cherdanno

I think 2♣ starts a pass/correct sequence, if you have 3613 just bid 2H and blame life if partner has clubs. (Well, at least you stole their 10-card diamond fit.)

That's why I asked who was dealer. East was dealer, he opened 1♣, thus I expect more pairs to have a misunderstanding, or to end up in 6♣ or 7♣. I would argue that with East as dealer there is a stronger case for taking the plus. Anyway, I think a much more interesting question would be whether South or North gave anything away with their discards (and the timing of their discards). Unless we are playing the leader of the event, I find it unlikely that the game is weak enough to play the ace, and our opponents strong enough not to give anything away.

What contract are we in and who was dealer?

What he said: If 6♣ is really a 60% slam, it should be outscoring the game contracts That's does not follow. When 6S is down, 4S ALWAYS gets a matchpoint from those pairs, whereas 6C sometimes only gets half a matchpoint.

It probably does represent new retirees, but so what? When young bridge players start in college, most of them will leave bridge as they get older for family or work commitments. There is the die-hard group that will stay in bridge but this an exception. A few start playing because they want something to do with their spouse. Retired people represent a growth area because they have a lot of time, disposable income and will support the league. There is nothing wrong with attracting new retirees, among other things it makes the typical bridge club younger. But the figure Frances' quotes suggest, if taken out of context, that organized bridge is in good shape for the next 30 years.

Let me guess: the article did not mention how many of the new members were new retirees?

Thanks.

GIB FOR THE WIN!

I actually don't mind much whether we use our own field, or a guess about a "typical" field (say for a 1st day of a national pair game, or of the actual field when the hand is from an old tournament). I would really like, however, if the scores were always based on matchpoint expectancy in some field when it's possibly to compute that (rather than assigning scores vaguely reflecting the impression of how good the contract is).

I was also under this impression. If so, the scores are off. 7C should score 11, 6C 6 and 3NT 1. The way I remember the discussion last time around, lots of people agreed with this principle, but Ben never commented on it. This time around, it seems similar.

Clee and Cherdano were unfairly disadvantaged on this board, as cherdano did not understand how to defend against Gambling 3NT. :) :) Seriously, I was worried that a direct double would be more majors-oriented, and so I passed, waiting for my chance to make a takeout double when it got back to me. Well, East's psychic pass, and Roger's normal passout meant I didn't get a 2nd chance. Anyway, double of 3NT should just be takeout of opener's minor.

My scoring for this hand would be, for (4S, 3S, 1N): Matchpoints: 4S goes down (Spades 4-1 with no elopement, or diamond ruff): (2.5, 12.5, 7.5) Spades break and no diamond ruff: (12.5, 6.5, 1.5) The weighted average would be s.th. like (9.5, 8, 3.5) - here I assumed the first one would happen 1/3 of the time, the latter 2/3. Then you scale and get scores. So it looks to me the difference between 4S and 3S is too big, due to the number of 1N contracts. (I might be wrong about the numbers, i.e. my 1/3 might be off, but I wonder whether Ben agrees with the principle.)

So I believe one shouldn't raise after 1H 1S with 35(32) hands - this auction is different to 1m 1M, since we usually can't have a weak NT for our raise, and so our partner won't play us for one, and so our hand would just be way too different from partner's expectations. So I stuck to my convictions, and we bid 1H 1S 1N 2C 3S. Roger reasonably passed - usually game would be on a finesse; it could be cold with my actual hand, or have no play (switch the minors and make the hearts KQJ2), and with my actual hand I might have raised. He would have been right on a 1m 1M auction.

How is defending 2S a 9? It will lose to everyone in 3C, which is probably half the field. The bidding script was really weird btw, why would West double a 2NT Lebensohl but not double any 3-level contract?

And I had an easy pass playing partner for 2245 B)

2♦ is a cue.

Well, partner didn't have a natural 2S available (why did I agree to this in a 30 second discussion?). That seems a fairly big difference to me. (It's also not so usual for me to have 6-card support for partner's strongly bid suit. But then I don't play many hands these days.) I still agree with 5S, though.

I always expect a bad result when I forget to make a takeout double.

But partner can pass 3HX with a doubleton! Your partner pulled a penalty double to a contract one level higher, in a suit he had already bid.

Nobody is playing a 5-2 fit - responder would have to correct to the 6-level with that.

The auction is certainly consistent with partner having 5-4-4-0 shape. And he doesn't need the world to double 3C with that shape. So in the hypothetical I mentioned, we are either forced to slam or forced to play the 5-2? I think 5♠ should be an almost impossible bid in this situation, and if it exists, should show basically a single-suiter. Strain before level? I'd rather sometimes play a level too high than play a 4-3 fit at the 5-level.

I think there is a difference to (1S) X (XX) P. On this auction, 2♣ overcaller often has a 6-card suit, and redoubler typically showed at least Hx (or may have Hxx, judging from the explanation). So that makes us less likely to hold a penalty pass, and more likely to have a fit somewhere else.

So first you open 1♣ with a 15 count, and then you want to deny your hand is unbalanced? So partner knows you have 12-14 or 18-19?

Btw, just curious: are concussions and brain trauma stopping anyone from watching football? I mean, NFL is a bit like gladiator fights in ancient Rome, except these days it takes a little longer until the athletes die from their injuries.

I think I would bid at equal against a standard system and pass against precision. I don't understand passing at w/r. Bidding at r/w seems always wrong.