nigel_k

You're right. For some reason I didn't pay attention to East's spots.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sq9652ha3d9ck9765&w=sj108hk82dkq872ca10&e=sak3hj75daj6543c2&s=s74hq10964d10cqj843]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]Fantoni, East, played 5♦ after an uncontested auction. After drawing trumps and eliminating the black suits you have to avoid three heart losers. By leading up to each heart honour in succession you can make 75% of the time - whenever North has the queen or South has the Ace. So I don't agree with the VuGraph commentators who suggesting leading towards the king and ducking South's nine. You would go down more than 25% doing that. So what are the extra chances over the initial 75%? There are two I can see: 1. Play for either Ax in North or Qx in South. If the former, start the suit from West and if the latter, start it from East. They'll have to give you a ruff and discard after taking the second heart. Since South showed out on the third spade, Ax in North is more likely. 2. Play for North to have A109(x) or South failing to stick in the 9 or 10 so you can duck a heart into North. Fantoni chose #2 and went down when #1 works. So which is better? There may be some inferences from opponents' failure to bid but East started with 2♦ so it would be hard for them.

Often system and style is a factor. The TD needs to ask what the person polled would do if playing the same system as the pair at the table and in possession of the inferences available to that pair. When you get back the director's ruling there is no way of knowing how well all of that was communicated. The process is much too opaque.

I don't follow the law (and opp probably only have 8-9 trumps anyway) and would treat this the same as any other limit raise, either Drury, 2NT or your preferred method. In this situation the 5332 shape doesn't really add much compared to 4432. Some minimum openers will produce game but you have little chance opposite a fairly normal hand such as xx AQxxx Axx Kxx which has everything working and is a maximum to refuse an invite. IMO partner will go on a large percentage of the time when game makes.

I don't understand why it's a good process for the director to canvass a bunch of experienced players of his own choosing when the appeals committee are put there to do the same job. And in the appeal, the players get to put their case, instead of relying on the director to accurately put it for them in an informal chat situation without the players even present. I get the impression this is all a contortion to avoid the director feeling bad when their ruling is overturned.

Agree with pooltuna's reasoning that 5♦ is better, provided partner is guaranteed to have 6 diamonds. 3NT if not.

I remember the first time I bid and made 7NT. It was junior night - my first year playing at the club as a 15 year old. We had about 16 tricks on top and all aces and kings but I was still pretty nervous. My partner was a little old lady who was looking forward to declaring the slam in our nine card heart fit and gave me a really filthy look when I bid 7NT instead.

You need to generate a bunch of hands and bid them, either working out the IMPs against par, or bidding them a second time using the alternative and calculate IMPs against that. I don't know if there is any software that does all of this. I wrote my own but it isn't really distributable as you need to code in the conditions each time.

The problem is that the computer cannot accurately simulate human behaviour in complex situations. In the example of opening 1NT with a five card major, you would have to make all kinds of questionable assumptions about subsequent choices. Likewise, with bypassing Stayman or a transfer, you may reach a theoretically inferior contract but how can the computer work out whether this is offset by your gain from depriving the defenders of information? I think you want to simulate situations where these factors are minimized. For example, I did some analysis of when to make a game try after 1M-2M.

Also in 10980.lin, boards 31 and 32 have bidding, play and commentary but no cards. This may not be a new bug or related to the new archive page, but I have never seen it before.

I'm don't know what North was doing either but am pretty sure Larry Cohen is to blame. The 1NT upgrade is fine but should have passed after that. If partner plays that an immediate jump to 3 is any old garbage with 4 trumps and real superaccepts have to do something else then they should have told you about that. I don't agree with 655321 that you need four trumps for a superaccept. It's a function of playing strength and a 5332 can be as good as a 4432 despite one less trump. It looks like 4♠ is cold if you ruff, then cross to ♦A and finesse trumps. The fact that you are able to make 10 tricks only with good play underlines my point about going against the field. In 3 you get either 40% or 90% depending on play. In 4 you get either 5% or 95% on the same play.

A definite pass. It's not a very good 5422 with only one ace, no tens, and so much in one of the doubletons. A better hand such as KQ10x AJxxx Ax xx would be ok to invite vulnerable at IMPS but not otherwise.

Please show me an example hand given the conditions: 1) partner is under the major suit bidder 2) partner likely will not hold 5+ cards in that major (no transfer initially) and, 3) partner is unlikely to have 8+ hcp and four good cards in the major (no stayman) Obviously you'd need four good trumps, probably a sequence eg QJTx plus an ace or king.

At IMPS this is an obvious 4♠. At matchpoints it's not so clear. You are going to get forced so will have work to do any time partner does not have four trumps and will be really struggling on a 4-1 break. I guess we don't know when partner would bid 3♥ instead of 3♠. You have to worry about going against the field and getting a bottom when superior cardplay means you have above average expectation in 3♠ as the field probably won't bid game. But some may collect 200 against heart contracts. Probably I would still bid 4♠ but would not be as confident as the others.

Run the diamond. They might well choose an attacking lead on this auction. If the ♦6 is a doubleton, East has KJ108x and possibly a spade honour and didn't overcall. Depending on opponents lead methods, the lead could be from J86, 1086, 8642 without the king, or KJ86(x), K1086(x), KJ6, K86 with the king. So there are more holdings with the king. Against good opponents I'd say it's better than 50% West has the king. Otherwise you need the club finesse. It's probably ok if clubs are 5-2 because they'll usually ruff with a trump trick. Still this is less than 50%.

Advantages of double are there may be a better spot and you can describe your hand type well by later supporting spades. I'm not worried about a four card overcall because it will be a good suit and the 4-3 may play quite well. Advantages 3♦ are that it's easier for partner to make the right decision if they bid more diamonds quickly. Also when you double then bid spades partner might not expect such good support. I'd say 3♦ 100, Dbl 70.

Considered by who to be correct? Don't the appeals committee have a duty to rule in accordance with their best judgment, regardless of what the director did? That's their job.

South's double is fine. Only Lebensohl can explain North's 3NT instead of 2NT. It shouldn't apply over 2♦ but assuming you have agreed 2NT is Lebensohl I don't know what North should do. You could make a case for any of pass, 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣ and 3NT. Probably 2♥ leaving maximum room for someone else to make the hand their problem instead of yours. I doubt you would like playing 2♥ any better than you liked 3NT though.

I seldom use the word cheating, but I agree that the conduct in Adam's example is, and ought to be, illegal. Not illegal to do it, but just illegal to use the type B description. However when the issue is sometimes opening a four card major with 4441 shape, or the choice of minor suit with 4432, I think this can still be regarded as style, especially when partner will not adjust the way they respond. I'll reiterate the test I proposed in the other thread: "If it is possible to bid sensibly without any agreement on the matter, then it is style and judgment." You can't bid sensibly if one player has 6 HCP and his partner expects 10-12. But you can in the 4441 and 4432 situations.

3♣ is fine and I think they make 4♥ though probably the field isn't bidding it. I don't understand the criticism of North's overcall. The other thread where someone got a bad result from failing to overcall with AQJTx and king was at least understandable but this is ridiculous. Not bidding with North is losing bridge by quite a wide margin,

So you then bid 4H? Yes? So if partner does have, say, Axxx Qxxxx - Axxx, should he: A. Bid 1H originally instead of double B. Pass 1NT C. Accept -100 in 4H instead of +110 in 2H I don't know the answer but it seems playable that a weak distributional doubler can pull 1NT and a hand too good to overcall can cue or jump.

I would overcall 2♥ as East with the good suit quality and would also balance with 3♥ even if I didn't overcall with a poorer suit e.g. AQxxx. It's a game of percentages not worst-case scenarios. Would not double with West if partner is an aggressive balancer. If partner is timid then West probably is best to double but it is close.

My view in these situations is that you don't want to tell them about declarer's hand when you are bidding to a thin game. You could play the first step (2♠ over 2♥ or 2NT over 2♠) is any game try and responder can then show where his values lie, with emphasis on secondary values. In any case, to avoid confusion it is clearer to define your game tries in terms of what will fit well in the responding hand, e.g. Instead of 'help suit try', use 'holding where shortage or secondary honours in responder will be good and three small cards will be bad'. Instead of 'short suit try', use 'holding where secondary honours in responder will be bad and three small cards will be good'.

2♠. I like to play that dbl is a hand that would have bid one heart (not a classic negative double) but either way I prefer to show a diamond raise immediately given the likelihood of further action from opponents. Partner has a bad diamond suit and won't be able to participate intelligently unless he knows I have them. This could do well if partner is short in hearts or clubs but could also play poorly opposite quite a good balanced hand, e.g. Axx AKx Jxxx AQx. When 5♦ is in danger opposite that hand a splinter must be too much.

1C, 2C, 4C, 5B 3D if partner adjusts their responses or C if they respond as if 15-17 in both cases. Only 3 comes anywhere near the kind of thing the 'two different systems' rule was created to deal with.