OleBerg

Well, it was a kind of sanity-check. The hand is from last night's "Jimmy Cayne Match" on BBO. Jimmy's partner (Star-player) passed. It was the penultimate board, and the team was leading with 35 imps, and the opponents had just misperformed (at no cost). Maybe the pass was to avoid a big swing? Or maybe it was amateur night?

Why would that matter?

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=s8h108752dakqca953]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Pass - (1♣)* - ??? 1♣ = 2+♣'s or any 18+

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=saq3hk1084dk8643c5]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] (1♣) - 1♦ - (Pass) - Pass ( X ) - Pass - (Pass) - 1♥ ( X ) - ??? First double was take-out (might be flawed). Second double was penalty. Feel free to comment on IMP's too.

5♦. The first two words of the phrase "take-out-double" contains a subtle clue to how it should be treated. Of course not always the case, but here there is absolutely no reason to be an "unlucky expert".

1) 2♦. Ugly, but best if opponents compete. 2) 5♦.

Whatever shows the majors. In my case: 2♣ = Both majors. 2♦ = Good hand with one major. 2♥/2♠ = Not so good hand with the suit.

Less than 5% of the hands. Vs certain opponents, a good read might make me do it. If it was my plan, I would start with 5♣.

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=sa9hakda96ckqj987]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (2♥) - 2♠ - (4♥) - ?

You might recognize the hand. :) [hv=d=s&v=e&s=sxhj109xxxdckjxxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 4♥ - (4♠) - 5♥ - (X) P - (6♦) - P - (6♠) ? You are 100% certain that X is lightner. Do you?

A restrained 4♣. When I have 7-5 (not 5 spades), I take preference myself. 5♣ at favourable.

Unfair this didn't get him of the hook: "Green told the judge he merely followed orders..." Seems to work for most everybody else these days.

Though I think I agree with this, it is not without problems. It leaves very much in the hands of the TD's approach to the game. Just judging from this thread, David might find that for a player passing initially, passing 3♠ is not an LA. Meanwhile others, like Gnasher (Andy Bowles), would find that if you pass 3♠, you are capable of many strange things. And it wouldn't be unreasonable for a TD to be of the same opinion as Andy. So two different players would get two different verdicts, depending on the TD. Of course we have committees to sort such things out, but the same problem might apply there.

2♠ or 3♣, depending on mood. Might be persuaded to pass. :)

♣

Not a what, a who. :lol: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showuser=6932

Sure. If partner holds: ♠ KQJ10xxx ♥ x ♦ Kxx ♣ Kx He is simply a silly overbidder.

Quite right. I will switch to use the term "educate partner" in the future. :)

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sxhj109xxxdckjxxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Competent opposition. Your move

Why does 2NT look silly? It is the right bid, inviting 3NT. (3NT is wrong with no honor in clubs) A good player should either accept or sign off in 3C. He should never want to play 2NT after a competitive sequence. Rainer Herrmann I am well aware that the final conract will normally be either 3♣ or 3NT. 2NT looks silly when partner bids 3♣, and there are 9 tricks for the taking. A danger I find relevant Partner will not be able to know what is good or ba values (like 10xx in hearts). "See no evil, hear no evil, bid 3NT." As hinted, I consider this close, and would never blame a partner that bid 2NT.

Both 2NT and 3NT looks a bit silly when wrong. I prefer to look silly in 3NT.

Mark me down as a beginner. Not as a Dean? :lol:

If I have the option of a poll, that's certainly preferable, but I usually don't. And they have to be of your class.

When in doubt, always bid 4♠ over 4♥.

I am certainly in that camp, so how do I convince you I am? :) Hi David, a good question. To avoid any ambiguity, I will take the liberty of rephrasing it: "How do I asses, if a player is in the bracket where pass is the normal bid the first time, and pass is not a logical alternative the second time?" I would use the tools I normally do, when I have to asses what "class of player" people are. In this case they would probably include: 1) Former merits, or lack thereof. 2) At what level are you now competing. 3) The reaction to the question: "Why didn't you bid the first time?", which I would ask very early at the table. (I am quite convinced I would do this, I have been in these situations many times.) 4) System card. If it looks like something that 10-20 years ago would have had the stamp: "Simple but good", it would pull me in the direction of placing the player in the aforementioned bracket.