CSGibson

Any thoughts about a 2N call here? Its what I wound up choosing at the table, but I thought this a very tough problem - 2N is almost never natural for us in these auctions, but I didn't think it possible to be two-places-to-play, which is our default meaning when partner has not made a call, so I thought it should show, well, this hand - a hand with red stoppers and a good club suit that is the feature of the hand, a trick-taking hand.

I want to add some thoughts to this problem/discussion. At the table I bid 3♠. The reason I did so was because I thought it was right with the law of total tricks - they have at least a 9 card heart fit, and if partner has 3 hearts, she is almost iron-clad guaranteed to have 4 spades. At a minimum, that has 17 total tricks, and partner might have 2 or fewer hearts. Someone is probably making a 3 level contract, and the colors are right just in case it isn't us. Partner's lack of competition, and my decision not to double both may have more to do with the fact that we are still feeling each other out in these competitive situations a little more than a year into our partnership. I don't want to risk partner thinking that X is suggesting defending 3♥, especially since my firm belief is that it is likely to make - and partner would not automatically compete with 4 spades, especially if she was afraid of pushing them into game, a fear I do not share with my relatively defensive hand opposite partner's values. Anyway, I really respect the law in these competitive situations, and I know that Timo has frequently cited that as a resource as well, so I was surprised it did not make an appearance in this discussion previously, though the responsive double tangent may have distracted from that aspect of the problem.

Before I say anything, I have to disclose information which may inform my opinion. First of all, I am part of the district 20 NAP/GNT committee responsible for advising and helping the D20 NAP/GNT coordinator when putting on these events. Secondly, I was the person to originally suggest the online format for the GNTs, and I wrote the initial proposal for how the event should be run that was sent to the district board when they approved the format. I have also served as a proctor for the GNTs, and participated in three online GNT competitions (two open, one flight B) to go along with this NAP experience. I thought it went reasonably well, for the most part. The first time you do anything like this there will be kinks, and this was no exception to that general rule. We held our flight B & C competition on Saturday, and players had trouble registering for the tournament, with the alert procedure, and posting online convention cards. People also reportedly dropped off the network every once in a while. Previously our district had done a 3-site NAP, with the winner from each site (Northern Oregon, Northern California, and Hawaii) going on to the nationals. This was kind of horrible for many reasons, and it was worsened when our district added a 4th playing site in Boise, ID; now the top 3 winners by percentage would be going to the nationals, but they would not play anybody from different playing sites, and the number of players (as well as the talent of the players) was not distributed equally between the four sites, so that it was possible that the best pairs would all be at the same site, but not get to nationals because the strength of the field was so much greater at that site. Proctored online play was a godsend to solve this problem. Personally, I don't find it anywhere near as enjoyable as face to face bridge, and I don't think I play as well online - I've developed some table feel over the years, but it is harder to employ online. Also, I miss the social aspect - we had to rush through boards. Its harder to get questions answered - my partner and I were frequently asking private questions, but people were not concentrating on the chat box, and it was hard for them to notice since it was encouraged to have the sound off (it was irritating to have swish, swish, swish through 8 computers at the same playing site as cards were played). Proctored online play also allowed some cross-region pairings - in fact, the pair that beat us out for 2nd (by less than 4 matchpoints) had a player from Portland and a player from Honolulu, something that has never happened before in our district because of the distance issues. The open flight pairs had many fewer problems, but the attendance was way down because of the negative backlash against online play and because it was poorly advertised that you needed to pre-register two weeks in advance, something that was never required for our district in face to face play. The latter issue probably has more to do with the timing of the acbl approval in august relative to our competition date, and will obviously get better with time as it becomes expected. Overall I was pleased with the results, but I still will look forward to playing meaningful competitions face to face at nationals, should we elect to go.

We play responsive doubles as showing either majors or minors, it would have ostensibly denied 4 spades, but it's an interesting idea - I could have made a responsive double then bid 3♠, showing a 3-suiter possibly...

[hv=pc=n&w=sk964h3dt962ca764&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1hd2h2s3hpp]133|200[/hv] We use traditional take-out doubles (ie, not off-shape). If partner has 3 hearts, she will always have extra values and/or 4 spades. NAOP, Matchpoints

[hv=pc=n&w=shakjdqt7caqj9652&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1h2cpp2d]133|200[/hv] NAOP, Matchpoints

[hv=pc=n&w=s9hkq976543d92ct8&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1s3hp3n4s]133|200[/hv] 3♥ may have been a wimpy bid, but that's what you did. Now what? NAOP, Matchpoints

Matchpoints, goodish field, not great opponents. You are playing precision, so I'm going to give you context for this auction: 1♦ is our catchall opener. It is 10-15 HCP, could be 0 diamonds if 4=4=0=5 shape. If I have 6 or more diamonds, then I will have 13-15 HCP. 4♦ is a splinter for spades. [hv=pc=n&w=saq93h3daq543cqj2&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1d(10-15%20HCP%2C%200+%20diamonds)p1hp1sp4d(splinter%20for%20spades)p]133|200[/hv] 4♥ would be last train, 4N 1430. Partner's splinter is not really limited - its any hand which thinks slam is possible if diamond wastage isn't an issue, but which wants to kick it to me. So clearly if you want to bid this scientifically you could bid 5♦...but do you want to bid this scientifically at matchpoints?

No, they did not let anyone know their matchpoint score until the end. We wound up 3rd, 4th place was 1/100th of a match point behind us, 2nd was 3.2 matchpoints ahead of us. I made mistakes enough to have cost us money for sure, and probably first place. Not sure if we are going to Dallas or not, yet; I might hold a bake sale or carwash :).

Also, I assume I will post problem hands from these sets afterwards. Feel free to publicly mock any decisions I made.

ACBL members may know that a resolution was passed by the board of directors over the summer allowing NAP contests to be held online if a district chooses. Today (Sunday the 27th) District 20 will hold its flight A NAP trials online. Kibitzers are welcome. The trials start at 3PM EST/12PM PST/8PM GMT, and will continue over two sessions. This is district 20 of the ACBL. Notable pairs include Marc Zwerling and Mark Tolliver, who have finished 2nd in the Blue Ribbons playing together, and, of possible interest to BBO Forumers, myself and Chris Wiegand. Trials will not be on viewgraph; they will be in the tournament section of BBO.

When asked about our carding we disclose that we play UDCA with standard and frequent suit preference, and then will say that we rarely give count unless we think there is an obvious need, prefering suit preference instead. I think a general inquiry about carding should include a description of agreements and how they are typically applied if they are different than the norm. The problem is that people with less experience may not be aware of the norm.

You have transferred to the minor because either you want to suggest the minor as a place to play or to make a slam try. Both evaluations are helped by bidding shortness (below 3N, anyway). If you want to cue aces and kings, you can do that above 3N.

Yes, the reasons I gave already are all of them, though.

After a preempt, I would probably make a take-out double with N, and then S would have to be restrained to avoid grand - they would definitely drive to 6.

evaluating fit vs shortness is key in these sequences. You have transfered to the minor because either you want to suggest the minor as a place to play or to make a slam try. Both evaluations are helped by bidding shortness (below 3N, anyway). If you want to cue aces and kings, you can do that above 3N. For example, shortness opposite KQTx would probably elicit a 3N, suggesting lots of wastage and a bad fit, in context. Shortness opposite xxx or Axx would, on the other hand, have a return cue and almost a drive to a minor suit slam. These evaluations are equally valid vs a super accept and a non-superaccept, no matter what your criteria points are for those bids.

I don't know if anyone has asked in another thread, but how did you wind up?

I would bid 3♠ as N, S would bid 3N, N would bid 4♥, and S would pass. There is no need to move toward slam as S with 7 points in diamonds, and opposite a passed hand partner, with a preempt indicating possible bad splits, and a decent chance of a ruff on opening lead. I don't mind michaels, but I feel like partner will choose hearts with 2-2, so I want to bid my suits in length order. If partner does not raise or correct to 3N, then I am probably happy to be in 3♠ anyway.

I count 3 club tricks, 2 spade tricks, 2 spade ruffs, 1 diamond trick, and the Q of hearts for 1100, if you figure it all out.

You have substantially changed the bidding, not 100% sure I'd double here, but I'd want to take a look. Now that I've taken a look, I am letting 4♠ go - its not the field auction, I think I'm ahead as long as they play 4♠, I don't need to double to beat the field in a matchpoint event, I think, and I'm not sure I'm beating 5♦. I am no longer sure what I am going to lead, either. I would want to ask N what 3H would have meant from S, and see if I can discern why the auction went the way it did - which suit is N afraid of for having pulled 3N to 4S.

Since the problem changed, this comment is no longer relevant.

In one partnership, over a weak NT, we play 2N over 1N as natural, 18-20. I don't necessarily think that's best, but its a partnership that placed in the only national event that we ever played together, so its not like its a partnership of complete idiots.

The auction is right, changing the directions in the explanation to match the diagram.

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1n(11-13)2n(Hearts%20%26%20clubs...)4h(Transer%20to%20spades)ppp]133|100[/hv] So here's the situation - 4 people, all friendly at the table. 1N is alerted as 11-13. 2N is conventionally clubs and hearts, but E doesn't remember, so he thinks for about 3 seconds, then says "That's not natural" in a low but audible voice. Neither opponent asks follow-ups, and they have an accident because one of them thinks 4♥ is a transfer, and the other thinks 4♥ is to play. N-S have been playing for about 7-8 years, and are young, improving players who, in your experience, ask about alerts before bidding - in fact, N-S claimed that they did not ask because they did not recognize "that's not natural" as an alert, and when it was asked in the play of the hand, E actually indicated that 2N was for the minors. 4♠ makes on normal play, and 4♥ went down 6. The misinformation in the play did not materially change the result of the hand. Your ruling? Edited to make explanation match the diagram, referenced wrong directions in the explanation originally

Double. I have a marginal hand for offense, and a decent hand for defense, plus enough values to make this worthwhile.