mikestar

This reminds me of a hand I played many years ago. I was a bright beginner and the other three were . . . beginners. [hv=d=w&v=n&w=saxxxhaxxxdaxc765&e=sqxxxhqdqxxxxc432]266|100|Scoring: Rubber[/hv] The auction went 1C-(P)-2C-(P)-P-(P)! The opening lead was a small heart, South covering dummy's stiff Queen with the King. I made nine tricks: three Aces and six trumps on a crossruff.

On the first hand 5D seems about right. Kit Woolsey in Matchpoints says that the best way to put the opponents to the last guess in preemptive auctions is to bid to the level where you don't know what their correct action is--odds favor that they won't know either. The Precision auction is a tough one. 1H-2C in principle shows 22+ minimum combined HCP, but 20-21 are not uncommon and 19 has been known to happen. 3S is about right on values but directs a poor lead. I'm doubtful about the best way to proceed.

How often do YOU lead diamonds when partner opens 1C? Add me to the 1NT overcallers. Rather frequently in this sequence if I have diamond length. Partener propbaly has club length but might have only three and by overcalling 1N my RHO is announcing a club stopper. Note that I'm much more comofrtable with overcalling 1N with a singleton in a side suit over a major suit opening--opening leader is less likely to find the lead of the singleton suit when his partner has promised a five card suit.

In matchpoints, vulnerability makes no difference in constructive bidding. At IMPs, you should be more aggresive in bidding games--you are getting odds of 10-6 vulnerable on bidding game (assuming exact make or down 1, no double) vs 6-5 non-vulnerable. Slam odds are comparable at either vulnerability. In competive bidding, you can afford to be more agressive at neither vulnerable than at both vulnerable. The two situations are equivalent when competing at the game level and above, but in a partscore battle, both vulnerable carries greater risk of -200 if you bid to high and greater chance of +200 is they do. This effect is more pronounced at matchpoints as 200 can be top or bottom on a partscore deal, but the gain or loss is more modest at IMPs.

50% each--South's 4H is an overbid, but why is North doubling? The E/W bdding is a bit wierd, but doesn't affect the result here--I would expect them to have ten trumps on this sequence, though I'd place them 7-3 instead of 6-4 (which makes the double less attractive).

The general rule for all of these cases (and many others not starting with with 2C): If we are in a game forcing auction, they never play the hand undoubled. Therefor all doubles are penalty, and all passes are forcing. The fact that we might stop short of game on certain sequences does not negate the game forcing character of the 2C opening, just like the fact that we might stop in 4C after a 2/1 sequence of 1S-2C when is there is no major fit and 3N is unplayable doesn't mean we aren't playing 2/1 GF.

George Rosenkranz advocates responder's double directly over interference to 2C as a double negative (about 0-3 points). This allows for many profitable leave ins, as opposite a minimum 2C there is no game and +200 is a top. Pass would show at least 4 points without a good bid. This shows game is probable oppoite a minimum 2C. Opener's balancing double should be for penalties. 2C is forcing to game unless opener cancels his game force by bidding 2N or bidding and rebidding a suit after a negative response. So pass is forcing.

The relevant paragraph of Law 12C: 2. Assigned Score When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. In general, prevent gain by an irregularity is a higher ranked goal than redressing damage. So EW should get the normal result if the irregularity had not occured,. geting the better of two fairly equally likely normal results. They should not get an unusually good result. NS should get the worst result that was resonable, that is might unusual but isn't freakish. 4H= is right for NS but I'm less certain about EW--I'm not so sure West will bid 3H, but it is a reasonal suppostion that if he does, East will bid 4. This is a hand that I might adjust in matchpoints giving EW something between their table result and the top for 4H=, while giving NS the bottom, letting the table result stand for matchpointing the other tables. By the way, 4H makes against a two diamond ruffs--after the ruffs are taken, the Queen of diamonds is an entry to allow the trump finesse.

I still prefer pass. But I can see the merit of doubling and then stretching to rebid 1N over 1D. Here at least partner will tend to have diamonds stopped. The direct 1N overcall is inferior. Very frequently a diamond lead will slaughter it. Partber turned up with a double diamond stop that could stand being lead thru--how likely is that? Double will let you get to the right major anytime that partner has one--in at least some of those cases he won't be able to look for a 4-4 major fit after a 1N overcall.

You need some partnership discussion about balancing. If you can pass a hand this strong, partner must reopen even on his mediocre 10 count. If your partnership decison is that your hand must act in direct seat, 1H is the best of a bad lot but it may get you to the wrong major. I might cheat and make a takout double with only 2 cards in an unbid minor, but not with a stiff. Some might venture 1N with your cards, but I think that's rather dangerous--you would be announcing a club stopper and they rate to be long in diamond: this is the opening lead you will get and NT won't do well from your side. I much prefer a partnership understanding that allows a pass on South's cards. Now North must balance. If he chooses 1NT, you will get to 3N and a normal result; if he chooses to double, you can leave it in and put them down more than your game is worth. I much prefer to allow trap passes and balance light, but what is most critical is that you and your partner are on the same wavelength.

3N isn't so bad here--yes 7N is on ice if the hearts split, but if they don't, the only slam that makes is 6C. And the odds on the 4-1 heart split go up as preempter is likely to be short in hearts. You'll have a lot of company missing it and a lot of the slam bidders may be minus.

He did not report doing so. Might be worth factoring in the possiblilty and doing an extensive study. I suspect that 2M would lead to too many missed games. The 3M issue is not when partner accepts--there will ususally be a reasonable play for game even if not as good as opposite an unbalanced hand, but that 3M often goes down when the invitation is declined.

George Rosencranz did an extensive computer study of this situation and advocates raising to 3M with 6+ controls and supressing the support and bidding 1N with 5 or less. (From Bid to Win, Play for Pleasure)

No, because the clubs are solid from K to 9: there will be only one trump loser in 6C no matter how they split. Also, they have a better chance of a club ruff against 6S that the other way around becuase the have the club ace and not the spade ace.

Why diamonds? High level minor suit preempts are quite effective--the opponents have both majors and may not have the tools or the bidding room to pick the right one.

Because the bad spade split always sinks 6S but sometimes they won't get a spade ruff in 6C.

I open the first hand 4S: it has no defense whatsoever and good playing stregth. Missing slam is always possible with these 7-5 hands, but maximum premption is likely to be the winner. The second hand is a 1S opener. Not the remotest chance it gets passed out and I can bid 4S at my next turn if partner is weak--even 1s-(2H)-P(4H)-4S. This bid should show the playing strength for a 4S opener or a bit better, but with some defense (and useful side cards for slam) -- just exactly what I have.

If passing hands such as these allows you to have a system design that actually significantly increases Precision's advantage from "responder jumps to the right contract and lets the enemy guess" auctions, then the price is worth paying, IMO. The question of the size of the added avantage should be considered carefully.

I like 5C, but with a patnership agreement that it is a freak preempt rather than a 12 trick hand, I would open 6C--I have 9 fairly sure tricks and they are quite sure to have a slam--not unlikely a grand.

I would bid 1NT forcing with this hand, mainly beacuse there may be a heart game if partner is max and 5-4 in the majors, though avopidng a 5-1 fit in spades might be good as well. I swap a small heart to spades and pass is a standout; swap a small heart to a minor and pass is a reasonale gamble especially if they are vulnerable and we are not. If left in the 5-1 spades may paly badly, but the risk of missing game is less--if partner is 5-5 in the majors, they almost certainly have enough shape to balance. Weaken the hand a bit so that there is really no game possible and I pass at any vulnerability.

To my mind, this is a light opening bid. As Ben pointed out, it counts 26 Zar points. It also has 7 losers. This is a clear opening bid if your partnership does not have defensive value requirements for one level openings. If your partnership has this agreement, opening this particular hand is illegal in ACBL (and apparently in Italy). If your partnership agreement does call for defensive values then this would be classed as a psyche and therefor legal in ACBL as long as you don't have a partnership history that would consitute an implicit agreement. If we assume that the opening bid was correctly ruled illegal under the conditions of contest or applicable sponsoring organization regulations, then adjusting your score to Ave- is correct. Note that I am not defending these regulations--they should be done away with. However the Ave+ award for the opponents is wrong. As Ron pointed out, they didn't play bridge and so lose their right to protection. Their score should stand. As a director I would make the ruling I outlined above and apologize to you for the idiocy of the regulation. As an opponent, I would never call the director about this bidding and would try to dissuade my partner if he wished to.

The anonymity of the interrnet does let more rude behaivour come out, but it also happens in f2f (IMHO, Zero Tolerance is something the ACBL has done right.) In one case, I made a ruling having observed the play athe the table (they were slow) with my own eyes, and when the ruling was disputed, I showed the last few tricks and carefully explained my ruling. The player kept on questioning me, I game him a warning and when he swore at me after the game (but while the scores were being calculated--this was a senior center where I matchpointed by hand!) I deducted a full board from his score as a disciplinary penatly [per the Laws the game isn't over until the scores are posted.] At this point he launched into a very profane description of what he imagined were my intelligence, my integrity, my ancestry, my destination in the afterlife and my sexual proclivites with persons of varying genders, near relatives, and livestock. At this point I called Security and had him removed from the premises. He appealed to the Club's governing board and they decided that he was to make a full written apology within 24 hours or be banned from the club for the remainder of his natural life. (I would have suggested "for time and eternity", but natural life was OK with me.)

I would love to direct or codirect a game, but God has seen fit to grace me with not one but two special needs children. I virtaully never even get to play anymore. I treasure this forum because it lets me keep up with developements in the game for the time when I get more chances as the boys get older.

I've directed a lot of f2f bridge. My policy is not to be too hard on somone who complains a bit about a ruling at the time I make it. A second complaint later (excluding a formal appeal or a polite informal discussion after the game) will get a warning, a third complaint will get a disciplinary penalty, a fourth will get the complainer ejected. This is assuming the complainer may be right and has been respectful: no foul language, no insults, no accusations, etc. If the complainer is disrespectful or is disputing a ruling that is obviously correct (applies the obviously correct law to undisputed facts) I am quite a bit harsher. McBruce was merciful.

On these cards I want to be in 6D at IMPS and 6H at MP. True the chance of a ruff reduces the theoretical odds to under 50%, but at least some of the time West will talk himself into not leading a club, then your club loser goes away on a high spade before you take the heart hook for the overtrick. For Precision players it should go 1H-1S-3D and now responder should drive to slam with his excellent controls and double fit. I'd bid 4NT (simple Blackwood) if we're not playing keycard here. No need for delicate investigation, a grand is out of the question in this precision sequence.