procrastinator wins declare-only with +21.50, not by 10. AA wins our 2-way by 30. Both reissued
ETA: I won the group regular challenge with +6.50. Reissued
ETA: I won 2-way with NN by 9. Reissued
I feel like I have been faring better in the declare only challenges than the full ones lately. Might have to do some digging see if it is my bidding or defense that is lacking.
Board 10 on declarer only was a fun one. The bidding was quite revealing, and the winning line involves taking a hook that is odds on with bidding despite feeling like it should not be needed, so that you can eliminate the side suits to lead a small diamond from Axx in the board to your Q98, covering what RHO plays to endplay LHO who is very likely to hold the king and at least one of the jack and ten.
+2 vs procrastinator, after surviving an extremely strange -16. Very aggressively, NTTAWWT, at favorable vul I opened 3H on xx Q108xxx x xxxx. Awful bid at anything other than favorable, perhaps even awful at favorable. Opponents were cold for 4S or 5D, as the cards lie, so why did -800 at 5H X cost 16 imps?
spoilertext
Because 5H X -800 was the result at the other table, where procrastinator passed as dealer and opponents played 5H X in their 4-2 fit.
Reissued.
+19.50 would usually win the Declare-only, but only 2nd this week as Numbers Nerd racks up +25.75. Reissued.
ETA: +15 vs AA. Reissued
Funny thing was I misdefended, it should have been sticks and wheels, though I might be losing IMPs on the board.
The hand reinforces something I remember reading in Sabine Auken’s book: you should bid 2C over 1D aggressively because it is a hard action, as having responder double with just one major is common and can cause issues, as we saw here.
+11 vs NN. Reissued
ETA: oirg wins the regular challenge with +14.33. A margin over 10, since his was the only + score. Reissued
EATA: +22 vs procrastinator. Reissued
EATA: +23 vs AA, Reissued
Lose by 3 to NN, 0-3. Same contract on all 16 boards. 1 overtrick imp lost on each of 3 boards. Reissued
ETA: NN wins the Declare-only with +24.50. Remarkably, not a margin of 10. Reissued
EATA: Perhaps NN didn’t really deserve to win the Declare-only. Or maybe he did. Since it was Declare-only all of us got the same benefit from a bizarre misdefense by RHO at trick 1 on board 10. After that, NN and I found what I think is our best continuation, which must be near 0% but at least has a tiny chance of making if the lie is extremely favorable. No such extremely favorable lie, but absolutely insane defense by LHO hands the contract back. With defense already having book, we lead a club from our hand toward dummy. LHO has a trump, hence the sure setting trick, since dummy is going to follow. Instead, he discards, letting us reach dummy, draw his last trump and claim. So he (and I) gained 15 imps relative to the rest of you, slightly deserved since it was the best play, but more undeserved since LHO had a 100% set and didn’t take it. (Admittedly he can see it’s at best a 1 trick set if he ruffs, but on the bidding the chances of even 1 trick if he doesn’t ruff is near 0.)
oirg narrowly wins the regular group challenge with +18.50, less than 3 ahead of third place. Reissued
ETA: Lose to procrastinator by 8 because RHO is hopeless. Declarer in 6H, with exactly 1 outside loser, and a trump suit of KQ52 opposite A1076. The right declarer play is clear: start with the K and Q. Pick up any 3-2, and 4-1 onside. This declarer started with K, then A, failing to pick up J98x onside. I had kept them out of 6 with a very aggressive weak jump overcall (perhaps too aggressive, but would have been successful as the cards lie except for the hopeless declarer.) Reissued
Oddly, had declarer been competent and CHO’s hearts been only Jxxx, my 2S overcall might have given away the proper play by revealing which defender was more likely to have a stiff heart. Here, where declarer cannot cope with J9xx or J8xx or J98x except in partner, that didn’t apply. (OK, with no bidding then double dummy declarer could pick up J9xx or J8xx in mine by smothering a stiff 9 or 8 in partner’s hand, but that risks going down on some 3-2 breaks.)
EATA: +13 vs AA. Reissued
Jinxed myself saying I had been doing better in the declare only. Made a dumb play this time, that based on preliminary score you all did not make.
This can be a frustrating game sometimes.
Win by 5 vs NN in a match that should have been at best a tie.
At best a tie because I won 5 when RHO went batshit crazy. Declarer, in 2S, after seeing my CHO (his RHO) has 5 spades to my 1, has to play a diamond suit of AJ9xxx in dummy opposite Q10x in his hand. He starts by running the 10, winning. Then he leads the Q, and goes up with the A when I play low. Down 1 instead of making an overtrick, 5 imps to me, the margin of victory.
If LHO plays normally, it’s at best a tie because to get the tie I had to make an awful 4H contract in a 4-3 fit. I did play it very well, IMO, but looking at our two hands I would greatly have preferred to be defending 3D X, as NN was. I think 4H could have been beaten on a different lead, a lead I would have made as defender, but the bot’s lead could certainly have been right.
Reissued
Once this group challenge is over, would like to discuss bidding on hand 16.
oirg wins the Declare-only with +7.75. Only you and I made that exact mistake on board 2, which is not even necessarily a mistake, depending on what to make of the system notes and the early play. If your play and mine was indeed a mistake, only AA played it correctly (only he would definitely make it on the actual layout). NN and oirg did make it, but could have been set and should have been set. Reissued
procrastinator won the challenge with +9.25. Bidding on 16 isn’t really very interesting. If you had read the system notes you wouldn’t have considered the bid that got you into trouble. After your first bid, there was no way to recover. Probably you should have given up earlier.
Oddly, 16 presents an interesting play challenge that neither oirg nor I was up to, even though it’s 100% to be correct given the bidding. Unfortunately for us, the contract (looking at our hands) was a favorite no matter what, and the chance of an overtrick led us astray.
The lead is the heart 8. Looks good. Cold if trumps are not 3-0, with an overtrick possible if RHO has the stiff Q or A (or maybe if he hops one of the from a doubleton). So win the heart Q and play a club. Alas RHO shows out, and now we’re doomed.
But notice the heart spots with the 8 lead. RHO has bid hearts, so he must have 4 (and must have the J since LHO would have led J from J8 doubleton; presumably RHO also has the 9, but that won’t even matter. Just cover with the 10 and capture with the ace. Now you can later win with the Q and lead toward the A7 to set up a diamond pitch from dummy. Just lose 3 trump tricks.
Reissued.
Win the 2-way with AA by 15. That includes winning 7 on this absurdity by CHO. Here’s AA’s auction and our hand
My auction was the same through CHO’s 4C bid, which I passed despite the system notes describing 4C as
14-16 points means we have a lot of strength, and his points are likely outside spades since he didn’t try notrump. Still, if he couldn’t overcall 1S despite his 14-16 points and rebiddable clubs, something may be fishy. At least we’re not vul, so I pass 4C to take the sure plus.
His hand is not what I expected, and looking at his hand 4C doesn’t look like the right contract, but it made, while 5C didn’t.
Reissued
I beat NN by 12. 10 to me on a very undisciplined action that I would be tempted with a human partner but would likely resist (Opening 2D on a 2-0-6-5 shape, then bidding 5D in the competitive auction 2D-2H-3D-4D-?). Even with that 10 it was a lucky win, as NN had maneuvered his opps into 4H on a 3-4 (3 in the hidden declarer hand, after a negative double) that CHO let make. (Not an obvious defense, as it succeeds only when declarer has only 3 hearts, but no defense has much chance if declarer has 4).
Reissued
ETA: Lost to procrastinator 3-2, where all 16 boards had the same contract at both tables, and only differences were overtricks or extra undertricks, never more than one trick difference. My RHO let me get away with murder on one hand though, where the opening lead was different against a slam. Against procrastinator, a club lead handed him the contract. Against me, the actual heart lead through dummy’s ace should have given me no chance. RHO won his king at trick 1, and I still had a club suit of KQJxx in dummy opposite a stiff 10 in my hand. Luckily for me, I led low from dummy and RHO did not hop his ace. Almost certainly he should have. At worst he was giving me an extra pitch (if I ruffed his ace now, instead of when he covered an honor later), and extra pitch might not matter, whereas if I had the stiff 10 his duck would be fatal.
Reissued
NN squeaks to a narrow win in the Declare-only with +5.25. Reissued
ETA: 3-3 tie vs AA. Reissued
EATA: Lost to NN by 17. Would have lost anyway, but very annoyed to lose 7 imps to NN on a hand where I thought I understood bots’ methods, totally different than what I think they should be. 1S by LHO - Dbl by CHO - Rdbl by RHO - ?
Pass should just mean “nothing to say”, but too often I have been burned by ending up defending 1S XX, partner interpreting it as a desire to play for penalties. So on this hand I bid 2C with my 5=2=3=3 shape, and ended up in 2C X down 800. (I do agree with partner’s sitting for 2C X with his 1=4=5=3 shape.)
Meanwhile auction was also strange at NN’s table. He passed the redouble, and CHO didn’t sit for it, but CHO ran to his 4-card heart suit instead of his 5-card diamond suit. Defense slipped and only got 500. 2D X would not have been worse than 500, possibly better.
Reissued
So actually, this is the exact question I have. I did read the system notes. 2c seems like the obvious bid, but it caps your hand at an incorrect level. So this is the question I have. I think it also applies to doubling and unusual no-trump calls in general.
The bidding went 1D P 1H ?
You hold S: ( ) H: AKxx D: AJ C: KJTxxxx
You have 16 high card points and well over 18 total points almost no matter how you count it.
Double, I believe means: 12+ points, 4+C, 4+S
2NT means: 15+ points, 5+C, 5+S
2C means: 5+C, 10+ HCP, 18- total points
So clearly I don’t have spades. But I have much more than 18 total points. So how do I communicate this? In prior times, I have seen a cue bid work, but I think in this case both cue bids were interpreted as natural, instead of as cue bids.
Similar situation with doubling. If you have 15+ points but don’t have the proper distribution to double, I have often not been able to find the right competitive bid. And I guess, my interpretation in those situations is that you double, and then clarify later that it wasn’t a pure takeout double, but a value showing takeout double.
Maybe the correct bid in this case, with partner being a passed hand, is to make a preempt bid of 4C or something. I definitely checked all of those and they all massively undersold my hand, too. I think I clicked on every single bid, and not one of them accurately described my hand. So I opted for the one that did the best job at showing my strength even if it lied about having spades.
Nothing is ideal. The point lie with double is not really that big a lie, with downside that you may play a partscore instead of a game (If it just says 12+ points, it’s not even a lie. More than you’re promising, but if there is no upper limit, you can’t have more). You might have survived a double, though none of us chose to risk a double with no spades.
Your actual choice was 2NT, probably influenced by its indicated points of 15+. But it showed 5+ spades, and that’s so wrong I wouldn’t consider it and I doubt anyone else considered it. That danger of partner insisting on spades is exceptionally high when you know partner almost certainly has at least 5 (it’s so unlikely that 1D opener or 1H responder will have 5 cards in a higher-ranking suit than they bid, presumably would be a red suit with 5 spades only with 6 in the suit bid).
To clarify, I didn’t view double or 2NT as a point lie. I actually viewed them as better than 2c because they didn’t include a point lie (both unlimited on the upside). They both had the same problem of promising both clubs and spades.
So in that situation where you don’t have the distribution to double or invoke Michaels, but your points are too high for any of the natural responses, how do you choose? I thought the play was double and clarify later (which I realize I didn’t do here - I reasoned, Michaels and clarify latter, same thing but strong point). Clearly I got myself into trouble, and I knew that was a risk. I’m still left unsure what to do here.