sfi

The question you have to ask yourself is how many tricks do you have in NT versus how many tricks you have in clubs. If you have to go to the three level, you need reasonable expectations of at least two more tricks. Here I would estimate it at about 4, so I would play in 3C even though I don't expect to make it. After all, -200 is better than -400. And 3C is harder to double for penalty than a weak NT. Another way to think about it is that when partner has a fit, then 3C is probably a better place to play. And when partner doesn't have a fit, you will not be able to use your long clubs as tricks in NT, so 3C is probably a better place to play. As to how you get to 3C, that depends on partnership agreement. If you don't know your agreements, it's hard to make sensible decisions about how best to navigate through them.

That's hardly usual practice, and anything like that is well worth trying to break.

Here is another Planet Money podcast. This one looks at some other reasons companies move from state to state - particularly between Kansas and Missouri. It's not as directly relevant as the first episode, but is still an interesting take on the complexity of the situation.

Planet Money covered this experiment about two years ago. You can find the podcast here.

You're right that this hand is worth a 2C opening on values. But it is worth considering how the auction will proceed. On which auction would you be happier: 2C - (3H) - P - (4H) or: 1S - (3H) - P - (4H) On the second one you can double and bid 5D over anything. On the first one you risk missing a 5-3 spade fit and partner has a harder time evaluating a hand like Qxx x Qxxx xxxxx. Of course, partner needs to be aware that you might open hands this strong at the one level to think about raising to slam on a hand like this. You can also construct hands where 6H or 7H is the right place to play, and you're going to struggle more to find it over a 2C opener than an auction that starts 1S - 1NT; 3D - 3H. The downside is, of course, that you have to make it past the first round of the auction to catch up with your values. Sometimes this is just too big of a worry to open at the one level - teammates don't really appreciate the +230, -1430 comparisons after all.

Miamijd covered the meaning of a double fairly well. It typically shows values (say a good 10+ at this level) and 4+ cards in the other two suits. Particularly if you have minimal high-card strength you would want spade tolerance as well, so you have some assurance of a playable spot. Doubling with this hand is just asking for trouble. You might be able to convince partner you have actual spade support if you get a chance to convert at the three or four level, but you may not. What will you do if LHO bids 5D and it is passed around to you, or if your partner bids spades again? Even if you do get to show three spades, partner is entitled to play you for at least 3-4-2-4 shape and may decide to go looking for slam with a presumed double fit (you're not going to enjoy any bid from partner over a 4S correction). It's much better to support spades directly, and your options are 3S, 4S, and a cue bid. 3S could be right, but three aces suggest bidding more. 4S is typically a hand with more distribution and weaker in high cards. Not preemptive exactly, but descriptive. A cue could get you too high, but it does show the general nature of your hand - 3+ spades, high card values, and some defence. It's generally a good idea to be prepared to overbid by a level to show a fit in competition. So 4D looks clear. As to what do I do now? Prepare my excuses - I've successfully forced myself to take the last guess and it was entirely avoidable.

Indeed. Broadly speaking, opening 2C is a bad thing for your side. You are a level higher and you haven't started to describe your hand's shape. Aggressive opponents will also see this as an opportunity to take further room away if they can, since they don't have to worry about constructive bidding. As a result, you should have some idea of where you are heading when you open 2C, and a hand where partner can have some expectation that slam will be on with the right couple of cards. 2C works best when you have a strong one-suited hand, since you get to describe the nature of your hand next round. Two-suited hands are harder, so the hand should be really strong - not just one that will miss game if partner passes the perfect 5 count, but one that is genuinely game-forcing - to make up for what you are giving up with the opening. Particularly on distributional hands, it's often right to open at the one level even on hands that might qualify for a 2C bid. It's not so likely everyone will pass if some of your strength is in distribution rather than high cards, and if you do get another chance to bid you can be much better off. Strength can be shown later in the auction (assuming there is a later) - distribution can be harder to do so.

This looks about one and a half tricks too good for a reopening 2D bid, and I typically play 3C as natural and similar to a jump shift (aiming for 3NT if partner has some values). Additionally, slam may be an easy make if partner happens to find a 2M response with QJxxx and a couple of other junky cards, so I don't want to give up on strains other than diamonds yet. So double it is.

2nt without much conviction. If partner were a passed hand I think double would be clear since a part score is our likely target.

My typical agreement is this is invitational with exactly 4 spades. Similarly, a delayed 3nt bid is choice of games with 4 spades and a heart stopper and a delayed cue is FG with exactly 4 spades. It makes it much easier to sort out these sorts of hands.

Unfortunately, once your partner plays to trick 3 you can no longer inspect trick 2. Law 66A covers this.

The answer will depend on where you are playing. Typically, the default criterion for alerting is "artificial, or natural with an unexpected meaning", and then a jurisdiction will define some specific natural situations requiring alerts or artificial ones that don't. However, it is likely that 2C guaranteeing longer clubs is a natural but unexpected meaning. Even though you tell your opponents you are playing canape before the round, you are likely to be required to continue to alert your bids properly. The purpose of announcing beforehand is to allow your opponents to discuss any required defences rather than to relieve you of your obligations during the hand.

Here's a hand from a national teams competition a few years ago: [hv=pc=n&n=sj54h2dakt873ct85&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p2d(multi)2h]133|200[/hv] If you play double as penalty, you have no good course of action. You want to compete if partner has spades but stay out if not. If you play double as pass/correct, you have an easy way to compete. Or you could take the action my teammate took, which comes with a warning label for anyone faint of heart: It was only one hand, with a couple of - shall we say - questionable decisions. But the second agreement would have avoided the entire fiasco.

(2) is fairly normal in my experience, with the expectation that if partner has the other major I would like to compete to at least the three level. Not sure why it's so bad - it can be hard to compete effectively in partner's major without it.

I don't agree that partner will typically be constrained if I ask about a bid that should have been announced. To me, asking merely transmits the information that the opponents forgot to announce, and the directors are likely to rule that way. Not necessarily to everyone though. Omitting the announcement opens up the possibility of UI that can't be proven, and may even be subconscious - maybe questions get asked a different way if only reminding you that you are supposed to announce. Or you might get a person planning to bid, with a move towards the bidding box, and then asking what the bid showed. Sure, the partner might have UI. But you can't get an adjustment because you didn't follow normal procedure. So answer the original post, the "penalty" for not announcing is that you will have a more difficult time showing existence or damage in the event of any perceived related irregularity. I have seen cases where the side that didn't announce was ruled against for exactly this reason. The situation I believe you are referring to - where the non-offending side asks a question and their partner feels constrained because of this, and would not have had the bid been announced - seems of academic interest only. I agree it's not one I would expect to see in real life.

I agree with Johnu - this seems pretty basic. I don't have faith that either I or my partner can reliably read a middle card, and there seems to be no need for it here. The number of situations where I want to encourage for a specific suit but can't afford a card in that suit has to be pretty small.

You seem to be asking for special treatment. There's no evidence thus far of the behaviour you are looking for.

Another risk is that an opponent asks only when they have a decision to make and provides their partner with UI. If you don't follow proper procedure you are unlikely to be able to claim you were damaged.

My reading of your post is that partner needs the perfect 16 count for slam to be reasonable. But she can't have it because she also has heart values. If you were trying to convince me it's not worth aiming for slam, it worked.

3D looks clear. I'll find out if it's forcing soon enough.

They could just have hosted it in Austria. Half the world wouldn't notice the difference. My understanding from the one article I read this morning is that the host city directly invited Australia this year, after being impressed by the performance last year. It's not expected to be an ongoing thing, although there are the inevitable hometown articles pushing for Oz to be a permanent fixture.

I actually don't think bridge computers will get to the level of good humans. It's not that they can't - we've seen too many advances in too many areas to believe that. I just don't believe anyone will have a good reason to spend the money required to make it happen. Deep Blue was a sizeable investment from IBM and there doesn't seem to be the visibility or incentives to do the same for bridge. One thing is certain - Jack isn't it. Even though I recommend it as a useful learning tool.

Another reason for using 3C as the superaccept rather than 2NT is that the club hand is dummy when you know its strength and hidden when you don't. In other words: 1N - 2S; 3C (superaccept) - Pass We know responder is weak, but the hand is dummy. 1N - 2S; 2NT (no superaccept) - 3C Responder's hand is either weak or invitational and is hidden. Contrast this to using 2NT as the superaccept.

I'm surprised by the vote for Lebensohl over some sort of checkback. Without New Minor Forcing or similar, there are an entire group of hands you can't show over a 1NT rebid. Which flavour of checkback is much less important than having one is much less important though.

Absolutely. If anyone who has demonstrated the basic ability to count to 13 shows the hand at trick 1 and claims without a line of play, there will be no argument at any serious tournament. I'm not sure who Hurd was playing, but I can't imagine a detailed claim statement was made on this hand - and probably nothing was said at all. There are 13 tricks, and it's obvious what his line of play would be. Calling the director, unless you are a genuine beginner, would just get you laughed at.