It seems wrong to suppress spade support, but
2NT really seems like the right bid. It's dead-center
on values and protects the
Put it another way: If we held
Come up with a good sequence to 7NT, playing generally standard methods. (E.g. no big club.)
West's and East's third bids are where the world will turn.
Should West continue
[Why would West bid
Should West continue
| 4NT (|
I don't see how a cooperative standard auction can reasonably go any
[I wonder how much extra
||5NT (relay - spiral scan)|
|5NT (specific kings)|
Another try is:
In fact, that's exactly the problem with which
I was faced, so I tried instead to find the
I don't see a way to cater to
This suggests, however, a refinement to 4th suit forcing. Let's assume it's already forcing to game. (Other tinkers are probably best if it can be invitational.) There are three big messages that need to be sent:
Since the cheapest non-preference non-notrump bid is one of opener's suits, that means the default should probably simply be cheapest of opener's two suits. Seems reasonable to me.
Upon reflection, I'm sorry I asked GIB; it depends so much
on what hands partner will bid 3NT. If he can have
What do you lead?
The rules for this are difficult to use. If it is accepted that misinformation (MI) is present, and if the misinformation seems to lead to the non-offending side's (NOS) bad result, then we adjust the scores as follows: we give the NOS the best "likely" result and the offending side (OS) the worst result "at all probable." The laws carefully refrain from defining the quoted phrases in the last sentence, but good rules of thumb are that "likely" means 30-35% of one's peers will take that action, and "at all probable" means about half that number will take the action.
The director did a very good job on this. He polled five players whom he thought were the leader's peers, giving them both auctions. All led a club with the wrong information. One changed to a diamond with the right information, but he had no reason for it. One said that he "had sympathy" for a diamond lead with the correct information, but would still lead a club. The rest thought clubs was the only choice in either case. As a result of this, the director ruled that the diamond lead was not "likely," but was "at all probable," and gave the NOS -1010 and the OS -50. He added a 1/6th board procedural penalty (PP) to the OS for the failure to post-alert; this was a Flight A pairs game and they should know better.
That's a pretty good ruling. I wish all of our directors would do as good a job.
The committee, however, felt differently than the experts polled. One thought that leading a diamond was a 0% actiona shot in the dark. Another thought that it was about a 20% action; I thought it was somewhere between 10% and 20%, but closer to 10%. Hence, all three felt that a diamond lead was not likely, so we left the NOS's score at -1010. The trouble was the OS's score. With one feeling strongly that a diamond lead was not at all probable, one feeling that it barely was, and one feeling that it was right on the borderline, the consensus was that it was, therefore, not at all probable, so we gave the OS +1010. We felt that this was a bit of a gift to the OS, and I strongly felt that this pair should be fully responsible to avoid procedural errors that cause committee hearings, so we increased the PP to half a board. I, personally, would have felt quite comfortable letting the director's ruling stand. This was pretty close to it, however, so I found it acceptable.
Given the new information from the group here, 25% of the respondents chose a diamond lead. Ignoring other circumstances, that strongly suggests that a diamond lead is at all probable, so upon reflection, I think that the committee got it wrong and the director got it right. There are, however, other circumstances that I had not considered until after the deliberation. The opening leader was playing with his wife. She (and he as well) has a bit of a temper, and doesn't hesitate to announce her dissatisfaction with his (usually excellent) play. Given that, I would never lead a non-club, just so that I would not lose the post-mortem. I thought of this point between the committee deliberation and the announcement of the results, so I was rather more satisfied with our choice than I was during the discussion.
Pass, pass, ?
1NT was forcing.
a) What does partner's double mean?
As I see it, here are some arguments for playing the double as penalties. Ed gets to respond editorially this time.
[So what? The frequency of 2 or 3 spades and 5-4 in the reds and an opening hand is considerably higher than that of a penalty double. --Ed]
[You are thinking -870 and -800. I am thinking +200 and -50/+110/+140. Even if we might be in trouble by bidding, this is an argument against entering the auction, not against playing double for takeout. --Ed]
An argument against entering the auction with
a takeout double is the same as an argument for
not playing the takeout double in the first place.
Taken to the extreme, to play
[I don't buy this as indicating we should not act with
appropriate hands. Why settle for +200 or -110 when we
could be +500 or -50. It is losing bridge to enter earlier
or to fail to double
[That is fine for hands with sufficient playing
strength but without defense such as
It never occurred to me that partner is going to pass for penalty. I don't think he'll know enough to judge when to do it. When he can do it succesfully, I suspect, moreover, that the opponents will not stay in spades. They'll run to clubs or notrump. Converting +200 to -110 (or -670?) isn't going to happen too often, but it's another way to lose for the takeout double.
[You gain whenever they can't make their bid. But
that is just a small part of the gain from competing.
You gain, and maybe lots in matchpoints, by denying them
We only gain if they weren't going to bid again anyway.
If we were getting +100 against
["allowed," "can," "possibly," "still not awful,"
"seems"... add them all up and it looks like you don't think
too highly of this as an argument for playing double of
Agreed. It's only another minor argument---that some of the time, hands that qualify for the double can be bid another way without a severe loss in expectation. It'll be a loss, but not much, I claim, so we can survive on those hands.
In any case, partner held
My first inclination was to bid
If partner's diamond's aren't AKQ, we are going to be in trouble off one of
the major aces, so we must bid
[Excuse me, but I think this is dead wrong. To bid
I am not going to guess now. Despite the great spot cards, I have one fewer ace than pard thinks I have.
It's also possible that partner is asking us to choose between
diamonds and NT. If so, he'll bid
Three thought that 5NT was natural, inviting 6NT (or 7NT). I can't
agree with that; opener's strength is known to within a fairly tight
range (roughly a crummy 14 HCP). His attitude about slam is
already known (NONONONONO!!!!!) So why ask him again? One could
get a choice between the minors, however, with either