kfgauss

Fortunately, they don't define solid.

Did this happen?

1. I agree that this should be reported to the TD/Recorder (who's the recorder? where would I find this person?) and hope they'll deal with it discreetly -- it seems rather likely that this person doesn't even know he's doing it, but is rather (somewhat subconsciously) "leaving [the appropriate amount of] room for the rest of his bids" when he has a good hand or some such. 2. I'm a trusting soul and don't ask to redeal the boards. I'm also perfectly ok with opponents who want to redeal the boards, as long as they arrive on time. At a sectional swiss recently, I was a bit miffed when my opponents got to the table ~8 minutes late and then wanted to redeal. Andy

I think this is just another typo and 1NT - 2C - 2M - 2NT was the intended sequence. Then with 4 of the other major too you can freely bid 3/4oM when playing that stayman promises a 4 card major. Andy

I mean double-dummy par, so (barring a good sacrifice) the grand slam will be par if the 3-2 split is there, and presumably the small slam will be par if it isn't there. This has the benefit of being rather easy to calculate. Nothing is perfect, but this sounds better to me than russian scoring (which sounds better to me than total points). I'm not sure whether I'd prefer to be scored against (pseudo-)par or a table of gibs. A table of human experts would surely be best, but I'd feel uneasy taking hands from old sources for money bridge. Andy

Is 5C forcing over 4NT? (This is perhaps a bad idea in a pickup partnership, but my question is theoretical.) This still doesn't really get you there, of course, but it might help slightly. Andy

I mistyped declarer's 6 as the 9 on the first diamond trick (I've edited it, but it used to read K, 4, 3, 9) so you were probably confused by the two 9's. Sorry about that. An amusing note on the rest of the hand: the club switch at trick 5 actually gained a trick, as declarer played for hearts 4-1 and, after cashing ♥A, crossed to ♠A and hooked the heart, whereupon the defense got their diamond ruff as well. Andy

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=s10h104dak852cakj62&w=sq9hakq92dqj106c84&e=sak875h875d74c1095&s=sj6432hj63d93cq73]399|300|Scoring: IMP -- -- P P 1H 2N 3H P P P[/hv] N/S play UDCA. ♣A, 5, 3, 4. ♣K, 9, 7, 8. ♦K, 4, 3, 6. ♦A, 7, 9, 10. ♣6 Assign the blame. (For those interested in such things, this is board 10 of the District KO Teams between Tajima (N/S) and Kenji (E/W). N-S is Ino-Teramoto and E-W is Nakamura-Shimamura.) [Edit: Apologies for the wrong diamond card from declarer on the first trick -- I mistyped 9 instead of 6.]

Given the technology we now have, wouldn't comparing with par be better than Russian scoring? This should be fairly easy to implement. Or perhaps better, pseudo-par, which is just like par but contracts which are down 1 are not doubled (this better approximates real life). Andy

Transfer advances are reasonable here. Essentially you're swapping 4D and 4H. Something I wonder, though, is whether the loss of the 4H punt over (3D) 3S (P) 4D; (P) ? is too much to give up for the ability to bid slam inv heart hands (and two-suited H-C hands) more easily. An alternative is 4C = H, 4D = S raise, 4H = C. This gains the ability to give choice of games between 4H & 4S and loses times you have a 4-4 heart fit when advancer has long clubs (other gains and losses for hearts/clubs probably roughly cancel out). Not sure what framework this would fit into, but one can probably find some reasonable generalization. I haven't thought about this much so there may be serious flaws. Any comments would be welcome. Andy

The poll says it all. Andy [Edit: Actually, if you have general agreements that certain bids are exclusion and certain ones are natural, and certain cuebids are always raises and certain others may not be, I'd love to hear your rules, as clearly I'm interested in related sequences as well.]

By passed hand, their 1N is semiforcing, and they play drury, so I don't think they put bad raises through 1N (drury decreases the upper limit of the single raise somewhat, and then the fact that you want 1N to be semif. means you probably shouldn't bid it with bad raises). Here was the full hand (not that one hand necessarily proves anything): [hv=d=w&v=n&n=sa10752h8542d3caq9&w=s63hqj976dq65ck53&e=sj984hk3dak10c10864&s=skqha10dj98742cj72]399|300|Scoring: BAM[/hv] I doubled, led ♦A and it made 2 easily. The ♥K makes it harder, but they can still make (on some lines West is strip-squeezed in clubs). Andy

Also Rain.

I bid 2D, and don't even think it's an underbid (it's a max, sure). I like negative doubles over overcalls of 1N, but standard is certainly still penalty and that's what I'd assume with any pickup partner. Also, looking at our hand, we can guess how it was meant. I would also sit for the penalty double having bid 1N. Once you bid 3D, and then 3N, I'd pass 4H though -- partner's 4H was made with the realization that LHO has 5 hearts and you have xx and a good diamond suit... you have no reason to overrule that just because you have one fewer, especially having already shown your diamonds. Partner's hand is worth only 1 trick in notrump (under the assumption you have 2 hearts) so I do think his 4H bid was reasonable (trying to go down the smallest number, at that point). With 4-1-4-4, I'm sympathetic to 1N and would consider it. You can pass and hope to double later (of P 1N P P or of P 1N P 2H perhaps, or of P 1N P 2m; P 2S P P -- the first and third for penalty/cards and the middle one for takeout) as your other option. Andy

1N P 2C X would be almost purely for the lead (usually a good 5-card suit or better, but could be flat and not particularly desire partner to bid 3C). Here, as we've opened 1D, I think it should show a decent club suit and be sort of for the lead, sort of suggesting that partner compete and that thus we should have mild extras in terms of playing strength (ie either decent shape or a few extra points). Andy

Not to argue with the setup, but perhaps you should start opening 4432 with 1D instead -- raising (to 2C and 2S) with 4 trumps in competitive auctions is important (of course, there are losses when you open 1D, but these seem small in comparison). Playing that style, this hand is just barely worth 2S (unless you open balanced 11 counts). Playing as you do, 2S is even more attractive compared to 2C: you'll get to play 2N instead of 2C when partner's 4-4-3-2. I don't like doubling without 4 hearts, but must admit that if ever there were a hand for it, this would be it, and hrothgar's reasoning is persuasive. Additionally, you get to play 1N instead of 2N when it's right. So, if you open balanced 11 counts, I'll double. If not, I'm happy with both 2S and double. Andy

No, there are two outstanding (the 4 and 6). I agree with the ruling, and probably would even if there were only 1 trump outstanding in a similar situation. I would warn declarer to state "drawing trumps" when claiming in the future lest there be a less sympathetic director or a murkier situation. I will note that if this is on BBO, claiming etiquette seems to be rather different and I at least tend not to state any line when claiming, largely because I mostly play informally with friends. I suppose if I were playing against random opponents in a tournament on BBO I'd probably state my line, though. Andy

I didn't really think about the implications of this until now, but this gives the player who took out the wrong hand an interesting problem: take an Ave-minus or repeat your previous call even if it wasn't appropriate for your hand (ie psyche). It seems like this could often be correct, and indeed would have been on this board. Do the opponents get to change their bids if this player chooses to make the same calls? They have added information that their opponent is somewhat likely to be psyching because the bids are being made under duress of an Ave-minus score for changing. Andy

One presumes partner will reopen with short spades -- pass is trying for a juicy penalty. Andy

I don't think that works, but you can pitch 3 clubs in dummy on spades and crossruff. Andy

Pass is likely best at MPs (we've probably lost the board already if we have to bid 3S), but at imps I'm willing to hope they won't double me in 3S and not willing to give up 3Dx= more than half the time. I admit I'll perhaps be doubled when I'm down 3 or more in 3S. This is a nasty situation and I'm not certain passing is best given the various factors. A simulation could be interesting. Andy Simulation results: I had Jack analyze 1000 deals. Expected total points: 3Dx: -374 4C(x or not depending on actual hand): -1151 So they do make 3D often, but bidding 4C is terrible (Jack only considered bidding 4C, not 3S). To see how 3S does vs 3D and prune out hands that Jack shouldn't have been including, I looked at 10 hands, throwing ones out that would've been bid differently by humans. The results: 3Dx+1: 1 3Dx= : 6 3Dx-1: 3 Expected total points: -309 3S-1: 2 3S-2: 3 3Sx-3: 3 3Sx-4: 2 Expected total points: -350 (The times I thought they'd double exactly coincided with the times we were going down 3 or more, which makes sense.) Expected total points is a reasonable way to measure this (as opposed to imps) because we have no idea what's going on at the other table. Thus I stand corrected and, at least against opponents who aren't afraid to double, one should just pass out 3Dx according to my simulation. Andy Edit: These results are very close, of course, and the sample size is small. Also, there were hands where one needed to defend well to set, such as: Partner leads ♠J and dummy is Q98x J9xx J KQxx. Declarer plays low from dummy. What's your plan? Solution hidden:

Pass is likely best at MPs (we've probably lost the board already if we have to bid 3S), but at imps I'm willing to hope they won't double me in 3S and not willing to give up 3Dx= more than half the time. I admit I'll perhaps be doubled when I'm down 3 or more in 3S. This is a nasty situation and I'm not certain passing is best given the various factors. A simulation could be interesting. Andy

Thanks, this is a nice inference and solution to my issue above. :P Andy Note sure about that.. why can't it be a 5♠-4m with 13-14 hcp? Adam's claim is that you have to bid 3m directly with any 5♠-4m GF. You could play it differently, but then you'd have the issue I described above (and possibly other minor issues relating to stoppers in the other minor). Edit: Of course, playing it his way, 1♠-2♥;3♦ is ridiculously overloaded. Perhaps he bids 2NT with some 5♠-4♦ hands though? Andy

What do you mean by "task cohesion"? Andy

Thanks, this is a nice inference and solution to my issue above. :P Andy