OleBerg

Not necessarily. They would score more matchpoints on the average, but they might lose a few places sometimes. Imagine this extreme example: A pair is so much stronger than all the other pairs in the tournament, that they will normally always win. If everybody used the strategy, once in a very seldom while, they would get unlucky, and the most lucky of the other pairs would win.

They are the methods the majority of the world would use in this spot. Well, the majority of the world belongs in the B/I forum. And the discussion penalty vs T/O at low levels have been taken thousands of times before. I know they do not apply as strongly after a strong NT-opening, but they are still compelling enough to make me play T/O. So, if you play penalty doubles against competent opposition, the times you'll collect numbers vs nothing, will be small, while the number of times you are impaired in competing will be high. A quick glance at the non-linear IMP-scale will show that protecting (any) plus score, is the overriding concern in competitive sequences. A few excamples: Turning -50 into +50: 3 IMP's Taking 300 vs your part score: 4 or 5 IMP's. Letting them make a partscore, when you have one: 6 IMP's Missing a NV laydown 3NT: 6 IMP's If you want to make a big effort, you could divide opponents into two categories; Those where you go for the throat, and those were you want to compete effectively. And note that playing T/O doesn't give opponent carte blanche to bidding; they might still either be doubled for T/O and left in, or simply turn a plus into a minus by bidding. As for the actual hand, blame hinges on the agreement about 2♦. If it invites a penalty double, blame goes to South. South has a perfect hand for a take-out double of 2♠, and that's what should have been chosen. (When there is two ways to get to double 2♠, obviously one of them should be T/O.)

A side note on T/O vs penalty: The more competent and well-organized you opponents are, the more you need take-out doubles. If you are up against competently challenged opponents, penalty might make some sense, but you'll have to be ready to swallow a few results like this.

I'll take your response to mean that North shouldn't double 2♠ for penalties, since if he shouldn't sit for a takeout double, then hopefully you would agree he shouldn't make a penalty double! However, I fail to see how system makes a lick of difference in that judgment. My point is, that to be able to find out whether to compete or not, you need takeout-doubles. (Catching the opponents for a number, will only be done circumstantially.) So if South' double invites a penalty, he shouldn't do it. He should pass, and then double 2♠ for take-out. (Since the opponents has been nice enough to give us two routes to doubling two spades, it seems clear that one of them should be take-out.) I still believe the double of 2♦ should simply show points, inviting opener into the bidding fray, where he might make a take-out double, or bid a strong 5-card (minor) suit.

I'll use an advanced technique, called a "Thrumph-coup". I'll lead high hearts from dummy, discarding diamonds, until RHO ruffs. I'll then overruff, draw the last thrumph, and carefully play my highest diamond first. (If I have any left.)

100% the person in charge of system. Double should be takeout, which South could then have done. And North shouldn't sit. (Only at MP's with red opp. is it worth considering.)

I was missing something. I'll be generous and grant myself another try: Rise with the ♥K at trick 2. Ruff a club. ♠K ♠ to the ace. If lefty shows out: Ruff a heart. ♦A ♦ to the Queen. And claim. Yes, I'll be down when LHO is 1-2-4-6, but I'll catch all the 1-2-3-7's and the odd 1-3-x-x. Seems much better than the finesse.

I might be missing something??? I rise with the King. If lefty shows out, I play a diamond to the queen and claim.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sq9hkj10542dk8753c&s=sk85432h83d6cq952]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 2♠ - ( X ) - Pass - (Pass) Pass The ♣K is led, which you casually ruff in dummy. What do you play at tricks 2?

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=shkqj872da10752ca8]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Your partner opens a weak 2♠. Style is 4-9 hcp. Unfortunately you only have these options: 3♥ = Non-forcing invitational. 4♥ = To play. What's it gonna' be boy?

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=skj932h10953d872c9]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Competent but oldfashioned opponents bid uninterrupted: 1NT - 2♦ 3♣ - 6♣ 1NT = 15 -17 2♦ = Two-way Stayman 3♣ = 5-cards

Lay off the contrafibularities. They do not belong in this forum.

Have you ever made a psych? If so, care to describe it... I haven't psyched in serious bridge in the last 10 years. I play an aggressive system and is an overbidder. Furthermore, my partner heeds S.J.Simons advice, that says that when you play with an overbidder, you should overbid yourself.* So our system generates enough volatility by itself. But even if I decided to bluff once in a while, I would not consider it a mixed strategy. I would bluff when I felt the circumstances were right. Some of these circumstances might be difficult to quantify, but they would still be there. * For easy reference, S.J. Simons advice is; If you play with an overbidder, and start to underbid to compensate, the overbidder will simply overbid even more, just to compensate. If, on the other hand, you overbid to, he will start to moderate his bid, to compensate for your overbidding.

1) 4♣ (fitbid) is not really an alternative, but rather a mistake I could make. (So according to me, there is a 1/30 chance that I would do it. According to my partner, the chance would be 1/6.) I do not consider bidding differently because RHO hesitated, to be a mixed strategy. I would consider it to be "bidding according to circumstances". Likewise, if one of my opponents has to pass (for example because of a penalty card), I would preempt more conservatively. Not a mixed strategy, just bidding according to circumstances. 2) 2♦ followed by 3♠, splinter. And here I actually play, that partners 3NT is to play. So with my regular partner, anything else would be totally silly. Otherwise, I echo the considerations of ritong. I have yet to encounter a situation, where I would find a mixed strategy useful. But it could be an interesting desk-analysis.

I am an intermediate player, as my profile advertises. The other guy advertises an altogether different skill level. More on that later. Any player with perhaps even a few days experience should be able to recognize a homely 5NT asking for #Kings. Maybe if he is American. With a European, and indeed with a Scandinavian partner, you shouldn't be to confident.

Well, i disagree. 1) Only two posters seems to support this, while many, and indeed some of the respected posters, seems to have no problem. 2) My opening post has attracted 30 comments directly discussing the stated problem. This is far above average for this forum. 3) Opinions has been discerning in this forum, so it seems to me it was worth discussing. I only revealed the full deal out of politeness, because somebody asked for it. As far as I can see, every single poster who commented on the overcall disagreed strongly with it (with varying degree of ridicule). I doubt any poster here would have overcalled 1♦ with this hand. What I meant was, that only two posters seems to agree that the problem shouldn't have been posted here.

A quick guess for the formula: N = Number of children. B = Number of children known to be boys. 1 divided by: 2(uplifted to N'th) - B I am not sure, but I also believes that all this assumes that a child is exactly 50% likely to be of either gender. I might be using the wrong words, English (and Maths) isn't my native language.

Well, i disagree. 1) Only two posters seems to support this, while many, and indeed some of the respected posters, seems to have no problem. 2) My opening post has attracted 30 comments directly discussing the stated problem. This is far above average for this forum. 3) Opinions has been discerning in this forum, so it seems to me it was worth discussing. I only revealed the full deal out of politeness, because somebody asked for it.

Strange attitude. If I had not published the full hand, or made up one that did fit the bidding, the problem would have belonged here? The problem is that skaeran sees, as do I, the failure to X 1♣ as a clear error and responding as if it was acceptable should not be in the A/E forum. Well that's not what he wrote. Anyway, I just kibitzed the hand, and was very surprised to see a pass, and wanted expert opinions. If people find it to silly, simply don't respond. After all, a lot of people responded without stating that it didn't belong here. Furthermore, there was different opinions, so someone might have profited from the thread. I really don't think that one bad bid should exclude a problem from this forum; somebody might have learned that the hand should have doubled initially.

Strange attitude. If I had not published the full hand, or made up one that did fit the bidding, the problem would have belonged here?

If I have 5♣ = Voidwood available, I will not hesitate to use it. Even pessimisticly expecting to face: ♠ = Qxx ♥ = Kxxxx ♦ = xx ♣ = Wastage slam is not unreasonable. And just add a little, and we are fine. Of course I can get to high, but +510 with 13 pedestrian tricks looks silly too.

Yes, I agree; however myabe it was explained as that? Maybe, but why ask people what to bid where the given bidding has no relationship with the actual hands held? Rainer Herrmann I was simply interested in what to do with the South hand in the given circumstances. May I recommend a site for you: www.resultmerchant.com

The opponents have doubled me in one suit, partner has run, and now they've doubled him in that. How often do you think you're going to need a cue bid in this type of sequence? More often than I need to be able to play in the openers suit. Yeah, but switch spades and clubs, and change the ♦K to the ace. Not likely, but neither is wanting to play 2♣.

My thoughts: To unlikely to have such a hand. Much more useful to have a cuebid available.

The table result was asked for, so here it is (some spots may be wrong): [hv=d=e&v=b&n=s872hqj962dqcqj76&w=s1095h5daj1097ck1083&e=skj64ha73d52ca942&s=saq3hk1084dk8643c5]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] (1♣) - 1♦ - (Pass) - Pass ( X ) - Pass - (Pass) - 1♥ ( X ) - Pass - (2♣) - Pass (Pass) - 2♥ - (Pass) - Pass (Pass) I stopped kibzing here, but I found the South hand interesting. To me it was obvious to bid, but not to bid 2♥. Maybe I was influenced by seeing all four hands, but my thoughts was, that South might want to go to the 3-level with this hand (nine thrumphs and everything), but with the potential bad breaks for opp. in clubs, he might want to include North in the decision. So my initial thought was a 2♣ bid. Problems with this: - Partner might think it is natural. (He shouldn't). - Partner might expect a stronger hand with only three-card support, and might go wrong later on. (Not unreasonable.) - Takes up less space, in an auction where the opp. degree of Club-fit is quite ambiguous. So does a 2♣ bid have any merit? Anybody for the 3-level in any possible continuations? (Not on the actual layout, but assume for example the opponents confidently comes to rest in 2♠ or 3♣). Edit: Pass changed to double after 1♥, as in original post. Sorry.