bluecalm

Yeah. For now it seems Nickell had a lot of luck to keep it even. My impression from yesterday was that Ivatury team played better bridge. Keep it up!

Surprisingly I like the idea :) I would change meaning of: 1♦ to be normal takeout double (10)11-14hcp 2♣ natural, 6+ like 2C opener (this one is very important imo) 1NT as both majors 5+-4+ 8-14 dbl 15+ I have a feeling that one can collect a lot of penalties against vul 1C openers using this.

Yeah, I didn't put it correctly. Thanks for the correction.

No. I am not big fan of this rule but people here insist on playing it and I don't mind much red vs white. 3♦ - 3♠ - 5♦ - pass is forcing according to this rule. My personal preference is to scratch it :)

:) For what's it worth it's probably biased towards 2♣ according to my theorem about NTvsSuit which says that first lead matters much more vs NT and declarers makes more tricks in NT comparing to double dummy than in suit contracts. I have no prove what so over only some empirical evidence. Humanity will have to wait for stronger arguments :)

It's not sure thing if matchpoint difference between -130 and -710 will be small despite being smaller than between +100 and +200. You also didn't mention matchpoint difference between -200 and -130 which will be huge and difference between -100 and -130 which may not be that big. Having an option to let them play 4♦ not doubled when we are clearly not making 4♥ and they will often make is valuable option imo. It's not like forcing pass is magically solving all the problems. It increases our bidding precision just a bit but it costs an option of passing it out, this option needs to be worth close to nothing to make forcing pass worthwhile. In such sequencies like yours it's not even sure thing what should pass mean. Usually FP should show something specific, like shortness in their suit to make partner's decisions simple. Here FP would mean: "Partner I think we could belong to 4♥ despite me not forcing to game and rejecting your invite before, but please don't pass!" While normal not forcing pass would mean: "I don't see any reasons to double them nor to think 4♥ makes, what do you think ?". I don't see what you could gain by pass being forcing here really.

Why didn't he bid 2♠ round before ?

Close one imo. 4♠ at imps seems clear. At MP's looks like a toss-up to me. I might bid 4♠ because they are very unlikely to double me and they could have 130 available in diamonds. I would hate to bid 3♠ now and find myself in reopening spot after 4♦ from LHO.

My forcing pass rules: a)When we forced to game below game b)When they clearly wanted to play only partscore and then are bidding over our game contract c)If we make strong redouble (forcing up to 2NT) or we make strong double over their 1NT (forcing after 2m by them) d)If they jump preempt to 5level being white vs us being red That's about it. Simple obvious rules and no guessing game. I also like to play that every double is t/o if we didn't have agreed suit regardless if it's forcing or not forcing situation to avoid further confusion but this is probably too modern for most :) Also possible is to add: e)if we forced ourselves to 2M pass is forcing below 2M (drury etc.) but this doesn't hold on 3level of course (because in competitive auctions overcall could be really weak and we don't want to bid 3M despite partner making limit raise forcing us to). Some people I know like the rule: f)if we bid game being red vs white but I think it's a weak rule. I would happily play it if we change "game" to 3NT though and maybe even extend it to every 3NT bid which must be constructive (like 1m - 3NT) but I would have to think about it. (I am really not comfortable playing 1D - 2C - 3NT - 4C - pass as forcing if they are vul and we are not at imps).

1. Very difficult imo, I think I pass. 2. Pass imo. 3. 2♥ and I don't see any alternative actions 4. Double about what I should have for this. 5. Yeah, 1NT. 1♠ could be possible if it's 4th suit which is not forcing to game (so I could pass 1NT rebid). Playing in clubs doesnt looks too good if partner is 3-4-1-5 (his most likely shape in this auction).

Weak rules. I am sorry but it doesn't make sense to play that way. For example: 1H - 1S - 2S(limit+) 3S 4H - 4S - pass would be forcing here which is beyond bad (and the reason some parterships adopt 2S as exactly limit raise and 2NT as forcing raise (or other way around))

Not really as I try to objectively (by analysing, asking better players etc.) assess if I made a mistake. Only if I think I made a mistake I "score it" by "real cost". This gives me the same expected sum of mistakes as analyzing every error separately and trying to guess what EV it had (which imo is impossible). Result merchant would assume that every play which isn't successful is a mistake which I don't do. This is only matter of naming stuff. In you example we could as well say "if you do this (the best action) your EV is 0, while if you do other thing you would lose 1imps compared to your best action). I think assuming that there are only mistakes and 0 plays makes it easier to think about problems.

If the computer is that super intelligent no action has +EV comapred to actions made by it. Assuming you just made a mistake of 1 imp and your partner bid optimally you of course get 100% of blame. Now if we are to quantify how big your mistake was there are 2 ways of doing this: a)you just get "real" cost which is -10imps b)you get EV of your mistake which is -1imp Both are equivalent, a) just has more variance as you don't "pay" on hands where your mistake didn't matter but pay a lot of if they does matter. My favorite methods of assessing my performance is a) as it's easier to calculate. Sometimes I will get more blame than I should and sometimes less but it will even out.. ;) What you can't do (but some people try to) is to count EV of mistake on hands when mistake mattered but don't count mistakes on hands when they didn't or (much more rare) count "real" blame for mistakes which mattered and add some for boards when they didn't.

What would dbl/3♥/4♥ mean round before from partner ? It's difficult to assess the problem without knowing the answer to those questions. It seems to me that partner is likely in lower range now so I signoff in 4♠ but I think that other ways of playing that makes sense too. Just very difficult without any prior discussion.

1)You could double 1NT. The hand is borderline and depends on soundness of your openers imo. I prefer doubling playing standardish agreements. Don't double 4♥ though for reasons already explained 2).You partner probably doesn't have much matchpoint survival instinct. Even if he couldnt' double 1♠ for penalty he should've bid 1NT. In NT tricks are for 40-30-30 while in diamonds for 20-20-20 and it's not even sure thing if you have more diamonds than them. Many hands with 5 weakish diamonds should strive to bid 1NT. Having four of them is not an option.

Thanks guys. During the hand I thought double couldn't be penalty (cause we in general don't play too much penalty doubles around here) so 4♣ has to show clubs. I now changed my mind to double being penalty and 4♣ pass/correct. This is also what my partner had in mind bidding 4♣. As is happens opponents took their 1700 on the hand as I raised clubs and we ended up in 3-3 fit doubled. Good thing it was bbo ;)

!? As all Italian elite pairs play it I would be more worried about not playing it :)

My gut feeling is to win this, play A♦ and K♦. If they split play for ruffing finesse of K♥ if they don't, draw last trump and play spade to the jack. I don't have much analysis to offer besides the fact that lead is often from singleton after this auction.

Penalty imo. With 5-5 or 6-4 I could bid 3♦ now. Partner made t/o double of clubs and we are both passed hands. I can't see what kind of "competitive" double makes sense here as he will never leave it and I can bid my side suit naturally. With both majors I could've bid 2♦ round before.

I was about to post that it has to be another poll with 100% on obvious bid but then I thought I will first see the results... I think without one of the Q's it becomes close. Most people in my area would still double but I guess we in Poland double a bit more often than standard. The biggest problem with 1♠ is that they will bid something and we will be forced to double or bid 2♠ neither conveying what we have. If we double first and then bid 2♠ (or 3♠ if they jump) our problems in the hand are over.

I don't know why you guys are making fun of him. 4♣ as natural makes a lot of sense and 4♦ as forcing also makes a lot of sense. That in fact would be my preferred agreements in the sequence. Bidding 3♥ doesn't sound like bright idea though. We could still be 5-5/6-5 in majors and partner will raise us with 3 hearts here.

Oh, we are talking about completely different treatment then. In Poland we use "lebensohl" to describe 2NT bid which is a signoff in a suit below opponents suit and sometimes have strong hands mixed in (like 4OM without/with stop in their suit). We use it after double over weak two bids and after overcalls after our 1NT opener. I thought it's standard I am very surprised if it's not.

Yeah but... if the field is huge still the luckiest win most of the time unless we play very long event with hundreds of boards, maybe not the luckiest but the luckiest from those who played well.

Interesting, so what is treatment you are familiar with ? (assuming std lebensohl, no transfers etc.)

1NT 2♠ 2NT 3♠ 4♣ = ? 2NT is lebenoshl - sign off with any suit. What does 4♣ mean now ?