nigel_k

I would bid two of the minor with either of those examples and don't consider it close.

IMO a lot of good things follow from the ability to analyze a hand correctly. Bidding lots of hands will not improve your judgment much unless you are accurately analyzing what was the best contract, why you did or didn't get there, and understand what you would be giving up if you change your approach in order to arrive at a different contract on the given hands. So I think the right question is how to learn to analyze a hand well. I don't know the answer to that but I think quite a large part is natural ability rather than something you can learn from experience.

You need an agreement about fourth suit forcing in this situation. Some people play that 1♠ is FSF and others play that 1♠ is natural and 2♠ is FSF. East's 2♠ suggests the latter approach and West's pull of 3NT the former. So it looks like a system misunderstanding. With no agreement, East has a very difficult problem and an undiscussed 2♠ is acceptable only because there are few decent alternatives other than 1♠ which could equally be misunderstood. I wouldn't pull 3NT with West on the given auction unless I was certain that 2♠ had been agreed as natural. However I don't think there is a lot of blame since 5♦ is not that inferior to 3NT and it's hard to stop in a partscore. What blame there is I would attribute mostly to West and a small share to East for not having a clear agreement.

I don't agree with your view of what experts would do and my tone in that post was more directed at the level of certainty of the previous posters. In any case surely that post isn't a case of "this is the kind of post I don't want to see on BBF", unless you want BBF to be a much smaller and less interesting place.

I'm pleased they have allowed it but can't say I am surprised people are downvoting choices they disagree with.

Agree with this. At some point in order to progress in the game you have to stop thinking in terms of evaluating the strength of a single hand and move to working out how many tricks you can take given an appropriate range of hands for partner. Here the relevant range of hands is those that would pass 1♠. The first example you ought to consider is something like xxx KQxx xx xxxx where game is ok. This example also underlines Justin's point that 1♠ is correct if our clubs and hearts were reversed. Partner could have a worse hand such as xxx Qxxx xx Kxxx where game is terrible but could also have a slightly better hand than the first example and still pass 1♠. Note also that partner may pass with five hearts (which is likely to be bad) and is more likely to pass with nothing in clubs as 1NT will be less attractive, and the minimums with weak clubs are the ones where you want to be in game.

Pass. I would have bid 1♠ without the redouble but I don't see any reason to introduce 9xxx when I don't need to and I have another place to play. Pass is easy, textbook, mandatory, and doesn't cause any problem for partner that I can see.

Great job and very interesting hands. The only improvement I would suggest is to structure the problems so that everyone is answering according to the same methods. IMO it doesn't work very well if panelists are invited to answer according to their own preferred method because people may agree on the judgment issues but make different choices, or vice versa. So maybe provide more detailed information about agreements relevant to the problem and/or stipulate that there are no other relevant agreements.

My view on this hand is that, after partner shows serious slam interest, we are certainly bidding slam and want to investigate grand. I suppose it's possible we could be off two key cards though it's not easy to come up with an example. Most times when slam is bad it will be due to weak internal trumps and 4NT doesn't help with that. As for finding grand, I'm not sure what the 4NT bidders intend to do if we have all the key cards. There are still ways to involve partner (who is unlimited) but it would be good if people would post what their plan is and what hands they are catering to.

If you are going to use pass forcing XX, then IMO the best way is: - Immediate suit bid is to play - XX is spades and another - Pass then pull the XX with non-spade two suiter This handles every two suiter except you cannot differentiate between ♣/♦ and ♣/♥, but I don't think there is space to show all one and two suiters. It gives opponents minimal extra turns and allows you to get to 2♠ quickly when you have a 4-4 fit there which can make life hard for opponents. Optionally, you can agree that the immediate suit bid but may be psychic so you can cause problems for them if they play takeout doubles. In that case opener cannot raise and obviously you alert and describe.

I agree with Helene. The difference between the US and other countries is not understanding of science, but willingness to believe claims made by intellectuals. A good understanding of science in general is not enough to reach a conclusion about the magnitude of the threat posed by human induced carbon emissions. It would take a lot of study and even then, a definite conclusion might not be reached. More than 99% of people with a definite opinion have formed it by deciding who to believe. The believers are typically people who have a lot of respect for academics and other intellectuals and/or have a pre-existing desire for more taxes and regulation, especially on big business. The non-believers are typically the opposite. The media fall mainly into the first category so that is of course a big factor as well.

What would actually be a good option would be for it to auto-play against robots only, not against humans.

If you restrict entries to teams of four, not six, and normally add the best performing third pair then IMO you are more likely to have the three best pairs than if you hold a pairs event. Obviously a very long pairs event will even out the luck but they are never long enough. A couple of flat sets of cards against the weaker pairs and you are in a hole that is very hard to dig out of. Our national and provincial organisations are addicted to pairs trials so I have played in a few and I don't believe there has been a single one where the top three would be the same if you removed the results against the weakest pair. A wide skill range does not argue in favour of a pairs trial because then the randomising factor is even greater. With four teams and a semi-final or round robin followed by a long final it is very likely the winner will be the team that played the best bridge or very close to it. Conversely, the problem of ending up with a worse team because people pick their friends is possible but in practice is not likely. As a simple example, let's say you have four pairs, the strongest is A, then B, C, and D in order, and the difference between C and D is big enough to really matter. Unless A plays with D there is no problem because the best team will win a teams trial and add the best remaining pair so you end up with A, B, and C in the team. Usually A won't form a team with D because bridge players are competitive and want to win. Even if they do there is still no problem if the team of B and C win the trial. And if pair A are really so good that they can carry inferior team-mates in a four person team, then just select them and hold a teams trial to find the other four. If you hold a pairs trial, though, you could easily end up with a team of A, B and D. All it needs is that pair D gets a flat set of cards when playing pair A and pair C doesn't. This is before you even consider the team chemistry issue.

I feel strongly that teams trials are best. Let players form their own teams of four and select the third pair in consultation with the winning team. There's no need to accept all entries, especially if you have an odd number. Even if six teams enter it could well be best to only let the four best teams in.

West 70%. I prefer 4♠ with East, but West's pass is worse than East's double.

I would suggest that your proposed test is not the right test here. Even if there are a reasonable portion (whatever that means) of hands where pass will work best, this does not mean that pass is a logical alternative. Suppose I deal and hold an ordinary balanced hand with 13 HCP. Passing will work better than opening on a reasonable portion of hands, but pass is not a logical alternative because hardly anybody would regard it as the best action. In my view, this hand is similar. Choosing an action with known negative expectation is almost the exact definition of illogical. What matters is not the magnitude of the negative expectation, but the proportion of the player's peers who agree that a negative expectation exists.

I would open 1♥. It is somewhat close for me but I would be surprised if there is an "expert consensus" for passing because I think my standards for opening are a bit higher than most other people.

Definitely allow 4♠. 3♠ is already an overstatement of the hand's defensive strength so if partner cannot double 4♥ you have a very obvious sacrifice at matchpoints. Therefore pass is not a logical alternative. Also, the slow pass doesn't suggest bidding over passing.

It is easily enough for 2♥ and is much closer to 3♥ than pass. It would be close to a minimum 2♥ bid if one of the small hearts was a small spade.

I don't understand the problem. If there are six outstanding clubs then RHO has another one so obviously you play for QJ doubleton since the alternative is an unlikely Grosvenor. However you said West discarded a club and we have seven so maybe there are only five missing now.

I can't imagine any ethical issue here. If the Laws Committee intended that you always call the director, it would be very surprising they: a) didn't insert a provision that says so; and b) said the director must be called when attention is drawn to an infraction (rather than when a player becomes aware of it)

I can't prove it without a simulation but I expect there will be many more hands where hearts and notrump make the same number of tricks. This is not an example of the "dogma of rejecting Stayman with 4x3 hands" because: 1) At the six level there is less scope for making an extra trick in the suit contract. Certainly we don't have to worry about opponents setting up and running a long suit. 2) There is an obvious risk at the six level when our trumps are 10xxx that we could have two heart losers and 12 tricks elsewhere. 3) This is not a typical 4333 because you have the queen of every side suit which reduces the likelihood that there is a gain from ruffing in partner's doubleton. The nature of the question shows that the OP is not a beginner and probably not intermediate either. I don't see anything wrong in discussing these issues.

Your actions look fine to me. You haven't given us partner's hand but I would expect 6NT to usually make the same number of tricks as 6♥.

3♦

1906 Cubs