Jlall

That might be how it is, but I don't think it's how it should be. Over 3♥, we have two bids (4♣ and 4♦) to cover these hand-types: - A slam try in hearts - A game-going 4342 without a club stop - A flexible hand without five spades or primary hearts (4351, 3361, etc) - A less flexible one-suiter in diamonds I would have thought that the slam try in hearts would be the least likely of any of them. so reserving half of our available bids for this type seems excessive. Except a 4342 no club stop hand can bid 4H and be in the right contract very much of the time of the time (how often will we want to play 5D? would you bid 3H or 3S with 4-4?), and a less flexible one suiter in diamonds A might not have doubled, and B might be able to bid 5D now, or C might survive 4D (depends on how much less flexible). I just don't see very much gain in having 4C available for some of these hands.

It shows a source of tricks (long clubs) and spades stopped and a good hand (8 tricks).

This is not fair, I am obv not Rodwell but I had no idea what the ruling for this kind of situation is, and from all my experiences with top pros very few know stuff like this. But I think it is fair to assume that Rodwell should know the correct ruling: http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMembers.html So you think Rodwell knew the ruling, but disadvantaged his own side by not saying anything and allowed them to screw him by bidding 4H, even though if he did know the real law and said something they would not be able to do this? Ok.

Yep I agree, I would take 4D as last train in hearts.

Thanks. Gnasher 5 teams entered originally

rehydrate and eat

thats waht she sid

and i ordered a del taco fiest (6 tacos, 6 burriots0, no chance i can eat haf and they were like IS THAT ALL SIR and i was like I WANT A CHURRO and it was awesome.

jdonn about to seal the deal i was the nuts wingman

I was in vegas for the cavendish and as I was leaving josh was like see you in a few days, then we were in the bahamas and as I was leaving josh was like see you in a few days, and now I'm in vegas. Each time I have had a different laptop...lol.

pass obv

heh I could be convinced to pass if our K was a Q and a J but with a king I think our hand is too good.

Even if partner has 108x, declarer won't usually get the suit right - knowing that you'd sometimes cover from Kx, but never from Kxx, declarer will usually lead the jack next. True that

3D

What would your auction be if responder had Q98xx Kx xx KQTx ? If I didn't bid 1D 1S 2S 4S (that's what I'd bid at imps dunno at MP maybe that's too cavalier?), I'd certainly bid 4S over 3D. To me 3D shows extra values. Not perfect since you never clarify whether you have 3 or 4 spades if you're min but that's why I play an asking bid usually. If I didn't bid 4S I would certainly bid at least 3H over which partner should bid 3N imo (which I'd correct to 4S) or 4S. Justin, this approach seems dubious. It seems like there are two very good arguments for why it is more important to indicate the 3-piece hand (unknown whether min or max) rather than to leave the with-a-minimum length unknown. In other words, to have 3♦ show 3-piece, unknown strength, rather then 3-piece maximum with 3♠ unknown strength. First, when length is unimportant (Responder has five spades), you blast game on marginals anyway. When 4-3, you get hesitant even opposite a maximum. Second, Opener can bid 3♦...3NT if he wants with the maximum, unless Responder passes, in which case that's probably right anyway. Hey Ken, I'm sure you're right but if you're going to make an artificial 3D bid showing 3 spades any strength then you're probably at the point where you use 2N as an asking bid heh. If you're playing with someone who cannot handle any artificiality then it makes sense to me to use 3S as any minimum since that seems "natural" to me and is what happens over game tries with less room (so it's symmetrical).

lol

What would your auction be if responder had Q98xx Kx xx KQTx ? If I didn't bid 1D 1S 2S 4S (that's what I'd bid at imps dunno at MP maybe that's too cavalier?), I'd certainly bid 4S over 3D. To me 3D shows extra values. Not perfect since you never clarify whether you have 3 or 4 spades if you're min but that's why I play an asking bid usually. If I didn't bid 4S I would certainly bid at least 3H over which partner should bid 3N imo (which I'd correct to 4S) or 4S.

South should generally not cover, it's embarassing when partner has T8x but that is very unlikely. Sometimes you have to cover with Kx to protect your KT, but in practice unless you play a lot of hands vs someone it's best to duck and make them guess. No one is going to play you for KT just because you covered, that is a pipe dream, people cover with Kx all day. Covering with the ten is dumb, if partner had K8 declarer would not try a chinese finesse playing for K8 rather than a legit KT. But I really doubt it mattered at that point, declarer is hooking, if nothing else he can pick up stiff K plus a covered Kx.

2S

3D

I still think this is asking too much, I mean these situations are always weird like when partner is barred what do you bid etc. It doesn't seem that weird to me that I am barred when I bid out of turn, and that partner can't double something, both of those things happen in different circumstances. All this being said isn't Rodwell disadvantaging himself by not asking? He is the one who is screwed by the 4H loophole if it existed, and screwed by not asking about it (since it doesn't actually exist). Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

Hey Mike, I mean ours is held during a sectional and there is a flight A swiss the next day for those who don't qualify. I'm all for randomization of smaller events and increasing participation, really, but for events that qualify you for a legit national event or a world championship I think the best team winning should be the priority. Either way if there is 3 teams instead of 4 teams in the second day it's just 1 team who has to play a flight A swiss instead of the rest of the event, I think maintaining the integrity of the event is a priority. Obv you might be right that my stated goal is not the actual goal, and I'm obv biased in that respect.

thats for letting me know.i wanted to play but it costs a ton. so now i can play for free with my friends. i think it would be a great experience. Yeah man, not only great bridge experience but EVERYONE (juniors and old people and GIRLS) will be there, and it will be a great time. I cannot emphasize more that pretty much all of my best friends I met through bridge, and most of my greatest memories even not including bridge have come from bridge tourneys. Really glad they're doing this for juniors, hope you show up!

My favorite toy tells me the game makes in 53% of cases opposite 12-13 balanced with 4♠ so it looks like you are right. It was bad evaluation from me. Well I don't really know how to quantify this, but I think that this is a hand that will be very easy to make a bad lead/misdefend. Like they might lead a club pretty often (partner opened diamonds), or maybe they'll try a trump, or in general maybe they'll misdefend because our hand is well disguised (never bidding our good 6 card suit). I suspect a diamond is almost always their best lead to tap our hand but that might be difficult to ever figure out. Of course it's MP so 170 might do well but I think everyone might have the same troubles defending. Basically this is the type of hand where I'd expect to have a significant edge over a double dummy simulation. Your simulation is unfair to yourself though since I assume you open at least some balanced 11s in precision, and even though we might stop in 3 opposite that theres a chance 3 goes down which is a gain for not game trying.

So is the consensus that he's about in the 10-15 overall players in NBA, and like 4thish at his position?