gareth

[hv=pc=n&s=skhaq742da2cajt42&n=sa972hk6dkqt843c9&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1hp1sp2cp2dp3cp3hp4dp4hppp]266|200[/hv] IMPS. D6 lead, 8 from dummy, RHO follows with 5.

Interesting, I thought that if South chooses 3C then North has a fairly easy 3H call (rather than 3D). It seems to me that North would still think hearts as a possible strain and that 3D might suggest 7.

[hv=pc=n&s=skhaq742da2cajt42&n=sa972hk6dkqt843c9&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1hp1sp2cp2dp]266|200[/hv] 1S showed an unbalanced hand. There should be plenty of space for a nice auction to the top spot, how do you think the bidding should go? I don't think 3C now shows clubs, just a hand with no clear direction. 3C the previous round was not possible, it was a splinter raise of spades. No special ace asking agreements available, just vanilla 0314 RKCB.

[hv=pc=n&n=sj8h953daqt94cakq&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2dp2hp]133|200[/hv] I play 2/1 with a good partner who is more familiar with 2/1 than myself. Absent discussion is there a standard meaning for a jump to 3NT, does it show extra values? If you bid 2NT and partner raises to 3NT are you bidding again? If not, what should partner be bidding over 2NT holding extras, e.g. AKQxx AKxx xx xx? How do either of you show extra values in the subsequent auction? If 3NT shows this hand including the extra values, then suppose you hold a hand such as Kx Kxx AQ109x Axx which wants to keep other strains in the picture. This hand surely bids 2NT, but the question remains how does either player show extras?

[hv=pc=n&s=shakq2dk6ca875432&w=skt753hdt8432ckt6&n=s92ht764da975cqj9&e=saqj864hj9853dqjc]399|300[/hv] I don't understand 4NT; it seems more likely to locate a bad fit than a good one. At the other table South doubled first and felt obliged to bid 5C next, and ended in 6Cx. I think 2C then double seems better (as long as your partner remembers to take out your take out doubles when holding a fit) as you still have the chance of defending opposite a misfit.

[hv=pc=n&n=s92ht764da975cqj9&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1s2c4sppdp]133|200[/hv]

At the table my thought process was simply that I knew it was normally right not to bid two levels higher than you would uncontested, and that, as long as I didn't think too long about this decision, if we were making game then partner would probably have enough to double. I didn't give much thought to bidding in the hope it was a save because I thought my ace rich hand was relatively defensive and perhaps gave insufficient consideration to the likelihood of a double fit. [hv=pc=n&s=sk854h63d94ckqt76&w=sj7haq875dk73c832&n=saq62h2djt82caj94&e=st93hkjt94daq65c5]399|300[/hv] The fits were very pure but I don't think they would have bid on to 5H, so the decision cost 1000+ points.

Normal / undiscussed; 1♠ would have shown 5.

You're playing against good human opponents.

[hv=pc=n&n=saq62h2djt82caj94&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1d1hd4h]133|200[/hv] Scoring is by total points, but please explain if your decision would be different at IMPs / MP. If you feel it is relevant, a 1NT opening would be 12-14.

LHO was Ollie Burgess. It must have been either Torquay 2002 or Paris 2003. I remember hearing that one match (perhaps Denmark v ?) was flat in grand off one when both sides underled their ace.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sj542hq732dk8ckq10]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (1D)=P=(P)=DBL (P)=P=(RDBL)=P (1H)=P=(P)=? If you disagree with any of the previous calls please specify.

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sk73hj963dkj32ck5]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] IMPs, opponents vul pass-(pass)-1H-(x) 4H-(4S)-pass-(pass) ? Do you agree with 4H, or prefer 2N at your previous turn? Having bid 4H, do you double or pass?

My favorites are x = 5+D & 4M or both M 2C = 5+C 4+other 2D = single suited M 2H/S = 5+H/S 4+m After x, 2C shows unequal length in majors (or 4+4+), 2D is pass/correct with equal length majors or if you prefer x is penalty 2C = single suited H or 4H & 5+ other 2D = as above for S 2H/S = 5H/S 4+m

While I agree that tracking your results may help discover the disadvantages or not of "creating action", statistics don't mean anything unless you put them in context. One missing figure is what you average when the contract is not "normal". What percentage of deals have a normal contract? Secondly, does your conclusion follow logically from the quoted statistics? I would imagine that on deals where there is the opportunity to make a unilateral anti-field action, there is often no "normal contract". So using statistics about normal contracts doesn't necessarily provide good evidence for whether unilateral actions are good or bad. Gareth