Jinksy

Matchpoints, opps' 1♥ shows 4+ (and again 1M would probably be the call of choice on a balanced (4n)(4n) outside the 12-14 range): [hv=pc=n&s=skj7ha5dk63ckj972&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1h(4%2B)]133|200[/hv]

All vul, playing 2♠ as weak, what do you open? [hv=pc=n&s=saj87532hq6d74c83]133|100[/hv]

Matchpoints, basic system is Acol. The alert of 1♠ didn't come out well: it shows 4+, P would probably open 1M with a balanced (4n)(4n) outside the NT range. [hv=pc=n&s=skt3h94d76cajt952&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1s(4%2B%2C%20P%20probably%20opens%201M%20with%20%5B4n%5D%5B4n%5D)p]133|200[/hv]

(full disclosure - the hands I'm about to post are from a live competition, which I've just submitted an entry to, so please don't specify if you know where they're from, or use the replies here to inform your entry. I'm posting here because I'm impatient to discuss them, and also curious to see in advance how much the most popular calls here/those by the strongest players match the quiz-setter's opinion when it's revealed) Matchpoints, basic system is Acol, so your opening promised 4♣: [hv=pc=n&s=s7hk872dk6ckqj542&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c(Showing%204%2B)p1hp]133|200[/hv]

What is 'the trick'? Always raise P's preempts on 2-card suits?

According to GiB, it makes even if he does give you the ♣ ruff. Though I think W has to duck if S returns an honour?

I think you'd better hide that E hand from mikeh, or he'll have a heart attack ;)

I haven't played Style 2, but out of curiosity, is 2N over 2♣ the generic invitational bid? If so, why not switch it (or something slightly more nuanced) for 2♥? Then when opener has the strong hand and responder makes a space-eating bid, you at least know his primary suit.

It looks like anything could be right, even a ♦, though I don't have much hope of setting it (other than this being posted as a problem, obv). I'm not sure Bird/Anthias logic applies to a ♠ here, since P had the chance to open a weak 2. And with our points and his failure to open, what entry are we ever hoping to find to his hand if his ♠s are as good as KQJTx? I agree with Phil that a ♣ is a long shot, with them having shown no major suit interest. Even if P has Kx, they're reasonably likely to be able to muster 9 tricks without letting me in, or 8 tricks to give me unpleasant discard problems. I hate leading from 4-card suits, still worse Hxxx suits, and still worse when that H is the king. But I'm going to go with the major suit bias and slight implied ♥ weakness by W and try one here. Hitting QJxxx in P's hand isn't inconceivable (nor is AQx and a magic split), or maybe this will be one of those hands where setting up our 4-card suit is enough.

Yeah, though for better or worse we currently play pass of 2m as forcing, so this isn't a problem (obviously it can cause other issues). Even if it's non-forcing, it'll be very rare for P to pass it out. (ETA) Also, arithmetic. If I have HCP 18, LHO has 15, and P has 10, we're playing with a Doppelkopf pack.

For us it's the same agreement as if we'd hit their opening weak NT. That means their 2m retreat forces us, in which case first X is takeout, as WesleyC said. But takeout is 'takeout', not takeout - it's any hand that's willing to hear a penalty pass but not willing to make one, and which can handle any likely response to P. That means most balanced hands should X (unless they have a penalty pass), but so, IMO, should eg AQTx x Qxx Axxxx, planning to pull P's 2♥ to 2♠. So yeah, on this hand that means we X and go down. They were probably making 2♦.

No worries, and yeah, I agree :)

As a general rule, I obviously want a reason to change my mind. But realistically, not all posts go very deep into the reasoning, and it's not such a black&white thing - sometimes people will make a superficial argument, sometimes in moderate depth. And the person posting it might be PhantomSac, or a lesser but significantly stronger player than you, or a group of people of similar ability. Other peoples' opinion carries evidential weight, and if you never update your beliefs because it, then you're not being epistemically sound - especially in a game like bridge where mathematical proof of any claim is near-impossible. That said, there's a difference between changing my mind and changing my vote, and they don't have exactly the same purpose. One is for my benefit, the other is for the askers'. Yeah, I only recently noticed this option. I'm trying to remember to use it in all polls (evidently I'm forgetting quite a lot ^).

FFS, is it so hard to start out with an actual argument rather than abusing whichever forum member is in your crosshairs this month? This sort of comment is a toxic detriment to the entire forum.

A frequent experience for me here is read a thread with a poll, try to make sure I've formed a view before reading the replies or seeing the votes, and vote mainly to commit myself to it - then read the replies and find them persuasive enough to change my mind. I'm never sure what to do then, since it depends on the type of data the OP wants to gather. Clearly my opinion is now compromised, so perhaps I should just delete the vote and not resubmit. But then, once I've updated based on new information, my vote is still data to be weighed against the votes of anyone who didn't agree with the argument. But also if you're trying to get a feeling for how many others would have chosen a particular action, then my initial vote might even be worth more, particularly if I've mainly shifted my view because of the calibre of people who disagree rather than because someone's pointed out a key factor I hadn't thought of. So which is the most helpful action?

3♠ seems horrible to me, esp with such a good secondary holding in P's suit. After 1♠ 2♦ / 2♠ 3♣ / 3♦, it depends on what our agreements are for setting suit and cueing, but I basically just want to give P the chance to cue ♣s or bypass a ♣ cue and see if P contines. If not, we're playing in 6♦, if so, we're playing in 7.

Tempted to say unlucky. Partner's hand is monstrously strong opposite yours, and you've rightsided against a H lead. But I'm finding it quite hard to construct 16-counts opposite that don't have a play for game and that don't look like a hand that someone constructed to be a no-play game.

Yeah, we don't have a choice in our system. The only other possibility would be a 2H opening, but that would significantly misrepresent the shape of the hand. At least P knows this is one of your possible holdings for a NT bid.

If you can give me a heuristic for how not to do what you think I'm doing, I'll at least try following it for a few hands and see what happens. That said, you might be overestimating my intuitive judgement - here I just saw a hand with very weak trumps and quick outside losers and passed mindlessly, then only had reason to think about it after I found we'd missed a solid game (P had something like Axx Axxxx xx KQJ). I don't agree about game bonus being overwhelming, though - I think you need close to 50% expectation of making 10 tricks here. IIRC you'd want about 45% normally (after allowing for possible doubles and down twos), and if as PhantomSac thinks this is a choice between 2 and 4, the increased relative difference of making only 8 tricks is going to be a factor.

I passed. I figured we were odds against to make game good given an average distribution of HCPs opposite, with controls but no tricks, and didn't see the point in inviting for the same reasons PhantomSac gave. I don't really know how to think about hands like this. It's easy to visualise hands opposite that make game poor, and easy to visualise hands that will make it excellent. How do you tell which are more likely and by approximately how much?

On similarly uninformative auctions, Bird and Anthias found ace leads stood way out. Only thing to deter you from one here is P's failure to X 5♥, but I wouldn't personally do so with less than KJ in the suit, so I doubt that's much of a factor. Your best chance is prob hitting P with a singleton anyway.

How many Cs has N shown?

But that risks getting to your 4-2 rather than 4-3 fit.

Huh. I was way off on this, apparently. I just passed, since it was NV. Vul I'd probably have gone for the punt. It was actually from bidding practice <_<

[hv=pc=n&e=sj6543hj943dak75c&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1n(12-14%2C%20may%20be%20any%204441%20or%205422)p2cp2hp]133|200[/hv] Teams. What's your call? 3m is a signoff. We play non-promissory Stayman, so 2♠ would be a NF invite normally with 4♠s. So 3♥ is your only direct invite that also tells P of a fit.