OleBerg

Inspired by another tread, I am asking: Is it generally wrong to make and "Anti-Field" bid or play?

Excuse me for being frank, but I believe it is you who are confusing a tecnically better bid with a better matchpoint spot. Obviously, if I know that we will end up in 3nt, it is better to open 1nt. (Actually it is better to open 3nt, and have partner pass it.) But before we open, we do not know, that we are going to 3nt. We might as well be headed for a partscore, for a slam, or end up on defence. Advanced players might even find their occasional way to 4♠ on a 4-3 fit. Obviously this would depend on how likely 3nt is to making overtricks. On a generel note, I do agree though, that you should stick to 3nt, whenever there is the slightest doubt. That is not the point however. After some arguing we might very well com to the conclusion that 1nt has a higher expectacy of scored MP's than a 1♣ opener. (In all the possible continuations there are after the two openings.) But if that is the case, 1nt is a better bid. (Wheter you would add the prefix "technically" is a matter of definition.) And then you should of course bid 1nt. Not because 1♣ is "Anti-field", but because 1nt is simply a better bid.

(Assuming it's an answer to my post.) But if your "anti-field" bid is actually a better bid, it should be even easier to get a pure top.

Whats wrong with bidding anti-field?

Yes, this is a circular discussion. If I can have this hand for a 2D opening, then partner knows that and could have investigated further. If I can't have this hand, then I didn't open 2D in the first place. I do not agree. In many situations, you never play partner for the perfect hand, as he never has it. But this time we might actually have "The perfect hand" for partner. So it isn't unreasonable to let him know. If partner always went out of his way to investigate slam, at the slightest excuse, we would end up accepting way to many of his invites. For example: If partner invited slam in spades, and we had: ♠ xx ♥ xx ♦ Axxxxx ♣ KQx We would obviously accept everytime, and thus get to high, all the times partner needed the actual hand. All this depends on how strict your requirements for weak twos are. If you play them constructively, the situation might be as "impossible" as described. But if your style is to open weak twos at any opportunity, you have to move on. On another note, this probably isn't a much discussed sequence in many partnerships, but as Ben pointed out, we should have a way of showing shortness, as it is impossible to imagine an advancing hand without shortness.

Go on. I agree that the five-level may not be secure, but the risk of missing a slam is to high. We are highly unlikely to be ahead of the field, as we can expext almost everybody to be in 4♠. I am so fortunate that my methods allow me to bid 4nt, showing excactly two aces. This way I can include partner in the decision of going to slam, or staying in 5. If Blackwood was my method, I'd try a cue in 5♣ instead.

X and X

TD could be right. I only have a version of the laws in my native language (Danish), so I cannot give you the excact wording of §23, which I believe the TD has used. The point of §23 is, that whenever the TD feels that the offending side has gained an advantage by an irregularity, the TD should adjust the score, if the offender, at the time of the irregularity, might have known that it would likely be detrimental to the non-offending side. So if TD feels that ducking a diamond, instead of playing the ace, is a reasonable alternative, it could be correct to give an adjusted score. This does not imply that the offending side has cheated. (All this is assuming, that the non-offending side ended up with fewer tricks, after the major penalty card was lead, than they would have done, if the ♦K had been allowed to take the trick.) §23, in this form, is relatively new. I actually believe it is from the latest revision.

3♦: A hand that is uncertain about nt or clubs. May contain a mild slam-try. 3♥: 6 card suit, or strong 5 card suit. 3♠: Normally two spades. May on a rare occasion be xxx in spades. 3nt: Natural. 4♣: Certain that we belong in clubs, at least at the five level. Shows a better hand than 5♣

Hi you hold Kxx AQxx xx Axxx in the same auction. Your bid pls? 4♥, not really a problem. Not saying that I agree with 2♣.

Unless partner is simply checking whether I have remembered the system, he has a hand where the minor-suits are potential trumph suits. (If not he should use a normal Stayman or Stayman-like sequence.) As i have five-card-support, two doubletons, and no queens or jacks, 3nt is simply an atrocity. Some might see the ♥K as wasted, but it really isnt; it's a sure trick. This hand has the a better trick-taking potential than: ♠ KQx ♥ Exx ♦ Kxxx ♣ KQx a 17 count with no wasted values. The immidiate tricks are the same, as the two black-queen-tricks, are substituted by a ruff and the ♥K. Furthermore the fifth diamond gives some protection of troubles in the trumph suit, and may provide a further trick if thrumphs are 2-2. So I voted: "Disagree with 1N, now another unlisted forward going move" then found out there was no other forward-going move. 4nt is quite silly, as partner may have a hand where 5♦ is the limit, but also one where 7♦ is laydown. I simply have to involve partner in the decision. My choice would be 4♦ rather than 4♥, taking my chances, that partner doesnt pass. 4♥ would have to be some king of general slam-invite, and will sometimes get me to the right spot , but we will have no way of checking aces, and grand-slam exploration will be almost impossible. So this leads to another conclusion: 4♦ as non-forcing is as silly as 3nt is an atrocity. On a final note, I disagree with 1nt, only if I can bid 2♥ on a 1♠ response. As I play 16 reasonable points is ok for this, but I am aware that many will find this a bit rich. Anyway, as my profile says: I am an overbidder.

Not really, at least not in my book. Not too strong for 1♥. 2-suiters can be difficult to handle, when you open 2♣. 3♣ is not pointless. Partner liked it, but he didnt like it enough. South was interested slam, only if North made a move towards slam under his own steam. 3♣ might also pave the way for 3nt, especially importent at MP's. Best Regards Ole Berg

"cooperative" is another word for "optional", "cardshowing", "no clear direction", "partner do something intelligent", "blametransfer". With kind regards Marlowe So how many diamonds does it show? 1? 2? 3? 4? Depends on how fast you double. Best Regards Ole Berg

Go to intermidiate forum immidiately. Unless South bids 4♣ only to practice biddng minors, it also carries the message: "Slam is possible, facing a passed hand." And North can hardly have a better hand! (Some players could have a fifth spade, I couldn't.) 4♦ or 4♥ might be a better bid by North, but only for exploration of a grand. When South shows off, North, who has every reason to expect all his values are working, obviously has to make another try. When North finds out that they're off a likely cashing trick, and the thrumph queen, he should sign off in 5♠. This might go down on a 4-0 split, or a heart ruff, but if you are never down, with such unlucky splits, you miss to many slams. So no blame to a North, that takes the partnership to the five-level. Taking it to the six-level is, of course, a bad move. Best Regards Ole Berg

Sometimes you get lucky, and run into a hand, that suits your methods almost perfectly. This is one such hand for me. I start with 4♣, showing a void. My partner can then bid 4♦, LTTC, if this suits his hand. If it does i check aces outside Clubs with 4♠. If he has it, I check for Trumph-Queen, and makes a gand-slam invite. If he hasnt, I have to guess, but the odds heavily favours slam, so I bid it. Best Regards Ole Berg

Pass. Only because they are vulnerable, and it is MP. Second choice is the obvious double. Best Regards Ole Berg

Never pass. I play D as showing exactly four spades. If partner only has three spades, I definately want to get to four of a minor. The idée of showing two suits with a double appeal to me, I have just never thought of it. In standard methods I'd bid 3♠. Best Regards Ole Berg

Thats putting it mildly. Best Regards Ole Berg

The 58% comes from my bad memory :) I guess it is because I use it as a guideline, to make up for all the smaal quirks a contract often have. Things like, not being able to handle a 6-0 break. Incidently, the suit-combination I thought I saw, a nine card fit with AKJT, is the "worst" allowable combination, you can have in a critical suit, when you bid a grand. (The suit is 57.91% likely to come in.) To my knowledge at least, maybe Im wrong again. :) Best Regard Ole Berg

You dont need all those calculations. Assuming they always bid 6nt at the other table, it's just good enough without the ♣10. Only Just. Best Regards Ole Berg I'm not sure I understand this. Without the ♣10, you will make 7NT when West holds ♥Q, when East holds it singleton, and when East is void in hearts, all of which comes to about 57%. That would not be good enough odds if there were only one other table (at IMPs - BAM is a different matter). Experience suggests that it is not good enough odds at matchpoints either, unless playing in a small field of uniformly high standard. One could imagine a number of pairs agreeing hearts at an early stage in the auction, finding out that ♥Q is missing, and settling for a small slam in hearts. Without ♣10, I would be content with 6NT in most fields at matchpoints (the form of scoring specified in the original post). Even with ♣10, I still consider that many pairs will find it difficult to bid to 7NT, and I would estimate that 6NT making seven would score pretty well. You're quite right, I miscalculated. I thuoght there were nine hearts in the combined hands. :P Actually it only adds up to 55,6552%. Nowhere near the needed 58% (still assuming they always bid at least 6nt at the other table). Can I have my ♣10 back, please? Best Regards Ole Berg

You dont need all those calculations. Assuming they always bid 6nt at the other table, it's just good enough without the ♣10. Only Just. Best Regards Ole Berg

Easy 7nt. (How can you even ask???) Also easy 7nt at imps. Best Regards Ole Berg

Totally agree. I'm not convinced the alternatives are necessarily good things. I agree that penalty doubles of strong no trumps are not frequent. But, neither am I convinced that being hyper-active over their no trump is a particularly good thing. It's possible that penalty doubles gain by reducing one's options and thus acting less frequently. Thats not a question of what is good or bad, but only of discipline, or lack thereof. Best Regards Ole Berg

One thing regarding the defence, needs to be adressed, before you can make a reasonable judgement about where the cut should be: Namely what a double shows, and how committing it is. Lets say we have to decide whether to play a double as "strengt" or "something else", when opponents open a 14-16 nt. If you play "strength" as: "More points than the opener", you will not have a double as often as you will, if you play: "The middle of their range, and a good lead". And the more likely you are, to have a suitable double, the more inclined you should be to play it as "strength". Of course, if you play; "The middle of their range, and a good lead", the double should not be very committing, so it should not set up a force. Finally an anecdote from the rough end of the trenches: Our teammates play a somewhat suicidal convention, known as Blakset's 2♠; When white vs red, a 2♠ opening shows 0-7, any shape. So one of them passsed, showing 8-10 points. Next hand bid 1nt, 15-17. Third hand had a decent 13-count and a good lead. 500. Best Regards Ole Berg Ps: English is not my native language, please bear with me.

Indeed. For those who it may interest: http://bridgehands.com/P/Probability_HCP.htm Best Regards Ole Berg