wyman

I agree. I have a difficult time sometimes, since I'm (I think) at the low end of the advanced camp, but still out of the intermediate camp. This puts me at the lower end of forum regs, and I understand that. But I really don't think the post you moved was B/I material. The fact that several forum regs have come up with different analyses of the situation (and that your own analysis was not what played out at the table -- and those guys aren't slouches) suggests that there's something to talk about here. But disagreements are healthy, and I'm not offended or anything that you thought my question didn't merit a/e discussion -- we just have a differing opinion. But I definitely support keeping the subforums "pure," and I applaud your commitment (which is substantial) to reading the posts and trying to archive them appropriately.

I had considered this, and I actually really like it; I think it's more likely to encounter situations where we have a doubleton opposite AKxx(x) than xx opp AKx. In the case where we have length, we can usually afford to play KA-high or KA-low fairly unambiguously. So it's nice to have a "no quick entry" signal: i.e., no A or K. And playing A-then-K seems like a nice way to show that.

I did not play this hand. North is Dano di Falco, and South is JEC. This is board 8 from yesterday's (Fri 26 Aug) Cayne match. All cards are in the order played. T1: South led the 10 of diamonds and North won the ace. T2: North continued the DK, which held. T3: North returned the D2, ruffed by south. T4: South returned a small club.

Thanks for moving this to a more suitable forum, Ben. I posted in A/E since I know what this tends to show, but a world class player did this with a hand I didn't expect. N/S are not playing precision, and north has Q3 / Q95 / AKJ2 / Q1098. Does north really want a spade shift? Seems to me like there's plenty of room for south to have some cards in his hand here. ♠A, for instance? South returned the ♣4 at trick 4, which caused me further confusion.

[hv=pc=n&s=s9862h82dt6ck8754&w=st754hkt74d843cj2&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1ddp2dp2hppp]266|200[/hv] T1: ♦10, 3, A, 7 T2: ♦K, 5, 6, 4 T3: ♦2, 9, ♥2, 8 What's partner's carding mean?

♥

I would pass. Q8xxxxx is not enough for a 3H jump overcall, especially now that the opponents have introduced two suits and are well-placed to make a decision having seen partner's pass.

Anyone else think this was about 4♠ making 10?

X

Justin, Note that my post didn't advocate any specific action, and I'm making no assumptions about partner's habits. All I said was that in Simon's analysis, he analyzed this as though we were in the pass-out seat. We're not. That may not make a difference on this hand, but he asked for commentary on his analysis -- not on his conclusion; that partner still has a say may be relevant on other hands. edit: My point was that your analysis should include something like "I have to bid because my partner's so likely to get this wrong." But either way, part of your analysis should involve what partner may and may not be able to do.

The other consideration, Simon, is that you are not in the passout seat here; if you decide to pass (which I'm not necessarily advocating), partner still gets to act, and presumably he's read Matchpoints, too.

This. I would bid 2C over 1S, and X is not on my radar.

4♦-->4♥ for me. I have way too much to invite, and not enough for 2♦-->2♥; 4♥.

The 9 is a strange card for declarer to play. Strange enough that I'm cashing the club K. The 4 and 7 are missing. I would not expect an intermediate declarer to play the 9 from Q1097, as TFB suggests above. Rather, I'd expect such a declarer to try to throw off the scent with Q94. It's possible he holds Q9 tight (especially possible if he expected a major suit lead from LHO or if he would very rarely false card). If declarer is an expert, I'd give more weight to Q1097 but also more weight to Q9. Blech. As TFB points out, partner's major is surely spades, so our two lines are CK or SA. However, we can combine chances and lead the CK and then the SA if partner shows up with the 4 and declarer does not play the Q or 10. This is what I'll opt for. It requires KJxxxx from partner if he only has ♣64. But even if he has Kxxxxx, this might not cost, and if partner's club was stiff, it might win us a few matchpoints to cash out.

Talked with a friend who suggests that X should show cards and should imply some hearts, but should not be penalty per se. He also suggests that 2S is almost surely on 3 cards, since you didn't X over 1H, but that 2N (minors, to bring clubs into play) would be reasonable also (and in particular > 3D) with this hand because of where your values are. My meta-agreements would still have this as TO/DSIP, but I see the merit in having it just be "cards." I can't imagine that it's ever penalty, since you didn't pass 1Hx (yes, I heard the objection that playing 1Hx =/= 2Hx) or even bid 1N.

I would have led the ♠10 too and not thought about it. Holy crap, this post made me realize I'm giving up a nontrivial amount of EV here. Thanks. I just got \epsilon better at bridge.

I'll X for t/o. I had a chance to pass 1Hx, so making my X here penalty seems like aiming for an awfully narrow range. I've shown that I have more diamonds than spades or clubs, and now I'm suggesting that partner pick a suit. This seems like a nice way to describe a 3=2=5=3 with some values.

lol I called the director at a sectional recently due to a tempo issue, and once the director left I was told I was ridiculous, at which time I resummoned the director, who said that play would not continue until LHO apologized. She refused and tried to play the hand, but the director stayed and waited, explaining several times that the comment was inappropriate and that I have the responsibility -- and certainly the right -- to call attention to a perceived irregularity. LHO finally apologized tongue-in-cheek, about 2 minutes later than when she should have been slapped with a PP in my mind, but the director did an excellent job handling the matter IMO. LHO was rude to the director during the process, but the director completely kept her cool (I would have just given Avg+/Avg- due to the time wasted, given LHO a full bd penalty, and moved on -- which is maybe why I'm not directing :) ).

I do this mid-hand if I have something to reevaluate. At trick one, I think it's unnecessary, as I can think about anything I want related to the hand -- including but not limited to this trick. And in fact, I think it's pretty poor form for declarer to not take any time at T1.

Yeah this is fine until the time that you have a legit problem at T1, but LHO shotguns a card from dummy. Now you have established that you play quickly at T1 (albeit face down) with no T1 problem, so you give UI to partner and AI (that damages you) to declarer. IMO just take your time always at T1. You're entitled to it. At other tricks, hesitating with nothing to think about (e.g., a singleton, 2 small, etc) is a huge no-no. Play in tempo. Work out when thinking at T1 what you're going to do if he leads any suit from dummy, etc.

You are correct, and you should have asked for the director when declarer asked how long you'd have to wait, and again when he admonished you after the hand. Don't take abuse from anyone at the table.

probably not the support you want, but this was my feeling as well. I sympathize with the 1D-3C crowd, of course, and I suspect that's "right." In practice, I'd prefer to not give the opps enough info to make a good lead or sac or dbl. If they dbl, I would prefer that they, too, are gambling. I don't know that I'll ever be able to have a really intelligent auction, in any case, although I definitely concede that I'm more likely to find a good grand if I take it slow. 2C is not my style.

I was leaning ♠ also on this auction, but I never make the right lead against slams.

Oh, so you're starting with 2C. You probably should mention that. When you say "Ask for aces, then ask for kings" as a response to " What's your plan ?" I assume that you're opening 4N to ask for aces.

initial pass negative X if it goes P (P) 1D (1S) X (1N) P (P) ? then I will pass, giving partner leeway to have opened light in 3rd.