[ahydra]

David Burn has a column in English Bridge called "Great Bridge Disasters". This hand from tonight certainly qualifies...

IMPs, 13 board match vs reasonable standard opps.

EDIT: please ignore vulnerability in diagrams below. EW are vul, not NS.

1)

---

Do you open? You're playing ACOL (4cM, weak NT, three weak twos).

2)

---

Options are pass, X (PEN) or 2D (any 6+ suit).

3)

---

Opps are playing a weak NT, 4cM, with a runout system over 1NT-(X) where XX shows a 5-card suit and bidding suits direct, or via P forcing XX, shows two touching/non-touching suits. 2S was therefore described as unsystemic. X is penalty. Others are undiscussed but a new suit wouldn't be forcing.

Bonus points if you can guess how many IMPs were swung (total loss vs the gain we could have had).

ahydra

[The_Badger]

1) I'm opening 1♥ according to new rule of 18 allowed by EBU. Good suits. Easy rebid. (Director would probably be called if I didn't open.)
2) Undecided. One thing I wouldn't do is pass. More likely to Dbl to show point count than to use 2♦ to suggest an overcall type of hand.
3) see 1 above. Now you're struggling except if you know partner holds exactly ♠A106 ♥2 ♦Q83 ♣AKQJ52

18 IMPs swing

[gszes]

1. no
2. x
3. 2N 2 places to play cant be natural since any natural 2n hand would easily prefer to penalty x
4. 17 imps though realistically it should rarely be worse than 14 imps

[Cyberyeti]

1: Easy 1♥ playing acol
2: X
3: 3♠
4: 1370 for 6♦ vs -470 ? result at the other table 3N-1 N so this swings +16/-9 so 25

[Cyberyeti]

My favourite disaster comes from a county match, teams of 8, 1♣-X-P to you, you have a hand with 6 decent intermediate laden clubs and 6 hearts.

Our guys both passed, theirs both bid, we racked up 6♥X= 6♥= 1♣X+1 1♣X= or similar all in the minus column.

[MrAce]

Pass
DBL
3♠

[wank]

it always make me laugh when people use acol to justify crap bidding. the hand above is a bag of shite. just because partner can make a non-gf 2/1 doesn't mean he can assume you were taking the mickey with your opening bid.

[wank]

anyway i would bid (1nt) x (2s) 3S considering the systemic limitations imposed 3NT. if that happens to go off because they lead to the KS at t1 and cash the spades when i knock out the ace of diamonds i'll consider myself a little unlucky.

[Cyberyeti]

wank, on 2017-August-18, 11:48, said:

it always make me laugh when people use acol to justify crap bidding. the hand above is a bag of shite. just because partner can make a non-gf 2/1 doesn't mean he can assume you were taking the mickey with your opening bid.

The intermediates are great, this is a hand with a lot of playing strength if partner has any sort of fit. I would open it without Q♠ and K&R gives it as more than 13 with Q♠ replaced by a small one. If it's a misfit, you will prob be in trouble, but that's the gamble you take.

[ahydra]

Gah, I had the vul wrong, sorry. EW vul, not NS.

---

At one table they did open with South (playing Precision) and reached 6D, East did well to lead a club but then West failed to hop DA and give the ruff. At our table I made a stupid mistake to let 2SX make, but I wasn't a fan of partner (South)'s X of 2S - prefer the 3S suggested by wank and MrAce. CY is on the right lines with the swing: we lost 17 (920 + 670) instead of gaining 10 (50 + 400 for 3NT or 5D - I don't think we can realistically find 6C, and I'd bet against opps finding the heart switch after two rounds of spades), so 27 IMPs.

ahydra

[pescetom]

The_Badger, on 2017-August-16, 09:32, said:

1) I'm opening 1♥ according to new rule of 18 allowed by EBU. Good suits. Easy rebid. (Director would probably be called if I didn't open.)

I agree with cyberyeti's observation about playing strength, but that seems to me not necessarily a reason to open,
given low hcp and evident opportunity to enter the bidding at next round with more idea of how things lie.

Please explain further about new rule of 18 allowed by EBU and why director could possibly be called.

[Zelandakh]

1. Pass
2. X
3. 2NT followed by 3♠

Your partner's double on #3 is horrendous.