You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

I don't usually play these methods, and I don't have a specific meaning about this auction.

I have the agreement that after they balance, double is penalty unless our last bid was 1NT or lower. This rule therefore does't apply.

I also have the agreement that double is penalty if takeout is impossible. Since 3325 is possible, this rule does't apply either.

My conclusion is that if we would play these methods, double would be takeout, and I would be comfortable that my partner would come to the same conclusion.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

What is the task of the selection committee? If they are charged with selecting the team with the best possible chances of winning, then that is what they should do.

It could be argued that keeping the same team is best for team spirit, and thus the team should stay the same, but depending on circumstances other arguments are possible.

By the way, the soccer/football world cup just started. Can you imagine a coach choosing players simply because they played in the qualifiers, even if clearly better players recovered from an injury that kept them from playing earlier? No of course not, that would be absurd.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

West holding 4 clubs is irrelevant.

When clubs are 3-3, you win half the time by playing for the drop. There are 20 specific 3-3 distributions, so your expected win by dropping is 10 holdings.

When clubs are 2-4, you win one third of the time by playing for the drop, and win two third of the time by finessing. So your expected win by finessing is one third of those distribution. There are 15 specific 2-4 distributions, so your expected win by finessing is 5 holdings.

5 is half of 10, so you should finesse if a specific 2-4 distribution is more than twice as likely as a specific 3-3 distribution. Deal the first five cards so that west gets 2 and east gets 3. You should finesse if (empty spaces east -3) is greater than twice (empty spaces west -2)

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Interesting discussions!

Thinking about partnerships that are also emotionally attached to each other, and whether it is a disadvantage or an advantage, I first thought about father and son Helness, who score very well when playing together. Of course, father Helness has also been quite successful with another partner.

In the Netherlands you have Richard and Maggie, whose results together are probably considerably better than the results either of them has had with others.

Another partnership that comes to mind is Sabine and Roy. It is hard to compare their results together with the results they've had with others, but my impression is that they play really well together.

How about Bilde-Bilde, Bessis-Bessis, Stansby-Stansby?

Han Peters

Han Peters

Han Peters

Han Peters

Suppose halfway through a knock out match you find yourself in 7S with the following cards:

AKT

Qx

AKQJxx

Qx

Qxxxxx

AT

x

Axxx

The opponents were silent during the auction. West leads the 5 of hearts, 3rd or low. Which heart do you call from dummy, and why?

Should it matter, the auction was:

2C (weak with diamonds, or strong) - 2S (natural NF)

2NT (22-23 balanced) - 3C (presumably natural)

3S 4D

4S 4NT

5D 5NT

7S pass

Han Peters

Han Peters

Han Peters

I have the agreement that after they balance, double is penalty unless our last bid was 1NT or lower. This rule therefore does't apply.

I also have the agreement that double is penalty if takeout is impossible. Since 3325 is possible, this rule does't apply either.

My conclusion is that if we would play these methods, double would be takeout, and I would be comfortable that my partner would come to the same conclusion.

Han Peters

Playing the ace is only wrong if the finesse works and hearts can't be picked up.

Han Peters

Han Peters

Han Peters

It could be argued that keeping the same team is best for team spirit, and thus the team should stay the same, but depending on circumstances other arguments are possible.

By the way, the soccer/football world cup just started. Can you imagine a coach choosing players simply because they played in the qualifiers, even if clearly better players recovered from an injury that kept them from playing earlier? No of course not, that would be absurd.

Han Peters

When clubs are 3-3, you win half the time by playing for the drop. There are 20 specific 3-3 distributions, so your expected win by dropping is 10 holdings.

When clubs are 2-4, you win one third of the time by playing for the drop, and win two third of the time by finessing. So your expected win by finessing is one third of those distribution. There are 15 specific 2-4 distributions, so your expected win by finessing is 5 holdings.

5 is half of 10, so you should finesse if a specific 2-4 distribution is more than twice as likely as a specific 3-3 distribution. Deal the first five cards so that west gets 2 and east gets 3. You should finesse if (empty spaces east -3) is greater than twice (empty spaces west -2)

Han Peters

Han Peters

Han Peters

Han Peters

Thinking about partnerships that are also emotionally attached to each other, and whether it is a disadvantage or an advantage, I first thought about father and son Helness, who score very well when playing together. Of course, father Helness has also been quite successful with another partner.

In the Netherlands you have Richard and Maggie, whose results together are probably considerably better than the results either of them has had with others.

Another partnership that comes to mind is Sabine and Roy. It is hard to compare their results together with the results they've had with others, but my impression is that they play really well together.

How about Bilde-Bilde, Bessis-Bessis, Stansby-Stansby?

Han Peters

Han Peters

Han Peters

Han Peters