure:?

I play it as penalty, but I have no strong feelings about it. It's a nice one to have discussed with partner. I agree that it's more tempting to play penalty doubles here against weak opponents. This is a situation where a bad player might rebid his suit WAY to aggressively.

3NT. The extra strength does it for me. I'm confident that Karlson's analysis would have had a different result, had it been single dummy analysis. Let them lead, for instance. They will be striving to pick a major.

jdonn: benlessard: dburn: I think you are overlooking that this is not a matter of agreements! East must play J from QJ for technical reasons in these crocodile situations. The jack from QJ gives partner one more (free!) clue to get it right and rise with the K: with AQx declarer might have finessed. This clue is weak, when declarer is supposed to know the whole distribution (still he might not), and strong when he is acting "in vacuum". But it IS a clue! So, when partner plays the Q, he has Qx When he plays the J, we have a problem. jdonn: Never is a strong word. Odds are 2:1 to play for Jx, but we do still have the bidding and 8 tricks of cardplay to judge differently.

Ok, thx all for votes and comments :). While this situation is interesting by itself, I have to admit that it was a law issue. Not usually being a TD, I was called to the table, because 5♣ came after an admitted pause for thinking, after which north raised to 6♣. South had ♠Axxx ♥xx ♦Qx ♣AJTxx and slam was on. (No, I don't agree with his bidding.) My ruling was ... to let the score stand - claiming that passing 5♣ is no logical alternative. Such a ruling requires a very heavy vote for bidding on, so I have been rather anxious to see the result of the poll. There has indeed been a heavy vote for bidding on, but really just barely what it takes to justify my ruling. - any comment?

I'm sorry. It's a diamond of course, I have 1-2-6-4.

I think the logic is to play J from QJ (Q from Qx) (J from Jx). This solves the 'standard' situation (with obscure spade distribution for declarer), in which the defenders can rely on declarer taking the finess at some point with AQx. In this situation, declarer doesn't have to take a finess, obviously, because he knows that east has a doubleton. But the defenders should defend the same way regardsless. There is simply no technical advantage whatsoever to shifting defensive strategy when we know that declarer knows the distribution. We are just running the risk that partner has gauged declarer's information differently and plays J from QJ for technical reasons (the AQx-finess argument). So we'll stick to it, and if partner drops the J, we'll have a judgement call to make, nothing to do about that.

No special agreements about 4♦, 4♥ or 4NT. But unfortunately, we play 1430 - not 0314 :blink:.

Matchpoints. East/none. We are north with ♠5 ♥AQ ♦AKT8542 ♣K976 Bidding goes: (1♠) - 2♣ - (pass) - 3♠ (splinter, 4♠ from us is a void). (pass) - 3NT - (pass) - 4♣ (forcing) (pass) - 5♣ - (pass) - ? What now? Partner's style of overcalls is pretty standard, usually 6-card suits etc. This is MP, but partner should know that too. Do you give him a 6th? By the way, do you agree with our bidding so far? EDIT: Oops, I have only 6 diamonds of course, AKT8xx.

Double. This is not so terrible, really. Why shouldn't something good happen (for once)? If I choose 2♠ now, apart from all the other bad things that might happen (we have a very flexible hand), this could easily be his suit, since I have just one more spade than I have hearts.

Perhaps AQ98xx xx for 5 tricks? We start with small to the 8, H (= J or T). What next? Well, if west plays the other H on the second round, we'll have to finess the Q to cater to his KHx (4 cases). This means that a good player in west will always play the H from Hxx to do us in. There are only two Hxx cases, so there's nothing we could do about that - we are bound to finess. Then, what if west plays small on the second round? On the surface, playing for KJ/KT (rise with A) rather than for JT (play Q) looks 2:1 due to restricted choice. But as we saw, a competent west player always plays the H from Hxx on the second round. So we'll play east for JT tight and hook the Q, in spite of what restricted choice might tell us.

I split low from 2 (KQ, QJ etc) and high from 3+ (KQJ, etc).

Pass, partner shows 7+ tricks against NT. KQJTxx + 2 aces for instance. Instalogoff, when partner goes into this rubbish talk mode.

South's double is very wild, but north's double is outright insane. @jdonn I'm far from crazy about the bidding in your 3 examples. Support with support :-) 1) Why does N pass 1♥? :rolleyes: Partner can easily have a distributed hand that wants to play game, and 2♥ can't hurt on this full-value opener. 2) I suppose that this was a misunderstanding where N thought 2♠ was forcing, and south did not?! 3) Ok, with forcing (or semiforcing) NT, I suppose passing 2♣ is fair. But with my usual acol-style bidding, raising 2♣ to 3 is clear-cut.

No, not clear at all IMO. Partner might just as easily have ♥Qx (or even ♥Jxx), where dropping the ♥A is not so great an idea...

Well, if playing strength is continuously distributed, there must be some point at which you will be in doubt. B) Anyway, I agree with your conclusion.

Your argument doesn't hold, I'm afraid. JTx still is three times as likely as each of the other holdings. Righty will always part with two x's, so this doesn't change anything. The situation can be viewed in two ways: 1) I don't care (=notice) which x's, I have seen. They are all of equal rank, so it cannot matter to me in any way, which were played. So I'm right where I started, with 3 JTx. 2) Ok, I look at the x's. Righty has played 2 out of 3 of them, so this constitutes a restricted choice situation among the x's! Because there are three equal cards (x's), it's not 2 but 3 times as likely that lefty will have the last spot card.

As the case is presented, it's clear-cut (like the other posters say). This is quite important, though. Had East not known that he would be offered to alter his bid, we do have a problem. It's NS's responsibility as well that a TD is summoned in these situations. But since East knew the rules here, he was not damaged from the absence of a TD.

Ty, link stored.

Yes, ok. My primary point was that the laws say "could have known at the time of his irregularity", and not "did know at the time...". This gives TD the right to say that he (this player!) could have known better, and thus adjust. Without accusing him of breaking the laws intentionally, as in: Ha! If I think now, she will never balance! Because he might just have been sloppy, out of bad habit, perhaps, of thinking about nothing at the wrong times. When he's too good to not recognize the problem. I was missing this scenario on the list of some previous posters. I agree that the score should not be adjusted when it's about a novice player, who doesn't know better. This should be clear. (Thx for the law quotes. It's hard for me to be precise, since English is not my primary language and I don't know the wording of the laws in English. ;) )

I don't quite agree with this. The score should also be adjusted, when you have no "bridge reason" to think, and you ought to have known that a pause from you at this point could harm the opponent(s). There are no requirements of intent to deceive. Thus, when TD makes such an adjustments, it's not at all (necessarily) an accusation of cheating. Just a statement that you weren't as careful with your tempo as you should have been here in order to protect your opponents. In other words, there's an addition to hotshot's list. 3. He was not careful enough with his tempo in a no-problem situation and ought to have known about a possible damage, but no cheating was intended, it was just sloppiness. => score's adjusted peacefully by the TD.

I agree that one could be more frisky in (2), but there are other considerations too: In (1) I'll bid 2♠ on some quite awkward hands (with bad ODR, but points) because we might have a game. These hands will go quitely in the other auction, prefering to defend and trusting the opponents to have their overall values. On the other hand, I'll let go of some trashy (but shaped) hands after 2♥-p-p, since partner will bury me if I take a bid with nothing. In (2), we're competing exclusively for the partscore, since we both have passed. So all I really need is a good ODR, points "don't matter". I could be quite weak. ODR= offensive/defensive ratio. So there are hands I will bid only in (1), and hands I will bid only in (2)!

I'm beginning to hate these methods more and more, when it's so hard all of a sudden to get to spades. jdonn: I think the chain of logic has been broken here. How can overcaller expect advancer to have 4c spade fit, when he didn't try to locate it over 2♥? I would expect 4♠ now to show 5. ... Really, with so shady agreements, I'd much prefer to stick to landy instead.

Hmm, guess I don't know this defense. Is it 5+♦, 4+M? Or 5+♦, 4M? Or 5/4 either way? Why did I have to bid 3♦? Can't we get to spades over 2♥? Hmm. Anyway. This double is penalty, I suppose, but partner doesn't have to have 4 hearts. Perhaps he is 4351 with enough cards for a penalty double. Or 4252, why not? Partner could be quite strong here. 4♠ is a bit tempting, but if partner does have spades, he tends to have aces (and kings) in ♠+♦, and secondary stuff in ♥ (+♣). So with our ♣A also, we should do fine against 4♥x.