xcurt

I can't resist. LOL. My poll answer, btw, is wtp? as in wtp 1♠.

It's an N-1 position so it isnt a knockout. The ending is an elopement or suit establishment dilemma for east. To get there you need to enlist west to adjust the hand pattern (to move your ruff in dummy from clubs to spades) and to do that you need to rectify the count and strip west. A nice combination of elements.

I doubt partner would raise to 6NT but your point is still very valid. Damned if you do, damned if you don't with 3♠ fitting my duck beneath the duvet. I would love to see the system that caters for exactly this type of hand! Ken's system caters to this type of hand. Advancer guesses a contract, and doubler is precluded from bidding again without 10 tricks in hand because no bids by advancer (except a slammish 4♥) show any values.

Do EW open 1D with xx45?

BBO TG, UNFAV, 2nd 3, KQJ98, 872, AQT5 P-1H-1N-x xx-? The rdble is a general running noise. Do you bid out now, or wait? If you wait, it will go P-1H-1N-x xx-P-2C-P 2S-? Act now? If you wait again, partner will double 2S. Act now? Curt

I would have bid 3H not x for the playing strength reasons I mentioned earlier.

This hand is an awful dummy for either black suit. The ♦A is either facing a void or getting ruffed off, and the ♥QJ aren't worth anything on defense. That leaves you with about two half tricks against spades, one of which replicates a value in partner's hand if it is in fact a full trick, definitely nowhere close to double.

I agreed with this and that's why I doubled. Is 2♦ getting us to 3NT opposite the most 6 or 7 counts with the ♦K and enough spade junk to stop the suit? I doubled the second time, -690. Doubling twice was a blunder, I think. 2♦ might get partner to bid 5♦ on his 1543 with the ♥Q and ♦K, or it might not. After much reflection, I like balancing with 3♦, but nobody has mentioned that call. Keeps 3NT in the picture, focuses on the spade stop and ♦K, still gives us a chance to recover a 5-4 heart fit, and if we get pushed to the 5 level I would rather play diamonds than a weak 4-4 (or even a weak 5-4) anyway, and helps partner with the 5-level decision by at least getting one suit bid.

This is a lead problem right? I'll be a farmer and play a high heart.

Correct (I cashed a 4th diamond, which is OK too). If you cash the fifth diamond, you squeeze your hand because you have to come down to Kx in both black suits. I thought it was a good B/I hand because: The auction and play let you place the cards with some assurance. You have to temporarily leave the last diamond uncashed at a point you have no quick entry to cash it, a counterintuitive play. You have to take a small chance of going down if LHO has ♣QJ.... This would require the weird diamond lead, followed by super defense by RHO ducking the club off the table. It's pretty unlikely that LHO would find the defense to give you this problem on his actual hand. In fact he cashed the ♠A and I claimed. I think it's worth this risk to pick up the 1 IMP. RHO missed a nice falsecard with ♣J9x. He should play the ♣J, which is technically correct anyway in that it gives him the best chance to stop an endplay on LHO. Now, if LHO wins the ♣A and fires back a low club, it's a lot riskier to run it to the ♣T.

4♠, but the worries about the TD if you open 1♠ are silly. 10-shooters are really rare (you need to play as much as bridge as mtvesuvius to ever see one, I've played 3 boards my entire bridge career with a 10-shooter) so the idea than any "rules" might apply is risible.

I certainly would not be drawn immediately toward the intrafinesse. In isolation it's a very odds-against play, you need RHO to have stiff or doubleton ♦T (that's about 1 chance in 3), so I would much rather take a straight finesse if I had that choice. However, there is some difficulty cashing my 9 winners even if LHO has the ♠J, so winning in dummy and leading a diamond toward the jack seems like the best start if the clubs look like they are 4-3.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=s974hkj52daqt92c3&s=sk5haqt8dk43ckt65]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] P-P-1NT-2C (natural) 3C-P-3H-P 4H-AP You get a low diamond lead and dummy's T holds. You draw trumps in 3 rounds, LHO pitches the ♠Q on the third round. LHO has ♦Jxx. How do you continue for the overtrick?

UNFAV, 4th, XIMPs, 86, AT42, AQT953, A 1♠-P-P-? LHO will bid 4♠ over your call. What now, assuming this runs back to you?

Having doubled (negative) I would just take my game-sized plus with 4♠ and change my methods after this session.

Nice example of a theme here: Since you intended this as a B/I, I'll reply hidden:

I think pass or 5♥ are the actions with larger (but possibly less-frequent) upside. I think 4NT keycard or 7♥ now or later are the actions you take when you are defending the lead. These actions minimize the chances of later defending 7♠ -2210. I think a 5♦ and 6♥ are the worst of all non-psychic actions, and probably have negative expectation vs real par. I never psyche successfully, so I have no idea if 5♣ will work. I don't think it's particularly likely they make 7♠. Edit -- I expect to take roughly 10 tricks in hearts. So I'm never selling to 6♠, the objective is to avoid -2210, whilst hopefully getting them to saw off some number of hearts less than 7.

I predict whatever the OP did won the board.

Then why do you like 5♦? When someone cuebids then raises themself to slam over a signoff it's already suspicious (if he was for real he would bid keycard on such a hand). When it's in the highest possible suit to cuebid then it's like hanging a banner from your forehead that says I have nothing in diamonds. Josh wants to play poker with you.

First rule of matchpoints, never, ever, volunteer for a minus score when you have some reasonable possibilities of a plus score. Easy pass.

This is just bad math. A priori any other action from the rest of the table partner's expected number of aces is 1.33. But we will always reach game after we open 1♣ when he has 3 or 4 aces, his expected number of aces on hands where our decision matters is less. So it's a poor argument for opening 1NT.

Do we have a forcing club raise available? All the better if it's how I play 4 cards for 1 any since the forcing raise is the cheapest jump shift. That would be my choice if possible.

The commentary about the screen placement relative to the auction is incorrect, and it might be important. The 3NT bidder was north: http://www.cavendishinvitational.com/2009/PAIRS5HR.pdf. So Feldman saw the screen go under with P-P-1C-1D; P-1H-P and saw it come back with P-P-1C-1D; P-1H-P-3NT; P Which is exactly what I said, please read my post again. Lev was North, Zagorin East, Pepsi South and Feldman West. Pepsi and Feldman were on the same side of the screen, and when the tray came back to North and East, 3NT had pass, pass on it. So auction over. Zagorin (East) was the player to lead and chose a heart. Ruled illegal by the director. Roland I was talking about the sequence of events from the perspective of Feldman (who saw a surprising call that his RHO would have no trouble passing). That means we need to question whether the vugraph operators remark about Feldman thinking was about his first 20 seconds (he's entitled to that without any ethical constraints on partner) or additional time beyond that (might constrain partner, probably should in this case). I read your post as "Feldman passed, saw 3NT from LHO, saw the tray disappear, it came back with Pass, Pass. He had all the time the tray was on the other side to consider what to do over 3NT, why was he taking additional time?" I see now that's not what you said, but it wasn't clear (and some prior discussion in this thread was confusing about this issue). Josh Donn mentioned the issue of "surprise" ito Feldman and what would be appropriate tempo in this position, but nobody remarked on it at the time.

The commentary about the screen placement relative to the auction is incorrect, and it might be important. The 3NT bidder was north: http://www.cavendishinvitational.com/2009/PAIRS5HR.pdf. So Feldman saw the screen go under with P-P-1C-1D; P-1H-P and saw it come back with P-P-1C-1D; P-1H-P-3NT; P We can assume Pepsi passed within a second or two, his hand has nothing to consider. The screen regulations say that no huddle under 20 seconds implies a BIT (since, to prevent UI from a shotgunned call, either player can introduce a screen huddle) so the issue of whether there was a BIT comes down to whether the huddle was significantly more than 20 seconds. If there was a BIT, I agree with the bridge logic that a heart is a LA suggested by the BIT.

Surely you of all people would be playing 2♣-2♦; 3♥ shows diamond canape.