bd71

If you are a B/C-level player in ACBL District 4 (Eastern Pennsylvania, South New Jersey, Deleware), please IM me if you are interested in partnering from time to time in local tournaments or on BBO. I don't play much face-to-face given my family and job responsibilities, and in the two years I've lived here only have developed a short list of potential partners to call on when I do. I'd like to identify any BBOF-ers who are in the region (that is, likely decent players who are seeking to improve) to add to that list of potential partners. Would definitely be interested in playing late evenings on BBO to confirm compatibility and develop understandings.

Not sure it's unclear at all. Any ♠ trick we give away by unblocking we get back in ♦. We know with virtual 100% certainty that South has the A♦. Thus we know with 100% certainty that if we lead ♦ we give up a trick. (Singleton A♦ in South doesn't make sense per the bidding.) So if we take the 3rd ♠ trick we give it right back to declarer in ♦. Partner MIGHT be able to win that 3rd ♠ trick, so I think it's clear to unblock.

The possibility of "randomizing" penalty doubles -- say a double of a tentatively bid game when your hand is weak -- is briefly mentioned in an article ("Strategic Doubles") in the latest issue of Bridge World (September 2011).

A♣ and another. The only way declarer can make this is if we give him a ♦ trick he doesn't deserve by breaking the suit. Partner must have a ♦ honor, probably K♦ or Q♦ for his 2♥ raise. Declarer has 6 cards in the minors (assuming he didn't bid 2♠ with only 4 and that partner didn't raise my ♥ with only 2). If he started with 5♦ and 1♣, he gets to ruff my A♣ and drop two ♦ on dummy's 2 good ♣, but he's still left with 3♦ leading away from the K♦ or Q♦. I will cover the K♦ and duck the Q♦ when he does.

Lead hearts from the top every time I'm in, hoping declarer doesn't have KQ9x. Duck playing the K♦ until 3rd round even if A♦ hasn't appeared, possibly sacrificing a ♦ trick but planning to block the suit. As long as he doesn't have KQ9x♥ or 4♦s, I win at least 3♥ and 2♣.

I think knowing pairs or teams is important here. Agree with 3♥, but I'm uncomfortable. While I rarely open a weak 2 with 5, this might be the hand for it. I like to think that I definitely would have done it in teams so as to maximally obstruct any possible vulnerable game they have.

I really don't know what's going on here. Do we know anything about East? Is he a beginner? His play seems bizarre...why is he giving us a ruff in his solid diamonds? Unless partner failed to win the first ♣ trick with an honor (and why would he do that?), then RHO has KQ♣, and driving out A♣, hoping to figure out the T♣ as you draw the rest of trump, and THEN running 4 diamond winners seems like a stand-out strategy. East can't have much more high-card strength than what we know he holds (KQ♣ A♦). Probably one more card which really shouldn't be the A♠ (leaving partner with only 10 hcp...AKQJ♥...for his opener). Probably doesn't have the K♥ or he would have led toward it from dummy while he could. So, in my ignorance I just want to lead conservatively so as to not give him a trick, and I want to prevent him from ever getting back to dummy to use his J♦ for a discard. I achieve these things by ruffing this ♦ and leading a ♥. Leading ♠ could give him a trick he doesn't deserve (although it's unlikely) and/or could let him back into dummy with Q♠ (if he holds A♠) to use the J♦. Bonus questions...agree with all three of the actions you ask about there. 1. We can't bid 2♠ (forcing) and commit ourselves to 2N/3-level with what might only be 20 hcp between us. We should have 10-11 minimum to do that. 2. I think leading partner's bid suit without any other obvious options is easy. 3. Must duck in case partner can win (although unlikely because East probably wouldn't play trump this way if he's missing either KQ♣, or to possibly give East a guess on where T♣ is (might he finesse on the way back with KQ9xx(x)♣?).

So you're saying I really shouldn't have the option to NOT ask for clarification and let them dig their own grave? Or are you saying that IF I do that, then I am sacrificing any right to some type of adjustment?

Actually, the real agreement wasn't ever determined with certainty. I should have said it eventually turned out that East's hand matched West's verbal explanation (whether or not it was the correct description of their agreement). I did not ask for clarification during the auction and was happy with our result so didn't raise the issue afterward.

I don't think I want to lead a ♣ back immediately. It's clearly most likely that South has 4♦s, in which case the hand seems to me to hinge on whether South has another loser in ♣ or ♥. If he does, I don't think there's anything he can do about it, so it really doesn't matter what we do. I guess in a bizarro scenario South can hold AK♥ tight, so we need to lead a ♣ before a ♥. But we are at liberty to cash a ♦ even in this bizarro scenario. But couldn't South also hold 4♣s, with partner having led the singleton Q♣? If so, I think we want to lead the A♦ and then play ♣...if partner can ruff, then he knows to come back in ♦ rather than ♥. The disaster scenario is that an immediate ♣ return gives partner the ruff, but if he returns a ♥ and South has A♥, then trump is pulled, and ♦ loser/losers in dummy are discarded on ♣ winners. Either way, playing A♦ then a ♣ works, so that's the plan. Edit: forgot to say that I'm listening to partner's attitude signal on the AD, and if he encourages I'm cashing the King as well.

[hv=pc=n&s=skjt32ht74da3c986&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n2d(Alerted%20-%20see%20discussion)]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints, ACBL West alerts 2♦, and when asked says it shows ♦ plus a major, although she seems hesitant and uncertain. Assuming this explanation is true, I want to play in spades and will use our methods to get there. Given the uncertainty, I steal a glance at their CC (which is visible face-up so they may not even know I have peeked) which says 2♦ shows the majors. If this is true I want to defend. Lots of questions: 1. Which source should I rely on to guide my actions? 2. Do I have the option of not saying anything to potentially let them dig a deeper hole, to our advantage? 3. As it turns out, the verbal explanation is correct and East holds ♦/♥. If I had relied on the CC (which says East holds ♥/♠), would we be entitled to a correction if we would do better playing in ♠?

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt54hq73dcakjt3&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1s]133|200[/hv] Your bid at matchpoints?

[hv=pc=n&s=shdakjt4c&w=shd932c&n=shdq875c&e=shd6c]399|300[/hv] North leads a fourth-best 5♦ against 3N. On the 3rd round of diamonds, is there a way that North should know to unblock the queen? That is, is there a way that South can show North that West does NOT hold J432 or T432? Edit: North/South are silent during the auction.

Curious as to how people with experience in both standard events think the fields compare. Assume we are talking about a typical two-session open pairs at an ACBL regional. Am curious how people think the typical/median player there compares to median BBO Speedball player. Comments on how the tails of the distribution of these fields compare are welcome as well.

This looks good. But when they make their natural or partially-natural two-suited bid, how do you penalize them? Or is #4 meant to be that passing/doubling is always penalty?

Partner and I played in the two-session open pairs at a regional yesterday, and got trounced on several hands where we weren't prepared to deal with their interference over our 1NT openings. Key problem was whether doubles are or SHOULD BE penalty or takeout in different situations; since we don't have any agreements here, we both bid what we thought it "should be" and weren't on the same page. So...we're looking for suggestions on a set of agreements to handle NT interference...ideally, these agreements will: 1. Be simple enough for a partnership that plays together about once a month to agree and remember. 2. Be appropriate for good intermediate/early advanced players. 3. Address all key bidding needs after NT interference: bidding to right game with game-forcing strength (including assessing stoppers), provide opportunity to penalize over-aggressive opponents, transfer/escape to long suit when responder has weak hand. Bonus points if there are ways to invite NT opener to game, but I'm not optimistic this can be added in. I suspect many will recommend Lebensohl, which is fine...but I don't believe Lebensohl includes agreements on how to use doubles. If that's indeed true (correct me if I'm wrong here), then Lebensohl is an incomplete answer.

Way late with this...sorry. Everyone was right to assume South deals.

[hv=pc=n&s=shak76da5432caj87&n=saq8hqdkqj7ckq963]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints. Playing vanilla 2/1. Maybe not a hard one, but do you get to 7♦ or even 7NT? And how?

[hv=pc=n&s=shk98632da96ct643&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1c3s]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints. Your bid? Now assume bidding proceeded as follows: [hv=pc=n&s=shk98632da96ct643&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1c3s4h4sdp]133|200[/hv] What now?

Playing NT, you get a 2♠ lead (4th best). Would you EVER play high from dummy with... KQJx opposite 9x ???

Is the standard meaning of this double clear? Is it takeout-ish suggesting spades? Is it penalty? Or is there no accepted "standard" meaning and it's completely subject to partnership agreements?

[hv=pc=n&s=skqjthaqj32dq3caj&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1h2np4d]133|200[/hv] Opponents have destroyed your plan to reverse into spades with their pre-emption. What's your call? Appreciate your thoughts for both a pickup partnership and any relevant special treatments you may have with established partners. This was a pickup partnership. Only remotely relevant discussion on doubles had been that negative/responsive doubles are through 4♥.

For resulters, here are the complete results for this hand... http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=4028-1311651901-22908494 An even larger proportion of the field than in our poll bid 3♠, which was oh so right on this hand. Woe unto me and the other passers/LOTT automatons...

Maybe not all that "interesting", but here's a board where I got a very bad result after my bid turned out to be very anti-field. Trying to figure out whether I'm off, or they all are... [hv=pc=n&s=skj63h953dacaj732&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1c1d1s2d2spp3d]133|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqh32dakt432ck32&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2dp2sp]133|200[/hv] Playing that responders rebid of his/her suit does NOT cancel the game force... Is there any argument here to bidding 3♦, checking if partner has a ♦ fit as a way to explore slam likelihood? If you rebid 3♠ right away, seems like you lose that option, but bidding 3♦ still leaves you the option of playing in ♠. Obviously, this stems from a partnership disagreement...partner thought the priority in all situations must be to show the 6-2 spade fit. Appreciate your thoughts.