xcurt

WTP. Even if you don't think 3NT is going to be your best spot you can't have a good auction to any other contract. Pass risks all pass, lose 6 for +200/-430 or so,* and other calls imply more playing strength at a suit contract. * if you always reopen after 1m-3X-P-P; I want to preempt heavy against you...

On the first my plan was to pass 2NT lebensohl, but the auction didn't go that way. My seeded opponent called that "an interesting plan," so I'm happy to see that some folks think it's reasonable. Matchpoints offers such a premium for playing in the correct strain, I can handle 3m easily by bidding 3NT, and the opponents seem unlikely to bounce hearts, so I thought it was pretty clear to double. All actions are flawed and doubling seems to offer the smallest window for disaster -- whatever your strong meaning that runs through 2NT. We have a good hand with good spades, and typically one of the spade forces is the hand that bids 2NT first, so partner holding the disaster hand seems less likely in light of what we know at this point. On the second, I think there isn't really any good way to find out what we need even if we are playing some kind of sophisticated game tries. I posted this one because some pretty good pairs also missed this slam our way. My inclination was to bash 6♣ but I was afraid if that turned out to have no play partner might give up on the session as this was our third board. Partner had the perfecto minimum (xxxx, Kxx, Axx, AQx) and the ♠Q was doubleton onside, so everyone made 13 tricks. I can't see any game try that will get you what you really need -- diamonds controlled, plus enough of the other relevant features: ♠Q, ♣A, (4+ clubs or ♣Q), (♦A+♥K).

This is the relevant thread: Kick it in? (at least re bidding 3♥).

I agree with Josh. Anything other than pass strikes me as an attempt to be a hero. We had a thread about this a while back from advancer's point of view. We agreed that raising 3♥ to 4♥ in this auction on something like a reasonable 7-count was indicated. If so, we're going to be in 4♥x whenever partner has a constructive heart raise. Since we wouldn't accept a limit raise with this hand, 3♥ feels like at best a break-even proposition, and it could be a transfer to -500 or -800 on a partscore hand. That's terrible IMP strategy. It isn't very good matchpoint strategy either.

I'll save. I really hate my previous action. I would have just bid 4♠ the last time.

Ben, you're supposed to arrange the cards to punish vice and reward virtue. This "bridge verite" thing has no place in the forums!!! Anyway, I think if you're going to take a heart finesse it's much better to track the ♥J since you really don't want the first heart to be covered -- unless you're playing against an opponent who will assume that he-doesn't-wan't-a-cover-so-I-will-cover, in which case I will .... ad infinitum.

Ok, so I touched actual cards for the first time in a looong time since I might play the DC NABC in a few weeks. Partner is not strong, and the field ranges from pretty good to totally random. Scoring is matchpoints. Here are a few decisions. 1: both vul, 2nd seat, you are playing one of the very good pairs: AQJ4, A876, AJ, K84. (2H)-? 2: AKJ5, A, T2, KJT862, the opponents don't bid: 1C-1S; 2S-?

Ken, what else was responder supposed to do? The auction is jammed -- the preemptive effect of 1NT again -- so you frequently don't have invites available. I'm assuming a jump in a new suit by responder is forcing, and since it's to the 3-level, it's game forcing. The alternative is to double 1NT any time you have a forcing hand, but that's unworkable for two reasons * the opponents are quite likely to have 7 tricks on the go with the hand you're looking at -- and by extension a whole bunch of other possible hands -- 5 clubs, ace, ace. Anyone can bid game when they have 27 HCP -- to win at this level you need to bid constructively to game when you have <23 HCP, not so much shape that you're just bidding game as a two-way shot, but the fit you need to make it a favorite. * and, you distort too many auctions -- this is analogous to redoubling after 1M-x with 4 card support and a 13 count So I think saying responder should redouble with this hand is poor system design, and it's also being slavish to point count.

Well, you may be semantically right, but this is clearly not what the ACBL meant. I think it is pretty clear they wanted to outlaw o/e signals. Obviously whoever wrote that segment of the GCC was either not aware it would apply to the common "suit preference by 3rd hand at trick one when he has shown a long suit"-agreement (explained by echo above). I.e. either they were not aware it would apply in that situations, or wasn't aware that agreement exists and is quite common. They wanted to outlaw signals that create tempo problems. Third hand having a long suit is unlikely to create such a situation, everyone at the table has perfect knowledge that the signaller has many playable spots to choose from. One thing is certain, whoever drafted the GCC did a lousy job, there are numerous situations where the language is very murky.

Just so I've answered all 5, I would lead a club toward the K6.

2NT. I expect the opponents already have a good idea of what partner's minor is, so I might as well equalize the knowledge there. I'll bid 3S over 3C (which has to imply I was bidding more over 3D, so if partner has the stone cold nuts for 2S he can bid 4D to see which pointed suit I was coming in).

I think that * declarer doesn't have A8xx, ?, A9xx, A since that hand looks very suitish. * so declarer probably has 4342, since with a doubleton heart partner either has a solid heart sequence or ♥KJT9xx and probably would have led them * declarer has at least 2 of the top 5 hearts (and probably 2 of the top 4) else partner, holding 5 hearts would just clear hearts on the lead The only declarer hand I can construct where it's right to play cash the spade before I play hearts is A8xx, KJT, A9xx, AK. Other hands with CAK that are not 2NT openers and contain at least two heart honors cannot generate 9 tricks playing one on one vs partner, eg A8xx, KT9, A9xx, AK partner can defeat the strip squeeze by keeping all of his clubs. If declarer has A8xx, AQx, A9xx, Ax cashing the spade is fatal since declarer can duck the heart through and then play to squeeze partner in the rounded suits. If I play a club against this hand declarer can duck, win the club return and run diamonds to reach 8, AQx, --, -- vs --, 87x, --, Q and now if partner kept 2 clubs declarer ducks a heart. if partner kept one club declarer plays ♣Q and ducks a heart. So I'm playing a heart without cashing the spade.

Agree with pass here if 2H is constructive.

To make 11 tricks other than by trying to drop the HK, we need one of the SQ falling or the successful heart finesse, plus some kind of endposition that makes another spade trick or heart trick, either the third or fourth round of spades depending on whether or not we dropped the SQ, or the second or third round of hearts, depending or not on whether or not we took a successful heart finesse. RHO probably would have opened 1NT with QT(x), Kx(x), xx, AKQJxx, and we can't make the overtrick against that hand anwyay since LHO guards the fourth round of spades and RHO guards the second round of hearts. RHO has to have at least one of the missing major suit honors, else LHO has an 8 count and would have bid something since he holds 44 in the majors or one major with at least 5 cards. So we need to consider the following positions where RHO does not have the stiff HK. RHO has both -- see above RHO has the HK -- he just clings to the HK RHO has the SQ -- we can play for RHO to have SQT tight or for RHO to have Ten-doubleton of hearts. If RHO has QT, xxx, xx, AKQJxx we can run the trumps and LHO is squeezed. Doing so almost always costs the contract, so it's out. Note that I could squeeze LHO the same way when he has the SQ also, but he can't have that hand on the bidding, and the same risk of going down is attached to cashing off the trumps. However RHO has QTx, Tx, xx, AKQJxx, we can smack the HT to make 3 heart tricks to go with 2 spade tricks. So which is more likely: RHO: QTx, Tx, xx, AKQJxx LHO: xxxx, Kxxx, QJx, xx or RHO: QTxx, K, xx, AKQJxx LHO: xxx, xxxxx, QJx, xx I wouldn't bid over 1D with either LHO hand, so not much there. I would bid 1C ... 2C with either RHO hand in this auction, so not much there either. The former case is about twice as likely, however, since there are 5 ways to deal the spade spots x 4 ways to deal the heart spots, vs 10 ways to deal the spade spots and one way to deal the heart spots. I'll cash one trump throwing a spade, then if I haven't learned anything I'll run the HJ, and if it's covered I'll play to drop the HT. If it's ducked, I'll cash all but one trump throwing spades before deciding what to do. Note that I get a little vigorish if LHO passed with xxx, Kxxxx, QJx, xx since the HT falls on the first round of the suit. I certainly wouldn't take the time to work this out at the table in an online friendly match, though. By the way, your mid-hand diagram has an extra spade in the north hand. Edit/Edit -- hopefully fixed all the minor errors -- the main point being I'll cash one trump not two throwing a spade. Can't bring the hearts down to A9 tight since I'm trying to win a 3rd round trick with the H9. This is a lot of work for one IMP.

Sad news here: Dick Freeman 1933-2009 I only played against him a few times but he and Nick were/are true gentlemen at the table. He certainly didn't deserve the vitriol from Judy Kay-Wolff about missing the USBF2 finals.

Hmmm, GIB says you should have made it :)

In theory I should have a problem with this, because it is not fully discloseable. However, in practice systems like this are usually rather poorly designed and have many holes, so I just make sure I'm playing power doubles (and 1NT takeout) and I make them reveal everything about their hands when they open in front of us and we have the balance of high card. There's no downside to this against this system, because they can never preempt. Also, Adam, you should also have the following meta-agreement against 1m => {a random hand} methods 1NT = does not promise a stopper (ie, we won't distort our shape to avoid bidding NT when we have xxx(x) in their suit, but you are better off playing power doubles) 2 of their minor -> natural 2H = Michaels 2S = preemptive and, probably, 2NT = both minors (I'm not sure this is best but the idea here is to avoid losing boards because you have a misunderstanding after the opponents randomize the auction)

OK I agree. Looks like the first two cancel out and the third is worth about 2%. I was thinking the table action would be worth enough to beat this, but maybe not, especially online.

Even for the brainiest of players, if he doesn't sort, he will make mistakes. Seems silly to do that to oneself. Playing against Peter is a weird experience. He's probably wound as tightly as any WC player I ever faced at the table. I had no idea he didn't sort, though. Shows you how much I notice of my opponents mannerisms.

On the other hand, this ensures a club loser opposite most lies of the opposing cards and * the trump finesse is only worth about 7% in isolation (you gain on Qxx onside, but sometimes you blow into Qx offside) * sometimes you just have 2 trump losers, but we might be able to escape any black losers if both black kings are onside * we might also run into a spade ruff if LHO ducked with ♠Kx, and the club king is onside, that would be an amazing play though * if everything lies well, throwing the CQ concedes an IMP against the same contract in the other room There's a lot of math here but my inclination is to just play this one straight.

Suppose that you pitch on the first heart and he continues hearts. What are you going to do now? I guess I'm going to hope that the ♠J is doubleton. This line of play has less to recommend it now that I've had a few days to think about it. I checked how Adam played it (south has something like Kx, AQx, xxxx, Kxxx). He made the right plays early (H ruff, CA, C up). Cayne switched to a diamond (a good play, though seems clearer now that I put myself in the south seat). The plan should have been to pitch a diamond on the CQ and then ram diamond winners through east and H losers through west, overruffing. He threw a heart instead, but the defense later lost their way, +420.

How do you know? Have you tested it? An effective test would be quite laborious. You'd have to play for a fairly long time in two similar fields, using countermeasures in one and not in the other, then analyse how good the opponents' card-reading was. There's too much noise to do a rigorous study. I have enough anecdotal evidence to believe that clocking (slotting, what have you) is not uncommon, though. I'm not naming any names, but I have caught people staring at things they should not be staring at when I'm dummy.

Agree with this. I can't refute your refutation of my pitching line . Although south hasn't found the diamond shift yet if we pitch (but he might, if he's a JEC pro).

Don't agree with this. Matchpoints in good fields you need to try to scoop on hands where you have an edge.

It really pays to develop countermeasures to this type of thing. Sort your hand differently on different hands. Fold up your hand between every card. This also helps induce a slight delay while you fan one or two cards out to get the one you want. Unfortunately there isn't much you can do about the scorecard thing unless everyone adopts countermeasures, but it helps to score all the results in the same column, small, in as-played order, not board number order.