OleBerg

:D I would need to know something about their style, but the more old-fashioned they are, the more likely it is, that I would walk the dog. B) I would be so outgunned I would try something desperate, probably 5♠. If however, I should advice a young, up an coming world class player, I would advice her to bid 6♠.

After 3♠ from partner, I will always go to 6♠. My main priority however, is to buy the contact, not to do it at the 6-level. Whether a direct 6♠ or walking the dog is best, is both a matter of technique and psychology. Walking the dog, they might already have doubled me in 5♠, but maybe now, it is a little less likely they will double me in 6♠. But I need to know my opponents to choose strategy. Edit: Maybe a direct 5♠ is the best way to buy the contract, as the opponents are in a forcing sequence, but low on aces. And if they believe I am stoopid, which is often the case, I might still get a "walk the dog" effect, when I bid 6♠.

Touchdown, the crowd is cheering.

lol that's good copy Did you make that up yourself, or quoting something? Thx. No, I just got inspired by some of the dogma you always hear, whenever a player has taken a position that didn't work out.

If West is allowed to change her call based on the MI before the opening lead is faced, the auction period isn't over by definition. Clearly, she said, "had I known 3♣ was preemptive, I would have doubled". The fact that the director didn't know the law should not enter into it, nor should the player's 'bridge judgment'. If East was the hand that needed to double, I would agree, since her last pass can't be reversed. If the director was indeed called to the table before the opening lead was faced, and he didn't allow North to change her call, and it is later discovered that he should have, I'm fairly sure then, that 60%/60% is the correct ruling. The TD has made a mistake that makes it impossible to make a fair ruling. None of the players should pay for this. (Again, to lazy to look up things.)

It seems that everybody in this forums afflicted with doubling contracts they can't defeat, and making pseudo-expert leads, that sends contracts home. The full deal, rotated 90 degrees: [hv=d=w&v=n&n=s3haq108dckj976532&w=skq9hkj93dacaq1084&e=sh4dkqj1098765432c&s=saj10876542h7652dc]399|300|[/hv] After the double and the lead of the ♦A, the play was swift: Ruff in dummy, underruff with the 2. Club ruff. Four heart-finesses and four club ruffs. Declarer was now down to ♠AJ10 while his LHO had ♠KQ9. A spade out of the hand now endplayed LHO, and the contract was made. Not only did the foolish double with only one sure trick (The opponents know what they are doing when the bid vulnerable) draw a roadmap for declarer to make the contract, but the silly lead sealed the coffin. Had East simply led fourth best in the longest and strongest (as is custom when you hold thrumph strenght), instead of the beginners singleton, the contract could still not have been made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEljCU8BuDo

I was only Kibitzing, and that was all the information I got.

From a Danish open teams selection tournament. Opponents are very strong. [hv=d=s&v=e&s=skq9hkj93dacaq1084]133|100|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] 2♣ - (X) - XX - (6♠) ??? 2♣ = Unknown gameforce or 19+ balanced. X = Undiscussed. XX = Excactly one control, forced. Double is defined as penalty, and partner will never pull. What do you bid? If you pass or double, what do you lead?

I answered above, why NS can't get any redress. And almost the same goes for EW. They should have alerted, but it is not considered enough to adjust the score. The rules are not there to punish people, but to restore equity. If a pair has a lot such instances, (not alertn alertable bids), the TD can give a procedural penalty. He might be called to the table later. Or he might have forgot the rule. It is quite new.

1NT rightsiding NT contracts. And I do not feel I'm hogging. My hand is perfect except for my dubious stopper in diamonds.

I would also rule no adjustment, because of the failure to double. But these two parts bother me: 2) How can it be right to require self protection in this situation? 3C is clearly alertable if weak/preemptive. Asking about an unalerted call can easily give UI. Can anyone say they always ask about unalerted calls? E/W might play inverted, but how does that put the burden on them to divine that the opps also play inverted and failed to alert? 3)Asking a question about what a player is about to see in dummy is not inappropriate. The answer will tell the defending side what declarer expected to see in dummy --valuable information. I'm with you on 3). But not on 2). Actually, I might easily say, that if a system declaration is availble, and it hints that 3♣ might be weak, the opponents are supposed to protect themselves. Whether a call should be alerted or not, is not in itself the factor that determines whether a player is obliged to protect himself by asking. (Being to lazy to look it up, my memory tells me, that it is actually when a call is not alerted, that you are sometimes obliged to protect yourselves.) The TD must determine whether he thinks it is reasonable to assume, that the player in question should have suspected something. The TD will take various factors into account; How experienced is the player, how well do he know his opponents, is the treatment common in the players circles, and in principle any thing he might think of. In this, if the North player herself plays inverted minors, and inverted minors (and the use of 3♣ as preemptive) are common in her circles, it is reasonable to say that she should have protected herself by asking. Make the hand a little weaker (remove whatever you feel appropriate to make the decision to double very close.) Now we dont want to give a Shrewd North a complete free ride, just because the opponents forgot to alert; The option to pass and smile if it is correct, and call for the cops if it goes down.

This is indeed a correct ruling. However, had the misinformation been unearthed later, I would still not adjust score. Not doubling is grievious a mistake, that it counts as a wild or gambling action. (Well, in my opinion, that is.)

I agree although I convinced myself it was right when oleberg said it before Justin. You learn well, my young Padawan. But you are still not a master of satire.

I find it obvious that Justins plan is better than mine, but I still think my plan is way better than the OP's. If they cash three thricks, I hook the hearts, for a good score, if they are 4-1. That must be better than making the decision at trick three. But hy assume we are the only pair in 3NT? What bid was so strange, that we might not expect it to be done at other tables? And if there are other tables in 3NT, it has significant value, to choose the best general line. Justins line does that much better.

Getting it right???

Maybe we should take the first trick in dummy, and lead The Curse of Scotland (Planning to rise with the queen). That way we will know, whether we need to play for hearts 4-1. (East might duck the King, or Clubs might not be cashed.) There's danger in this, but hooking hearts could be disastorous too. And other players might be in 3NT. I think this line beats theirs.

850 points :) But not many IMP's. Declarer on the actual hand picked up hearts without a double, and made the contract. The board is from a four-table XIMP tournament, and the other three reults were: 4♠ making. 4♠ -1 4♠ -2 So a double would have cost virtually nothing. This doesn't go for teams of cource, where your opponents never guess wrong, and your excellent teammates always have 650, if they are available.

your partner is meta-agreement challenged! For my partners defense: This was at the last table of a pairs event. He felt (and appeared to be correct in that) that we needed one more top to win the event. That is why he preferred to bid 3NT without giving too much info to opps. ...we ended 2nd. Your partner took a unilateral, gambling action, which circumstances might have merited*. It didn't work. End of story. Unless you want to add: Even if you knew this (which would obviously be illegal), your hand is still a pass. Of course, if you could see through the back of the cards, you should have pulled. :) *It is quite hard to judge when such circumstances is met, but running scores is mandatory.

Even hesitating before passing is an insult to partner. 3NT demands a pass, and you even have better values, than pertner should expect. You have an Ace, a sure trick all the times partner has a singleton hearts, which he has quite often. Even facing a doubleton, the ace is often a prime value. The ace is also a sure stopper, in case partner has nine tricks but an open suit. (It is less likely that the opponents can run with five tricks, than it would be if you had KQ instead.)

The real question in my mind is why partner chose this particular auction and how that impacts the decision process for the rest of the auction. Might or should we expect something like [hv=s=skjxxxxxxhdxxxcxx]133|100|[/hv] What I am trying to suggest is that partner should reserve jumps like 4♠/1NT for preemptive style calls. Certainly the colors on this hand are right for that. Indeed. I love to wait for eight-card suits with absolutely nothing on the side. I see them all the time.

4♥ If it depends on a finesse in hearts, we know it's on. Three small spades are not so hot, but it doesn't take much to imagine the strong hand being endplayed throughout.

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sa976hak105d53cj64]133|100|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] You opne 1NT, 12-14. 1NT - (pass) - 4♠ - (X) Pass - (5♥) - Pass - (Pass) ?

When the opponents bid 3NT based on a solid suit? Why would you want that to be an exception? Reading thouroughly, I really don't. I just wanted for partner to encourage/discourage when I play the ace. One general disadvantage with Rusinow-leads is, that you cannot ask partner to drop the honour below (by leading the second highest, like Q from KQ109x, asking partner to drop the Jack.) Not very frequent though.

Normally I'd pass, but against some opponents I might try 2♣.