[han]

Now that we are discussing smillies, to me the does not say that Roland was making a joke. It suggests that he thought someone has said something silly (by lack of a better word). In this case the rolleyes could easily have been meant for the ninth commentator.

I didn't think that Roland was joking until he posted the poem, and I don't think it is so clear for people who don't know him (which includes me). I'm glad that he was joking though.

[Walddk]

I find it hard to believe if anyone thinks that I would not invite a commentator back if he/she disagrees with the others. Commentators are not necessarily supposed to agree; they are supposed to analyse hands, express and exchange views, and entertain the audience.

So to make it clear once and for all (I thought that would be enough to tell that I was joking):

The 9th commentator is definitely welcome back. Only commentators who are rude towards players, fellow commentators, organisers, specs, etc. will not be invited again. They are fortunately few and far between.

Roland

[dake50]

4C is best. Partner knows C control, maybe his D are good enough; his H-support okay. Slam is suggested. One too high, 4NT vs. 3NT is the downside.

[kenrexford]

Does anyone here know whence this hand was taken? We cannot seem to get the actual hand produced, and I lost my mind trying to find it on vugraph archives.

[jdonn]

I have to admit, I'm wondering what the actual hand was myself.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[FrancesHinden]

This is from memory; the main thing I can't recall is the location of the J and 10 of spades.

Scoring: IMP

1♦ p 1♥ 3♠
P P 3NT all pass

---

6D is both a good contract and makes

At the other table North passed in first seat and they bid P P 1H 3S P P 3NT all pass. North must have felt very uncomfortable about that auction.

[Codo]

So all doublers - and all 4 ♣ bidders- may find their 6 ♦.

Maybe pd should just even bid 4 ♦ after 3 NT too?
If pd has just Axx, xxxxx,Ax, ATxx, Slam has some play. And he had promised a little more then this.

[kenrexford]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 2 2007, 03:57 AM, said:

This is from memory; the main thing I can't recall is the location of the J and 10 of spades.

Yeah, I think the location of the Jack and 10 of spades is particularly critical for those folks doubling as penalty, as is vulnerability. As is the location of the club 9.

This layout is a tad unexpected, as North holds a "slow" single quick trick (very poor defense) and looks like a candidate for a 2♦ opening, or even 3♦, but perhaps the style was somewhat unorthodox.

[han]

I agree with Ken, that north hand doesn't look like a 1♦ opener to me.

I disagree with Codo that the 3NT bid promises a little more than 3 aces (and I think that trying for slam over 3NT with the north hand is nuts).

[Codo]

HI Han,

so after the bidding started with
1 ♦ (pass) 1 ♥ (3 SPade)
you would have less then 12 nice HCP to bid game?
So what is your minimum?

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jul 2 2007, 06:40 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 2 2007, 03:57 AM, said:

This is from memory; the main thing I can't recall is the location of the J and 10 of spades.

Yeah, I think the location of the Jack and 10 of spades is particularly critical for those folks doubling as penalty, as is vulnerability. As is the location of the club 9.

Who doubled for penalty? Lots of people doubled, did any mean it as a penalty double? Maybe I missed that someone did, but definitely not most.

[foo]

jdonn, on Jul 2 2007, 03:07 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 2 2007, 06:40 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 2 2007, 03:57 AM, said:

This is from memory; the main thing I can't recall is the location of the J and 10 of spades.

Yeah, I think the location of the Jack and 10 of spades is particularly critical for those folks doubling as penalty, as is vulnerability. As is the location of the club 9.

Who doubled for penalty? Lots of people doubled, did any mean it as a penalty double? Maybe I missed that someone did, but definitely not most.

I think the point that was being made was that if you X, pd may feel endplayed into converting it to penalty on a wide variety of hands given that taking 11 tricks is considerably more difficult than taking 8.

Please note I'm not advocating a penalty pass, I'm just noting the potential problem Opener may have.

[jdonn]

foo, on Jul 2 2007, 03:49 PM, said:

I think the point that was being made was that if you X, pd may feel endplayed into converting it to penalty on a wide variety of hands given that taking 11 tricks is considerably more difficult than taking 8.

Please note I'm not advocating a penalty pass, I'm just noting the potential problem Opener may have.

That is neither the point Ken was making (and I quote, "for those folks doubling as penalty") nor one that I think is very valid. If partner is some balanced 13 with a spade honor and no particular suit, as I think you are implying, he can bid 3NT over the double.

Somehow I also find it easier to take 11 tricks in a very long trump suit than 8 in a very short one.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jul 2 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

foo, on Jul 2 2007, 03:49 PM, said:

I think the point that was being made was that if you X, pd may feel endplayed into converting it to penalty on a wide variety of hands given that taking 11 tricks is considerably more difficult than taking 8.

Please note I'm not advocating a penalty pass, I'm just noting the potential problem Opener may have.

That is neither the point Ken was making (and I quote, "for those folks doubling as penalty") nor one that I think is very valid. If partner is some balanced 13 with a spade honor and no particular suit, as I think you are implying, he can bid 3NT over the double.

Somehow I also find it easier to take 11 tricks in a very long trump suit than 8 in a very short one.

I have no idea if anyone was or was not doubling as a penalty double. But, if you were (I was not, obviously), then you would want to know the spots. As well, if you converted for penalties (again, not sure if anyone would), you'd want to know those spots. Both, if only to win a post-mortem against the 3NT bidders and against those of us who bid 4♣.

[whereagles]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 2 2007, 08:57 AM, said:

At the other table North passed in first seat and they bid P P 1H 3S P P 3NT all pass. North must have felt very uncomfortable about that auction.

No wonder.. he's got a clear-cut 3♦ opener.. lol.

[Foxx]

Wow, this seems to be a straightforward bidding problem, I didn't expect the thread to go bonkers. The 75 replies are easily an Interesting Bridge Hands all-time record.

The choices which I consider within reason include:

Double
3NT
4♥
4♠
4NT

I would bid 4♥, perhaps conservative, but I don't think this hand has as much playing strength as it seems to at first look. The 3♠ bid suggests there will be bad breaks to deal with as well; I would be happy just to go plus on this hand. However, you're almost sure to find partner's values in the minors, where you need them, so slam will often have play. The problem is how best to introduce slam into the conversation, and if I had to make such a move it would be by 4♠. As I like to say, they've found their fit, so we might as well find ours.

There was much discussion as to the nature of double. While I don't think a double here would be pure penalty, it should indicate a strong desire to defend. Partner should have a good reason to pull this double, not a good reason to leave it in. With partner's actual hand, our double would almost surely be converted and 3♠ can be defeated three tricks if the defense leads hearts at every opportunity. However, the resulting score of 500 isn't enough to cover our making game let alone a slam.

My conservative course of action wouldn't have paid off when the hand turned out to be:

Scoring: IMP

---

(FrancesHinden was close enough.) Partner had a real dog, albeit a dog with a long, strong diamond suit. 5♥ is making if the hand is played there, but with South out of spades after the first round, 6♦ and 6NT are both cold. Any pair which would reach slam can consider themselves very highly because neither table bid the slam in the actual match.

[jdonn]

Foxx, on Jul 3 2007, 09:24 AM, said:

With partner's actual hand, our double would almost surely be converted and 3♠ can be defeated three tricks if the defense leads hearts at every opportunity. However, the resulting score of 500 isn't enough to cover our making game let alone a slam.

I tend not to pass takeout doubles with 0 defensive tricks.