nigel_k

As tuna said, the winning case for the ten is QJxx for declarer and xx and an entry with partner, dummy having a hand that would pass 1NT despite a singleton diamond. The winning cases for a top diamond are Qxxx opposite Jx or vice-versa, or when they have Qx and you can run the whole suit. That just seems a lot more likely without using a sim.

Ceeb's line is better than mine. The probability of a falsecard from xxx that is needed to make a low ruff correct can be calculated as follows: If you ruff with the ace you make about 50% of the time. If you ruff low you make about 30% of the time when clubs are 4-2 and about 80% of the time when they are 3-3. The relevant 4-2 break (AKxx opposite xx) will occur about 9.6% of the time and the relevant 3-3 break is 7.2% multiplied by the likelihood they find the falsecard. Solving for p in 0.5 = ( 0.3 * 9.6 + 0.8 * 7.2 * p ) / (9.6 + 7.2 * p) gives p = 0.89 If my maths is correct (and it may well not be) this is higher than I first thought and so you should probably always play the ace. However it is more complex than that because of the double crossing element. For example, when East has the J of trumps and xx of clubs he might choose to show an odd number and hope partner continues clubs anyway. Therefore increasing the probability that he actually has xxx. Certainly that is the corollary of us deciding the Ace is always right. But probably it's best to just play the ace and pay off to East when he has done something clever.

I blame responder. What is opener supposed to do if too strong to open 1NT? Jumping to 2NT bypassing spades is not for everyone.

That's what they said about Northern Ireland. Sometimes people just get tired of fighting. But people need to have the prospect of a decent and comfortable life if they don't fight, and outside influences need to stop stoking the fires. If those conditions are met, there's no reason the problem can't just slowly fade into the background. But it will take a while.

You might still succeed in this case but will need spades 3-3 or the ten dropping as you would have to use ♥A to shorten your trumps.

Against most people, ruff with the ace and run the nine. Against good opponents, ruff low. The hard part is figuring out who counts as 'good', but Rodwell and whoever Martens was playing with would qualify.

When there is an occupying force, the terrorists naturally target that occupying force. When there isn't, they engage in terrorism overseas: New York, London, Madrid, Bali etc. For the most part, these attacks did not involve people whose country was occupied. No doubt withdrawing from Afghanistan and letting the Taliban have it again would lead to fewer terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. But I doubt it would make the Afghan people better off overall and I'm certain it wouldn't make us any safer. Also, suicide attacks in Israel have been down since they built the wall. But correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

Sorry, I meant after we play low to the 10. I thought that was clear in all cases. Sorry I didn't read the thread properly. But J the second time does pick up stiff 8 or 9 which may be enough to tip it.

If anything a weak NT would argue against 2♦, as you can bid 2♥ more happily since partner knows you can't have a weak notrump.

J also loses to 98654. However, if you lead low and RHO drops nine or eight, you can play low again losing to stiff 8 or 9, or you can play J next, losing to 98xx. J also picks up 6-0.

After 1♣-1♥-2♦, I would continue with something like 3♦-4♥ then probably 5NT choice of slams and end in 6♥. I think it is too hard for responder to stop once he hears of reversing values with spade shortage. In order to use RKC for diamonds and pass the 5♥ response, North would have to know that South has three hearts but still have diamonds as the agreed trump suit and I don't see a way to do that. I prefer a 2♥ raise to 2♦, but I would reverse if hearts were KJx and that is essentially the same problem.

This is quite a large understatement. It's hard enough finding a pickup partner who plays Standard American or 2/1 in a somewhat predictable way. With Precision it surely must be much worse. I think if the only available partners play Precison but not SAYC then you won't miss much if you log off and come back later. If you do get a book, then sit down and play with a pickup partner, I definitely wouldn't try anything outside of chapter 1.

If I open in third seat and then bid again then I have a full opening bid always. Otherwise it's just too hard. Partner can raise a 2♠ rebid. So on the given hand I would either open 2♠ or pass. I prefer 2♠ though obviously it's risky.

There's nothing wrong with advocating policies you think are best for the country while doing what's best for yourself under the current policies. Otherwise lots of people who opposed the Bush tax cuts need to get out their chequebook and send a large donation to the IRS. Surely it's possible to criticize about the Tea Party folks without resorting to these silly arguments. Even if some individuals were guilty of hypocrisy (and this is not an example) it wouldn't prove much about the merits or otherwise of their ideas.

I would just make a constructive raise Maybe this is a hand where if partner rebids 2♣ you are happy to call it a limit raise and if partner rebids 2♦ you are happy to give simple preference. If such a hand exists it must look something like this one. Also, spades could play a lot better than hearts.

Pass. There are layouts where both contracts make, but I think there are a greater number where both are one down if partner passes. Whenever partner has slow heart values they will be useful only on defence as we will get forced before we can set up any tricks and will run into club ruffs if we don't draw trumps.

K&R likes aces and minor honours in sequences. Aces get a bonus for being in the long suits. 18.7 seems like a lot but I think the hand is close to being too strong for 1NT and easily qualifies for a reverse. K&R breakdown is as follows: 1 Shape 2.6 Kx of spades 4.6 A of hearts 0.85 J9 of hearts 5.0 A of diamonds 0.75 T9 of diamonds 3.8 A of clubs 0.1 T of clubs The base of 1 for 2452 shape compared to 0 for 2353 is just wrong, but none of the individual suit values is clearly excessive. I'd still rate the hand at over 17.5 which is the cutoff for 1NT unless you choose to open slightly heavy for tactical reasons.

Definitely bid on both. Both sides will be down one fairly often but I want to be on the right side of the big swings. Also, they may bid one more.

Obvious 1NT and B/I players are perfectly capable of understanding that KQ KQJ is not worth 11 HCP.

No blame. Both actions are maximum but reasonable. Slam making 62% of the time double dummy on this hand type does not mean slam would make 50% of the time in real life. Declarer has almost all the decisions and there is huge scope to gain a trick with two balanced hands when you can see all the cards. On the actual cards you pick up J10xx of diamonds onside double dummy. That's an extra 8.4% just to start.

I'm playing slam. The void is huge and the rest isn't terrible since I don't have wastage opposite his short suit.

You don't need 6 HCP to respond, 5 is a normal response. I would only pass with 5 if 4333 or 4432 and no major or a very bad major suit. Many 4 HCP hands should respond. Honour location is important as well.

I agree with South but not North. When partner has short hearts you will be very close to slam and otherwise you run the risk he may not reopen. Pass would be fine with KTxx instead of ATxx though.

1. 1♦ opening is ok but I wouldn't do it 2. Raise to 2♥ because I expect hearts to be the best strain very often and I'm too weak to bid a delayed 2♥. 3. If 3♣ is showing values or length in clubs then it's a wtp 3♥. If it is more like a help suit try then you can bid 3♦ to show some interest.

I don't know Jan's exact position on this but surely there are situations where the correct interpretation of a set of rules is different from the literal interpretation. This is not a problem in logic or mathematics, it is about the efficient running of a bridge contest. IMO this appears to be such a situation. Preferring an interpretation of the regulations other than the literal one is not the same as ignoring the regulations.