xcurt

On a related note, did I read correctly in the NABC bulletins that all NABC+ events require LM rank to enter now? As someon who qual'ed for the finals of two NABCs before making LM I take issue with that.

Declarer will finesse the ♠8 holding ♠QJT8whatever if we double. We have the SAK and probably one more trump, then. We need partner to supply two tricks for down 1. If we double and we're wrong, we're losing a half board when 3♠ is the normal contract, and we're losing a whole board when our teammates are more plus in some other strain, or are beating 3♣ instead of bidding 3♠ -1 without the help from the double.

Nobody thinks the pot odds on passing out the first mean that pass gets serious consideration? If everyone is passing 1NT isn't our maximum upside +90/+110/+120 when we open -- since I think the only game we would ever have a chance of making after three passes to the first one is 3NT, and we aren't about to bid it. We're red and we have lousy defense against the red suits, so we could easily be -200/-500/-620. I did open 1S though.

Pass, I don't consider this close.

No. And there is a common misconception about BAM -- that you should double everything you think is going down. This is backward if you think you have a strong team. Winning a board at BAM only requires one of your four players to outplay their counterpart on the other team. Winning a board at pairs requires one of two players to outplay the field on his or her hand.

I got some silly results on little hands tonight. Conditions: ximps, opponents don't bid. (1) All red, ximps, ♠Q9764, ♥KQ, ♦Q3, ♣KT95. Three passes to you. Do you open? If you open 1♠ and partner bids 1NT presumably semi-forcing, do you pass or bid 2♣? (2) Unfavorable, ximps, ♠J653, ♥Q, ♦A8653, ♣Q54. Three passes to partner who bids 1♥. I bid 1♠ not 1NT, agree? Partner now bids 2♣. What now? Curt

Agree with the comments about KOs, mps and bracketing. When I was starting to play tournaments I could only play on the weekends, and I played a lot online. So I got good without accumulating the mps, basically locking myself out of KOs -- which is the route to even more mps. I'm not interested in going to a tournament to play random 1200 mp players for four sessions, nor am I interested in going to a tournament to play a 17-table Flight A pairs on Saturday. There probably aren't many people in my position though, so there's no pressure for the ACBL to change the status quo.

This is true and of course it's an allowed treatment, but the evidence for the agreement is, well, lacking. According to the Bulletin, "the committee learned" that NS had an agreement that the double was takeout. How? Looking at the South hand and actions, I wouldn't accept testimony to that effect without some form of verification. I think I could reasonably expect NS's notes to cover this case.

Actually there is a mechanism in the laws to redress this kind of luck.

3NT after the "normal" out-of-order 1D, not accepted, so P-P-? to the 6-4 hand, 3NT isn't unreasonable. Other LA's seem to be any number of diamonds between 1 and 5, and pass. With the UI, I would adjust any call from south other than 3D or 4D if that call got a better result than 3D would have. I wouldn't let South bid minimum diamonds in an effort to buy it in 1D or 2D since she knows from the table action that it more likely to succeed than if she didn't know North has a strong NT. If N is at all experienced he goes to C&E.

At the table the 1NT was not announced. N pulled the double on random garbage: xxxx, xxx, AQx, Qxx. This was not a success. 1NT was probably taking 5 tricks. The director ruled damage from MI and adjusted the score to 1NT -2. EW appealed. The committee upheld the table ruling. They claimed that knowing that 1NT should have been F1 makes doubling less desirable. NS also claimed that they both were playing Dbl = takeout. I'm not so sure looking at the S hand. From the comments here regarding doubling for takeout I would say that S meant the Dbl as something else. Nobody remotely considered doubling for takeout with the S hand. Also, why didn't S check the opponents card before passing. I think the committee got this ruling badly wrong letting though a fairly blatant two-way shot.

MPs, unfavorable, 3rd chair, you have ♠Q98, ♥KQT2, ♦K75, ♣K63 P-1H-P-1N*; P-P-? 1NT was intended as F1. Over to you? Note: This is appeal case 7 from the LV NABC. Note: edited you were in 3rd chair. The auction as given is/was correct.

Some points It is not possible to comment on the propriety of Rosenberg's action without knowing the facts. MR is well known for a fairly strict approach to hesitation, MI, etc cases when he is a committee member (see any NABC appeals casebook commentary). WIth the implied facts, he is being consistent. The Bulletin edtor should publish the full details or not at all.

GIB is a fantastic achievement and Matt gets full credit for showing a new way to play computer bridge, but infortunately I'm very skeptical of Matt's claims in this area given how many times he overpromised and underdelivered.

You might need your trumps to ruff out the side suit. The number of rounds you can draw will be limited by how often the opponents can get in and lead more trump as you are losing the tricks needed to establish the side suit. You might need to leave trumps in the short hand to retain control. The number of rounds you can draw will be limited by how many times the opponents can get in and try to tap you as you are losing the tricks needed to establish the side suit. You need the trump suit for communications. I'm sure there are many more reasons than this.

Random BBO cross-IMPs (1) All red 96xx, 9xx, AQJx, Jx, in 4th (1♣)-Dbl-(Pass)-? (2) Favorable 2nd Q, KQJ8xx, Qx, QT95 (Pass)-?

To my knowledge GIB never solved this problem. I will simplify your example. You are playing a small slam with Kxxx vs Qxxx in trumps and solid outside. How to you play? Of course you pick someone and play them for Ax. GIB plays low to one honor and then low to the other, losing to all combinations. Why does this happen? It's an artifact of how GIB attacks the problem of figuring out which card to play. As far as I know Matt Ginsberg tried to solve this (Google on 'gibson' 'single dummy') a while back but the computational complexity grows much too quickly to work on 13-card play problems. I believe he got up to something like 7-card endings, with each card adding 100x to the computing time needed. With today's computers and threading the solver (I don't know how well gibson could be threaded but GIB could be threaded easily enough) that means doing 8 cards endings today. You're still a factor of 10^10 away from doing 13 card endings though. In your example once GIB discovers that east has certain cards, the sample may start to include a majority of hands where west has HKx. GIB lacks the inferential rule that says "the opponents almost certainly didn't duck the setting trick against a slam," so it tries to drop out the HK.

Can you suggest a reasonable layout where a club lead is correct? Well, it's betting partner has the CK. This hand was analyzed well by previous posters. The OP said he was most unhappy with this action among the 6 hands presented. Although probably anti-percentage, the CA wasn't nullo. By the way, who bids AKx instead of making a forcing raise with Axxxx? Were the opponents not playing forcing major suit raises, or is this a virulent local custom in Texas (this kind of fake 2/1 with another GOOD bid available was also common in SoCal back when I played there)?

I have a lot of sympathy for the CA lead. Your opponents conducted a hopeless auction. They got you. Note that if partner is ruffing the diamond, he can do it just as well at trick 2. Well, not just as well since we might not get -2 now, but I'm not worrying about that. If they had already bid like that before, that is a different situation. That's one thing to look for in long matches. I think #2 and #3 (2C opening) were clear errors. #4 your partner had a 1-bid. #1 I have no idea. #6 you should have driven the hand to slam, but I wouldn't call it a clear error.

Checking this using the following dealer code: predeal north HKJ43, DJ983, CAKQ74 south SA652, HAQ862, DK72, C9 west_minor_cards = (clubs(west) + diamonds(west)) east_black_cards = (clubs(east) + spades(east)) west_follows = west_minor_cards > 5 east_follows = east_black_cards > 6 c_break = (clubs(west) == 3 or clubs(west) == 4) crossruff_works = c_break && west_follows && east_follows action average "xruff makes" crossruff_works, average "c don't break" (!c_break), average "west overruffs" c_break && ! west_follows, average "east overruffs" c_break && ! east_follows suggests that the two lines are pretty similar in the absence of inferences from the auction, play, or table action. In one run I got these results. I admit there are a lot of edge cases. xruff makes: 0.48907 c don't break: 0.3783 west overruffs: 0.10685 east overruffs: 0.0536 It's interesting to see how all the chances of bad breaks combine to really bleed the crossruff line by 16%. Worth keeping in mind next time you bid a thin game or slam that needs good breaks in the secondary offsuits (here spades and diamonds). EDIT -- the pulling trumps line comes out at 51.3%, which is understandable because the club and heart breaks are going to be positively correlated.

I'm not sure I agree with this taxonomy. In a vice squeeze, the hand with the vice menace takes the last trick, and the squeezee is the one with the two middle honors (QJ in the Reese examples). This looks more like the outcome of a secret experiment in Fred's hand lab where a vice squeeze was crossed with a stepping stone. Anyway, since the ending has now been alluded to, the winning line is to draw trumps and ruff two spades in dummy and two clubs in hand cashing the high clubs along the way pitching diamonds, and ending up in hand, then cashing the SA. This strips LHO of everything but diamonds. [hv=n=shdj98c&w=shdatxc&e=sqhdqxc&s=s6h6dkc]399|300|[/hv] Cashing the last trump squeezes RHO down to stiff DQ, now the DK pins the Q and LHO has to give you the DJ at trick 13.

I won't post the solution since I finally gave up and checked it with GIB. I have to thank you. I learned something from this hand.

This line and the variant where we duck a diamond instead of the last club are just down on 5-2 clubs offside. 5-2 clubs onside we overruff, ruff the spade shift, diamond taken by the ace, win the trump in hand, DK, trump to the table, diamond ruff. We RHO to have started with 5332 or 6232 shape exactly including the DA (or 6322 or 7222 with the DAQ tight).

Possible lines (a) win and lead a diamond immediately (b) HK, HA, HJ if necessary otherwise spade ruff, then test clubs, then diamond finesse if necessary © try to cash the other high clubs throwing diamonds then lose a diamond then crossruff I'll be a farmer and take line (b). Assuming everyone follows the HK, I'm making when I catch any two of 4-3 clubs, 2-2 hearts, or the DA onside plus maybe some other rare cases.