shyams

The blame for the result lies squarely with RHO for not "discarding" the ♠A on trick 12 :)!! That, dear friends, is the lesson for the day :) :) Jokes aside, I wonder if the caller should be asked if declarer was deliberately playing slowly. While it is quite probable that the position was reached in normal play at normal speeds, it is not impossible that declarer was "slow playing" to induce some kind of error by defenders; especially if defenders are much less skilled / experienced compared to declarer. Would TD never ask a reasonably competent declarer how this 2-card position was reached and why declarer did not claim/concede the right number of tricks earlier in the play?

If we assume all players at the table are good, then I would never pass 4♥. A pass assumes partner forgot that 4♥ is a splinter plus my LHO passed with 7 or more heart cards. It is quite possible that partner has a monster hand with (say) a singleton ♥A. Whether I'd find a bid other than 4♠ is much harder. I have one very useful card in hand (♣A) and no wastage in hearts. And if partner does have a monster, he'd be most worried about duplication of values in hearts. I'm sorely tempted to bid 5♣, but in real life I'd probably be chicken and simply bid 4♠.

Disagree. I think this is by far the best planet in the solar system. All the others are either too hot or too cold. We could light up Jupiter and make it the 2nd sun and then live on Titan ;)

What's 2+3+1+1+2 ? LOL, sorry. I should not be posting on BBO when working late from office...

I choose to play. Start as before; but when East ruffs the 2nd club and returns a diamond I choose to ruff it in dummy and play a spade off the table. This guarantees two losers in trumps (even if West had the Ace and East the Queen) but allows us to score 2 ruffs, 3 clubs, DK, HA, and the SJ + 4th spade in South hand.

So, in reference to per dburn's original post, how would you rule if you know that South had a singleton King (situation c)?

Nice :PMaybe Tiger should have used "I'm habituated to playing 18 holes" as a justification for his escapades? That would make a great TV moment :)

I had this structure -- probably original, or probably inspired by something I read on some website -- that I never tested. I never had a partner who agreed to play it -- perhaps shows that the structure is not worth the paper it is printed on. Please note it is based on the assumption that we do not open 1NT with 5-card major and 15-17 -- this may be an unpalatable condition for many. Anyway, here goes: After 1NT - 2H: 2S - normal accept 2NT - superaccept in S. Some 4-4-3-2 hand (4-card S assured) 3C - 5-card club; 3 card spade; max hand (club suit will not be awful). i.e. 5-3-3-2 hand 3D - 5-card diamond; 3 card spade; max hand (diamond suit will not be awful) 3S - Max balanced hand. Exactly 4-3-3-3 hand (S support may be 3 or 4 card) After 1NT - 2H - (2NT/3C/3D), if responder is weak OR wants to be dummy, responder rebids the transfer (3H) and 1NT opener is forced to complete After 1NT - 2H - (2NT/3C/3D), if responder has enough for game and is OK declaring, responder bids 3S which can trigger off a shape showing rebid by 1NT bidder. The same structure can work after 1NT - 2D, except the 2S bid needs to be used to show a max hand with 5-card diamond and 3 card heart (otherwise responder cannot re-transfer) According to me, the weakness of the structure is the 3S bid (with 3-card support we are often too high) but my belief is that the structure works well without this bid AND (though I have never tested this), the 3S bid will be used by opener too rarely to worry. The upside of the structure is that partnership can find 5-3 or 5-4 fit in minors at a low level. And these fits are assured double fits (major 5-3 and minor 5-4/5-3) Comments?

Partner held this hand. After the board, I suggested to partner that he should have made the Michaels' cue bid -- I thought it was automatic I'd probably not object too much with the other choice of 1♠ followed by some hearts at the next turn. Instead partner chose the action with zero votes so far (Dbl) When I posted this, I was expecting 3/4th of the vote to go to Michaels and perhaps 1/4th to the 1♠ bid. The actual vote so far is 22 of 24 for Michaels and the remaining 2 for 1♠ bid.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skqjxxxhakjxxdkxc]133|100|Scoring: XIMP Partner deals and passes. East bids 1♣. And you? Note: Opps play ACOL so 1♣ promises 4+ cards and bidder cannot hold a 12-14 balanced.[/hv] Though I do not expect a unanimous poll, I'd be surprised if the option partner chose at the table wins

When I saw the hand, I thought 5♥ would be a stand-out choice but after reading the comments, I am not sure any more. I do have some thoughts and would appreciate if someone feels like responding: 1. Would the 3rd seat opener be bidding a 4-card suit? I guess it is possible but not likely. I'd expect West to have 5-cards most of the time 2. Would East jump to 4♠ with fewer than 4 card support? Again, I would be surprised. 3. Though partner may have made a 5-card overcall, this forum frowns on 5-card overcalls at 2-level. i.e. good Norths will more often have a 6 card heart suit My concern is that at MPs if you double, partner will most likely leave it in with some defense on the side. And we may not get enough compensation in 4♠x. - We may not score many heart tricks (max 1?) - We could probably score only 1 spade trick - If we score many tricks in the side suits, we would have a strong chance of making 5♥ - Finally, though we all know that the 5-level belongs to the opponents, if I bid 5♥ either opponent may choose to bid 5♠ Am I overthinking this?

Re-animating an old thread... Apologies Where is the love (Black Eyed Peas) has some very nice lyrics; may not be the greatest of all time but surely quite good. The part I like a lot is below

I'd choose 4♣

If I were to bid this, I'd choose 1♠. Otherwise I would pass -- I do not prefer to open this one 2♠ when we are white I must admit I do not have a very consistent style, with a tendency to bid or pass based on mood (which is bad for partnerships). On this hand, I think I'd risk 1♠

I think some questions need to be answered first: 1. What were N/S playing? What did their CC say? I presume it was Ekrens etc 2. Did TD ask N why he bid 2H? Did he assume it to mean 5♥+4card minor? a. If yes, the answer to #1 becomes more relevant -- misbid vs MI. b. If N says he knows they play Ekrens but he improvised (or something like that); the TD line of questioning will be to N/S asking them how often they do that.

With this scale, if you had an odd number of teams, the Bye team usually gets 18 VPs. I am not sure if this is a universal practice, but I recall seeing it on atleast two separate occasions when I participated (not in UK). Would it be fair to therefore assume 18 is Ave+ and 12 is Ave-?

Some redoubles that I have seen (perpetrated by partner or by opps) have tended to be "spite redoubles". The redoubler is peeved with his partner's bids; and redoubles just to teach him/her a lesson. Otherwise, playing with a regular partner, I would play redoubles are real / business (except obvious SOS redoubles)

I remembered this; and had hunted for the information on the ECats website earlier once. I'm quite curious to know whether this is really legal. Also, though the stated aim is to have nearly the same # of HCPs etc, I think it is meant to work only across the entire set of 32 or 36 boards. Most clubs would only have the first 24 or 26 boards in play -- rendering the HCP balancing exercise a bit futile.

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sqhq74dkq8cjt9642&w=s964hkj6532djt9c3&e=sakj82hd75432ca75&s=st753hat98da6ckq8]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] The best part about playing a hand in a robot MP is the comparison to other tables that helps construct a "what if" analysis. The deal was played 28 times and the results of your actions (based on comparisons to other tables) 1. If you Dbl 1♠; West bids 2♠ and North bids 4♣ (long suit, 10-12 total points) which I guess you pass MP score: 80% 2. If you pass but Dbl 2♠; North bids 3♣. East goes on to 3♠ and plays in a way to cause a 1 trick set MP score: 57% 3. If you pass and pass; then a ♣K opening limits declarer to 8 tricks MP score: 44% - and any ♥ opening lead OR a defensive slip up -- 9 tricks MP score: 22%

White vs Red, 2nd seat -- MPs You hold: ♠T753 ♥AT98 ♦A6 ♣KQ8; RHO deals and opens 1♠ 1. Act or pass? 2. If you pass, LHO raises to 2♠ -- passed around to you. - Now what - act or pass? - If you pass, what do you lead? 3. Would you bid differently at IMP scoring? I held the above hand in a robot MP today and thought it was interesting

I'd wonder whether the auction will go differently at the other table. Perhaps they play in 3NT (not likely but quite possible at this form of scoring). The normal line in 3NT is to play hearts off the top. So, in 4♥, I play for a finesse of the Queen. Agree with fluffy that West is more likely to hold Q; so I go with his line.

I think only one. Susie Q

The actual hand is not very instructive but here goes:[hv=d=n&v=e&n=s832h854dqt9cak96&w=skqjt4hajtda6cq53&e=sa76hkq96dkj53ct4&s=s95h732d8742cj872]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]Both tables had a bidding misunderstanding (all players except me were classified 'expert' and their card play thru the match was decent enough) 1. At our table, West meant 4NT to be quantitative. East thought it was RKCB but did not know which suit. So he showed the one Ace he had by bidding 5♦ 2. I thought for some time before the lead (and asked East privately about the 5♦) but I had pretty much ruled out leading clubs which was the only lead to defeat 6NT 3. After deciding that it was between ♦ and ♠, I finally chose a spade for an entirely flawed reasoning 4. The other table played in 6♠ by West! North had no difficulty in cashing the first two tricks

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s95h732d8742cj872]133|100|Scoring: IMP Bidding (uncontested): East - West 1♦ - 1♠ 1 NT - 2♣ .....new minor forcing 2♥ - 4 NT 5♦ - 6 NT .....If it matters: East does not know which key suit was agreed; both their profiles say RKC 3041[/hv]What suit do you choose for your opening lead? Is it possible to rate the 4 suits in order (best to worst etc)? Partner was supportive & understanding after my actual choice of opening leads backfired. But upon reflection, I felt I made a very poor choice.

You are right, of course :)