sathyab

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sq942ha54dt8643ct&s=sak83hkj8d9c97543]133|200|Scoring: BAM (p)-p-(1nt)15-17-X*- (XX**)-p-(p)-2c-(X)-2d- (X)-2s-(p)-p-(X)-ap[/hv] Double of 1nt was conventional showing a four card major and a longer minor. Redouble was cards; Partner's 2d was pass or correct to a major.

or the willingness to learn what a somewhat uncommon score, -160 actually represents :lol:, for the entire lay-out was the following: [hv=d=e&v=b&n=sj42hk542d95ckqj3&w=sq9hj83d7ct986542&e=sakt6hat97dqt62ca&s=s8753hq6dakj843c7]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] (♠ holding in the OP was from memory, this is the actual hand) West passed 1♠ X instead of bidding 2♣ and it was -160 shortly thereafter. We had company though, -160 was worth 31 MP on a 77 top.

The percentage play wins a lot of MPs. You catch Jxxx on-side. All RHO can do is win the first or second heart and force out the ♠A, but you get to dummy with ♣Q, play the remaining ♥s and when you discover the 4-2 break, unblock ♦s and throw LHO in with the last ♥. I got this one wrong at the table. I thought I needed to ensure ten tricks in NT as 4♥ would make only as many tricks. It turns out that 4♥ makes 5 even with a ♠ lead. And just as importantly, as MFA pointed out clearly, in spite of the blocked suits, you still make ten tricks if the ♥Ten loses to the Jack.

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=st532hkqt9xxdaqcq&s=saq6hxdkjxxcakxxx]133|200|Scoring: MP 1h-(1s)-2c-(p)-2h-(p)-3nt[/hv] Lead is the ♠8 on which RHO plays low. LHO follows low when you play a ♥. K or 9 ? If you think there'd be people playing in 4♥, they might be making only ten tricks with a ♠ lead but probably eleven without it. If the ♥9 loses to the Jack, it might prove hard to untangle all your tricks given the blockages in minor suits. If the ♥ Jack is on-side, ten tricks won't win very many MPs.

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=s8542hqxdakj8xxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP (1d)-p-(p)-X-(1s)-?[/hv] You are West.

When I got in with the ♦A and cashed the ♣A, declarer Janet Jansma turns to me and says, "Good lead. Good idea too that you didn't try it a second time !"

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=skqxhtxdkj9xxcktx&w=st98xhj9daqxca743&e=saxhk7xxdtxxxcq9x&s=sjxxxhaq8xxdxcjxx]399|300|Scoring: BAM 1d-p-2h(Flannery, 7-9)-all pass[/hv] With ♦s appearing to be in the slot, West is afraid that ♣ losers in declarer's hand may disappear given time. Hence the underlead at T1. T1: ♣4, x, 9, J :) If only that ♣9 could be swapped for the 8...

The opener looking at Kxxxx xx QJxx AK knows that there is a ♦ fit and that the hand won't play badly in 4♦. But it doesn't take much for +200, two high ♣s, a high ♦, a ♣ ruff and a ♠ are well within the realm of reality. Had the opponents not been Vul, I think there's a good case to be made to pull the double to 4♦.

Yes, it's an interesting problem in the sense that bread-n-butter MP hands are interesting. May not be anything terribly cerebral at the end perhaps, but just plain annoying until the hand is over :) Let's assume that partner has 5♠s headed by the Ace and a ♣ honor. Anything more and he'd balance. Some would even balance with AT8xx xx xxx Axx. AT8xx xx xxxx Ax is probably closer to balancing than pass whereas AT8xx xx xxx Kxx or AT8xx xx xxxx Kx is most likely a pass. I think there are two options for the defense: either shut out dummy's ♦ suit which is the only source of additional tricks for the declarer or play for a trump promotion. In the first line of defense, we attack dummy's sure entry by shifting to a trump at T2. Declarer takes it in hand and plays the ♦T. Now you have a real headache. If declarer is 2=6=1=4, you have to fly with the Ace, cash your spades and declarer has to play ♣s on his own guessing who has Hx, as one discard won't help. But if he has two ♦s we have to cover and hope partner does tell us he has three ♦s. If you have been right in your ♦ play, declarer is stuck. If he plays a ♠ you can win and play back another trump and dummy's ♦s will have been silenced. If he plays a ♣ to get to his hand to play another ♦, now you can take the Ace, cash a ♠ and two ♣s. You are hoping for a lay-out like: [hv=d=s&v=e&n=sj76ha7dkj84cq642&w=skq2hjt2daq76cjt7&e=sat853h43d932ca85&s=s94hkq9865dt5ck93]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] I think playing for trump promotion doesn't work as long as declarer works on ♦s before pulling trumps, but I've not analyzed it as thoroughly. Sadly though declarer had the ♦T9, so he makes nine tricks regardless :(

If partner has the ♥K, that leaves declarer with Qxxxxx for a weak2. And if partner has 3 ♠s that leaves declarer with a four-bagger. So he's preeempting 2♥ with xxxx Qxxxxx x Hx ?

If I have to choose a default title for my posts that'd be it. You haven't blown this hand on the opening lead, so here's your chance. [hv=d=s&v=e&n=sj76ha7dkj84cq642&w=skq2hjt2daq76cjt7]266|200|Scoring: MP 2h- all pass[/hv] You lead the ♠K, partner plays the 8 as declarer follows suit with the 4. You're playing UDCA with the agreement that in this situation partner's spot card gives count in the suit as (hopefully) you know where the Ace is.

I know there are many smart people like you who do not understand why one would upgrade more than they downgrade, but there is a reason why this is universal among good players. IMO, it depends to a very large extent on when you learnt this game. Anyone who learnt this game twenty or thirty years ago is not easily persuaded by arguments in favor of frequent upgrading, undisciplined preempts etc, even though they would have realized that those methods are harder to deal with. Learning is hard, unlearning is harder.

Here're the two hands. Do you want to be in slam on a passive lead ? [hv=d=w&v=e&n=sa7haj983dkjcaq84&s=s9843hkq7dat5ck95]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

Opponents are silent through out the auction, as partner opens 1♥. You have [hv=d=w&v=n&s=s9843hkq7dat5ck95]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You don't play Flannery, play 2nt as natural and GF (major suit raises are handled differently) and try to avoid bidding 2 of a minor just to create a GF. The choices appear to be are 1♠ on a bad suit when you such great support for partner or 2♣ to create a GF (anyone for 2nt ?). Say you try 1♠, partner bids 2nt, 18-19 balanced or may be an upgraded 17 with a six-bagger. Now you can bid 3♦ check-back to inquire if partner has 3♠s or bid 3♥ forcing. You seem to have close to slam values. How do you move forward without going overboard ? In minor suit auctions with near-slam values, we can often explore slam on such hands as 4nt can be passed, but unfortunately if you support ♥s here, 4nt by either of us is RKC. If you try 3♦ and partner bids 3nt denying 3♠s, he might easily be 2533, in which case you have to worry about length tricks outside ♥s. Although undiscussed, 3♥ should deliver an extra ♥, in which case 6♥ or 6nt should be favorite. Even with a 3♠ response, you have one additional suit that has potential for an additional trick. But what do you do over 3nt ?

I play 2/1 with a lot of popular gadgets, 2-way NMF, Bergen, Good-Bad 2nt, UDCA carding. I've made it to the finals of 3-day Open Pairs events 4 times, the semi-finals of Reisinger once. In Washington D.C we beat Dan Morse's team in a 4-way match on the first day and were rewarded with the opportunity to take on the #1 seed the second day :P We did beat seed #14 in Spingold, a while ago in Toronto, 2001 in a 64-board match. Looking for somebody comparably accomplished in NABCs. I have a partner for Blue Ribbon pairs and may have one for Reisinger. If you think you might be compatible, please contact me at s_bettadapura@yahoo.com. "sathya" on BBO "sathyab" on BBO Forums

It will fit. Having a sixth heart is long past possible, and this hand is one reason we stopped using kickback. But this is all related back to the space we consumed by raising diamonds, and the things we denied by raising diamonds. So 4H cue seems to work. Not related to consuming space by raising ♦s immediately. As I said, in the first auction, where it went 1♥-2♦-2♥-2♠-3♦-4♦, it's entirely possible that opener has six ♥s and 3♦s, unless you think that he should bid 3♥ over 2♠ instead of 3♦.

If you play kickback it complicates matters when adjacent suits are in the picture. In the first auction for instance, over responder's 4♦, you would want to be able to bid ♥s naturally. kickback and possibly show a ♥ cue. As it's important especially at MP to bid a six-bagger naturally, I usually play 4♥ natural, 4♠ as kickback and 4nt as a spade cue in these auctions. It'd be nice on a hand like this though to show a heart cue rather than bid naturally or kickback, but I don't know how to squeeze that in.

1) Partner could have as little as i) xxx Qxx Qxxx Qxx or as much as ii) xxx Kxx Axxx xxx. On i) 4♦ is most likely going down one barring a very lucky lay-out in hearts whereas ii) is making 10 or 11 tricks whenever ♦s split, depending on the ♥ finesse. If you agree that 2nt by partner over 2♠ is not terribly useful as a natural bid, you can make a distinction between good and bad raises to 3m on such auctions. 2) Quite a few people passed RHO's 2♥ with AQxxx xx KJTxx x (there was a typo in the hand I posted; you have two ♥s and a stiff ♣; hopefully it won't affect your bidding decision, but will affect you opening lead probably). Partner has T9x xxx Axxx xxx. Unless he bids 4♠ over LHO's 4♥, you didn't lose or gain by passing. But I am curious about your requirements for a 2-level overcall. We've always been warned about preempting over a preempt. Although this hand doesn't fall in that category, it looks like fairly light action. What if RHO had preempted 3♥ would you be overcalling 3♠ ? And was it only because of the favorable vulnerability or would you overcall regardless ? An interesting point about this hand is the opening lead. If you lead an auto stiff ♣ you're greeted with KJx KT xx AKQTxx in dummy ;) Anyone who leads the ♠A and switches to ♦s would pick up a lot of MP.

I did say it was a BBO game :)

Two MP hands from a recent BBO MP game. 1) [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sahaj84dkt9542cjt]133|100|Scoring: MP (1s)-2d-(2s)-3d-(p)-p-(3s)-p-(p)- ?[/hv] 2) [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sahaj84dkt9542cjt]133|100|Scoring: MP (1s)-2d-(2s)-3d-(p)-p-(3s)-p-(p)- ?[/hv]

Even a significant number of folks that believe that balanced hands should pass would probably bid 5♦ here. But they'd probably be more inclined to pass with: [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sjxxhxxdqjxxxckxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] which wouldn't do too well either. The 5♦ bidders come out ahead here, way ahead, for the lay-out was: [hv=d=w&v=n&n=sakq9h6dak873cat9&w=s3hkqj952d52cj843&e=s87542ht843d9ckq2&s=sjt6ha7dqjt64c765]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] From the final quarter of the recent Bermuda Bowl. Identical auction at both tables. Both South's bid 5♦ and were raised to 6♦.

With East's delayed entry into the auction, I have a suspicion that the ♦K is off-side. With nothing but AQxx or AJxx in ♣s I think East would bid 4♠ directly. I plan to ruff, pull two trumps ending in dummy, pitch a ♦ on the ♠A, play a ♣ to K. If an honor appears on my left, I'll have to assume it's stiff and LHO didn't lead it. If an honor appears on my right I'll have to assume it's from AQJ. If I have been right so far, East will be end-played eventually. How many down did I go down ? :(

Some aspects of this topic were discussed a while ago here The summary of that discussion was that responder should pass balanced hands of moderate strength and stretch to bring two suits into the picture whenever possible. I was watching the following hand recently. Let's assume that you passed over 4♥ first. Partner doubles again. And it's your call now. [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sjt6ha7dqjt64c765]133|100|Scoring: IMP (2h)- X - (4h) - p - (p)- X - (p)- ?[/hv]

6♦ it is That hand has been discussed at some length a while ago. The new auction, where you had JTx Ax QJTxx xxx and partner doubles 2♥ first and then 4♥ again, is from a more recent event. Several posters had suggested earlier that balanced hands of moderate strength shouldn't bid over 4♥ X, as it could easily be turning a sure plus into a possible minus. The reason I posted the new auction was to get the opinion of those posters.

I'd bid 4NT on the given hands. I believe in finding my bigger fit on these hands. I don't think just "having the king in one suit and no honor in the other" is enough to be unilateral here. Partner could easily have a 2425 or 1525 pattern for the double and how happy am I playing in 5♦ now? Bidding 4NT guarantees me to find at least an 8-card fit whereas diamonds could easily by seven. I would also pass with xx Kxx Kxxxx Jxx. It is easy to construct hands that are quite reasonable doubles where we cannot make at the five level opposite this hand and defending 4♠X is pretty much a guaranteed plus score. True it will not get me the best score on this particular hand but what can we do? I was watching this hand and I remembered that there was a discussion of this sort a while ago :o Would you pass 4♥X or bid 5♦ ? [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sjt6ha7dqjt64c765]133|100|Scoring: IMP (2h)-X-(4h)-p-(p)-X-(p)[/hv]