wyman

I'd bid 5H.

You can stand 2n with like 3hcp though. So the times rho has a 4cM he has 0-2 hcp so pard has 9-12. Even then LHO might not have a fitting major. Maybe I'm wrong -- I just felt the "they will play 2s" was way overstated.

I guess I just think it's super likely that spades are LHO 4, CHO 4, RHO 3, since RHO didn't bid 1M and since CHO didn't overcall. And if it's a giant misfit hand (which I think is pretty likely -- 4234?) and partner has some values (also pretty likely), we can just play 1N. I just don't see why the only options are: they find their spade fit / we decide to bid into a misfit over 1N and get punished / they rip us in 1N.

1. You don't need to underline; it detracts from your point. 2. Everyone sees the length in diamonds. 3. Sentences like "bidding can only lead to bad things" are wildly hyperbolic if not incorrect. 4. Why are you convinced opps have a spade fit? I'm not. 5. I don't understand why partner will think I have more points than I have if our agreement allows me to balance with some 10s.

Right. And @dwar, of course it's contrived, but it's a proof of concept.

Yeah sorry I changed my %s mid example and screwed up -- will think about it and fix if possible. Edit: does making A < 50% v D do it?

Suppose A is 100% vs B, and C (unless they tank) and 50% vs D. And suppose that B is 100% vs D (and whatever vs C) And D is 100% vs C. In a 4-man tournament starting with AvB / CvD, if A wins the first match, D will win the winners' bracket, A will win the losers' bracket, and A will have to beat D twice to win the tourney (25%) If A tanks the first match, then B wins the winners' bracket, and A plays D in the losers' bracket finals with a 50% chance to win the tournament.

That would be some strange *****! edit: wow -- that is really odd

5 letters? This really is going to be mind-blowing!

Fair point at IMPs for sure, but my instinct is that this is really a non-issue at MPs. I know I'm not getting pushy with a 10 count if partner balances 1N, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that either this is a style thing or that it's bad bridge and I should be getting more aggressive with these hands. I think either way the edge is probably small, and I don't have a big enough sample to evaluate this. I would typically be inviting with the good 11-12 hands, in which case we're still (pretty much?) fine if balancer has 10-11, especially since we have an opening bid (and lead) to place HCP and shape. In any case, like I said, I definitely don't know enough/have a big enough sample to be confident in what I'm writing -- I'm just sharing my understanding and wondering what the heck I'm thinking the wrong way about if the rest of the bridge-playing world thinks I'm nuts for getting involved here. If the argument is that you can't balance -- not because it's a -EV action with this hand, but because it's a -EV style that will hurt you in other situations, I guess I can accept that. But it still feels just like a leap of faith.

Actually, I tend to mark 10-15 for balancing NT (15s mostly happen over 1M -- they have a real suit, so dbl+1N seems like it should show more than a mediocre 15 with K3(2) in their suit imo). My attitude toward balancing NT is that -- especially at MP -- it's less of a constructive "maybe we have a game" measure as it is a "let's score better than defending" measure. And I don't balance with all 10s, but this seemed to me like a reasonable balance (again, at MP; I'm fine passing and taking +50 or +100 or -90 if that's what's coming our way at IMPs). Back to the 10-15 range: there aren't a whole lot of 14-15 counts that can't act over 1D but where partner can balance 1N (fewer still where partner has ♦Axxx), so game is definitely not my first concern. Every partner I've played with and I have had the "don't hang partner for balancing" discussion. And even if you occasionally bid that 22-23 point 3N (at IMPs), at least the rest of the deck is pretty well marked.

Maybe I was thinking about this wrong, but: * it seems like it's right to balance here almost anytime LHO has a weak NT, since I doubt that if we hold > half the deck that we're going to get rich playing for 50s * if LHO holds a 18-19NT, he'll dbl. Do we have a place to run? RHO is unlikely to hold a 4cM (am I wrong about this? Especially white, it seems like people are responding on air pretty frequently). I have tolerance for clubs and hearts, and the only way pard would run out to spades is if he has 5+ (although admittedly if he has 5 spades this could be ugly since his hand is bad enough that he didn't overcall, the fact that he didn't overcall 1S also makes it less likely that he has 5 spades, so this could be kind of moot). * if LHO holds 12-17 with diamonds, it also seems like we're likely to have a fit and around half the deck. The -100 v -90 argument is compelling, but it's kind of a narrow range. I wish I had a good sense of the probabilities here. e.g., if I pass it out, what's my expected score? if I bid 1N, what are the probs that LHO hits it and it floats? that LHO hits it and pard bids? that it floats? that LHO passes and pard bids? And what we expect to score up in each case. But I definitely don't think I do. Hell, I don't even know what partner's expected shape is. I'm really interested in comments.

Was just jumping in to ask if something like playing your second stringers in a soccer match that doesn't matter violates the (spirit of the?) rules. What if the match matters but you are up 3 goals with 5 minutes to play?

I would balance 1N.

I would strongly consider 2N, since 17 with a decent 6-bagger sure feels like 18, plus if partner has Qxx(xx) opp my Ax, it's protected on lead. But I think 3S is pretty normal as well.

Inspired by the olympics, ldo

Can I at least get a cyberstalker undertitle?

Looking forward to the results of this!

Yes, since you're not yet in "debt" in future auctions, I'm telling you that next time, you shouldn't get into debt in the first place. That's the only advice that makes sense here. Doing otherwise is just bad bridge.

Oh, and maybe we can move this thread to the n00b forum.

Besides the fact that they aren't "your" threads, I'll just say "no" to your suggestion to avoid your threads, and I'll suggest that you learn to take criticism before posting on these forums. Else you will have a frustrating (and short) tenure here! I'm intrigued about the troll part, though -- especially since I'm known as a troll by someone with only 6 posts here!

I'd suggest thinking before bidding 4N.

Not sure what you mean. I just meant that I'd expect that most of the probability mass is on partner having either a 11-14 NT or a 18-19 NT. And I think the distribution is heavily skewed toward his having the 11-14. Yeah, with this partner, at these colors, 3C would be less than constructive. This is perhaps not ideal, but it was what I was working with. So we're on the same page, you're suggesting to pass with, say: x / xx / Qxxx / Jxxxx? Sounds like 3C is mixed then. What does a 2C bid look like?

Is it? I figured partner was pretty polarized between a wk NT and a 1.5NT. In the former case, 5♣ seems like it's probably ok. In the latter, indeed, we might miss 3N (or 6C). But we might miss 3N anyway if I bid a preemptive 3C, as some recommended, and it's also quite likely we're making 5C in this case (I think). 2C might work better, I admit, but we pay the price when LHO can get a cheap spade raise, fit-jump, or other lead-director in. As for the splinter, I think I'm ill-placed to judge, then, over (4S) X. Isn't pard expecting something defensive? And if we sell (are we ever selling?), I've telegraphed the spade-holding. As for the limit-raise, I felt again like we'd be guessing over a dbl of 4S. ' Of course, partner might be left guessing over 5C. Or we go + in 3N and 4S but - in 5C. I really wasn't sure. 5C didn't strike me as 'wacky,' though.

I thought this was difficult at the table. I lamented that the colors were w/r (we have mixed raises available vulnerable) and selected 5C. We played undoubled for -100, and our teammates bid their icy cold spade game for win 11. But even after this, I wasn't thrilled with my choice (nor my options). Thanks for weighing in.