WesleyC

Hearthstone is fantastic! For an exceptionally polished game with relatively simple mechanics, it also has an extremely high skill cap. As a competitive gamer (also with a background in MTG) my main frustration is that they still haven't intoduced a proper competitive mode yet. I've got about 1000 arena wins and 1500 ranked wins and have made it to legend with most of the different classes. Even though the ranked ladder doesn't really have a point yet, it is the best way to challenge yourself against the very best opponents so I enjoy it for that reason. Regarding the grind to legendary, stick with it! One way that I improved was playing at least 20-30 games with each popular deck type just to get an appreciation of how it wins/loses.

Starting with a double seems perfect.

I'd start with a double, and probably end up in a hopeless 3NT on this layout...

Hand 1. Double and 2H are both reasonable. Hard to choose between them without more knowledge of our agreements. Definitely not passing. Hand 2. 2S and Double are worth consideration but I would usually just bid 2S. At other colours I might consider pass, but not NV/NV.

3D is normal. 5D is an interesting tactic. Everything else is wrong :)

I think a major consideration that hasn't been mentioned yet is your seating position. For me this hand is an automatic 3C preempt in 1st/3rd, but I would pass in 2nd. Especially at green, RHO's pass actually shows [0-10 HCP, without a (5)6c suit] which suggests that your side will often hold the balance of the power. For this reason you're better off adopting a descriptive rather than destructive preempting style in 2nd seat.

3S. I wouldn't seriously consider anything else.

I think more information about the opponents skill level, style and methods over 1NT would be valuable here. I'd also like more information about their agreements on carding when there is a singleton in dummy. I don't fully agree with mikeh's restricted choice argument, because the argument that LHO would usually play the 5 from 65 leaves RHO with a choice from 542 in a spot where it looks like they will often have spade preference (assuming that's what the card meant). If LHO didn't have a way to show [A? xx AKJxxx xxx] then I'd be afraid to go against the odds and would take the finesse, but if that hand isn't possible my gut tells me to play RHO for ♦Jxx.

Its very hard to come up with hand for partner where slam isn't at least on a finesse through the 4H bidder and it will often be close to 100%. I would simply take control and force to slam if we have enough keycards.

If you're working with total points, a void is usually worth 5 so this hand would certainly fit that range. I'd take off a point for the lack of aces add a couple for the 8c suit and arrive at about 16. To approach it from the other direction, if partner has 13-15 working HCPs then slam rates to be excellent. Holding a hand in that range, partner will know what to do after you splinter.

Didn't you just answer your own question? If you know from tempo/table feel LHO is very likely to hold KQh then why not duck the heart and play for that? I would also lean towards playing a heart up before playing 2 rounds of trumps.

I'm not sure I understand the methods, but assuming East showed long diamonds and short spades at MPs, then I think West is obligated to make a forward going move. If my only choices were 3NT and 6D, then I'd take the high road.

On this kind of deal, it's almost impossible for a line that gives you a chance to go down on 3/1 trumps to be correct. For example, LHO holding ♣Jxx and short hearts is significantly more likely than East holding ♣Jxxx. Once you've convinced yourself of this general principle, you can save a lot of thinking time by discounting those lines immediately.

I'm probably missing something obvious, because this hand seems pretty simple... 1. Spade Ruff 2. Club to the Ace 3. Spade Ruff 4. Heart to the King. Even if clubs are 4-0, we might be able to discard both diamonds if hearts are 3/3.

I'd bid 2H the first time. The spade stack isn't ideal but if partner tracks with a good heart fit, then game will make opposite very little: eg. 4H is a good spot opposite as little as: [x QJxx Qxxx xxxx] or [J QJx xxxx xxxxx] especially after the likely spade lead!

My opinion is that although switching to penalty doubles in G/F auctions where both partners have showed a real suit is technically superior, the advantage is small and making the change isn't worth the extra discussion/agreements so I prefer to stick with T/O doubles especially in a pickup partnership. At MPs, if I did guess to start 2C I would forget about the G/F and pass out 2H. You already took a 'position' by bidding 2C, partner is marked with a minimum hand, limited club support and the hand screams misfit so I'd gamble that any positive score for our side will be reasonable score. It's also very likely that the opponents are playing in a 5/0 or 5/1 heart fit with a 5/4 diamond fit on the side!

Re: Gnasher's point: A really simple extension of lebensohl on G/F hands is: 2NT shows 4oM. Cuebid asks for a stopper. In combination these 2 agreements give you the ability to show a lot of different G/F hands. Using that method at IMPs, the auction might continue: 2NT* - 3C* 4D* - 5D 5H - 5S 6C - 6D AP At MPs its a tougher choice - because usually 6H will score better than 6D. So It might be better to give up some slam precision in order to make sure we play in hearts.

I'm not sure if there is a definitive answer to this - you might be better to ask on the director's forum. Maybe one reason that such an abstract definition exists is that practical considerations can take precedence. From my experience (in Australia), when making a LA ruling the director tries to present the problem to 4 or 5 players that are considered to be "peers". Among those peers if multiple players would consider an action and at least one of them would actually choose it then it becomes a LA. I received this director's ruling earlier in the year, near the end of an Australian National. IMPs NV vs VUL (2C*) - P - (P) - ??? *10-14 HCP, (5)6+C You hold: [JT9532 QJ6 75 K3], what are the logical alternatives? The player with the decision was world class. The director polled 4 peers and although (i'm guessing here) they must've considered passing, all of them chose to bid 2S so pass was not deemed to be a logical alternative. I was the 2C bidder on the hand and LHO had moved to open out of turn and been stopped. I felt a bit hard done by the ruling, but according to the laws what more could the director do?

At MPs I'll take my chances with a semi-forcing 1NT. At IMPs I'd force to game.

Firstly, well done for choosing to pass on this hand given the UI - it was definitely the ethical action. However, the way you've justified the pass feels slightly inconsistent with the rules. From your comments above, it sounds like at the table you had a legitimate decision between passing out 4H and balancing with 4S. In your own words "you'll never be sure what you would've done without the hitch". So in your mind, pass IS a logical alternative. Now, if we can also assume that partner's hesitation suggests bidding 4S rather than passing, then you are ethically obligated to pass. That's it - end of story. Even if every respondent to this thread had described 4S as 100% clear, you would still not ethically be allowed to bid 4S, because (in your mind) pass was a logical alternative. Instead you would simply have proved that you could've cheated by bidding 4S and gotten away with it! :) On a related note, if you're interested in improving your competitive bidding in situations that are similar to this you should definitely check out PhilKing's 1H P 4H MEGAQUIZ: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/70238-1h-pass-4h-mega-quiz/

The definition a logical alternative is an "action, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, that would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." However there isn't any consensus about exactly what quantity "significant" or "some" represent. In a practical sense the director would poll a handful of players of an appropriate level and make their decision based on that. The part of the rule that most people misunderstand, is that simply giving consideration to another call isn't enough. Some of your peers must actually choose an action as their first choice for it to be a logical alternative.

The reason I don't think pass is a logical alternative is that we have a strong 6c spade suit and a void in the opponents suit. Partner is marked with heart length so they can have considerable values (likely in the minors) and be unable to act, especially if they have a shortage in a side suit. I expect 4S will make often enough to justify bidding it for that reason alone. However bidding 4S has even more ways to win because it might also be a profitable save, or not get doubled, or push the opponents to the 5 level, or the field is making +140 our way so +50 is already a bad score, or partner leads a minor and blows a trick against 4H for -480 vs -450 etc.... Hence my conclusion that defending 4H on this hand isn't a logical alternative which is how I comment if polled by a director.

Personally, I think 4S is obvious and that pass isn't a logical alternative.

Double. The chance to defend 4Hx or play 4S is worth the risk of a bad score if partner has long clubs.

I'd lean towards pass, but I think its a pretty close decision. I agree with benlessard that theres definitely some psychology involved and against some opponents I might bid 4H.