rogerclee

Pass. I do not think this is close.

I'd call this "assign the blame", but there's not a whole lot to blame for, I think. Still, I'm interested in seeing how people feel about the choices this pair made on this deal. [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sjxxhakjdktxxcaxx&s=skqxht7xxxxdxc9xx]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1NT - (2♦) - 2♥ - (P) P - (2♠) - P - (P) P 2♦ - Natural 2♥ - Competitive, nonforcing How do you feel about both North and South's decisions to sell out to 2♠? On the actual deal, 3♥ makes when you guess to finesse the heart, and 2♠ seems to drift off 1.

1) Pass. I cannot begin to develop a logical alternative. 2) 3♥. With better shape I would blast. 3N could work but I am never bidding it.

This hand is too good (by a lot).

I feel like the logic behind not playing a forcing pass here (and anywhere) is so that your choices do not get reduced to either going -550 or -500. How can that possibly be the case here? 5♠x-3 is incredibly unlikely; we will hold at least 20 hands that want a forcing pass for every hand that is going down 3 in 5♠ with 5♦ making. Given just the auction and vulnerability, what percentage of the time do you think the 5♦ bidder is bidding to make? What percentage of the time do you think the 4♠ bidder has done it on such cheese that he is not at least sawing off 5♦ anyway? It is not like it went 1♠-2♦-4♠-5♦.

Pass (forcing, I hope) and pull double to 5♠ or raise 5♠ to 6♠. Not sure what pass and pull to 5♥ really says. As a meta-rule, I like passes to be forcing after the opps have preempted, we have bid game, the opps have bid over it, and they are not unfavorable. I like to play more forcing passes than most people though.

Declarer is not bad enough to overruff when he can simply discard a loser.

This seems right to me. I was declaring and learned never to auto-play a suit combination ever again.

I'd open this 1N (and call this a maximum) and have no serious opposition to 1♦.

The most important part of having a good time on BBO is knowing a lot of people. Get to know some of the players on the forums who are nice and probably about your skill level and you should have a good time.

1) IMPs, White vs Red, Second Seat ♠84 ♥void ♦AK8754 ♣AQJ92 (1♣*) - 1♦ - (1♠**) - Dbl (2♠) - 4♣ - (P) - 4♦ (P) - ? *2+ **Majors 2) IMPs, All White, First Seat ♠AJ94 ♥A6 ♦643 ♣K865 1♣ - (P) - 1♥ - (2♦) P - (3♣) - 3♥ - (3NT) ?

1) Is this for matching up good players or matching up mediocre-okay ones? 2) I feel like putting something down about temper is probably good, except it has the fault that a grumpy person is pretty likely to lie about his grumpiness rating. 3) General aggressiveness, in terms of overcalling and competing.

Here's another auction in 2/1: 1♠ - 2♥ 3♠ - 4♣ 4♥ <-- Natural? The issue here is that responder has, in no way, promised a good heart suit. It makes sense to agree here that 4♥ is not a shortness cue, but it does not make sense to offer 4♥ as a contract, since opener did not raise to 3♥. I agree that you can construct a few 6-3 hands that want to bid this way, but the default (and I believe, superior) agreement is to play 4♥ a cuebid.

1) 5♥, not close. 2) 4♥, not close. Will have to pass 5♦.

I agree with this. 5♣ for me.

Please show me a few. I don't recall ever being discomfited by this old Acol rule, and have seen many times where it helped. I can well imagine that, if the partnership puts no price on a proliferation of detailed agreements, this rule like any simple rule will be slightly non-optimum on occasion. But you said "very obviously." 2/1: 1♠ - 2♥ 2♠ - 3♠ 4♦ - 4♥ <--Natural, suggesting to play? Here is a nice auction generator. 1) Open a suit. Bid a major. 2) Agree on the suit unambiguously. Even cue in the suit. 3) Return to 4M.

3♠, not particularly close.

Not only do I disagree with this "rule", I don't even see how it is playable. Maybe you should change it to "return to 4 of a major is always a place to play when we have not agreed any other suit." It is easy to generate a lot of auctions where returning to 4M is very obviously not natural.

Pass both times. We already preempted; I don't see any reason to offer up 800 or more.

2♣ then 2NT seems pretty clear. I think if I had a small diamond instead of the K, I'd still open 2♣ and rebid 2N. I'd have 8 tricks in hand, and if I open 1♣, I will play it there too much of the time when a game (slam?) our way is cold.

Next problem - does N sit for the x? I wouldn't, but that spade void is really convincing.

I have less of a problem doubling than some other people, I guess. Yeah, they could make it, but if pass isn't an option, and you can't bid...

Both opponents know as soon as I lead a heart that I have exactly 10 tricks in the minors. Say LHO has the ♥A. LHO knows that if he ducks, it will be at least 11 tricks for me. If I had the ♠A, that gives me 12 and he gains nothing by ducking. If I don't, then he also gains nothing by ducking, since he can lead a spade at T3. Say RHO has the ♥A. If he has the ♥Q, he should cash before leading a spade, since if I have the ♠A, that gives me 11 anyway. If he doesn't, there are still some positions where he should continue hearts (example: if he has ♠QJ he knows that I cannot just have the K, so I have A or AK, so I am trying to steal, so he should play hearts). So I'd say that ♥ at T2 never gains and will lose a little more than a quarter of the time against very good opposition. Whether I expect my opps to think like this, I don't know--I assume this was in an NABC+ event where the opponents are pretty good. At a local regional against unknown opposition, I think a heart makes a lot more sense. Maybe I give my opps too much credit. Maybe I am just trying to justify a bad decision... :)

Even if you get to game like always, arent they making 2D a fair amount? And even if theyre going down and you're going down it's a very small swing. Probably if you are going to make game 1 every 6 times you want to be there given that your other option is to defend 2D. Yeah, that's true. Converted.

I don't think I'd balance, since it gets us to game virtually always, often going down. I can't even take diamond finesses into partner's hand, which means partner often has significant diamond waste. Double is okay, but RHO will screw you every once in awhile by having 3 (or more!) diamonds. I'd probably just go quietly. I don't expect 2♦ to go down by a lot, even if it does.