nigel_k

My view about Jxx in opener's suit is this: It makes your hand less suitable for a takeout double, so you need extra values to do that. The actual South hand is a minimum takeout double for me. But the reason Jxx is bad is that it reduces the likelihood you have a fit. Once a fit has been discovered this no longer matters. So, after the 2♠ bid, South needs to re-evaluate, realize they now have some values to spare, and bid accordingly.

Your partner should definitely have bid 2♠ the second time, if not the first time. I would also have doubled 1NT with your hand. This should be takeout of hearts, but if not it's a penalty double which also fits.

Forcing or semi-forcing? I have never played forcing, and with semi-forcing there is only a very narrow range of hands where opener will rebid 2♣ but would have passed playing standard. IMO the gains from 2/1 easily outweigh the losses, though the overall gain is certainly bigger at IMPs.

Can anyone explain why it's important that they call the infield fly early? Obviously the runners would have to act on the assumption it would not be called - tagging up and running like hell if the fielder doesn't catch it. But it seems to me that even after the ball has been dropped and a runner or two have been thrown out, the umpires could confer if they want to, then just call the batter out and move the runners back.

It definitely should have some shape, either a shortage, or five trumps, or a five card side suit. You don't want to do this with 4432 as you might after a first seat opening. And it should be less than limit raise strength. Since it doesn't take much to have a limit raise with a shapely hand and four card support, I would expect something in the 4-7 HCP range.

I find the best way to illustrate these kind of things is with an example: [hv=pc=n&s=sat976ht9dq82ck97&w=skj3hak8632dk9ct3&n=s54hq54da765ca654&e=sq82hj7djt43cqj82]399|300[/hv] I have given partner a really bad hand with only a doubleton trump and heavily oriented towards defence. Double dummy there are seven tricks for both sides, but it takes very good defence for N/S to prevent declarer reaching dummy to play a diamond. We're a passed hand so he will not misguess. It's also possible they drop a trick and let us make 2♠ on a minor suit squeeze but that is less likely. This shows what a narrow target you are aiming at by passing, compared to all the good things that can happen if we bid.

East 75%. I would have bid 2NT with West the second time and 4♦ the third time. But I'm not sure the failure to bid 2NT had any real effect and 4♦ would presumably not have awoken East from his lethargy since it doesn't make his void any better. With the East hand I would have bid 4♠ instead of 1♠, 4♠ instead of 2♠ and 4♠ instead of 3♠. I think any of those would have been enough for West to push toward slam.

To me, this is analagous to an RKC response showing the trump queen, where the asker holds the queen himself and can therefore infer that partner has extra length. Which is just normal bridge. Maybe it technically fits within the scope of encryption , but is not the sort of thing that is prohibited by a ban on encrypted methods.

Without agreement, the same as if there was no overcall. And I would be reluctant to agree anything different, because then I would have to remember it.

Favourite win: (junior) world championship semi-final Saddest loss: the match right after that

The short answer is that your arithmetic is fine but it's not valid to use vacant spaces when some small cards in a suit have been played and others have not. Instead, work out the probabilities taking into account only known high cards and suits whose distribution has been completely determined, but without any cards have been played in other suits. Then assume those probabilities still hold after further small cards appear.

What blame? Maybe I wouldn't have bid the way you did, but the final contract is fine. It is 78%, just needing a 2-1 break. 7♦ doesn't have a better chance of making, though will go down less when diamonds are 3-0. The only other consideration is how many will stop in game. You would need quite a large proportion of the field to stop in game for 6♦ to have higher MP expectation than 7NT.

I would definitely lead a diamond. The other suits seem far too risky and the ♥J has the added disavantage that declarer may play me for the ♠Q, believing I have heart shortage. A low diamond could be best but I voted ace because there is quite a good chance someone will have diamond shortage, and my spots make it hard for us to build a second diamond trick.

Does this include implicit agreements: practices developed through play together as a partnership and observing partner's tendencies, but not explicitly discussed? If this is included, how precisely do they propose to disallow it? A brain transplant is surely too drastic and even just banning the pair from ever playing together seems a bit much.

I did a simulation on this a while ago with the following assumptions: 1. Your weak 1NT opening is in first or second position at any vulnerability. (you play 15-17 NT in 3rd/4th) 2. An unpassed opponent will double your 1NT if and only if he has 15 or more HCP. 3. A passed opponent will double your 1NT if he has a decent single suited hand (DONT). 4. If RHO has a double, LHO never bids in front of him. 5. When 1NT is doubled you will always run to a suit contract. 6. You always end up in two of your best fit. With good runout methods you can usually achieve this. 7. After you run, opponents always make the optimum double dummy decision, i.e. doubling you if and only if the penalty they can get exceeds what they could score in their own best contract. 8. The scoring is IMPS and the theoretical par contract is achieved at the other table 9. Double dummy play by both sides Getting doubled and going for a number led to an average loss of 10 IMPs per 800 deals. I will take that any day given the enormous upside of the weak NT. Certainly assumption 6 is favourable to the 1NT opener but I think the other assumptions more than counterbalance it.

2♦. If I was going to bid spades it would be 3♠ and on the hands where partner passes 2♦ he would likely also pass 3♠, so I would have to take two tricks more in spades than diamonds, opposite a spade shortage. The upside of 2♦ comes when we belong in diamonds or hearts, or partner is able to evaluate better over my eventual 3♠ bid.

I play 2♣ as two places to play, one of which may be opener's suit. So after 1♣-(1NT) I would bid 2♣ with any of: QJxxx QJxxx xx x QJxxx xx QJxxx x xx QJxxx QJxxx x QJxxx xx xx QJxx This seems to work pretty well. Maybe I play too much against bad opponents who don't lift the bidding to the three level until we have had a chance to sort out what the two places to play actually are. But I would want to bid on all of the above hands without having to take a stab at something and get it wrong.

Pass could be right but I would double, then bid 4♦ unless partner passes the double. If double is penalty I would just bid 4♦. I would have preferred to bid 3♦ the first time. This isn't particularly sound but you can't afford to be shut out at matchpoints with this much shape, and it probably won't be any safer on the second round.

I think both are too much. It depends on style, but in my preferred style 5♣ is more of an overbid than 4♣.

Yeah when I first looked at the hand I also thought it was 0652.

Double keeps 2♥X and 2♠ open and if partner bids 3♦, that may actually be the best spot. But certainly we will play some hands in 3♦ that would have been better in 3♣.

The words 'some might select it' should not be taken too literally. I have trouble even getting my head around the possibility that a significant proportion of players would consider an action without it being the case that some of them might select it. When I consider something, I might do it. That is precisely why I am considering it. To answer your actual question, you would ask people how close they are to actually doing it. But in general, the action will nearly always be a logical alternative once there is a significant proportion considering it. In general, it's easier if you avoid thinking of making a ruling as an exact process that, when followed, will necessarily produce the correct result. It's your judgment, which may be wrong. If a player thinks it is wrong, maybe the appeals committee will agree with them. And that's fine.

You can't avoid having implicit partnership understandings. If this hand came up and was opened 1♠ and the partnership discussed it, they have some kind of understanding. Maybe they even have an implicit understanding if they didn't discuss it when they normally would discuss anything they disagreed with. And these hands do come up now and then if you play with the same person for a while. Also, if the regulators intended aguahombre's interpretation they would have worded the regulation so that you can bid anything you want with these hands. Instead, they explicitly did the opposite by including the 7 HCP provision.

I essentially agree with what barmar and bluejak said and would go even further. You aren't trying to achieve a sample that gives a statistically significant answer about what actions a significant proportion of players would consider or select. It isn't practical to poll enough people for that. You answer these questions using your experience and judgment, augmented by the experience and judgment of the people you poll.

Surely these technical things give you a minor edge at most compared to psychological factors. I would just do it based on recent results. Against a weaker team in a Swiss, I also try to put our fastest pair against their slowest pair, to make sure we get through all the hands in time.