bd71

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=saqthqj754dqckqj5&w=sk9852h93d542ca73&e=s63hk8dat976c9862&s=sj74hat62dkj83ct4]399|300|Scoring: MP North playing in 4H[/hv] I made a bad claim today playing in int/advanced pairs game. At the table, I felt the directors ruling was reasonable. But during the post-tourney discussion on this hand (it made the difference between us finishing 2nd and 4th in 2-session pairs event), a friend suggested that the director may not have it right. E led a low diamond, won by my singleton Q. I finessed in hearts and played a 2nd round to draw trump. Then led a club from dummy, which W took with the A, and he played a low spade. I won the ace, and claimed the rest of the tricks, saying that I would cash my 3 clubs (without saying what was being discarded from dummy), go to dummy with trump, and cash my "two high diamonds" dropping the 2 spade losers in my hand. Obviously, I forgot the AD was still out. Director ruling was that opponents get obvious AD trick and a spade trick, making 4 but a bad MP score. My friend suggested that it would be illogical not to discard spades from dummy as I cashed my clubs, and it's not right to assume I would be illogical. If I had dropped dummy's spades on the clubs, even after being surprised with the AD (had play proceeded as per my claim), I would NOT have a spade trick to lose. So the suggestion is that making 5 is the right ruling. So...what's the right standard here and was this a correct decision?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skq9842hqt7d94c72]133|100|Scoring: MP (1♦)-X-(P) to you[/hv] 1. What's your first bid? 2. Regardless of what you say, LHO rebids 5D, and partner doubles again. Now what?

For those who were interested before, here is an update of my latest 679 matchpoint hands on BBO...again, the vast majority are in ACBL robot tourneys so I'm declarer more often. This sample has no overlap with the first one. Position - Instances - Avg. MP - % Contracts Made Declarer - 318 - 51.5% - 68.0% Dummy - 170 - 54.6% - 72.9% Lead - 79 - 50.9% - 67.1% Defense (no lead) - 95 - 51.2% - 53.7% Passout - 17 - 50.0% - N/A Total - 679 - 52.1% - 68.0% The combined samples are: Position - Instances - Avg. MP - % Contracts Made Declarer - 635 - 52.1% - 67.5% Dummy - 309 - 54.8% - 74.1% Lead - 145 - 48.67% - 71.0% Defense (no lead) - 191 - 52.9% - 50.8% Passout - 30 - 50.3% - N/A Total - 1310 - 52.1% - 67.5% Tentative conclusions: 1. The declarer vs. dummy differential is very stable and similar. I am pretty much convinced this difference is driven by bidding (likely my tendency NOT to hog contracts from GIB, presumably unlike many of my competitors) and has nothing to do with my dummy play. 2. The lead vs. non-lead defense differential in matchpoints largely disappeared, but there's still a large difference in % of contracts made. Not sure what to conclude here. Were it not for the big gap in % of contracts made, I would conclude that the big difference from the first sample was a statistical fluke. But I have no idea what to make of it now. 3. Currently, I am a somewhat better player than the typical player in BBO's ACBL robot tournament fields. Relative to the competition, my strongest area is bidding, then declarer play, then defense (not trying to differentiate leading vs. other components of defense). I am better than the field in all 3 areas, although the lower volume/credibility of the defensive data may mean I am merely average here. 4. BBO's ACBL tournaments -- which emphasize bidding and declarer play -- are likely the worst possible forum for me to play in if I want to focus on my relative weakness (defense). 5. For someone who thought he was an "advancing" player, the lack of improvement in average MP score shouldn't make me very happy or confident of the presumed advancement.

Over the last two years, I have played the grassroots Flight C events (NAP, GNT) in two different ACBL districts, and have played lots of hands against C players in sectionals, regionals, and one NABC (although not the GNT or NAP finals). My partners and I have encountered precision exactly twice (same opposing pair each time), and we have never seen weak NT or mini-roman. Flannery & NT interference have obviously come up more often. So while I guess that my experience may not be representative, I would recommend spending preparation time on things that you are much more likely to face.

So there was a typo...N had ♥K82 rather than ♥K83 But sadly, nothing wrong beyond that... http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...7&username=bd71 Anyway, very useful responses...so thanks to all. In retrospect, I clearly didn't plan ahead enough. Would open 1N given another chance. I'm actually not scandalized by my pick-up pd's refusal to open, but I didn't like not bidding beyond 2C.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sa764hk83da86cj86&s=skjha6dq73caqt975]133|200|Scoring: MP P-1♣ 1♠-2♣ P [/hv]

For what it's worth, on this hand the diamond lead wins. Declarer had AS, 7 running clubs, and 1-2 top hearts. Dummy had QJ-stiff in diamonds, my partner had Kx, and we could run 6 tricks in that suit. My partner thought I should have respected declarer's implicit claim (by bidding 3N) that she had a spade stopper. I tend not to completely trust random opponents in club games and I thought her bidding indecision might be based on lack of a spade stopper. This raises the question for me...especially if you know the opponent who has NOT bid is going to be on lead, how often do people "bluff" a stopper by bidding NT in order to engineer a lead in another suit? Is this at all common in advanced/expert play?

After a bidding sequence of 1C-(P)-1H-(2D), opener seems to have two main options for showing extras and inviting to game...3D cue-bid or 3H. How should those bids be differentiated? Are there other options to invite game? What hand type and range does the 3H jump show if your agreement with a pickup partner is standard 2/1?

[hv=d=w&s=skjhqt9xxdat9xxxc]133|100|Scoring: MP 1C (1S) 2H (P) 3C (P) 3N* PO *Long huddle, and looked anguished when making final 3N bid Your partner is a notoriously aggressive bidder, including light overcalls. What's your lead?[/hv]

12 teams entered. First day was two separate six-team round robins, each advancing two teams. Second day was straight KO with final four teams. For what it's worth, my team finished 2nd officially but was the 3rd-best team over the weekend (I suspect we are 2nd-best team over long-run, however), as we lost the final by 50, and the winner won their semifinal by only 4.

I can't speak to the higher flights, but the purity of approach that Justin is suggesting is just not possible at the Flight C level, and probably Flight B. 1. Unlike my impression of the Superflight and Flight A, where there is a more limited field (typically 4-5 teams in the two districts I have lived in the last two years...4 and 14), Flights B and C typically have a large number of teams. Even if there is a favorite or two, this large field randomizes the event and makes it very unpredictable who is going to win. Insisting that any team that plays should feel obligated to go to Nationals would dramatically cut down the field size, and I suspect would detract from the event. 2. Most Superflight and A players are probably already committed to Nationals, regardless of whether they win GNT. Completely different perspective at B and C level, where winning the GNT is more likely the catalyst for a team to figure out if they can actually make it to Nationals. 3. Much more so than at the higher flights, the district GNTs are probably considered an event unto themselves, where people are competing to do well and win points, not necessarily with the idea of advancing in mind. This is valid and just, and if a team surprises themselves by winning but can't afford to spend close to a week away from family or work, there is nothing inappropriate about that. Last weekend my team finished 2nd in Flight C GNT in our district. The 1st-place team is not sure yet whether they are able to go to New Orleans. I have absolutely no sense that they have cheated us or the event in any way. They deserve the right to go if they can make it -- or if most of their team can make it (I'd be happy to fill in even!).

Isn't this statement a bit laughable in the context of football/soccer, given that: 1. The amount of money (club revenue and player salaries) involved in MLS (top US soccer league) is trifling compared to top European leagues, and perhaps even the 2nd-level leagues. 2. The contant presence of money in news and discussions of European football (tranfer fees, club finances, etc.) 3. Gambling/match-fixing stories from Europe

So remember that North (me) and South were desperate... My actual holding was not much better than suggested here... x x AJxx KQxxxxx Congrats to those who ducked because you eliminated my only chance at slam. At the table, LHO went up with the Ace and led another. When clubs broke 2-2 and the J♥ dropped under the Q♥ I had the 23-point slam. Those who ducked won a net of 24 IMPs since our counterparts bid and made 3N. I know I got lucky here on many fronts (club split, A♥ onside, J♥ falling)...I posted this to clear up whether I was also lucky in getting less-than-optimal defense. Seems like that's the case. Punchline...we still lost by 50 IMPs.

So there were two directors at this combined sectional tournament/GNT event, and the one who gave the ruling was clearly the more experienced and senior of the two. Combined between the sectional and the GNT event, there were probably no more than 40 tables in play at the peak part of the weekend. In this context, who does an appeal go to? I'm not aware that there is an appeals committee or anything like that...or would there have to be? Who would be on it?

Final match of Flight C District GNT final. I don't have hand details, but I want to ask about the general principle rather than the hand specifics. West deals, I am North. Bidding goes: 1H-(1S)-3H-(P*)- AP *My partner asks about 3H; West says limit raise with 4-card heart support. She tanks for a while, then passes. Dummy comes down with 8 hcp and 4432 shape (so call it a 9-pointer with the doubleton). They make 3H exactly. When asked after the hand, it turns out that opponents agreements here are actually 8-9 and 4-card support. I am pretty sure we can make 3S, but never looked at the hands again to verify (but let's assume it's true for the discussion). We call director. He takes board away and comes back later. Despite my partner's claim that she had a borderline decision with the given information, he says no adjustment because there was only a 1-2 point difference between the explanation given and the dummy's hand. My questions are: 1. Is there any basis in the law for the director's "only 1-2 point" difference argument? 2. What is the right standard here when considering what my partner might have done with accurate information? For what it's worth, we didn't push the issue (not even sure what our appeal rights were), and it didn't matter in the end as we lost by 50 IMPs.

[hv=d=n&v=b&e=skqxxhaxxxxdxxcxx&s=saxxxhkqtxdxxxcax]266|200|Scoring: IMP Penultimate board of 28-board team match with intermediate/advanced players. You were up 15 at half, and feel good about 2nd half so far...especially since you made 3HX+1 on last hand and it's a real longshot the other team will ever bid 4H. Opponents comments suggest they are desperate. Their unopposed bidding on this hand: 1♣-1♥ 3♣-3N 5♣-6♣ You lead K♠, taken by dummy's A♠. Declarer then ruffs a spade and leads a low heart. What do you play?[/hv]

Am I being dense here...is there any reason we shouldn't just start playing spades to learn more about the hand. At most, they can take 5 tricks off the top, but then we know a lot more about the hand on which to base our play in clubs and still try to make 8 tricks. If/when we get to the point where we're down to one diamond stopper, we can broach clubs and use the best of the argurments presented in the thread up until now.

Stats for my last 631 matchpoint boards on BBO. About 80% of these hands are in ACBL robot tourneys where I get the best hand, explaining the disproportionate number of hands I am declarer. Position - Instances - Avg. MP - % Contracts Made Declarer - 317 - 51.4% - 65.6% Dummy - 139 - 55.1% - 75.5% Lead - 66 - 46.0% - 75.8% Defense (no lead) - 96 - 54.6% - 47.9% Passout - 13 - 50.7% - N/A Total - 631 - 52.1% - 66.9% Questions: 1. What should I make of the higher matchpoint scores when I'm dummy? I suspect others often try to engineer the bidding in individual ACBL tourneys so GIB is not declarer, which I do NOT do...could it be that this leaves me in better contracts and produces better scores? Or is it just that I treat GIB better than others and he plays more solidly with partner's active support? 2. Am I really bad on opening leads? My stats knowledge is rusty, but I think the 95% confidence interval for my "on lead" MP% is about 40-52%, just outside the overall average of 52.1%. So I think I can conclude with 95% confidence that I'm a bad opening leader. 3. Should I be surprised that my GIB partner makes >75% of his contracts and I make only 66%? Since I have stronger hand all of the time (in the 80% of the hands that are ACBL individual), shouldn't I have a natural advantage over GIB in that my strength is concealed when I declare? Is this grounds to conclude I am a worse declarer than GIB? 4. Any other takeaways from these stats that I can use? Have others done similar analysis and found it useful?

But once partner has confirmed hearts after 2N-3D-3H-4C-4H, would you proceed and if so how do you identify the missing AK of clubs?

4n and bidding 6h when we are not off 2 keycards This is how I proceeded. Partner had two keycards and the queen, so 6H it is... ...and RHO then leads A and K of clubs. Down one. I was hoping some expert help through this thread might suggest whether there is a good a way to avoid this. I guess the 4S bid is the one going idea...is that a uncontrovertibly a cue-bid, thus allowing partner to cue-bid diamonds and we diagnose our club weakness? Or could it be something else?

So I did bid 4C...and he says 4H. What now?

Thanks for the comment on this aspect, because this is maybe most interesting piece of this to me. Is there anything in the laws that suggests you should or should not consider a player's style when considering logical alternatives in a UI situation? If so, does that mean director polls to establish logical alternatives should be shaded based on a player's aggressive/conservative tendencies? I have no idea what the law says, but my "fairness" instinct believes that you should consider the player tendencies. That's one reason I was NOT really upset with this ruling...RHO really is nice-but-super-crazy in bidding and I completely believe he would bid 3S normally. LHO is another story...her behavior was annoying, but I just don't know her well enough to know she's intentionally playing games or not.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa76hajt42dqct972]133|100|Scoring: MP 2N-3D 3H-? 2N=20-22 No tools agreed besides Jacoby/Texas transfers[/hv] Please suggest your immediate bid, and also how to follow-up based on likely responses from partner.

Playing in a club pairs game in the US. They are vul, we are not. I am dealer and open 2H (weak). LHO pauses, thinks, closes her eyes, touches her cards to her forehead as if in thought, etc., and finally passes. (Later, opponents agree there was an obvious pause and that it was clear to all she had a problem.) Partner bids 3H. RHO bids 3S; and for what it's worth, RHO is well-known as an INCREDIBLY aggressive bidder. LHO raises to 4S. End of bidding. My partner called director after the 4S bid from LHO to establish that there was an earlier pause. Director looks at RHO cards and says something like "he has a clear spade bid." We play the hand, they make 5S. LHO has something like 18 points with a 2344 shape. RHO has something like KT9xxxx Kx xx xx. (I am certain of the honors and trump spots, less certain of minor spots if that matters). Several questions: 1. Is there any way to look at the RHO cards and say that pass is NOT a logical alternative? 2. In addressing this issue, is it relevant at all that RHO is an aggressive bidder? 3. Didn't the director handle the process improperly by not simply noting initially that there had been a bidding pause and to call her back after the hand to see if there was anything to consider or adjust?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=shaq862dkjt87653c]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P)-3♣-(3♠)-? No agreements other than "sayc"[/hv]