sathyab

That's the other line of defense that could easily work here. Partner has four ♦s and three ♠s it looks like. And if his rounded suits are 3-3, heart shift shuts out dummy and we get our ♠s in time. What happens if partner has 2 ♥s and 4 ♣s ? Now with a ♥ shift, it appears that declarer makes 2♥s, and may be 2♣s, and 1 ♦ for sure, but if partner has ♠HTx which is what makes a ♠ shift successful, he will have trouble making two tricks in the suit before we take two tricks ourselves, right ? At the table I reasoned up to the point that we can beat it a trick if partner has three ♥s, but could not convince myself that it's right even when he has two ♥s, so I shifted to a ♠ which presented no problems as declarer did have KJTx Tx JT9x AKx. We know so much more about the hand than partner does, so ♦ continuation is unlikely to help partner to switch to a heart himself. He might switch to a ♠ however with HTx.

Hi Adam, I have no idea what's right here, but just wanted to say Great Job reaching the finals of Platinum Pairs !!!

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s9xhkj9xdxxcj9xxx&e=sq8xxhaxxxdkxxcxx]266|200|Scoring: IMP 1nt(12-14)-all pass D2 led[/hv] My favorite problem is "MP defense at T2", but prefixing that with an 'I' should make this easier. You can chuck any number of over-tricks as you see fit in an effort to beat this contact, as long as you can construct a reasonable lay-out. You're playing 4th best leads vs NT. You play mult-landy over 1nt. When you play the King at T1, it holds the trick, declarer playing a spot card lower than 7 (that's all I can remember, no hand records, this one's from the last match in the finals of OpenSwiss).

Let me get this: doubling 2♠ is foolish, doubling 3♣ thereafter is a misdemeanor but not a crime (thanks in advance for accepting my plea-bargain). But South merely "gambled" and won. Wow.

I think you are mixing us up with a different pair, we weren't actually in your session that round. But my story on this hand is not happy either. After 1NT pass I made the perhaps questionable decision to respond stayman and hope for a fit, which north doubled. When partner bid 2♥ and south bid 3♣ I thought 3♥ by me was just competitive but partner thought it was invitational and bid game. So the combination of all the decisions sent our score on a ride approximately like this: +90, +110, -110, -100, and finally to -200 for a big fat 0 of our own. Well not quite as fat as yours but just as useful. :rolleyes: Sorry about the mix-up. A while ago Larry Cohen was recommending Stayman on a similar hand, the theory being that the hand is pure and ought to play better in 2M if there's a fit (he was hoping to pass a 2♦ response from partner which may not at all work well, but that's the risk he takes I suppose). The most questionable bid is overcalling with the South hand and that of course is the one that gets the most reward.

The full hand turns out to be: [hv=d=e&v=e&n=s93h975dkj87ckqj8&w=sqj84hqjt8dt52c62&e=sa7ha643da643cat5&s=skt652hk2dq9c9743]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] I am all for getting in over 1nt when non-vul, but I must say that's one of the worst overcalls I have ever seen. The limited high cards you have are in short suits and to think of your clubs as a suit is a bad joke, but one that works on this hand. The best that EW can do on this hand is defend 2♠ for -1 for Avg-. When partner doubled, and I have a lot of sympathy for his action, North bid 2nt for minors and they found their club fit and I could not help doubling that with 4 Aces. Had my ♦ spot been the 9 instead of 6, a trump lead/shift holds 3♣ to 8 tricks. When partner led the ♥Q, I tried a low trump hoping partner had the stiff 9, and that declarer had overcalled on QJxxx Kx Q 7xxxx which honestly is a better overcall than the given hand. If my partner had the stiff 9 of ♣s, my trump gets promoted eventually for -2. But on this hand, 3♣ was cold. Most Souths pass this hand including jdonn's opponents, who in addition let him/his partner make 8 tricks in 1nt. Here're the MPs in our 3 section comparison (approximately the same elsewhere) on a 38 top. 1nt = +90 =====> 15 1nt +1, +120 =====> 34 1s -1, +50 =====> 13 3c=, -110 ======> 3 3xX=, -470 ======> -

Every time we have a sensible debate about such a topic or try to have one, there's the usual mandatory post such as this one. Let's ask the finalists in Vanderbilt the same question: you have to beat the #1 seed between day 2 and day 7 anyway, so why don't you play against the #1 seed on Day 2 ? In fact let's ask the #1 seed if they would prefer playing against #64 on Day 2 or say #12 ? There're lots of teams with varying skills between #1 and #64 and it does matter to some of us that we have to face #1 or #2 very early on whereas if we had the chance to play a team in the high 20's we might easily prevail, as we do in 4-way matches quite often.

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sqj84hqjt8dt52c62]133|100|Scoring: MP 1nt(15-17)-2s(S+m)-?[/hv] You're West. You play doubles at the 2-level as Penalty. When a major suit bid is natural, even if it includes another suit, you play 2nt as Lebensohl, so 2nt is not an option here. But I'll include it here just in case someone plays it as natural and furthermore thinks that 2nt is right for them. Likewise if someone plays double of 2s as Negative and if they think this is the right hand for it (unlikely), you can exercise that choice.

I am not sure I agree with your assertion about seeds below 40 being significantly better than their counterparts above 40. In the last three big team events I have always played on teams seeded 66 or worse and yet beaten seed #26, #29 and #25 in Nashville, Washington D.C and last week in Reno. Unfortunately all these were 4-way matches and we were seed #62, #64 and #63 going into the second day. Had we had the chance to play these teams in 64-board matches I have little doubt that we could have beaten them and acquired their seeds. That happened only twice, once in Las Vegas when we lost to Fred's team and once in Toronto 2001 when we beat seed #15 (were seeded #114).

Indeed, you can say that again. BTW, here's a question for all those who would consider sacrificing. What would you bid with that East hand over partner's 5♥ ?

Obv if you think they've guessed wrong most of the time or even close to but a bit less than half the time you should not save. IMO they have guessed right most of the time because given partners short hearts, and RHOs 7 card club suit, partner will have 3 clubs a lot. IMO it is just a question of how often partner will have 3 clubs. If partner has a heart void it's always right to save unless he's 4072 (seems quite unlikely). Partner might have a heart void a fair amount of time given that they went nuts without the AK of their long suit. If partner has a stiff heart and you think partner has 6 diamonds for a w/r 3D a lot, then he will almost always have 3 clubs. Given your preempting style I am surprised you don't think partner has 1-6 in the reds that often. Partner having a doubleton heart doesn't make sense to me given how nuts they went with a bad suit and a hand only worth 4C to begin with. So even though I think they've guessed wrong some of the time, I think most of the time they have gotten it right, so why shouldn't we save in that case? Another way of looking at it is, that for his cue-bid RHO is almost sure to have a ♦ void. Now if partner has seven ♦s, LHO has one. Chances of a stiff in both minors is considerably less than 1-2. If partner has only 6♦ on the other hand (and we did have a weak 2♦ available), now the odds of partner having 3 ♣s is higher. But are these considerations compelling enough to risk turning a small plus to a fairly big minus ?

Right on the money :( The problem with saving as you pointed out though is that when you can beat it a trick is when you're going for 800. I didn't think that a ♣ loser could disappear, so I saved IMPs by not doubling, but lost a lot more IMPs by not saving :lol: Here's what RHO had: [hv=d=n&v=e&n=s8xxxhdaqxxxxcxxx&w=saqjxhqtxxxxdjtcx&e=skxhakxxdcqjtxxxx&s=sxxxhjxxdkxxxxcak]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] How he figured partner for all the cards he had including a ♣ control for bidding 5♥ under pressure, we'll never know, but he apparently did. At the other table dealer didn't even open 2♦, let alone 3♦. It went 1♣-1♦-1♥-5♦-5♥- all pass.

Sure with Id such as yours why does it surprise me that you'd save ?:(

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=sxxxhjxxdkxxxxcak]133|100|Scoring: IMP 3d 4c 5d 5h p 6d p 6h all pass[/hv]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sak9xxhjxdqtxxcqx&w=sqtxxhat5xdxxxxcx&e=sjxxh87dxxcakjtxx&s=sxhkq96xdakjcxxxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP p 1s 3c 3h p 3s p 4h all pass[/hv] EW playing UDCA T1: ♣3, x, T, x T2: ♣A, x, ♦9, x T3: ♥8, 9, A, x Declarer pulls trumps and claims.

Two of my regular partners haven't played much in the Nationals in the last two or three years and two others who do qualify for PP can't make it to this event for one reason or another. So I'm looking to see if anyone out there might be looking for a partner. I play 2/1 with lots of gadgets. You can reach me directly at s_bettadapura@yahoo.com Thanks, Sathya

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sahkjtxdtxxct9xxx&s=sq64ha9xdaqjxcajx]133|200|Scoring: IMP 1d-1h 2n-3n S3 lead. RHO follows with the 5, std carding.[/hv] All of our suits seem to offer some chances. If we play on a red suit immediately, it'd appear that we'll get to use clubs only for a stopper, not a source of tricks, whereas if we play on clubs, the entry situation makes it tricky to play on other suits without letting RHO in, not to mention that we may need more than just split honors in the suit itself for the play to be productive.

Thanks for all the input and the Sim results. Here's the full hand: [hv=d=s&v=e&n=st9hkt75djt62ca75&w=saj54hj864d974c86&e=sq732h93dq3ckt942&s=sk86haq2dak85cqj3]399|300|Scoring: BAM 1d-1h 2n-3n[/hv] ♠ lead works a trick better than either ♣ or ♦. After a ♠ lead, double dummy declarer can still finesse the ♥J, then ♦s and make 10 tricks. But in practice he's likley to make only 9 and that's what happened at teammates' table. Tired of leading fourth best from balanced hands and always wondering at dinner break why I did, I decided to go passive and lead a ♣. Partner took the King and saw no reason to attack ♠s. Had he had the ♠8, this would have cost us big. In any case he continued ♣s, taken in dummy, ♦ finesse. Soon declarer discovered that I had 3-2 in the minors and therefore not more than 4 ♠s and finessed ♥s confidently after partner followed to rounds of the suit, making 4 :(

If you have a combined HCP in the range of 28-30 with two balanced/semi-balanced hands I think a 5-3 major fit produces almost as many or more tricks or at NT as it does in a major suit. There were several examples from LM pairs and Blue Ribbon pairs. But it's probably rarer for a 4-4 major fit not to outperform 3nt with normal breaks. So my feeling is that LHO is a lot more likely to have five hearts and still bid 3nt rather than 4-4 in majors.

Actually I was thinking of posting this even earlier. In my private score sheet I had charged myself a half-board for this hand There appeared to be conflicting considerations here, so it seemed like a good candidate for a poll. It's just a coincidence that we exchanged notes about it earlier today. I'll wait for a bit and post the full lay-out and also the results at other tables.

As I noted myself, a lot of players who play in the Reisinger do so knowing that they'd have a much easier time playing in the North American Swiss. So of course it's their choice to play in a tougher event. I see a fundamental inconsistency in arguing that playing in tough Nationals events is a reward in itself and awarding a ton of Platinum points for a 13th finish in Women's BAM. The fact is that Platinum Points count in you seeding at events like Vanderbilt or Spingold presumably (?) It definitely affects your eligibility for Platinum Pairs in Spring Nationals (I have enough PP to qualify, so that's not the motivation here), Other category of master points have long been rendered meaningless given the ease with which you can amass them in Bracketed KO games in regionals. When they came up with the idea of Platinum Points I was hopeful that, it'd be one category of points that would mean something. Competing in Open events must mean something special. If you must award Platinum Points for 13th finish in Women's BAM can't you come up with something different for Reisinger, say Weapons Grade Uranium ? May be just 0.86 Points, but WGU all the same :P

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=saj54hj864d974c86]133|100|Scoring: BAM 1d-1h 2n-3n[/hv] Opener does not deny four ♠s; responder could have checked back for 5-3 ♥ fit or 4-4 ♠ fit if he wanted to.

Not really. You have answered my question, not sort of, but definitively :) I have always thought the master point award for an event should reflect the degree of difficulty. But you're suggesting that some events like Reisinger are beyond master points, that virtue has to be its own reward.

Having just read all the discussion by awards of master points in on-line games and Robot tournaments, I thought I'd vent my own a bit. When I was riding the Trolley in San Diego from the Petco parking lot toward the end of the tournament, I ran into an acquaintance from the Bay Area who was absolutely thrilled that she had won a lot of Platinum points in Women's BAM. At first I didn't even recognize what the event was. I knew there was a Women's Pairs event that runs concurrently with the Open LM pairs event, but didn't know there was also a Women's BAM concurrent with the Open BAM. I looked her up in the on-line recaps and discovered that each of her team members had won 25 Platinum Points for finishing 13th in the event, with a score of 25 on an average of 27 ! ! (If you had 25 on an average of 26 in the Reisinger it'll probably cost you a dime more to make a phone call from a pay-phone) There are a lot of teams that enter the Reisinger, knowing that the odds are against their making it to the second day, let alone the finals. They figure that if they all play their best and have some luck they might make it to the semi-finals of what's probably the toughest event in NABC. Any team that misses qualifying for the next day by a narrow margin could most likely qualify easily in the North American Swiss and have a shot at making it to the finals probably. You get very little if you merely make it to the second day of Reisinger, probably a fraction of a Platinum point, if at all. I always used to think that Platinum points meant something, but in the light of what I have recently learnt, there're Platinum Points and there're Platinum Points just like any other kind. Sigh.

Bingo ! You have to win the first trick in dummy, as otherwise you lack entries to ruff clubs. If you win the first trick in hand, even if trumps break 3-2, you will make only 7 tricks when the ♥ finesse is off. And if you were careless enough to play the ♥A and then the Jack, LHO can win, return a ♥ for RHO to ruff. If trumps were 4-1, now you're down 2 :) Win the first trick in dummy and play a ♣. RHO wins and returns a trump. Now you have to figure out whether opponents have doubled a non-vulnerable 2♠ with 23 HCP between them if trumps were breaking 3-2 ? 3♠ would be doubled even if trumps were 3-2, but it'd be surprising if good opponents would double 2♠ as readily. If you back up your conviction, play the ♠8 from hand, ruff a ♣, cash two ♥s refusing the finesse, ruff the last ♣ and claim your contract. Here's the entire hand:[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sq942ha54dt8643ct&w=s6hqt762dk52ck862&e=sjt75h93daqj7caqj&s=sak83hkj8d9c97543]399|300|Scoring: BAM[/hv] Note that it takes a small ♠ lead, followed by a ♠ and then ♥s to beat 2nt. If you start with a high ♠ lead, 2nt is unbeatable.