sathyab

Being a national champion myself, I can tell you that 5NT bid is wrong LOL. Now, seriously: We have had this problem in the past, people quoting expert's comentaries that they were told. This has some flaws: -You don't have the level of the expert in question, and you can't understand fully why he meant to bid something. -You are never objective enough that you do not add some of your persoanl feelings to that expert's opinion. -And the most important: There are great players on this forum, several of them I am sure are better than your unkown expert, quoting him doesn't give any extra credit to the bid you are defending. In the Burlingame regional last week I spotted the following players, one of whom gave me the opinion, which I quoted to the best of my understanding and objectivity: Kyle Larsen, Alan Sontag, John Mohan, Lew Stansby, Chip Martel, Ron Smith, Kit Woolsey. If any of the experts on the BBO forum are as good as any on the list I'll be glad to listen.

Clever! Anyway all I can say is that you are being pretty obnoxious in this thread to think that only you are capable of seeing the problem here when everyone else thinks the solution is obvious. Maybe you are right, but historically, I have been wrong when this has occurred to me. Similarly, if you think I am not an advanced/expert player, that is fine, but you are being pretty emotional in this thread, so I would stop and consider some of the things you are doing and saying. Your arguments for 5NT are within reason since 6♣ can often be right, but as others have pointed out, it is not that good a description of this hand, since we could have doubled with all kinds of hands with a doubleton (or even singleton) diamond, so 5N should be wrong on balance. Thank you for allowing that the 5nt bid is within reason, that's mighty generous of you. I'll convey it to the National champion who suggested it, I'm sure it'd mean a lot to him.

What if partner's Diamond suit is disproportionately stronger and longer than his Clubs ? If you bid 4nt with x Kxx Kxxxx 8xxx or xx Kx Kxxxx 8xxx, then your argument about not looking for a second place to play is valid. Does everyone bid 4nt with either of these hands ? Or how about xx Kxx Kxxxx Jxx ? Is this an automatic pass as he's balanced ?

Partner didn't bid 4nt over the double of 4♠ because of the disparity in his minor suits which you already know about, as you're looking at a 100-honor club suit.

Really ?! What if partner has x Kxx Kxxxx Jxxx. If clubs break 3-1, and Diamonds break 4-1, you can pull trumps, establish Diamonds with one ruff. Partner bids 6♣ only when he has a second suit. If he has a single suiter in Diamonds he bids 6♦.

Lol. Vindictive logic is definitely the funniest type of logic there is, though not quite the most logical. Quite possibly. But "is's obvious that we should be bidding 6♦ because it'll make more often than not" is about as compelling as "it's obvious that we should pass, because 6♦ will go down more often not". I have found stronger logical arguments in grand ma's recipe books. After I posted this hand, I had an opportunity to talk to a player who's National and World champion, at the Burlingame regional. This is how he responded. First of all, he didn't start out by dismissing the problem as "obviously 6♦ rates to make, so bid it". He did say that we should be bidding more, as partner doesn't need much. Not much disagreement there, as I noted myself in the original post. I pointed out that I have only 3 ♦s and if he partner has only a five-bagger, we may have a trump loser in 6♦, while 6♣ could easily be better. He suggested that you should try 5nt as you're happy with any choice partner makes. If he bids 6♣ you're happier. If all he could do was bid 6♦ you are no worse than bidding 6♦ directly and you know that there was probably no other better strain.

I have never really understood the point of posts such as this. If I was counting votes for or against 6♦ it might have occurred to me to conduct a simple poll. When I post an article instead, the intent is to invite opinions which provide some insight on the topic, not to learn about how vehemently you feel about one choice or another. As a general rule when I (and presumably others) post a one-line response, it is because I don't consider the problem interesting enough for actual discussion, which does not necessarily mean it is a bad problem, but just that it is not the kind of problem that one analyzes at length. I don't know what else you want, it is just obvious that we will make 6♦ most of the time, and they may save in 6♠. Posting a question in the advanced/expert forum, I would expect you to understand this. If you want a detailed explanation to an obvious question, ask in B/I or maybe some other subforum. If you don't consider the problem interesting enough for a non-cryptic response, please feel free to post nothing at all. I have seen several of your one-liners to "obvious" problems before. A lot of problems seem obvious to rank beginners or true experts. Since you are obviously not a member of the latter group, you probably belong in the former group, one which I am not particularly anxious to hear from.

I have never really understood the point of posts such as this. If I was counting votes for or against 6♦ it might have occurred to me to conduct a simple poll. When I post an article instead, the intent is to invite opinions which provide some insight on the topic, not to learn about how vehemently you feel about one choice or another.

This came up at the Caltech bridge club. My feeling was that 3♠ should be choice of games and that it would be a strong favorite opposite a partner who would understand it. However, partner and I had not played much and I had no idea how he would take 3♠, so I guessed to bid 3NT. This ended up getting me a good board as it turned out (3NT made, field was not in game). After the hand I commented that I thought this was a somewhat interesting bidding problem. John Jones, who was one of my opponents at the table, said he thought it was clear to bid 4♥. This surprised me since a 4♥ call was pretty far down my list of alternatives (after all of 3♠, 3NT, 4♣). Talking to some other Los Angeles area experts (such as Leo Bell and Jeff Goldsmith), it seems that 4♥ is the universal action among that crowd, although the others did not seem to feel it was quite as much as "what's the problem" call as John Jones. It's interesting that bridge runs in cliques as much as it does -- all the people I talked to in Los Angeles are reasonably regarded as expert players (several had national or world championship titles)... but these forums have a number of people reasonably regarded as experts as well, and here it seems like 3♠ has a very strong following. It might also be an age-related thing. The only thing I mind more than a "wtp" answer to a non-wtp problem is "it depends on your agreements" :) If you haven't discussed this with your partner, chances are there're a lot of others who wouldn't have and probably never will. If we need an agreement in only half the bidding situations discussed in the forum in six months, your systems notes would begin to look like the Yellow Pages of a major metropolitan area. Any system needs certain axioms, and bidding theory can't be an exception. But the way bridge theory has developed over time is so full of proof-by-construction and actual examples that very soon it becomes unrealistic to hope to derive logical answers to situations that you haven't encountered before. Too late to wish that Pure Mathematicians and language theorists could have been the ones that contributed to the development of bridge systems.

Swiss Teams. That's the problem with hand-dealt deals with no hand records. Dummy's trumps spots are pretty good, the Ten and Nine as it turns out.

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=saxxxhakxxxdxcqxx&s=sjxhqxxxdakxxxcax]133|200|Scoring: IMP 2♦ (Flannery) - 3♣ (Slam try in ♥) 4♦ (Splinter) - 4♠ (RKC) - 4NT[0 or 3]- 6♥[/hv] A small trump is led. To all those who say "I don't do Flannery" here's one for you, it helped avoid a Spade lead. Now all you have to do is make it. Diamonds need to behave obviously. If trumps are 2-2, you can play it on auto-lines, giving up a Spade trick at some point before claiming. A 3-1 trump trump break will need the club King on-side and some careful handling. How best to combine the two chances ? I'd like to hear if there're some other chances besides the ones mentioned.

I too concluded for the same reasons, that East most likely doesn't have the ♠K. I drew two rounds ending in hand, both following suit, West producing the ♥Q on the second round. I played a spade toward dummy now, hoping that even if West could go up with the King, he may not know to shift to ♦s, looking at the QT in dummy. He thought for a quite a while before playing low; what are the chances that the declarer would "give up" on the Spade finesse with AQ in his hand ? The entire hand: [hv=d=w&v=b&n=sj5hkt873dqtc8543&w=skt642hq4da9532ct&e=s93hj92dk874ckq72&s=saq87ha65dj6caj96]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] Yes, the bidding was less than enterprising on this hand, I'm pretty sure most pairs would come in with 2-suiter bid of some sort with either DONT or Capelletti. If he had a 2-4-6-1 hand with King empty sixth of Diamonds, he may not have opened a WK2 in first chair and later have had systemic trouble in intervening with a 4-6 hand. With that hand he might have more trouble going up with the ♠K.

It feels like you've been defending all day in the Burlingame regional over the weekend in the Stratified Pairs event. The randomness of the field is about what you'd expect, but it feels worse when you have had as little control over the game as you've had due to paucity of cards. But you do get to play a hand toward the end of the second session. [hv=d=w&v=b&n=sj5hkt873dqtc8543&s=saq87ha65dj6caj96]133|200|Scoring: MP (p) - p (p)- 1NT (p)- 2♦ (p) - 2♥ all pass[/hv] ♣T is led, RHO playing the ♣Q. It looks like a trump-pulling-spade-finessing hand for +110 or +140 for surely they'll take their ♦ tricks when they get in.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s3haq87daq4cakqt4]133|100|Scoring: IMP (2s)-p-(4s)-X-(p)-5d-(p)-?[/hv] Partner doesn't need much for a slam. ♦KJxxx[x] may be all that he needs, as the heart finesse may be on as well. Do you to think this is worth one more bid and if so is there anything better than 6♦ ?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s3haq87daq4cakqt4]133|100|Scoring: IMP (2s)-p-(4s)-X-(p)-5d-(p)-?[/hv] Partner doesn't need much for a slam. ♦KJxxx[x] may be all that he needs, as the heart finesse may be on as well. Do you to think this is worth one more bid and if so is there anything better than 6♦ ?

I was going to post something in these lines. Agree with every word. As to what spade to play trick 2, wasting a J or 10 now is foolish. Carding methods have nothing to do with it when dummy has Q9x, so whatever the carding, you play small so as not to give declarer an extra trick free. Also in this hand, North knows the spade length (from bidding) and strength (looking at dummy) himself with no help from South. Looking at the dummy I'd play the ♠J (assuming UDCA) making it clear I don't have any interest in spades. Yes it may set up a spade trick, but so what ? Looking at the robust holdings in minor suits, what good could a delayed spade trick do for declarer ? Partner should have worked out that the club was stiff, but we should have less trouble working out that playing anything but a highly discouraging spade will only confound him further.

When I was reading one of the responses in another thread, the one on a 9-count with a singleton, I was reminded of a hand that came up recently. [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sqjxxhxxdxcaxxxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] LHO opens 1♦, partner overcalls 1♠, RHO makes a negative X. Your call. If you think xxxx x AJxx KTxx was worth a 4♠ bid opp a 3rd seat 1♠ bid, you no doubt think this is worth bidding game as well, although this is MP and both opponents are bidding, but do those considerations matter to the adherents of that school of thought ? You're playing 3♦ to show a mixed raise and 4♣ would be fit-showing. Even if you think you're going to bid game eventually are there any tactical advantages in bidding a fit-showing 4♣ bid on the way so partner's in the picture or do you simply bid 4♠ to force opponents to guess before they have had a chance to define their hands at all ? Given the colors, opponents will be inclined to double you readily if you press them too hard. Any considerations about 4♣ being lead-directing against an enemy 5-level contract ?

I have sympathy for the side bid 7♦ only to find that the other side blasted into a better and more importantly, an easily makeable slam. But I don't agree with the "moral" of the story about avoiding bad teams. You would have landed in 7♦ regardless of who the opponents were. If you were playing a superior team, there's no guarantee that they'd bid the same way, as has been pointed out more than one poster here. I find it a lot more aggravating when good players or good teams get lucky than weaker ones. If this happened to my team I'd be glad it didn't happen when playing a crucial match against a better team.

An excellent point that Kit made (and Edmunte1 above) was that West wasn't necessarily leading a club to get a ruff. He was leading a club in order to establish and/or cash some club tricks, just as he would lead a low club from Kxx. So you can't draw any inference from his lead except that he's probably a good player who made an aggressive lead that seems to have worked well for his side. In your private score card you'd mark this board as "F", which can stand for "Fixed" among other alternatives. Oh BTW, spades were NOT breaking.

If you must make an aggressive lead, Diamond looks best, as given all the controls you have, partner is unlikely to have a king. But I wonder what their source of tricks is in 6♣ ? If dummy is short in hearts, as some people suggest, it's likely to come down with a lot of minor suit cards, as he wouldn't have bypassed spades with a black two suiter. For that matter I don't know why he'd jump to 5c with minors either. So I'm not sure whether we need to be aggressive or just make a passive trump lead here.

Double seems like the most flexible bid, but the follow-ups are also quite a few. One in particular, a response of 4 ♣ is particularly troubling as it robs you of 3nt at MP. If you do bid 3nt, would you expect partner to bid (or transfer to) 4h with a decent suit and some values ? I wanted to make it clear that you hold this hand in the balancing chair. It is LHO who opens 3♦.

It looks like East had two chances to do the right thing, either start with a low trump instead of the Jack or fly with the Ace on the first round of clubs and shoot back a trump as the actual play went.

Speaking of overcoming pre-empts, this hand generated some discussion in yesterday's compact KO in the Monterey regional. Your partner passes, Red vs White, your RHO bids 3s. You have a decision to make, with xx KTxxxx Axxx A.

It's been a while since I've visited the forum. Last time I was here, there was a spirited, if slightly prolonged debate about the merits of bypassing your own major when you have support for partner's, which was preceded by another debate about how to handle 1453 hands with non-reverse values after a 1d-1s start. These debates did go on seemingly forever and one could be forgiven for wishing that they'd stop. Well you got your wish, H_KARLUK seems to be firmly in control of this place now :o

Why not splinter ? May be because your hand contains neither a decent suit that can be a source of tricks for slam purposes nor very many controls ? A minimum splinter might look like KQJxx Axx x Axxx ?