Jinksy

Good one for Fantunes, too. Same start as wank's, though I wouldn't know what 4♠ meant or expect my partner to 'know' it the same as me if I did (I'd also be worried as E that W might have 3433, so I'd like to keep it clear that ♣s are the agreed suit). Once we check on keycards, we play E's 6♠ as 'bid up with one of the top three honours in the suit'.

You think he should have bid ♦s at some stage? It seems hard to justify pushing yourself up a level just to get what might be an extra trump card. If he was 3334 it's make more sense to me, though I think I'd still have passed throughout tbh.

That's a shame. It would be a really helpful service IMO. Yeah, I agree. I'm not proud, but it was too fun not to ;)

Well no... that hand rebids 2♣.

Is it? As far as I can see, small to the K then a duck protects you against Qx with N or either Hx with S. Small to the J protects you against Qx with S or Ax with N. The K also gives you a better chance to retain control of the suit for a round. I reasoned that S's failure to X ♠s suggested he wasn't about to give his P a ruff, and made him slight favourite to be without the Q. N's failure to overcall ♠s made him unlikely to have 5. Is the risk of a ruff really so great that it makes up the difference in expectation between playing for a 3-3 split and playing for a finesse? And in any case, how do you expect to get to E's long ♦ having drawn trumps?

Y, W's X is atrocious. Looks like 3♣ would be about -1 undoubled. Time to put on my results merchant glasses B-) (ETA - having said that, if W is capable of passing that X, he's capable of passing me out in 2N, which looks less pretty)

I have no questions or commentary, other than that I found this hand breathtaking - I don't even disagree with any of the bidding, but this was the sort of hand that your strong-2-playing, 13-point-minimum-opening grandma warns you about: [hv=pc=n&s=sq754h543daq3caq4&w=sakjt86h92dt96ckj&n=s932ht87d7542c853&e=shakqj6dkj8ct9762&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1hd(you'd%20have%20done%20it%20too%2C%20admit%20it...)rpp1sd(Time%20to%20buy%20that%20lottery%20ticket!)ppp]399|300[/hv] Poor N/S...

I think all roads lead to one off on the actual cards. N can still give S a ruff, so they can cash their minor suit tricks/crossruff their way to 6 tricks, but can't quite manage a trump promotion for N's 9. Why lead a ♥ to the jack, though? Once you've gone to the trouble of reaching dummy, I'm pretty sure small to the K is better play of the suit in isolation.

Interesting point. He can also probably rule out misfitting 10-11 counts with a misfit for P's no suits, on which they might have XXed.

I know abject ignorance seldom deters you from posting, but you could aspire to think when you type. These are hands they've actually opened 2♠ on (all in first or second seat): ♠ K8632 ♥ 6 ♦ KQ52 ♣ A92 ♠ QJ742 ♥ QT2 ♦ ♣ AQJ52 ♠ T8642 ♥ A ♦ KJ ♣ KT932 ♠ KT986 ♥ QJT ♦ KT93 ♣ J ♠ A9532 ♥ 54 ♦ K ♣ K9832 ♠ Q8652 ♥ Q72 ♦ KQJ2 ♣ 2 Care to explain why the hand I posted is uniquely unsuitable among that list?

I defer to stronger players, but on one last remark: at MPs (esp against club opps), the crapness of my ♠ holding is a large part of the reason why I want to bid. It means even on a 5-2 fit, they're might well be making all 5 ♠s and their contract. At least in club play, where most opps won't double a part score unless they really mean it, that means I might still come out ahead if I go two down. (ETA) Ok, one more last argument - one defender has strength in our eventualy trump suit, it's likely to be opener rather than the hand with 9 cards in the majors. Since his P's shown 0 points on this auction, that's going to make a penalty X difficult for him to find.

I like takeout X, but I'm not convinced you get to penalise more often. With X = penalties, after eg a nat 2♠ overcall, you might happily X with KQx xx Axxx xxxx, but you can't be confident your P will find a reopening X opposite that. Generally the worse the position for them, the more chance of penalising you seem to gain from playing penalties. If opps bid 2♠ on eg QTxxx Axx KQxx x (perhaps showing ♠s and a minor, but we've all seen players who'd make a natural call on worse than that), and advancer is 'unlucky' enough to find a stiff x opposite, then responder, playing takeout X with AKJx in the suit will probably hear the hand passed out if he doesn't bid...

If S responds 2♥ I suppose it's problem over. To me though, that looks resultsy on this hand - sure it gets us to game when P has a suitable min with exactly 3 card support, but if P rebids 2♠ I won't be happy and if he rebids something stronger, I doubt he'll be happy when we end up at the five level (or higher) in the wrong denomination. Assuming no 2/1GF, I prefer (though could be persuaded that it's stupid) 2♣. If P rebids 2♦ (as on this hand) I have to rebid 3♣ and lose the H suit - but on such a misfit I'll feel like I won't usually be missing game. Meanwhile if he rebids 2♠ I'll now be a lot happier passing it - and if he rebids ♥s or supports ♣s, I won't feel that I've overstated the value of my hand.

My line at the table was: Holdup once, ♠ hook (holds), ♥ to the K I went one down when N showed up Axx of ♥s and 5♠s and gave his P a ruff, for 1 down. I still can't see a better honest line for the contract, which is prob worth something in itself (we'd barely seen a board where more than a third of the room was in the same spot). Nige - on your line we're off anyway if the ♠Q is offside, I think, so it seems better (as in better chance to make) to assume it's onside and give ourselves the extra chance from (what I think is) the %age trump play. Disregarding that, I'm still not confident which line maximises expected tricks. On the lie of the cards, it's one off if you just try to cash Hs from the top, too.

MPs against competent club opps. [hv=pc=n&w=sk95hkjt763da74ck&e=saj86h4d8653ct742&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1h(14%2B%20points%2C%20F1)p1s(Kaplan%3B%200-9%20points%2C%200-4!Ss)p2h(promising%206)ppp]266|200[/hv] N leads the 10♦. What d'you think the best line is?

Fantunes - 10-13 points, 5+♠s.

http://bboskill.com It looks pretty new. I'm certainly looking forward to using it for tournaments and brackish BBO Ps. Also I realise this is lowering the tone Phil set implicitly, but I couldn't resist looking up our new star player: Nickname: myrg Rating: 946 Beginner+ :lol:

Yes, I was just describing the scoring method used at the time - otherwise it might not be clear how someone scored 100.

Bid with your preferred system, assume IMPs. N is dealer: [hv=pc=n&s=s2hajt32d2cqjt832&n=skt865hq76daq93c7]133|200[/hv] For us it goes 2♠ P P P, going down ignominiously on the lie of the actual E/W cards when 4♥ was making. If N opens 1♠, and assuming you're not playing 2/1 GF, does it affect your response as S whether N has promised 4 or 5 ♠s for his bid?

Fit or no fit auction, at MPs I'm bidding 2N if that 2♠ is weak. There's a good chance we'll find a 4-4 fit for somewhere between 7-9 tricks, and if we do no guarantee they'll be able to X us. I expect 2♠ to make, so anything better than 3mX - 2 is profit. If it was some kind of invitey hand, I'll pass with the rest.

Pass for me. If P has good ♠s but can't find a 2N overcall, I can't see us missing game. Ditto if he has longish but poor ♠s and couldn't find an X.

What's your impression of how bad that risk of a lead-directing X of 2♠ is? As I say, we've found it a serious enough flaw that we specifically made Stayman non-promissory while keeping the rangefinder, just so we can manouvre around having to bid 2♠ with such as (opposite a weak NT) x KQx QT8xx AT9x. (I also think if you swap the majors on that hand, 2♣ might be better, since the a) the dreaded 2♠ is unlikely and b) absence of an X might lead them to find the dreaded ♥ lead.)

(um... let's call it competitive?) P P P X / P P P At this stage the director is called. This actually happened to a friend of mine several years ago (he somehow attracts this kind of thing...). The director at the time ruled that the person in 3rd was playing in 0NTx. When they duly made on the nose, they scored 0*2 for the tricks above the book, plus 50 for the part score, plus 50 for the insult. I've never heard of a director who agreed with the ruling, but I don't think I've ever heard what it should actually be. (let's assume modern laws for the sake of an easy life)

Nice gadget! Do you know anything about it besides what it says on the site? (ie what language it's written in?)

We play 2♠ as a range ask, and so for a long time played promissory Stayman. I've come to think the range ask is a mixed blessing though - and we've recently started playing both this and non-promissory - because of the dangers of a lead-directing X. This may be less relevant for a strong NT than for our weak one, given that most people probably play an X of a Stayman response to 1N as ♣s, but against us, most players would X it to show values. But even where they play X for ♣s, I think the difference between being able to X♣s and X♠s is significant. Given responder's lack of a 4-card major, it's very likely that the opps' best lead will be in one of the majors. So while they'd occasionally gain when ♣s turns out to be their suit, I think they'll gain far more frequently from either a) an X of 2♠ or b) the negative inference from lack of such X. I suspect this is actually worth more to the defence on average than learning about opener's 4cMs, so if my ♠s are weak, I'll often prefer to go via Stayman. Against pairs good enough to draw a negative inference from the absence of an X I might almost always prefer it, unless I've got points in both majors. Another slight benefit from non-promissory (when responder has ♥s) might be the auction 1N 2♣ / 2♠ 2N / ... Now you've changed their likely lead from a choice of 2 to a choice of 3 suits, which seems like a bigger proportional gain than on the converse hands (where you don't have ♥s, and other tables will have started with 2♠ presumably not receiving an X).