MFA

Thank you for your kind words. :) I think the main reason for system restrictions in bridge is to protect the opponents' partnership bidding which is dependent on partnership agreements made in advance to function well. Chess lacks the partnership element completely, and therefore I think that we can't really use the observation that chess openings are unrestricted in chess to anything in relation to bridge. So I think we do better to accept that we are "on our own" and discuss system restrictions in bridge purely out of their own merits.

I agree.

I'm in slam, and since it's matchpoints I don't bother thinking about getting to diamonds. I would pass. If partner doubles, I try 6NT. Partner should not double with a void, I think. If partner doesn't double, I try for 7♥.

2♠. Passing is too risky. If they have any shape at all, 2♥X will make. I hope to make 2♠ so even down one in 2♥X is probably not fantastic.

Some one once told me with flat hands, defend. So with a 4333 and 4 cards in their trump suit, how much stronger would you have to be to pass? I would pass with the same hand but ♦Q8xx. If they make 2♦X it may not be the end of the world, since we will often concede vulnerable undertricks in a heart contract by bidding 2♥.

It seems very unlikely that partner was considering bidding unilaterally on the 4-level now, when he couldn't bid over 1♠. On the other hand he could have 6♦+4♠ hoping for a penalty after 1♠ if we had had the hearts locked up and a strong hand. So when he thinks he is probably considering a penalty double. That means that he has a good hand, but if he has very strong spades his overall strength might not be so great and not enough to make 4♦ a success. I would say that partner's huddle doesn't suggest our bidding 4♦ with the necessary clarity and would therefore allow 4♦.

Fixed.

Really? I don't.

Pass. I think that 3♦ is quite clearly natural. It's very conceivable that he didn't like our suits and now wants to try diamonds. It's easy to see that we can make game if we buy well (diamonds running + heart stopper for instance), but partner's 3♦ didn't really promise anything since he could be in a desperate situation.

(...) What is the legal basis for your theory that "no length tank cannot talk you out of a normal action"? Seems like it's just some kind of maxim or something. (...) Josh included the word such, which stresses that it is a case of judgement in each concrete situation. A long pause can talk us out of actions, we would otherwise had taken, that's why the tank might be illegal in the first place, but there is a limit to what redress we can get. The wording ("SEWoG") is new so we are essentially on our own as to what's included by it. We have to go with what's fair. EBU has made an effort to interpret the words, which is great, but, for instance, I'm surpriced how gross the error has to be before EBU considers it a "serious error". It sounds more like a description of a "very serious error" to me. Anyway, the EBU interpretations are only binding in the EBU jurisdiction. The recent changing of the laws from "IWoG" to "SEWoG" seems to me to strongly suggest that the provision is to be used more often and thus more split scores are to be handed out in these kind of situations than in the old days. It's all about trying to get a feel for how much it takes to be a "SEWoG".

I don't understand this. How can it be relevant to go with the field in the early decisions, just because the field is not yet blown to atoms, if you more or less think it will usually be as the hand progresses?

Hmm, I played the tournament and only hear about the incident now. But I do recognize the deal. Anyway I think my judgement would be that south was misled by an illegal hesitation but that NS should be denied redress. So a split score. I think I would characterize south's decision not to double as "wild" rather than a "serious error". After all it is a judgement decision and "serious error" sounds more like an objective mistake. South has a model take-out double with 1-4-4-4 13 hcp. It's not really bridge not to double. Even after a hesitation from 3rd hand.

Also pass, but reluctantly. The alternative for me is double rather than 2♥.

I disagree almost entirely with the idea of trying to mastermind the field's decisions in specific bidding situations like this and then trying to copy them. My perception of matchpoint bridge is that it's a game where the crowd will produce a swarm of different results, and even when some specific scores seem particularly popular on some board, there will often be many different routes to those scores. So what I am trying to do is to achieve scores that are competitive against a whole range of results from the field. I try to get good scores through good bidding judgement as well as in the card play. I generally don't care much about what the field is doing since the diversity will often be too great anyway. As a consequence I would very rarely be scared of making "anti-field decisions" if I judge it's the right thing to do. I think it's right to pass most of the hands in question and only use stayman with hands that are very oriented towards suit play in 2M. Often there will simply be more to lose than to gain by using stayman. 1NT could well be a reasonable contract even with a 4-4 fit in a major. Also in 1NT the chance of a defensive meltdown is often much greater than in 2M. On the other hand in 2M, if it's a bad contract, it will often be very bad with few second chances for a good result on the board.

Agree with Justin that east should just sell to 4♠. ♠Kx doesn't look very good if declarer somehow can get to dummy, and it should not be a big surprise to find partner with ♥AKQxxx and see declarer ruff at trick 1 as on the actual layout.

I really don't like (or understand) a weak or very strong approach. Two-suited bids like Michaels should not be seen as a preempt. Instead it should show reasonable values that correspond with the level of bidding. Not bidding Michaels with in-between hands loses the valuable effect of showing both suits at once. I prefer: - a decent minimum for the michaels hand - aggressive bidding from partner with a fit, so 'Michael' doesn't have to stretch to bid again - continuous range of the michaels bid So sorry, I can't really help you, since I don't really understand the logic of the weak or very strong approach.

You asked partner to pick a slam. He did so but out of tempo. Ethically I think you have to pass in this situation. The reason being his break in tempo show indecision and to bid again is not a logical alternative. I agree. Except that I suppose you mean that passing is a logical alternative.

Pass. I can't double with only 2 hearts and bidding something in the minors at the 4+ level would be an overbid. Did partner have ♣AKxxxx out?

Declarer had: xx, KJx, Qxxx, AKQx So it was necessary to rise with the ace and switch to spades, which I didn't. Having decided not to rise and switch to spades, even if partner was playing high-low in hearts, I figured it would be better to duck the second heart as well. Sometimes declarer will need three heart tricks for his contract (♦Qx or Qxx without the ♦T), and then I would get a third chance, since I'd get to see a discard from partner that might help. It is somewhat of a guess to switch to spades or not. But I think it is right to do so. Even when it's "wrong" (declarer has ♠Qxx), it might not cost. Declarer could have the ♠J or ♠T, for instance. Or enough tricks holding ♦QTx as well. Should partner have doubled 3NT with AQJTxx, xxx, xxx, x?

I think it depends on his spade holding. With very strong spades where he knows that a spade is likely to be necessary he would play the 10; with a hand where he doesn't see an urgent need for a spade switch he wouldn't. Yes, sounds very reasonable.

I don't understand what difference a fresh round robin would make. You discard the result of a 20-board match against a team and replace it with the result of a 20-board match against the same team. Yes I would be discarding 18/18 results from the qualification round instead of discarding just 10/18 of the results since the latter will inevitably contain a big amount of luck in what results are discarded and what results that are not. Alternatively a bonus carry-forward that reflects the results of all the 18 matches, but still we should be playing a complete round robin in the finals. The final round is a whole new stage of the championships, with new goals, and I think the scoring should reflect this. While the actual format is certainly not terrible, it does seem to me to be a less than ideal compromise.

I agree.

Yes. Oh, it's a bridge question. I would try ♠Q. When RHO has most of the strength, QJx is a reasonably attractive holding to lead from, since even if partner can't help, there is a good chance that AK are to our right. Leading diamonds without an entry doesn't seem right here.

I have the same reservations. It's a pretty big luck factor, what results the teams can "erase". In our group Portugal and Austria were very close (2 VPs) 9th and 10th. Had Austria qualified instead of Portugal then Israel would have won silver. They would have had 9 VPs more whilst Poland would only have had 1 VP more. Easily enough to overcome the 3,5 VP gap between the two teams in the final standings. Another example. We (Denmark) ended up 15 VP behind England. But if Austria had qualified instead of Portugal, we would have been 15 VP ahead of England in the final standings. Huge, huge difference - all luck. (Not that this mattered so much since both England and we were out of contention.) The carry forward system is a bit like in handball or icehockey. But I'm not so sure that it is ideal for bridge. Shortish round robin matches don't always produce "acurate" results relative to playing strengths. In some of these matches a team will get more VPs than it "deserves" - in some matches less. Having only 8 out of 18 matches from the qualification to count introduces a big luck factor. I would prefer a format like in Pau where all teams start from scratch in the final round, playing a new, complete round robin. It would be fine for me if there were some VP-bonus for finishing in the top of the qualification, or some small VP-carry over based on all qualification results.

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s963hq96dak94c963&w=sk8ha843dj5cjt872]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] South 1NT - North 3NT. You choose to lead the ♣J - 3, 4, K. Here partner shows reverse count, low from doubleton, etc. With the ♣9xx in dummy partner is unlikely to unblock ♣Q from Qx. Trick 2: ♥J, 4, 6, 7. Partner's ♥7 is reverse smith. Essentially, he would play a small heart with ♣Q and a big one without ♣Q. Trick 3: ♥2 ... Decision time. If you win, please state your defense when partner complete his smith's signal with either ♥5 or ♥T. Please no spoilers from posters who recognize the deal from Oostend.