xcurt

Agree with MFA. OP, if you are going to indicate that there was UI or MI, please post the 52-card hand. Once you indicate UI or MI, you are not posting a pure bridge problem any more, anyway. If you don't want to post the other hands, please pose what happened as a bridge problem, first, before indicating the UI or MI that was present. Curt

I hate to be boring, but this hand is a screaming advertisement for mini-NTs. South will relay out north's shape and put it in 3NT.

I've certainly gotten my share of zeros but I can't remember any spectacular ones. But this takes me back to my favorite top story. 1996 Blue Ribbons late in the 2nd semi, this event was scored across the room on a 90 top, I had, favorable, 4th seat: ♠KJ8xxxxx, ♥ xx, ♦ Jx, ♣ x. We were playing Krekorian-Blanchard (who would go on to win the event the next day). Auction round 1: At warp speed, to me: (1♥) - 2♦ - (3NT) - ?. So I bid 4♠. Auction round 2: LHO bids 4NT in a shot, checked back to me. So I bid 5♠. This is a sick call, but I was younger then. Auction round 3: 5♠ is doubled on my left, pass from partner, now Krekorian goes into the tank for 5 minutes and emerges with 5NT. I pass of course. Auction round 4: Partner doubles 5NT, now Krekorian redoubles like a shot with the comment "5NT doubled going down is a bad score." There was nothing to the play, I led the ♦J, partner had ♦AQxxx and an ace, so once declarer ran his 9 tricks we took the rest, +1000. A few months later I was rehashing hands with someone else who played that event. Me: "You hold ♠KJ8-8th, ...." Him: "My partner made 4♠x on that hand. It has no play. +590 should have been a top! Someone managed plus a thousand on our cards!!!!!!"

Disagree that 2 was an excellent ruling. Sounds like you got jobbed by your LHO who told you one thing about the 3♣ overcall even as he was looking at his hand planning to bid like 3♣ meant something else. I don't think you deserve an adjustment but I think the opponents deserve more than a PP for MI.

The low club toward hand without cashing the ace would have worked. Specifically, if you think clubs are 3-2 and the defenders are not imaginative enough to duck with ♣Kx on your right, you have the following 10 cases where the ♣J is wrong. Of course if the ♣J is right both lines score up the same. I'll use x and y to denote the two small clubs, so the full enemy club holding is KJ9xy. RHO has: K9 Kx Ky These three cases are a wash if RHO will pop. If RHO is good enough to duck in tempo, not cashing the ace is losing these cases. 9x 9y Not cashing the ace first gains (2 cases) xy Nothing to be done with this case. K9x K9y Kxy These two cases are a wash if RHO will duck smoothly. If RHO is more likely to fly if the ace wasn't cashed -- ie he doesn't have a count on the suit -- then cashing the ace might lose these cases. 9xy Not cashing the ace loses (1 case).

On the first 3♦ over 2♥ immediately. 2♥-AP more likely than 2♥-P-2♠. You don't win matchpoint events by defending 2♥ and partner almost certainly cannot balance against 2♥. On the second raise hearts immediately. I'm not playing a mini-NT so I can breathe a sigh of relief when I don't get nailed for a number, I'm playing a mini-NT to pressure the opponents. Let's pressure them.

I think you have to suck it up and bid 2♥ the first round. Something like ♠K, ♥Qxx, ♣ATx is going to give you decent play for 3, and make the trump holding Kxxx and you're going to have a shot at 4. Partner isn't bidding with any of those hands on the 3-level after LHO raises (or sows confusion with a conventional 2NT call). Partner also isn't raising with the second hand when we come back in after an initial pass.

Agree that the defense is bad, bad bad. But, as 65531 explained, results at the tables in 4♥ don't matter to us. On the other hand, there is some possibility of other tables playing 4♠x-1, so we might have a small incentive to try for +200 (2♥+3) at the cost of increasing the frequency of +140 relative to +170. There's only one way to achieve that which is finding LHO with ♠?, ♥x, ♦?, ♣K.

We are playing matchpoints, so even at these colors the opponents checking out 2♥ suggests they have semi-balanced hands. RHO is a strong favorite not to be x2x1 and LHO not to have x1x1 so I'll lead a low club off the table at T5. If I misguess I can revert to the diamond throw-in line to try for my 10th trick. If I guess right I make 5. I'll pay off to LHO having exactly ♣KJ tight.

Does this mean that 30/200 we beat with a spade, 15/200 with a high heart, and 17/200 with a low heart? Or does it mean that on the hands we beat, spade is optimal 30/42, high heart 15/42, and low heart 17/42/? It's hard for me to see how the heart spot we lead will matter very often, in which case, if I'm reading your post correctly then the heart lead is very close to the spade lead before we make adjustments for single-dummy considerations (most commonly, we resolve a guess for declarer). Curt

If you're watching VG on BBO, there's a delay while the operator punches in the cards played, too. Normal tempo at higher levels is slower than at club games/sectionals/regionals. On the other hand, just because a BIT happened behind screens doesn't mean there us no UI. It's frequently possible to infer which hand on the other side had the problem.

Why? Standard in these auctions is that 3♥ call shows a willingness to bid to the 3-level in hearts, and at least the 3-level in spades. I'm not making any arguments about the spade break, but if RHO were willing to bid to the 4-level in hearts and the 3-level in spades (and we already know he is willing to bid to the 3-level in spades), he would have bid at least 3♠ and possibly 4♥. I don't argue it's impossible for RHO to have 4 hearts on this auction, he might have a hand that doesn't want to force the 4-level because it's balanced and/or has a lot of secondary cards better for defense, but I think we have a much better idea of the heart break on this auction than we do on the corresponding, non-Multi auction (2♠)-Pass-(3♠)-?, and what we know about the heart break strongly suggests it's exactly 3-cards with RHO. On the other hand, we know less about the spade break after the Multi auction than we would after the natural auction, since as Justin points out RHO could have extra spade length here. But I don't see that as important since we are bidding 4♥ not to advance sacrifice, but with the idea of making opposite a reasonable percentage of partner's possible hands, and also since we aren't planning on taking length tricks in spades on offense, or on ruffing spades in the short trump hand. Edit -- I read "agreement" for "argument." Mea culpa. Anyway, I was applying the usual default agreement vs Multi for overcaller's actions to apply to advancer's actions too. I was just qualifying my statement to say I would bid 4♥ unless I had an agreement precluding it. And if I did have an agreement, it would probably not preclude it. Or something like that.

I would have bid 4♥ the last time, unless I have an agreement about fast vs slow routes in this auction. If I do have an agreement, it would probably be delayed action usually shows more than immediate action. As Edmunte points out this is like 2♠-3♠ except that we know hearts are breaking onside so we can be a little more aggressive.

Why is Swiss not fair when there is not enough time to play against all other 45 teams? Roland It might be the fairest method available. But it's not fair precisely because there is not time to play against all other 45 teams. :) Swiss is designed to optimally rank teams at the top of the table. In the extreme, it is designed to find the winner. By symmetry, it also does a good job of ranking the teams at the bottom of the table. Swiss is worst at ranking teams in the middle of the table. If your qualifying cut-off is somewhere in between 1/3 and 1/2 of the teams, you're going to be better off dividing the field into groups and running a complete RR within each group. Curt

XIMPs, none vul, partner deals, you have ♠Qx, ♥x, ♦QJ9xx, ♣QJTxx Part 1: 1♥-(2♠)-? Part 2: Regardless of what you do in part 1, it goes 1♥-(2♠)-?-(3♠); 4♥-(4♠)-?

I'm going to check the placard to see if this 1♠ bidder is my LHO, CHO, or RHO. No problems yet. OK, we're in balancing seat. 1NT.

By similar logic, it takes very twisted bridge lawyering to come up with such a restrictive view of the GCC. That isn't bridge lawyering, it's reading the charts. Here is an example of bridge lawyering. You might be familiar with something in computer science called "duck typing." That means that if if looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is for all intents and purposes a duck. In this case, 1♦ looks like a transfer opening, walks like a transfer opening, and quacks like a transfer opening. And I think almost all expert+ players in North America would agree that this kind of duck^H transfer opening is definitely a Mid-Chart animal. Then again, if you're a lawyer, you should just read up your book on contracts from L1 to understand that the C&C committee does not (and in fact cannot, reasonably) enumerate every possible evasion of the intent of their regulations.

My reading of this (although I agree it is not entirely unambiguous) is that he is agreeing that any assigned meaning for minor suit openings is allowed, provided it guarantees ten or more points and does not entail playing some other opening which would not be general chart legal. Where do you read TD Ziegler saying "any purpose?" "All Purpose" on Dictionary.com It seems pretty clear to me that only some very twisted bridge lawyering can claim 1♦ promising specifically another suit is "all-purpose." And as I alluded to earlier, the smell test a TD should apply is to look at the followups. If a pair is bidding over their "all purpose" minor suit opening to exploit knowledge about specific other suits, then it isn't all purpose. For example, consider the following contrived example, with no opposition bidding 1♦* - 2NT** *through some convoluted reasoning, almost always promises 4 spades **forcing and sets spades as trumps Finally, I note that the GCC says "1 club OR 1 diamond may be used..." (emphasis mine). I don't think this says you can use both minors artificially. On the other hand Precision pairs have been doing that for years. I think this is another case of unfortunate wording, where the intent should be to allow up to one catchall artificial 1-of-a-minor bid and up to two strong one-of-a-minor bids, but not two catchall bids. Curt

Just a thought (irrespective of the legality of anything). You can "entangle opening side in the ambiguity they created about what suit opener really has" with natural overcalls and preempts too. To bring this full circle, some years back Chip Martel suggested that 1♣ Polish was theoretically unsound on rec.games.bridge [1], but didn't post the full defense he and Lew Stansby were using. I presume he didn't want to help the Poles for the next WC cycle. The basic idea of the defense to 1♣ Polish was to take advantage of the fact that responder cannot assume a strong hand on the part of partner. I think the idea of Brink-Drijver with Holo-Bolo is similar -- take advantage of the fact that responder cannot assume a suit on the part of opener. Then when responder calls, fourth hand can (usually) decode the multi-way overcall from partner, but only if it is advantageous to resolve the ambiguity. Now if we're going to regulate the defenses to some artificial minor openings but not others, we have placed the regulatory authorities in a position of choosing which methods to advantage by protecting those employing them by restricting the options available to the defensive bidding side. [1]Link

I don't understand how this interpretation is remotely consistent with the GCC clause allowing conventional defenses to the opponents conventional calls. Personally, I want to play multi-way overcalls over artificial minor opening that basically amount to opening bidder saying "noise." I think there's a sound theoretical basis for this. Now if the PTB want to define 1C 4432 in an otherwise standard structure as "natural" or in some other way exempt this call from triggering the defensive bidding side having the right to use any conventional call they like, OK. But without further clarification, how am I to know whether I can play gadgets over 1D which could be 4405 in the context of a Precision system without mini-Roman 2D and 2C promising a 6-card suit. I think it's pretty easy to distinguish these types of cases. Pairs playing 1C 4432 and otherwise natural more or less bid the same as 1D 4432 or 4+ diamonds, although they might be a little more reluctant to raise clubs. Pairs playing 1D diamonds or Precision death shapes tend to have methods to deal with the ambiguity. For example, things like 1D by opener; then <competitive auction ensues where opener denies a 4-card major>; then 2NT by responder saying "I want to compete to 3 of whichever is your real minor suit." Not allowing me methods to entangle opening side in the ambiguity they created about what suit opener really has enables pairs to play theoretically unsound methods.

I'm not a genius, I'm just going to win in dummy, draw trumps, and play a club to my J. This works. Drawing trumps, ruffing a spade, and playing a club to the king and then to the jack does not work, however, since clubs were onside 4-1 (which is the point of the play problem -- 4-1 onside is more likely than 4 small onside and stiff Q offside).

Followup: So I figured partner couldn't have any worse than ♦A, ♣AQxxx (which is the point of the first part of this thread -- nobody knows what a 2/1 promises in SAYC). If partner had more lower diamond honors or worse clubs I would have expected him to bid 3NT not raise clubs. I was pretty close, partner had ♠-, ♥8xxxx, ♦AKx, ♣AJTxx. Trumps are 3-2, so 6♥ is a nice spot. Problem is, I bid an animal 7♥ over 5♣. You get a lowish spade spot lead against 7♥. Plan the play. [hv=n=saqxxxhakqdxxckxx&s=sh8xxxxdakxcajtxx]133|200|[/hv]

OK, so you are playing XIMPS with a pickup expert on BBO and your agreements are "sayc." Of course, you immediately get a hand where this "system" leaves you, well, screwed. Vul vs not, you deal, opponents don't bid. ♠AQxxx, ♥AKQ, ♦xx, ♣Kxx. 1♠-2♥ (no idea how "forcing" this is) ? Let's say you aren't confident 3♥ won't be passed, and 4♥ is just wimpy, and Blackwood, well, when is the Blacke ever the solution, so you temporize with 3♣ (this is what I did). 1♠-2♥ (no idea how "forcing" this is) 3♣-5♣ ???!!??? ? What now?

I think what I said is being somewhat misinterpreted and used to justify an answer that I don't particularly agree with. How am I supposed to read the PP except as saying that "if partner has 4 spades, I think spades is a long-term winner over NT?" I agree with that statement, and I was trying to give credit to the PP. I didn't imply that you agree with my estimate of the payoff matrix, and I didn't imply that your statement supports anything about my estimate of the payoff matrix except spade_contract > nt_contract | partner has 4 spades. As for my overall conclusion, you can try to work it through for yourself. You will need to estimate percentages for partner accepting, partner having spades (you can simulate this), spades taking more tricks than NT when partner has 4 spades, and partner making 4♠ when he accepts or 3♠ when he declines. You can estimate the field from the poll results. Right now the field is roughly 1/4 in 1NT, 1/4 inviting in NT, 1/2 inviting in spades or NT. I will illustrate with some simplistic assumptions about the likely outcomes. Your auction differs from my auction in the following cases: Partner has 4 spades and a maximum -> I am in 2♠ and you are in 4♠. Here the field is 1/4 in 1NT, 1/4 in 3NT, and 1/2 in 4♠. You get roughly (3/4 + 3/8)/2 so about 56% expectation. I get (1/4 + 3/8) or 5/8 so about 62%. I'm assuming spades always beats NT by 1 trick and the games are 50-50 propositions. Partner has 4 spades and a minimum -> I am in 2♠ and you are in 3♠. Here the field is 1/4 in 1NT, 1/4 in 2NT, and 1/2 in 3♠. I certainly can't do any worse than you in this situation. In fact, I'm going to do a lot better whenever 8 tricks is the limit in spades and 7 in NT, since you are losing to the 1NT players and I beat them (1/4 of a board) and you tie the 2NT players and I beat them (1/8 of a board) and I beat the 3♠ players and you tie them (1/4 of a board), which means I do a full 62.5% of a board better whenever this is the case. With more realistic assumptions (which are too involved to reproduce here) I expect to do 10-12% of a board better with my auction than yours. Yes this is counterintuitive, but matchpoints is a sick game sometimes.

What about Stayman, pass 2♠, and bid 2NT over 2♦/♥? As Josh points out, if partner has 4 spades we rate to be in trouble in NT with slow tricks and a weak holding wherever partner has his doubleton. Since we have improved the contract relative to 1NT, why jeopardize our positive equity. And when partner lacks 4 spades, the play in NT frequently will be a war of maneuver instead of a race, and our spots give us the advantage. I don't think 3NT is going to be cold even if partner raises 2NT to 3NT, but as long as sequences ending in 2NT or 3NT have about the same matchpoint expectation as passing 1NT on hands (on hands where partner doesn't have 4 spades) we're ahead by virtue of getting to the 4-4 fit when partner does have 4 spades.