[kgr]

IMP's

---

Partner's 2♦=Both Majors (can be 4-4 if an opening)
DBL=invite to bid 5♥
RHO leads ♣K (probably from AK), RHO playing a low ♣ (showing an even number of ♣'s if he shows anything).
RHO then plays ♥. You play 2 rounds ♥, LHO had a singleton
How do you play ♠?

[ceeb]

♠A then finesse RHO. The trump shift says RHO has some ♦ honors, but RHO passed over 2♦. Perhaps 5♦ is based on honors in both minors but only a tripleton ♦. That's also consistent with the idea of a trump switch holding a singleton ♠.

By the way I don't understanding the bidding agreements. What would S bid if wanting to defend 5♦x? I also don't understand why, on this hand, S would want give N the option to defend nor why given that option N wouldn't simply pass holding A, AK.

[dake50]

This is one where I assume 5D was making
so the decision to play 5H wins.
I guess LHO 1-1-6-5. To SA, to SJ.

[ceeb]

dake50, on 2010-November-20, 20:26, said:

This is one where I assume 5D was making
so the decision to play 5H wins.
I guess LHO 1-1-6-5. To SA, to SJ.

I think there are situations where that logic is valid, but in this instance the opposite reasoning makes more sense to me.

It's when 5♦ fails that we particularly want to make 5♥, in order to preserve the plus position that is our birthright. In the case that 5♦ makes, a small loss in 5♥ is less of a disaster. The net seems to me that the IMP odds angle makes finessing LHO for the ♠Q not exactly a good play, but at least better than it would be at rubber bridge. If you finesse through a singleton, the loss may be mitigated by teammates making a game. If you finesse through a doubleton you may get lucky and pick up the Q.

Actually, on the odds we've already done well to bid 5♥. Suppose 5♦ is the contract at the other table. If it makes, we gain 8 or 13 IMPs depending if we make, but always a gain. If it fails, we lose 3 or 4 IMPs for going down and gain 11 for making which is a great bargain since we are obviously a favorite to make.

[MrAce]

This is the worst bidding (by NS) so far i have seen in this forum.

2♥ bid by South is nothing but crime. And North ? he bid 4♥ as if 2♥ promised something except than prefering to be in ♥ rather than ♠. Not even 3♥ but 4!!


♠A and ♠ to J.

Other table will also play at least 5♥, thinking 5♦ will be the contract in other room is very optimistic imo. So if u go down and they make, u ain't getting away with 3-4 imps

[kgr]

ceeb, on 2010-November-20, 17:58, said:

By the way I don't understanding the bidding agreements. What would S bid if wanting to defend 5♦x?

Pass

ceeb, on 2010-November-20, 17:58, said:

I also don't understand why, on this hand, S would want give N the option to defend

Yes, I also thought to bid 5♥ myself with all my honors in partner's suit. But given my flat hand I preferred to DBL, which is a strong invite to bid (It is like saying: I think we should bid 5, but maybe you prefer to defend).

ceeb, on 2010-November-20, 17:58, said:

nor why given that option N wouldn't simply pass holding A, AK.

She didn't?
BTW: I don't think this is the best agreement, but we happen to play it (We didn't even talk enough about when absolute DBLs apply)

[kgr]

MrAce, on 2010-November-20, 22:05, said:

This is the worst bidding (by NS) so far i have seen in this forum.

Thank you for the nice comments

MrAce, on 2010-November-20, 22:05, said:

2♥ bid by South is nothing but crime.

What should South bid, given that 2♦ can promise a 4-4 hand?

MrAce, on 2010-November-20, 22:05, said:

And North ? he bid 4♥ as if 2♥ promised something except than prefering to be in ♥ rather than ♠. Not even 3♥ but 4!!

North only promised a weak 5-4 (8+) or a bit stronger 4-4 (11+). Shouldn't he bid at least 3♥ to show his additional distribution, and maybe 4♥ isn't that bad then (also given that West shows both minors)?

MrAce, on 2010-November-20, 22:05, said:

Other table will also play at least 5♥, thinking 5♦ will be the contract in other room is very optimistic imo. So if u go down and they make, u ain't getting away with 3-4 imps

Other table was allowed to play 4♥X

[rhm]

kgr, on 2010-November-21, 03:10, said:

Pass

So you Pass when you want to defend and double when you don't?
What is the rational for this switch?

Rainer Herrmann

[kgr]

rhm, on 2010-November-21, 03:55, said:

So you Pass when you want to defend and double when you don't?
What is the rational for this switch?

Rainer Herrmann

Right.
The best pair of our club is playing this and we tend to take over agreements without thinking too much.
Actually the rational is:
Normally: If you think it is better to bid on then you bid. But it is possible that your partner had a very defensive hand in the context (a bad example: Maybe my partner made an overbid with a good 5521 or 5422). In the normal agreements if your partner has a very defensive hand he has no option anymore when you have bid.
With absolute DBL's you tell that you want to bid more, but asks your partner if he doesn't mind.

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2010-November-21, 03:55, said:

So you Pass when you want to defend and double when you don't?
What is the rational for this switch?

It would be more accurate to say that you pass when you don't want to compete further, and you double when you don't know whether to bid on or to defend. When you know that you want to play in 5♥, you bid 5♥.

The rationale is the same as for playing takeout or action doubles in any auction: you increase your accuracy on the hands where you might be able to make something, but you reduce your accuracy on the hands where you can't make anything but the opponents are going down.

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2010-November-21, 03:55, said:

So you Pass when you want to defend and double when you don't?
What is the rational for this switch?

Rainer Herrmann

Reversing forcing passes makes alot of sense; the idea comes from Meckwell so that should not be a major surprise. Think of the various hand types and how they play out. The key situation is when making a general slam try by starting with a pass. Here partner is much more likely to double playing reverse giving you additional space when you need it most. You also gain potential sequences beginning with the double. To quote Brad Coles:

"...playing a penalty double means that partner is
expected to pass. This means we are
not making maximum use of the available
bids, at a time when the opponents
have already taken most of our space.
Meckwell mix these four options
around to gain greater flexibility. Instead
of playing penalty doubles,
Meckwell play Pass as a transfer to the
double. Partner will “accept the transfer”,
ie. Double, with any hand that
would have passed a penalty double.
This frees up the opener’s double to
show a different kind of hand...

This method gives you all the sequences
that would be available under traditional
methods, along with several
additional sequences; namely, all the
auctions that can stem from the double."

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2010-November-21, 06:44, said:

Reversing forcing passes makes alot of sense; the idea comes from Meckwell so that should not be a major surprise.

I don't think is a forcing pass situation, and in any case it's inconceivable that South would want to make a slam try.

Regarding the merits of inverting double and a forcing pass:

Quote

"This method gives you all the sequences
that would be available under traditional
methods, along with several
additional sequences; namely, all the
auctions that can stem from the double."

I don't think that's true - it doesn't give you any extra sequences, it just changes the meanings. In standard methods you have:

Double (I want to defend)
Pass (I don't know what to do, or I want to make a slam try)
Bid (I want to bid, but not make a slam try)

If you invert double and pass, you have:

Double (I don't know what to do)
Pass (I want to defend, or I want to make a slam try)
Bid (I want to bid, but not make a slam try)

The gain is that when you pass with a slam try and partner bids himself, you're better placed - you know that he would have taken out a penalty double, so slam is likely to be good. There is also a loss: you obtain less information if it goes pass-dbl-bid than in standard methods, where you would have either pass-dbl-bid or pass-bid.

[OleBerg]

Don't like the 2♥-bid either. The fact that 2♦ can be 4-4 and also 6-5 makes everything look a little awkward.

On the play:

I don't try to second-guess the result in the other room. So many different things can happen on such boards. (They might start with a double or a 1♥ overcall, or East might support diamonds on the first round, or someone gets to high. Or something else.)

So I simply take what I believe to be the percentage play for the contract: ♠A and a spade to the jack.

And if you really want to try and second guess, it is when they also play 5♥ in the other room, it is most important to take the percentage play. And I see no reason not to believe they do that.

[mfa1010]

dake50, on 2010-November-20, 20:26, said:

I guess LHO 1-1-6-5. To SA, to SJ.

I'm pretty sure that west is 2155, since east bid 5♦ and not 5♣.
I would also finesse east since he has most spades. Holding a stray queen shouldn't mean much for the bidding here - nor for the defense.

[MrAce]

kgr, on 2010-November-21, 03:20, said:

Thank you for the nice comments

What should South bid, given that 2♦ can promise a 4-4 hand?

North only promised a weak 5-4 (8+) or a bit stronger 4-4 (11+). Shouldn't he bid at least 3♥ to show his additional distribution, and maybe 4♥ isn't that bad then (also given that West shows both minors)?

Other table was allowed to play 4♥X

- You are more than welcome (joke ) 1♦-2♦ can be 4-4 = u will ask more hands in future here for worse accidents

-South can talk to his partner to reconsider that mini michaels requirements, if pd disagrees he can change his pd. Thats what i would bid as south

-Yes, N should bid 3♥ instead of 4.

-About other table being let in 4♥x, as i said, expecting partners to make the par bid and expecting opponents not to bid 5♥ with 6-5 and all AK hcps vs a hand which has its all hcps in pd's suits, was optimistic. And it turned out to be the truth. I knew damn well that if we go down in that 5♥, we won't get away with 3-4 imps

[kgr]

My table feel told me that West was 1255 with ♠Qx.
(because East probably had 2 ♦ honors and maybe a ♣ honor as well and passed initially & because West bid 3♣)
....I did go -1

[mtvesuvius]

mfa1010, on 2010-November-21, 16:08, said:

I'm pretty sure that west is 2155, since east bid 5♦ and not 5♣.
I would also finesse east since he has most spades. Holding a stray queen shouldn't mean much for the bidding here - nor for the defense.

This was my thoughts as well, but I always guess wrong, so probably not a good sign

[lesh]

mfa1010, on 2010-November-21, 16:08, said:

I'm pretty sure that west is 2155, since east bid 5♦ and not 5♣.
I would also finesse east since he has most spades. Holding a stray queen shouldn't mean much for the bidding here - nor for the defense.

I disagree that west has to be 5512 because if East had 4 - 4 in the minors he would be = choice. Because if you look at N/S hand they are 3-1 in both minors. Therefore West should be 1-1-5-6 cause with 4-4 in minors East would have bid differently.

Therefore Cashing Ace of spades and finess with J♠ is safe.

[mfa1010]

lesh, on 2010-November-22, 03:46, said:

I disagree that west has to be 5512 because if East had 4 - 4 in the minors he would be = choice. Because if you look at N/S hand they are 3-1 in both minors. Therefore West should be 1-1-5-6 cause with 4-4 in minors East would have bid differently.

What do you suggest that east would have done with 4♦+4♣? It seems very natural to me to choose partner's first bid suit then, while with 3♦+4♣ he would raise clubs.

[Free]

I would first play a ♦ from dummy just to see if opps give away something. You never know you get some useful info...