nigel_k

West should pass. Slam doesn't need a perfect hand opposite, but given East has passed initially it does need quite a narrow range of hands. If South had opened in first seat, I would definitely blame East though.

I blame East. When they preempt, you never play partner for a yarborough if they pass. 4432 shape and 6 working HCP is not much better than what West will play East for if he passes 4♦. I would normally pass with West at any other vul, but red against green at IMPs or equal at matchpoints I agree with 4♠.

Yes, but partner's minimum double is enough for +800 on defence. I'm not convinced this was bad luck though I could be resulting having seen the full hand.

If 3♣ agreed hearts and East chose to do that with Kx, then he has to follow up by converting 3♠ to 4♥ so 4♠ is the worst call. If 3♣ did not agree hearts, then West's 3♠ is wrong but 5♥ is worse. If it was a misunderstanding about what 3♣ means, then I mostly blame East for making that call when the meaning is unclear and he has a decent alternative of 3♥.

Agree with the delayed takeout double idea, but I don't know what I would expect undiscussed. I think it would be close to 50/50 whether a random expert would have takeout or Michaels when they do this. I have also wondered about the wrong-siding issue when using Michaels or even a takeout double in fourth seat. But I don't think there is a solution that I would be willing to rely on myself or my partner to remember.

I'm not sure there is any such rule. I prefer the following: 1. The first double of a suit is for takeout 2. If we double one suit for takeout and they bid another suit, double is penalty So none of the examples are penalty doubles (except the double of 1♠ on hand 2)

Double could be interpreted as penalties with good diamonds, but presumably I can overcall 2♦ natural so why would I trap pass when opener hasn't shown diamonds and it will probably come back to me at two of a major. Plus double could work quite often, even if partner does misunderstand and pass. Second choice is 2♠ not 2♣. I wouldn't pass.

My thoughts about this: 1. In the given auction, I would expect 4♦ to be a cue agreeing hearts and would have bid 3♠ on the actual responding hand. 2. Let's assume 4♦ is agreed or understood as natural. That means if 4♥ is kickback for diamonds then 4NT is a heart cue bid. If 4♠ is kickback for hearts then 4NT is a spade cue bid. Otherwise 4NT is key card for spades. You can agree it is a signoff, but then it is a signoff regardless of your ace asking agreements. 3. There should be only one ace ask and it should be based on the trump suit that 4NT would have referred to. Normally it would be responder's last naturally bid suit. But you can't have two ace asks that refer to different suits because you are going to want to cue bid, not ace ask, on most hands with slam interest. 4. Finding the best game should take priority over slam investigation, and it is very easy for 4♥ to be the best game here. 5. You do need some rules about kickback. I actually favour a presumption in favour of bids being kickback in most doubtful situations but it would never occur to me here.

I agree with the people who said that online bridge is not the same as face to face bridge. The entire internet is full of people doing things that they would never consider doing face to face. Anyway, what is the problem if non-psyche events are technically not bridge? It's still a game that bears a strong resemblance to bridge and will appeal to the vast majority of people who also enjoy playing bridge. Do you think you could sue BBO for false advertising and win? Actually, if we are resorting to technical and legalistic arguments, BBO stands for 'Bridge Base Online' not 'Contract Bridge Base Online'. There are other forms of bridge besides Contract Bridge that are obviously not governed by the laws of Contract Bridge.

Partner can have a wide range so we would need to raise on many hands worth only two and a half hearts. Therefore when we hold a hand worth three and a half hearts we need to just bid game. The given hand is even better than that.

People who are good at maths can find jobs that pay better than high school teaching. Schools don't have the budget to pay enough to retain a full complement of knowledgable math teachers. I think there are three things that can reasonably be done: 1. Set salaries based on supply and demand so math teachers earn much more than others. 2. Accept that most students can graduate from high school without ever learning calculus, advanced algebra or maybe even trigonometry. Then you can spread the most capable teachers among the 10-20% of students who will benefit from learning this stuff. 3. Have larger class sizes for advanced maths or other subjects where teacher supply is low. I suspect the reasons why these three things don't happen are, respectively: unions, some distorted notion of equality, and unions. Of course, none of this will help the students who can't subtract a number from 180. For that, I think parents have to take at least half the blame. Partly for not making sure their kids know this stuff even if they have to teach it themselves, and also for failing to hound the responsible teacher until they either get better or give up teaching altogether.

[hv=pc=n&s=s632hak53d2cq9764&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1hp1sp1np2cp]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints, expert partner but few agreements. Obviously it matters what partner would normally open with 4144 but I didn't know this at the table.

I did some double dummy analysis on the correlation between high cards and tricks taken a while ago. It turns out the 'correct' values are approximately: Ace: 4.4 King: 2.8 Queen 1.6 Jack: 0.8 Ten: 0.4 That is on a ten point scale, or you can use 11-7-4-2-1 and multiply high card requirements by 2.5 This includes both NT and suit contracts, which I think is the right approach because you typically don't know the final denomination for much of the auction. It just seems wrong to use an evaluation method early in the auction that is for NT only or suit contracts only, especially if you are making partner the captain as often happens when you bid NT.

I think it's fine to ask about an unalerted call in this kind of situation. To avoid UI you do need to ask every time, not just when you might wish to act. Of course your opponents will not know you always do this, but as long as you do then I think it's fine. Just decide for yourself that you will always ask about any unalerted call where most would play it as artificial. Suppose it did turn out that the bid was natural and you passed holding a good diamond suit and opponents later claimed they were damaged. If I was the director and you simply said there is no UI because you would always ask in that situation then I would believe you. There is some risk that a different director might not be so trusting though.

2♥. I nearly always prefer to raise with a shortage. Maybe I would rebid 2♦ if it was AJx xxx KQJxxx Q.

Which is more likely: clubs plays two tricks better than spades or clubs plays zero tricks better? I'd say two tricks better is more likely and feel reasonably confident about that. One trick better only matters when it is 140 vs 130 and then only at matchpoints. Some of the previous posters have said things that suggest partner is more likely to bid over 2♠ than over 3♣ on the hands that make game. If that is true then it might be an argument for 2♠. But 3♣ rates to be a better final contract.

I wouldn't call it an 'attitude'. I would call it a necessary consequence of the assumption that opponents are acting legally. If they alert 2♦ then their agreement is that it shows something other than a one suited hand with diamonds. There could easily be situations, though this one is not a good example, where you might wish to rely on such an inference rather than ask why the bid was alerted. The alternative is that opponents can alert the natural 2♦ or not, as they please. This would obviously raise UI issues so I think it's much better for alerting regulations to divide calls into those that must be alerted and those that must not be alerted.

There was misinformation (alert of a non-alertable call) and the non-offending side suffered damage, because East would have acted differently without the alert and could easily have obtained a better score. So the question is whether 12C1b (serious error, wild or gambling) applies: Based on East's comment, I am guessing his thinking was as follows: North probably has spades and diamonds. If I double, it may well go all pass. If I don't double, it will probably go 2♠-P-P or 2♥-P-2♠ or even 2♥-P-3♦. I would prefer to defend 2♠X than 2♦X and would obviously like 3♦X even better. It seems to me there are two possibilities here: 1) East understood that South might well pass and chose to take that risk. In that case it is probably 'wild or gambling'. 2) East didn't understand this and fully expected to be doubling 2♠ or 3♦ on the next round. In that case it isn't wild or gambling and is some other kind of error. Even if that error is serious it is not unrelated to the infraction. IMO scenario two seems more likely. Though I agree the pass was a very poor call and was the main reason for E/W's bad result, I'm not convinced there are grounds for denying rectification (but I really wish the 'unrelated to the infraction' condition wasn't in there). It could be argued that 'wild or gambling' is based on an objective standard, i.e. it doesn't rely on the player understanding the risks involved. But I don't favour that interpretation because it doesn't seem to fit with the way the words 'wild' and 'gambling' are normally used and it also makes 'wild and gambling' almost the same thing as 'serious error'.

I'd bid 3♣, second choice is 2♠ but it's not particularly close. Dislike pass and 2NT is even worse. Vul/scoring don't make a difference.

To be honest I think four card majors are at best a marginal gain even when you can relay at a low level. If you relay with 2♣ then there will always be an uncomfortably large number of shapes to deal with after a major suit opening and so you are better just playing five card majors and a nebulous diamond, e.g. the original symmetric 1♦ which is always a two or three suiter and open 2♣/2♦ with one suiters. It wouldn't be MOSCITO at all but would still be a decent system and the relays would work a lot better.

Agree with 3♦. Partner's diamond holding will be key to determining how high we should bid and this gives him a chance to raise and also warns him off attempting to bid his own suit. Plus the preemptive value. Of course it could turn out very badly if partner is 5-5 in the majors or something like that.

1. Aren't there ten 5-4 shapes? 2 each of 5431, 6421, 7420 and 6430 plus 5422 and 7411. If the long suit is diamonds, any of these might want to play 3NT. Or if the long suit is a major and you accept going past 3NT with a 7 card major unless weak relay is used, then there are 7 left to fit in below 3NT. Also there are seven 5+/5+ shapes: 2 each of 5521, 5530 and 6520 plus 6511. So 5+♦/4+♣ for example has 17 shapes not 13. 2. Can you put (some) hands with a four card major into the 2♣ opening. It's not ideal but it looks like you have more space there than elsewhere. 3. I don't know the US regulations but maybe you can use 1NT as the relay over one of a major. After all, you're not going to be very well placed to play 1NT with any confidence after 1ma-1NT. 4. Use 2NT as has already been suggested. 5. Give up the weak 2♥. I learned symmetric relay from Roy Kerr's little blue book back in the 80s and it used 2♥ as 5-5 majors.

There is a distinction in that your choice of bid doesn't depend on a key which has been established earlier. You always bid 6♣ with the ♣K only or with both red kings, and not in any other case. As an alternative, you could play that responder shows kings as above when they lack the trump ace, but when they have the trump ace they bid the suit above what they would normally bid, i.e. with the above holdings you would bid either 6♣ or 6♦ depending on whether you have the trump ace. Both rely on partner working it out from their own holding. The difference is whether you have a pre-established key that changes how you bid with a given holding.

Against non-expert opponents, I agree with Fluffy. Probably West has ♠Q and when you run clubs he will often abandon hearts, not diamonds, which gives you a double squeeze with diamonds as the pivot suit. Playing this way, you still retain the spade finesse option until quite late so you can revert to that if West doesn't seem under any pressure.

I agree with a utility maximising strategy and this seems like the only place to really start a serious discussion. However: 1. A tax which is a flat percentage of income does result in redistribution. Diminishing marginal utility at most implies it would be sub-optimal to charge each citizen a fixed dollar amount in tax. Hardly anybody is opposed to redistribution, we're just arguing about method and quantity. 2. Redistribution of income, redistribution of wealth, and redistribution of consumption do not follow each other automatically. It's quite easy to come up with a plan that will redistribute a nominal dollar amount but inflation will eat away at the entire amount so the receipients' real income doesn't change. 3. There isn't a fixed amount of income or wealth just sitting around waiting to be distributed by fair and wise politicians. A rule that leads to redistribution often tends to diminish total wealth, by creating a disincentive to work for both the payer and the recipient.