Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - wackojack

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Sleight of Hand / iac v acol hand 7 1st set: opinions please
« on: September 05, 2022, 11:08:20 AM »
All vul I was the dealer and passed
 !S K9542
 !H Q72
 !D K
 !C J862

Then:
1 !D - (1 !H) - 3 !D - (?)
I was tempted to compete to 3 !H. Then I decided that this could easily go 2 off if partner has made the 1 level overcall on no more than  !H AKxxx and an outsde ace.
So I passed. Then it went:
1 !D - (1 !H) - 3 !D - (pass)
pass - (3 !H) - pass - (?)
I think that I should have bitten the bullet and raised to 4 !H.  Instead I passed because I was obsessed by partner's failure to double. 

First of all what would a double here be showing?  To my mind a double here is a "power double)  It is saying:  Partner I have maximum strength for my overcall and if you do not have support for my hearts we could have a good penalty.  And if you do have support for my hearts then if you have  just a few points we are likley to have game in hearts. 

Partner's hand was:
!S  A86
 !H K98643
 !D A84
 !C A
As can be seen 4 !H is an excellent contract and is made easily.  I apologised to partner for being chicken.  Nevertheless, is partner's rebid of 3 !H the best bid?  Had the heart suit been only a 5 carder I think that there is no question that the power double is better.  Partner's broken 6 card suit is very risky to overcall at the 3 level vulnerable and maybe double would still have been a better bid as it gives me more options.

Of course had partner doubled, then with 3 card support I would obviously raise to 4 !H.

Opinions please?

2
The IAC Café / When your partner's 1NT overcall is doubled for penalties
« on: April 12, 2022, 05:47:11 PM »
You are vul against not.  You have:

 !S 53
 !H J107543
 !D 5432
 !C 9

You pass and the bidding goes:
pass - (1 !C) - 1NT - (double)
The double was alerted as a penalty double.
Clearly you cannot stand the double and you want to get out into 2 !H.    So what is the normal agreement?  BWS has nothing to say about it. 

I had this hand and bid 2 !H directly as a natural weakness take-out bid .  Partner thought this was a transfer to 2 !S and I had to bid 3 !H and played there when it was doubled and we scored -500.  The other table was in 3 !S making an overtrick and so we lost 9 imps on this board. 

My reasoning for thinking that 2 !H has to be a natural weakness take-out and transfers are out is that if you have a weak hand with long diamonds you would want to play in 2 !D and for that matter if a weak hand with long clubs you would want to play in 2 !C. 

Of course you could play transfers where redouble =  !C s, 2 !C =  !D s, 2 !D=  !H s but this looks unusual and would require a special agreement. 

I notice that whenever I go to BWS for answers that sadly it does not have one. 

Another related question: 

Suppose it was partner who opened 1NT and RHO doubled for penalties.  How do you get out into 2 !H. 

If you play weak no trump, penalty doubles come up often and the partnerships always have a wriggle to get out of it.  The most popular is Helvic where:

Redouble = I have a long suit. Partner please bid clubs.
I will then pass or correct
1 of a suit = I am 4-4 in this suit and the one immediately above
Pass = I am 4-4 in non touching suits, please redouble
I will then bid the lowest of my non touching suits

If think you can make 1NT x you would pass.  If that is passed round to the 1NT opener he must redouble and you would pass. 

So with my hand (weak with long hearts)  the bidding would go:

1NT -(dbl) - rdbl -(pass)
2 !C -(pass) - 2 !H. 

Of course the opps would likely compete before or over 2 !H.  Whichever way you have safely navigated your escape over 1Nt doubled for penalties.

 




3
Sleight of Hand / Opener's reverse: Definition
« on: March 25, 2022, 11:27:01 AM »
When opener's rebid is above the same suit simple rebid it is called a reverse.  It says nothing about extra strength or length but has definite implications. 

Take 1 !C - 1 !S - 2 !D in a natural sequence.  Opener's "same suit rebid barrier" is 2 !C.  The rebid of 2 !D is above this barrier and so is a reverse.  The implications of this reverse is that opener needs extra strength to find the right contract if responder has 5 or 6 points.  Another general implication is that the first bid suit will be longer than the 2nd bid suit.  It seems (from the opinions given by kibs in Donnas iac session) that this 2nd implication is disputed for a 1-4-4-4 distribution.  Nevertheless the fact that it is a reverse has to be indisputable.

Take again 1 !C - 1 !S - 2 !D but this time you are playing transfer responses to 1 !C whereby 1 !D shows  !Hs; 1 !H shows  !S s; and 1 !S shows  !Ds.  This is still a reverse of course.  However, the implications are totally different.  The 2 !D bid implies a minimum opener with 5  !Cs + 4 !D s and of course is not forcing.  Responder will pass with most hands with fewer than 12 points. 

Ofcourse if you are playing 5542 then the 2 !D rebid would not imply 5 !C +4 !D.  This hand could have 4 !D and only 2  !Cs.  Nevertheless it is by definition a reverse. 

4
Sleight of Hand / ist session hand 5 iac v Acol clb
« on: March 02, 2022, 05:24:20 PM »
Hand 5 first session
 
               ♠ 2
                ♥ A982
                ♦ AKJ754
                !C Q10   
 
♠ AJ1097              ♠ Q653
♥ K105                  !H 64
♦ 32                      !D 986
♣ AJ96                   !C 6543

            ♠ K84
              ♥ QJ73
              ♦ 32
              ♣ AJ96


NS vulnerable

At My table sitting EW
West   North   East   South
   1♦   p    1♥
1♠   3♥    p   4♥
p   p   p   

4♥ duly made -620.
We were playing against an Acol pair and I note that North raised to 3♥.  In the Monday evening discussion both Alan and Colin stated very definitely the raise to 3♥ would be pre-emptive.  I argued it could not be pre-emptive because when it is a known to be no more than a 4-4 fit there is no such thing as a pre-empt to the 3 level a you should not raise to more than the level of the fit.  (Aside:  Of course with a 5-4 fit the mixed semi-preemptive Bergen raise 1♠-3♦ is perfectly sound.) Nevertheless this particular North obviously meant the jump to 3♥ to show extra strength and South naturally raised to the comfortable 4♥ game. 

At Ken and Carl’s table
   1♦   p    1♥
1♠   2♠    3♠   p
4♠   p   p   p
Ken in the North position cue bid 2♠.  Was that bid meant so show a good raise?  And did it say anything about spades?  It appears that Carl did not see this2♠ bid as supporting hearts.  (Maybe perhaps asking for a stop in 3NT?)  If so it is not very easy to explain why 4♠ was not doubled for penalty.  As it happens, because of the favourable vulnerability for EW it is a good sacrifice for 3 off netting only 500.  In the play 4♠ went 4 off so instead of +7 imps we lost 9 imps.

I will leave it at that for now but will follow up with what happened at other tables witnessing extraordinary differences in hand evaluation.  Illustrating the “bee in my bonnet

5
Sleight of Hand / Wacko's Master Solver's Club
« on: January 27, 2022, 01:53:50 PM »
Problem A

You are dealt at game all:
 !S K1076
 !H 76
 !D AK7
 !C AKJ6
RHO opens 1 !H; you double; LHO passes and partner bids 2 !H; RHO passes
1 !H-(dbl)- pass- (2 !H)
Pass -(?)
What does partners double tell me?
What should I bid?

Problem B

You are dealt at love all:
 !S -
 !H K5
 !D KQJ98
 !C QJ10985

Partner opens 1 !C  (at least 3 cards);  LHO overcalls 2 !C (Michaels 5-5+majors);   your bid?
1 !C -(2 !C) -(?)
I decided to up the ante and raise to 5 !C.  All agree?
LHO then bids 5 !S; partner passes

1 !C -(2 !C) -5 !C-(5 !S)
pass -(pass) -?
What is my bid now?

Case for pass:
I have already pre-empted to 5 !C and one should not later add to a pre-empt.  Although partner has passed 5 !S a bid of 6 !C could easily be a phantom sac. We do not have an agreement that partners pass of 5 !S is forcing where I would have to either double or bid 6 !C.

Case for 6 !C:

(i) Partner might think that his pass is forcing.  If so I have to bid 6 !C with such little defence.
(ii) I doubt that partner did mean his pass to be forcing however look at the risks and rewards of each bid bearing in mind that this is an imps match.
Our club fit will be at least 10 cards and likely 11
Their spade fit will be 10 or 11 cards
So total tricks will be 20-22.
5 !S making scenario
If total tricks = 20: 5 !S makes and 6 !C is 3 off .  Bidding 6 !C loses 2 imps
If total tricks = 21  5 !S makes and 6 !C is 2 off .  Bidding 6 !C gains 4 imps
If total tricks = 22  5 !S makes and 6 !C is 1 off .  Bidding 6 !C gains 8 imp

5 !S 1 off scenario
If total tricks = 20: 5 !S is 1 off and 6 !C is 2 off.  Bidding 6 !C loses 8 imps
If total tricks = 21  5 !S is 1 off and 6 !C is 1 off . Bidding 6 !C loses  4 imps
If total tricks = 22  5 !S is 1 off and 6 !C makes.  Bidding 6 !C gains 13 imps

This suggests that the potential gain in bidding 6 ! !C outweighs the potential losses. However, it is heavily dependent on the accuracy of the assessment of total trumps.   



6
Sleight of Hand / I don't like the DARE solution
« on: December 21, 2021, 06:40:36 PM »
This hand came up in the recent DARE tourney 
                       !S Q4
                       !H AK543
                       !D KJ62
                       !C A7

  !S K1076                          !S 53
  !H J9                                !H Q1086
  !D 108                              !D Q975
  !C J8653                           !C Q109
                         !S AJ982
                         !H 72
                         !D A43
                         !C K42
Bidding 1 !H - 1 !S - 2 !D - 3NT - pass
Lead 5 !C

It looks like this lead is likely from 4+ length so initial duck is a good idea.  I play 7, RHO the Q and me the 2.  Then  !C Q, 4 , 3 Ace.
So LHO was leading from 5 cards to Jack and so can only afford to let RHO in once.

My simple mind thinks that we can do no better than finesse twice into LHO.  This will give us 4 tricks in  !S 75% of the time giveing us 4 !S +2 !H + 2 !D + 2 !C =10 and perhaps more if  !D s behave. 
(Just noted that the post-priori odds are better than this because when LHO has 5 clubs, he is less likely than RHO to have 4 spades)  This would increase the chance of the double finesse succeding making to well over 80%)

This was not the DARE solution.

It was I think: take the initial lead with the K !C in hand and lead a low spade.  If LHO takes with the King you are home but that is only a 50% chance.  So if RHO takes with   
 King and leads another club, this is what you do:
Take with your A !C and test the spades.  If 3-3 you are home.  If LHO happens to have started with 4 you play  !H AK noting that all follow.  If you find that LHO was 4225, then RHo's distribution is 2443 and can be endplayed into leading away from  !D Q.

I am not convinced that this is a better chance.  Could Ken do the Maths?

 





 

7
The IAC Café / How about challenging the Acol club to a teams match?
« on: December 15, 2021, 11:17:54 PM »
We know well and are grateful to Poco and Cedar for holding the "Dare competition" for iac.  They are both, ofcourse titans of the Acol club and run many events there.
 I think it would be great if we could get up a team of 4 (or even a team of 8 if sufficient interest)  and challenge the Acol club to a teams match.  I think it would not only be interesting for its own sake but will be helpful in getting practice playing against a weak no trump and possible 4 card major suit openings. 

Interested?  And any suggestions?

8
Sleight of Hand / Your bid after partner doubles a pre-empt and it is raised
« on: November 30, 2021, 11:26:40 PM »
This came up in a team league  match yesterday. I was criticised for underbidding

Your hand at Game all:
 !S 10
 !H K9632
 !D K105432
 !C Q

LHO opens 3 !S
Partner doubles
RHO bids 4 !S

I passed which I now think was wrong.
I think partner is likely to have 2 aces.  Then what a is min take-out double with 2 aces?  Something like this:
 !S xx
 !H AJxx
 !D Axx
 !C KJxx
Partner needs to have about this strength of hand to make a take-out double of 3 !S.  And we see that 5 !H is a very reasonable contract.

In fact partner had
 !S 8
 !H AJ1075
 !D A6
 !C AK1096
So 6  !H is an excellent contract.

The actual bidding went:  3 !S - (x) - 4 !S- (p); p-(x) -p- 5 !H; all pass

Non leaping Michaels would have worked well on this hand.  The bidding I think would have gone 3 !S - (4 !C) -4 !S- (5 !H); p - (6 !H) all pass 

The opps only got to 5 !H at the other table but I was criticised for underbidding.


9
Sleight of Hand / 3rd in hand pre-empt
« on: October 20, 2021, 10:51:20 AM »
 I gave this hand in yesterday's work-out
 
                !S J105
                 !H 765
                 !D 10632
                 !C Q76
 !S AK5                        !S 9743
 !H A42                        !H 9
 !D Q5                          !D KJ87
 !C AK1052                   !C 9843

                 !S Q82
                 !H KQJ1083
                 !D A94
                 !C J
Dealer was North at love all.  The bidding went: pass -pass-3 !H - 3NT- all pass.  3NT looks like a reasonable bid but had no chance.  Whereas 5  !C is an excellent contract and makes.

South's 3 !H pre-empt did the damage.  Has South opened the more normal 1 !H opener the bidding might have gone like in the viewgraph match that I was watching:
pass- (pass) - 1 !H - (dbl);
pass - (1 !S) - 2  !H - (dbl);
pass - (3 !C) - 3 !H - (5 !C);
all pass
 
5 !C was an easy make.

It got me thinking "Is there a case for opening this 13 HCP hand  witth a pre-emptive 3 !H?  It looks like the main danger is missing game for NS.  Give North instead a 10 count say  !S J10x,  !H 765,  !D KQ32,  !C A76  then 4 !H would be missed. How likely is this?  The points to be shared in the 3 hands is 27, and the median share would be 9 in each hand.  So if I now take away the J  !S from the North hand it reduces to 9 which is the median.  I conclude that the chances of game being on from East's POV would be less than 50% but not much. 

This leads me to having a rule of thumb as to what is the maximum strength for a 3rd in hand pre-empt to make it an overrall winner? 

Usually 3 level pre-empts are made on 7 card suits .  I believe there is a very good case for opening in 3rd nv on a 6 card suit, but how strong?  Take away Q !S ( a possible defefensive trick) and I think the case for opening 3  !H is very strong, but with the hand as it is perhaps just do it if you are behind and need a swing to win a match.     
 

10
Sleight of Hand / 1
« on: October 17, 2021, 10:36:48 PM »
 I think many know that I am a fan of multi-Landy, failing that Landy with a positive aversion to Cappeletti. 

This came up recently where my partner plays multi-Landy: 1!C - (p) - 1NT -(2 !C)

He maintains that 2 !C here is also Landy holding the majors.  I didnt know about this but see that it is entirely logical and does not apeear to have any disadvantages. 

We then went on to discuss the other possible bids and came up with this: Does it make sense?  Partner says:

  Generalising our defence to 1NT to the opps 1Y-1NT, then it could work like this:
(1C) - p - (1NT) - 2C  = Landy

(1D) - p - (1NT) - 2D  = a six card major

(1H) - p - (1NT) - 2H  = 5/4+   spades & a minor

(1S) - p - (1NT) - 2S  = 5/4+   hearts & a minor (good hand)

I say:  Yes this looks exactly right.  I think I will remember that 2S = H +m and 2H = S+m as it cannot mean anything else.
Partner says:   


For other bids, considering the 1C-1NT bid, then here's a system of responses to consider, building on our existing conventions



(1C) - p - (1NT) - 2C  = Landy

                            - 2D = D + Major

                            - 2H = natural (strong, 1RF)

                            - 2S = natural (strong, 1RF)

                            - 2N = both minors, if 1C can be short

                            - 3C = strong, asking for a stop in C's, bid 3NT if you have A, Kx, QJx or better

                            - 3D = natural (strong, 1RF)

                            - X = 6+ suit, weak, relay to 2C, pass and correct (a Lebensohl-style bid)
I say:

I think I would like to have double for penalties with a strong balanced hand particularly if opps play 1NT opening bids as 15-17.  Then 1C-1NT could be 12 +6 = 18 balanced opposite balanced.  Some +300 or +500 would be possible. If the opps play 1NT opening = 12-14, then 1C opening would be a balanced 15+ or 5+clubs.  Then having a double available to show a balanced 15+ would still be useful.  I suggest after 1C -(P)-1NT-(?)
2C = Landy as above
2D = 6 card major
2H = H+D  (H+C is a waste as opps will always have at least 7 clubs)
2S = S + D
2NT= strong diamonds
3D = medium/ weak diamonds.   

The 2N bid to show strong diamonds will rarely come up so no great loss if it is not remembered.


What about 1D-(p)-1NT-(?)
I suggest that 2C should still be Landy and double should still be 15+ balanced.  That leaves us with 2D/H/S.  It would be logical for consistency and least memory load to have:
2D = 6 card major
2H = 5H + 4+clubs
2S = 5S + 4 + clubs
2NT = strong clubs
3C = medium weak clubs


11
The IAC Café / RIP Justin Lall
« on: August 21, 2020, 06:22:46 PM »
I am totally shocked to hear the news of his death  Before iac I used BBF to get opinions in order to improve my game.  There was a guy that always responded who's nickname was  JLoLL.  I found out that he was an 18 year old prodigy who only a few years later won the USA bridge championships and was in the team that came 2nd in the Bermuda Bowl.  Great to get advice from someone who could have been a grandson. 

btw I always recall that he said he knew nothing about Losing Trick Count and treated it as a joke.     

12
IAC Tourneys / The New Swiss Teams event
« on: August 15, 2020, 09:52:31 AM »
I like the innovative swiss teams event.  However, some of the deals appeared to be freaky.  One example:

You are dealt in 4th position nv v V playing against 2 “experts”:
♠ K2
♥ A87
♦ Q64
♣ KQ1094

The bidding goes:
1♣ - (p) - 2♠- (?)

My RHO does not alert 2♠.  OK if 2♠ was a weak bid max 6HCP what do I know?
1.   Partner did not overcall 1♣ and therefore must be balanced with likely 5 clubs.  Double might get us into 3♥ or 4♥ with a 4-3 fit and a likely bad break with the question would Lebensohl apply here?    If so, a weak partner could bid 2NT and we get to 3♥ via my 3♣ response to Leb.  And if partner did have 10+ could show this with a direct 3♥. 
2.   I really am not strong enough for a bid of 2N.
So, I passed and hoped the opps were not on the same wavelength.  My LHO thought for some time raised to 3♠.  Partner passed and then RHO thought for some time and also passed. 

I then asked RHO “ 2♠ = ?”  and got the reply “weak”.  Would you have done any different?

I might as well reveal that partner had:
♠ A83
♥ 9654
♦ J852
♣ AJ

You can see that in 3N there are 8 top tricks on a ♠ lead and the 9th must come from making a 3rd ♦ trick.  ♦ split 3-3 and AK are in the same hand.  On a ♥ lead they split 3-3 so the defence can only take 2 ♥ tricks and 2 ♦ tricks. 

We defeated 3♠ for one off and would have gained with imps across the field.  However, our direct opps at the other table were the only pair who did bid 2N after the same auction and so made 3NT.  Our loss was  6 imps on the board.

On another board the opps were in 4♠ with 3 certain losers and had to make 4 tricks in ♥s with ♥AKJ3 opposite ♥ 986.  Needless to say, they split 3-3 with the Q♥ onside and 18% chance I believe without checking. 

13
Sleight of Hand / Oliver's session on leads
« on: August 02, 2020, 08:55:30 PM »
In Oliver’s teach-in on leads last night.  He advocated that if you lead partner’s suit from 3 spot cards, then you lead “top of nothing” against a suit contract and 2nd highest against a no trump contract.  I came in with a suggestion that if I had raised partners suit with 3 cards, then I lead the top card regardless.  E.g. Q from Qxx.  Oliver replied that he thought one should lead the lowest from Qxx regardless of my raising.  He suggested that leading the Q could lose a trick.  I hope I am not mis-quoting him.

My view is that leading your highest card when you have raised with 3 is better as it is unambiguous and I see no possibility of losing a trick unless partner has made stupid overcall in which case you may well lose a trick whatever card you lead.  I thought this was standard practice.

Any views or comments?

14
Sleight of Hand / I did not make this contract
« on: June 30, 2020, 10:38:08 AM »
 !S AQ104
 !H KQ863
 !D AJ
 !C AQ

 !S 72
 !H A
 !D K9743
 !C K10853

Bidding 2NT: (8-14) minors - 3NT- Pass

Lead was 4  !H. 

I am interested if anyone tries my line which failed. 

15
Sleight of Hand / This hand has been troubling me
« on: May 12, 2020, 10:02:05 AM »
 !S AJ75
 !H J83
 !D 85
 !C AKQ2

 !S -
 !H AQ1072
 !D AK972
 !C J63

 Vul v Non vul:
1 !H - (pass) - 2 !C - (3 !S)
6 !C - (pass) - 6  !H -all pass

This was an iac team match and I was declarer.  Don't ask me why partner responded 2 !C and not 1 !S because I don't know.  The lead was the 8  !S.  I had better tell you that I went down and it was made in the other room.  So losing a humiliating 17 imps.

I had better tell you that the declarer at the other table made because of a defensive slip.  That is not to say that this line was not the best. Any volunteers?   


Pages: [1] 2 3