nigel_k

I've never run a tournament but have encountered a similar thing with hands being exported to the lin file on my hard drive. The last one is not exported when the hand ends, only when you leave your seat. If you exit BBO without leaving your seat, the last hand never gets exported. Actually I have a different problem with teaching tables. If I run a teaching table with random hands then the bidding and play are exported correctly. But if I use the movie icon to 'send' saved hands to the teaching table, they can be bid and played but the bidding and play from the teaching table are not exported. A lin file is created but it has the original bidding (not the teaching table bidding) and no play record.

I ran a simulation for 10,000 hands: 13 tricks: 5772 times 12 tricks: 3670 times 11 or less: 558 times For the 2S opening I made the conditions 5+ HCP and exactly six cards or 3-4 HCP and exactly seven cards. Maybe other assumptions are more accurate but this was easy to program and seemed about right. So assuming the other table always bids 6♦ and there are no sacrifices, your expectation from bidding the grand is: 11 * 5772/10000 - 14 * 3670/10000 - 2 * 558/10000 = +1.1 IMPs per board. Of course they may misdefend as others have noted, but you could also misplay - eg by crossing with a diamond to finesse clubs and losing to Qx on your left. Or maybe partner has eg Jxxx of hearts and Jx of diamonds and you have to guess whether to try for a discard or drop QC. It's obviously also not possible to work out how much you might improve your chances of success by bidding the hand more slowly. I think I still prefer my original choice which was to double and play 6♦ if nothing interesting happens, but I am much less confident about it.

Sorry, forget what I said. I did misunderstand. It was early in the morning but I still should probably have worked it out.

I agree with the people who said East should bid 4♣ but there is an issue about who gets to bid more with a shortage: the person who has the shortage or their partner who assumes it? Should West be tempted to bid 5♣ over 4♥ or must he assume partner has already counted on him for a singleton? Anyway on the actual auction I would lead a trump with West but a diamond would be the second choice.

1. Double. I think 7♦ is odds against and I doubt they will sacrifice as LHO has so few cards it will seem expensive even against 1440. Obviously I would prefer partner doesn't pass but 800 (vs 920) is still quite likely if he does. The upside is when partner bids clubs or something else useful. But probably we'll end in 6♦. 2. 3♦ and pass if he bids 3NT. 3. 2♥.

I definitely would not bid without an explanation but this may not help much if partner is bidding without the explanation. Probably I bid 4♦. If partner really has spades he will return to 4♠. If partner's 2♠ shows diamonds I need to support them through there's a slight risk that 3NT makes and 5♦ doesn't. I would have considered 3♦ a good option last time. If partner is just looking for stoppers then surely we have a heart problem in 3NT.

I like redouble as usually to play, if that is a plausible interpretation. If not, it shows first round control. In a situation where your main problem is whether to bid 3NT and from which side, redouble should probably mean something else but I don't have any special agreements about that.

It's the same score as 1NTX so weak notrumpers will know it well. But it only beats opponents game if you're vul vs not, otherwise you need to either redouble or rescue yourself from 2♣X to 3♣X. The better choice is probably redouble because partner might misunderstand and take it out, then when you bid 3♣ they will surely smile and double again. If you just bid 3♣ directly after being doubled in 2 they might take another look at their defensive prospects.

West 100%. IMO East's bidding is fine and West ought to insist on hearts with that hand. There will be some hands where 3NT makes and 4♥ doesn't but I just think it's less likely.

I prefer invitational, for the reasons given by Gerben. But only if playing inverted raises. I'd prefer to play a single raise as NF then I need jump shifts to show a good raise.

Pass. I would give preference more often than not with 2-4, but here I don't want partner to bid more and my clubs are good and spades just two small. They may bid hearts but it is far from safe for them to enter because I'll often have a singleton spade when I pass in this sequence. Obviously you have to bid 2♠ if partner can have a doubleton club but I wouldn't expect that without prior agreement.

Funny how some people have the heads stuck so far up their own ass that the come up with tripe like this... The company that I work for sells some of the best software for mathematical modeling in the world. I don't dispute the existence of principal - agent problems, however, I don't think that "probems with mathematics" are involved in any significant way. Point taken. I would normally have described them as failures of logic rather than failures of mathematics, but was following the description in the original post. Incidentally, I always assume an abusive response is an indication I have hit a raw nerve. If you want to be dismissive it's more effective to do it politely.

5♦. 4♠ is tempting as we may be able to keep control even if they are 4-2 and our hand has to ruff. But in that case I think 5♦ will make as well, and the reverse may not be true. I just want the most likely plus score as other tables may well just bid 3NT over 2♦.

Funny how people have these problems with mathematics when risking other people's lives and money but can work things out just fine when it's their own. Have you also noticed how people in government always seem to miscalculate in a way that justifies government being bigger and more powerful?

I agree with pick a slam as the default and don't have any definite rules. Usually in an uncontested auction it will only be GSF if you have agreed trumps already. A NT raise (such as 2NT-5NT) I would play as asking partner to choose either 6 or 7. I thought this was standard but it could be a British thing. In contested auctions, you might still want choice of slam when your side has bid only one suit, 1♥-(5♦)-5NT, being a choice of hearts and clubs probably.

No but I'd ban people blaming others (in this case advertisers) when they should instead be taking responsibility for raising their kids properly. Learning there is stuff you want but can't have is an important lesson and advertisers are providing parents with an opportunity to teach their kids that lesson. Maybe Tiger Woods' dad should have taught him that instead of just golf.

I'd overcall 3♥ at any vul except unfavourable, either IMPs or matchpoints. It's close at equal though. I consider this an aggressive style. More mainstream/conservative is probably 3♥ green vs red only. Whether partner has passed or not wouldn't affect my decision much in this situation.

Does anyone have a good set of rules/guidelines as to when 4NT is Blackwood and when it is choice of games in these kind of auctions?

I agree with Justin's comments about the field. Just bid to the normal contract and try to gain a trick in the play. It isn't surprising that K/R upgrades this, because it uses 6421 and you have aces. But actually 4321 is more accurate than 6421 for NT bidding. It's more likely by not upgrading you miss a good 4H game, eg opposite xxx KQxxx KJx xx, than you miss a good 3NT opposite a balanced hand. However at IMPs I would still upgrade. While 6421 overbids hands with aces, my computer simulations put the 'correct' values at something like 4.4-2.8-1.6-0.8-0.4 which adds to 15.6 on the hand. The short aces are a slight downgrade but the tens are both in long suits and the 9 is also well placed. Remember also that a K/R score of 15 is equivalent to the playing strength to an average 15 HCP hand, not an average 15 HCP *balanced* hand. So a 15 rating is actually significantly better than the lower limit of a 15-17 NT.

I think you can bid 2♠ on a doubleton quite often in this sequence. With Qx Axx AJxxxx xx I would definitely prefer 2♠. The two small spades and diamond quality make 3♦ a bit better on the actual hand though.

I'd splinter on any hand worth a raise to game. Minimum is probably something like: KQxx Axx AKxxx x

Nowadays doesn't everyone know the ideal preempt is QJ10xxxx Qx Qx Qx?

I wouldn't say that opener is going crazy or must have a great hand. Maybe they just want to find the best game. I could understand someone bidding this way on any of the following: KQx xx AKQxx xxx Qxx xx AKJx Axxx Qxx x AKJxx Axxx With Justin's example I would bid 4S instead of 3S on the last turn. I wouldn't expect partner to work out I have four card support unless I make it very clear.

I think North is too much good to rule out game and should bid 2♦ and pass a 2♠ preference. The South hand is a bad 11 but I think it's still too good to just give preference and should bid 2NT or 3♦ over 2♦. Responder sometimes needs to overbid a little in these situations otherwise the range of 2♠ is too big to handle sensibly, and there is some protection here as opener could have passed 1NT with a bare minimum opening. You can play 2/1 with a forcing NT response to 1H/S and a 12-14 1NT opening (though it's not that common) so I don't agree with suokko's comment. I'd prefer not to play weak NT in 3rd/4th seat but if I did, the auction would go the same as I suggested above. I just don't agree you need to open a strong NT with North to reach game here.

Qxx Jxxx xx Qxxx (the given hand) I bid 1N xxx Jxxx xx Qxxx I still bid 1N all the time but it's starting to get close xxx Jxxx xx Jxxx I pass but don't feel entirely happy about it There are tactical considerations, but even apart from that, 3 HCP with a ruffing value and a nine card fit is not that different in playing strength from 6 HCP and no fit.