bd71

So I've had the Kokish Relay in my agreements for a short enough period of time that the need for responder to show a bust/double-negative has never come up. What is the recommended approach here? After 2C-2D-2H-2S-3C, 3D seems like a reasonable bust bid (comments/disagreements welcomed). But what about after a 3D "rebid"? I'm more interested in the general approach rather than specifics, but the problem hand here was in ACBL's April Bridge Bulletin "Bidding Box" section...what to do with this as responder after opener has shown hearts and diamonds via Kokish? 63 72 96 JT87542

[hv=pc=n&s=skq842hdk976532c4&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=2c(strong%202C)p2d(waiting)]133|200[/hv] Both sides playing 2/1. You have no two-suited bid available (does anybody in this situation?). Your bid?

If anybody with a voice in NABC scheduling is reading, please do NOT consider this suggestion. The Red Ribbon being consecutive with the NAP B/C events is PERFECT to let people play both such events over a long weekend.

[hv=pc=n&e=shaj742da84cajt73&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp4s]133|200[/hv] IMPs What's your choice from the available options listed above in the poll?

R/W teams (P) P (1C) X (2S) ? Kx QJ Kxx J9876x

[hv=pc=n&e=s4hakj52d73cqj932&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1h1s2h2s3c4spp]133|200[/hv] Playing 2/1. 3C in a competitive auction like this was undiscussed with partner. Could have been interpreted as help-suit game try, since that is our agreement in non-competitive auctions. Comments thus far? Your bid? Does your answer change based on teams vs. pairs?

Matchpoints, you may not "need" it but the extra diamond trick can sure help your score.

[hv=pc=n&s=s74hak3dkjcaq9532&n=sqj852h62daq74ct6&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1cp1sp2np3d(GF%20checkback)p3nppp]266|200[/hv] Matchpoints. Lead is ♦9 (most likely 2nd from 4 or more empty, but could in theory be top of doubleton). What's your plan? Particularly, how do you spend/conserve your diamond tricks, and what's the best way to set up the club suit?

I agree with all reversers. Thinking about opening this 1N is falling victim to "fancy play syndrome." I'm not opposed to opening off-shape no-trumps, but we should save it for when we don't have other good options. For example, change the heart holding to AJxx in this hand, and I would agree with a 1N start.

Very nice...always fun to look at the inverse... K AQJT AKQJ9 AT9

Agree with 1N and the reasons from hrothgar and bill, but there's also a corrolary to #2 here...which is that at teams I likely open 1C and plan to rebid 3C over most responses.

http://tinyurl.com/cekmk2h GIB's 4H bid is either: 1. Bidding his shorter major, which doesn't make sense, OR... 2. Intended as a transfer (although that would seem strange), but not alerted as such. Either way, something is wrong here...E/W GIB bidding also seems strange and doesn't quite match the alerts (but perhaps they were "worst evil" bids in GIB's mind).

Matchpoints, else this hand is a snoozer. The 3C transfer could have been a bust hand. This was a robot tourney, where I often take optimistic views to generate more challenging declarer play situations. If with a regular partner rather than GIB, 2N would have been the diamond transfer and I would have bid 3C to show a suitable fit.

I'm assuming both followed to the first round heart. Agree with dummy reversal, which I think by itself is sufficient the vast majority of the time the ♠K drops by the 4th round, establishing the ♠Q as our 12th trick (11 are in the bag...1 ♠, 4 ♥ in North, 3 ♥ ruffs in South, 1 ♦, and 2 ♣). But on the off-chance spades don't cooperate, I think we need to run the ♦9 early (I'll do it at Trick 2) to possibly set up either a ♦ finesse against East or a ♠/♦ squeeze for the 12th trick.

How likely do we think it is that partner led from unsupported ♣K rather than ♦KQJ?

[hv=pc=n&s=sa62hkj85dkq96ck7&n=sjt9h4dajt752ca54&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1n(15-17)p3c(tx%20to%20D)p3nppp]266|200[/hv] ♣3 4th-best lead What are your plans, if any, for overtricks?

Are there (semi) objective standards here, or is it just a feel? Is the hand not strong enough offensively?...defensively?...something else? Not trolling, just trying to delve a bit deeper into how good players think about the 2C threshold.

[hv=pc=n&s=sak7hkq6dkqj742c7]133|100[/hv] Matchpoints. What do you open W/R 1st seat?

Unless they magically start playing transfers when they have the opening 1N hand, probably not.

So I'm going to give partner a hand that is maximum and a really good fit...KQJxx AKx x KJxx...and we're not even cold for slam then (on this layout we need just a little cooperation in clubs). And even with this hand he might have jumped to 4S. Since he might not be maximum, and he might not have a perfect fit, I think we're not really close to slam.

That's a fair analysis of pros/cons of different leads. But you've conveniently left out your conclusion...what do YOU lead here?

I double and think that's the harder decision, but still not that hard. Unless partner has crazy distribution including 5 spades (in which case we'll hear more from him), 3N is our most likely game. I'd rather play where 9 tricks for us in NT is +800 vs. +400. And I'm certainly not throwing away a possible big penalty for a part-score. The obvious lead to me is our systemic lead from club length. We likely need to run clubs for the double to score big. Overcaller has laid claim to some heart stoppers when vul, so I believe him. And we're certainly not going to disrupt spades and our entry until clubs are established.

Is it so clear that the SEC has weaker non-comference schedules than other major conferences? My impression is that the reluctance to schedule more than one tough non-conference opponent is endemic to all big-time conferences and programs. I'm a Michigan fan, and it's highly unusual for us to have a year like this year when we played two high-quality non-conference opponents (Alabama, Notre Dame)...although I loved it. In fact, we've often had zero tough non-conference games when Notre Dame has been week over the last decade. I think other Big Ten teams take similar approaches. So where's the evidence the SEC is an outlier?

Just reviewed...very well-done.

I assume 60 minutes is looking at direct sports revenue (tickets, advertising, etc.) compared to direct costs. If you were to add the impact that football teams have on alumni donations, I think the math will look very different.