[1eyedjack]

If it is any consolation, you are 3 off even if you rise with Ace in dummy.

Ironically, I know that it is resulting, but my speculative suggestion that an admittedly risky 3N response may pay off does well on this hand.

[notproven]

Partner's last bid ("you should have passed") is forcing to a new partner.
The double was acceptable, but risky. Your bid of 3♠ was certainly reasonable. It didn't work out.

[notproven]

Partner's last bid ("you should have passed") is forcing to a new partner.
The double was acceptable but risky. The 3♠ bid was reasonable. It didn't work out.

[helene_t]

Partner's double was obvious. He has no non-ridicolous alternatives.

I would absolutely pass. I know that this is borderline for many good players, but not for me.

[gszes]

our hand offers little offense but with 1 and even possible 2.5 tricks we do not need the worlds fair from p to set this 1 trick. This is too dangerous at IMPS but at MP I would not be surprised if we set this at least 1 70& of the time for a ton of really good scores.

[bluechip10]

silvr bull, on 2016-May-02, 00:25, said:

---

I ducked the opening H lead in hopes my HQ would be an entry to hand. Then the opps reminded me again about the power of a crossruff. After the hand, partner said I should pass 3DX. My view is that the double was OK but risky, and Lady Luck was not on our side. Thanks for the comments.

LOL. I would have passed with the north hand. First, we are red. Second, lousy shape. Now, if north passes, does preemptor's pard bid 3 hts? As I said above, a plus score is a good score.
another thing; with the opening lead, declarer pretty knows the red suit distribution. Declarer needs the clubs to be 3-2 with the Q onside. Tough hand, but hindsight is 100%

[miamijd]

silvr bull, on 2016-May-02, 00:25, said:

---

I ducked the opening H lead in hopes my HQ would be an entry to hand. Then the opps reminded me again about the power of a crossruff. After the hand, partner said I should pass 3DX. My view is that the double was OK but risky, and Lady Luck was not on our side. Thanks for the comments.

X is fine. 3s is fine. Sometimes preempts work.

[irishcafes]

Over a preempt, my goal is to get a plus. If pd has enough for a game, 3D is probably going down 3 for 800. Game may be difficult as spades may be 4/1. If game is not there, you are minus or at best 140, either score is worse than 200, the minimum I expect if I leave the double in. The only time that bidding gives a better result is when you can make game and 3D is only down two (or the rare chance you have slam).

[mike777]

pass seems clear....partner x= a debate

[PhilG007]

miamijd, on 2016-May-02, 18:39, said:

X is fine. 3s is fine. Sometimes preempts work.

That all depends if they are allowed to stand. More often than not the
opponents will compete.

[1eyedjack]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-03, 02:15, said:

That all depends if they are allowed to stand. More often than not the
opponents will compete.

I have no opinion whether or not as a statement of fact you are correct (that more often than not the opponents will compete).

I do however have an opinion that, accepting it as accurate, it by no means informs us on the question of whether "sometimes preempts work".

On the minority of occasions when they do not compete, it will sometimes have been right to compete.

Likewise, a positive finite proportion of the time it will have been wrong to compete when they do.

And when they do compete they may be denied sufficient bidding space to find the correct spot.

So yes, sometimes preempts work, and no, that conclusion does not depend on whether they are allowed to stand.

[PhilG007]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-03, 02:51, said:

I have no opinion whether or not as a statement of fact you are correct (that more often than not the opponents will compete).

I do however have an opinion that, accepting it as accurate, it by no means informs us on the question of whether "sometimes preempts work".

On the minority of occasions when they do not compete, it will sometimes have been right to compete.

Likewise, a positive finite proportion of the time it will have been wrong to compete when they do.

And when they do compete they may be denied sufficient bidding space to find the correct spot.

So yes, sometimes preempts work, and no, that conclusion does not depend on whether they are allowed to stand.

Totally disagree Anyway,I think it's time we had a head 2 head. I have issued a challenge. Ball's in your court,Bud.
I suspect you're English...my favourite victim. I am a confirmed Anglophobe. Bring it on !!!!

[PhilG007]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-03, 02:51, said:

I have no opinion whether or not as a statement of fact you are correct (that more often than not the opponents will compete).

I do however have an opinion that, accepting it as accurate, it by no means informs us on the question of whether "sometimes preempts work".

On the minority of occasions when they do not compete, it will sometimes have been right to compete.

Likewise, a positive finite proportion of the time it will have been wrong to compete when they do.

And when they do compete they may be denied sufficient bidding space to find the correct spot.

So yes, sometimes preempts work, and no, that conclusion does not depend on whether they are allowed to stand.

In other words, Definitely Maybe

[1eyedjack]

Have logged on briefly to accept (8 boards, MP, best hand). So point-a-board it is. Will have to wait to get home before playing them.

Just to be clear, are we supposed to be paying lip-service to what is sensible (in GIB's eyes), or do you expect to play GIB for all its foibles? I don't mind either way, as long as I know up front.

Incidentally, when I disagree with someone on the forums, I usually (as here) make an attempt to justify my opinion.

[PhilG007]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-03, 09:23, said:

Have logged on briefly to accept (8 boards, MP, best hand). So point-a-board it is. Will have to wait to get home before playing them.

Just to be clear, are we supposed to be paying lip-service to what is sensible (in GIB's eyes), or do you expect to play GIB for all its foibles? I don't mind either way, as long as I know up front.

Incidentally, when I disagree with someone on the forums, I usually (as here) make an attempt to justify my opinion.

Since I haven't programmed these collections of nuts and bolts,I have no control over them. The only thing that
might give me a edge over these pesky cybernets is logic.

[Vampyr]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-03, 07:39, said:

Totally disagree Anyway,I think it's time we had a head 2 head. I have issued a challenge. Ball's in your court,Bud.
I suspect you're English...my favourite victim. I am a confirmed Anglophobe. Bring it on !!!!

How do you disagree? Every statement is clearly true simply based on logic, even if you have never played bridge.

Why can't we remove up votes when we were intending to reply? I think that maybe 50% are because of this.

[1eyedjack]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-03, 13:09, said:

Why can't we remove up votes when we were intending to reply? I think that maybe 50% are because of this.

heh, I think the only solution to that currently is to sprinkle around upvotes with largesse

[1eyedjack]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-03, 12:18, said:

Since I haven't programmed these collections of nuts and bolts,I have no control over them. The only thing that
might give me a edge over these pesky cybernets is logic.

OK, feel free not to answer the question. No change there, I guess. Act of optimism to have expected one.

[PhilG007]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-04, 00:55, said:

OK, feel free not to answer the question. No change there, I guess. Act of optimism to have expected one.

What I have written,I have written

[PhilG007]

1eyedjack, on 2016-May-04, 00:55, said:

OK, feel free not to answer the question. No change there, I guess. Act of optimism to have expected one.

I have completed my half of the challenge. Awaiting for you to do the same