wyman

You're still allowed (nay, required) to play bridge. You don't have any UI problems here, and your partner has made a decision to pull the double of 4S to 5H. Whatever has happened, you're allowed to use your best judgment to decide what's going on at the table. You're not allowed to have agreements to control for psyches, but I can't imagine correcting to 5S after partner has gotten us into this mess.

This looks not so much like a psyche. Rather, the opps are probably playing McCabe, where this is a lead directing club raise. This is pretty standard after a double of a preempt and is alertable. There are a few threads recently about situations where X is not takeout. People have different meanings for X here. After (suit1)-X-(suit2), by my usual agreements, X shows 4ish or 5 bad cards in suit2. With a good 5+, you can just bid suit2. This hand is tough in any case. Partner surely has 3+ diamonds, and he's either got a balanced monster or he has a 4441 or 5431. Most likely, given the 3D call, opps have a 12 card club fit, and this is going to come back to you at 6C. Since I'm bidding 6D over that anyway, I'll do it now and let them guess about whether to bid 7C, of which I will make a FP. Re: your questions. 1. If this is a psyche and not a concealed agreement, then yes you are right it is a reasonably good one. 2. 2M (P) 2N, and 2H/3C/3D (P) 4S come to mind 3. 6D 4. Yes, I would call because there has been an irregularity. 5. Blah, not an expert on alerts regarding psyches, but if west is allowed to have "natural with diamonds or some lead directing club raise" or if it's just a lead directing club raise, then it's already alertable. I don't feel I've been damaged, necessarily (we are never letting them play diamonds undoubled, and they are never playing diamonds doubled), but the director will sort all this mess out. I've never heard of a pair alerting that partner has psyched in a situation before, but it would make sense. What the laws say may be another matter. Just my $0.02.

I broke this down in the next 2 lines of my analysis I think... :)

In the spirit of Inquiry's defense series, here's an actual hand from last night on which I took an inferior line of play (regardless of whether it worked). Please A/E give it a day or so [or spoil if you are so inclined] for the B/I crowd to think about this one and shame me with their declaring prowess: Opps carding is UDCA. Plan the play. [hv=pc=n&s=sj43hakj53d3c8643&w=sht2dac&n=sq852hq9864dk742c&e=sh7d5c&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2hd4hppp&p=h2h4h7had3dad2d5ht]399|300[/hv]

lol, he was addressing MrAce

False. One example is in the OP.

Only works if he has 3 diamonds. With Ax, I will endplay him with a small diamond. edit: and that was the construction I had in mind, but I see your point

You divided out by 4*13!, when you meant (13!)^4. I am half-kidding. Certainly our ways are equivalent: your 52! "shuffles" the cards, hence it determines a deal, and then we need only divide out by shuffles that yield equivalent deals. Different explanations work better for different people, but when I ask students "Are you sure you accounted (appropriately) for all the symmetries?" they usually are not 100% sure, whereas counting as I suggested clearly does the trick. Both ways are fine.

I probably played this hand, but it was several years ago, and I don't remember it, so here goes:

you got yours wrong, proving my point

re: comment 1. Yeah, but my way is easier to compute :) re 2: I think this is semantics. You can use, say, a 32-bit PRNG to generate "pseudorandom bridge deals" but certainly you won't see all of the deals. That's all whoever meant by "dead zones" as I read it.

This is very, very true. I don't know anything about BBO's RNG, though.

Why not just choose 13 for N, choose 13 for S, and choose 13 for E? 52C13 * 39C13 * 26C13

I would X. I think I'm too good for 3H and too flexible for 4H.

I really enjoyed these and would like to see more. I didn't think any were beginner level, but I think it's good to challenge B/I's to think about these problems and to give them a few days with A/E answers in spoilers. It's a really nice idea. Of course, on 12, the first 3 responders (all A/E, myself included, though maybe I'm more I/A) all made a different play at T4, so... Thanks for doing this, Ben.

X for me also. Partner will know that I have a max pass and short(ish) spades. I'd much prefer to have a stiff spade (and wouldn't even think twice about this if my ♠3 was the ♦3), but we could easily be making 4H here or collecting 200 or 500 on defense if partner's hand is suitable (though I doubt LHO will be too out of line at these colors). And if I'm wrong, I don't think I'll be too wrong, and at least we're NV.

this is what I had in mind

My thoughts: 1) If it doesn't look like you need much from P to make game a good prospect, don't preempt (or if you're going to preempt, preempt to game). 2) Pretty much any hand with an A and an AK is an opener in 1st or 2nd for me, and this hand has a bunch of distribution, too. It's not close to a preempt for me.

Agree 100%. Although I have played against pairs (I think 2 ever) that play support doubles here, it's very very far from standard to do so, and if you agree "support doubles" with partner, you've agreed to do so in situations where partner has shown a 4cM. On the actual hand, I'd bid 3S if it's invitational; this seems too good for 2S. If I play a style where 3S is minimal with 4S, obviously I won't do that, and I'll bid 3H. You can bid 3H on a variety of hands, including your solid-clubs hand looking for a stopper, and a good spade raise. Partner's first priority should be to show a H stopper. If partner doesn't have one, we can rebid clubs with clubs, or we can pass/raise partner's spade raise with the appropriate hand. With 18-19 balanced with no heart stopper and 3 small spades, I'd bid 4S (unless I thought I might want to play 3N, in which case I might bid 3H then 4S).

the former, one of the greatest conventions of all time doubles of stupid bids are penalty

My meta-agreements with partner about 4m minorwood are typically that 4m = minorwood if we're in a GF auction where we've both bid m naturally (even if implicitly, as with a splinter or otherwise) before the 4m bid. This would qualify. My agreements about gerber are that 4c is gerber only in the auctions 1n (or 2N)-4c, 1n-2(d/h); 2(h/s)-4C [i think thats it anyway.] This does not qualify.

1. Yes I'm worth a move. Partner could have bid 4S over 2S and apparently he didn't want to play 3N. My hand is awesome, let's do this. 2. Having made my bed, I'll lay in it. Pass. 3. DOSBAP! I would have bid 5H over an opening 5C, and in a strong field I still might, and I'd mutter something about trusting your vulnerable opponents. But here, I'll play for +500. Surely my Kx is positioned well, and partner has a lead that won't give anything away. I'll let them figure out out to play diamonds.

I think there's an improvement on the defenses posted, but I'll let people think for a bit.