[AlexJonson]

 lamford, on 2011-May-31, 11:20, said:

Perhaps you should have polled a few players in the coffee lounge to get a more sober opinion. And 3H is beaten fairly easily as East has two trump tricks, even if you run the nine of hearts and finesse the diamond, as you still have to ruff a diamond in dummy, so I don't know why you think it would make half the time. Perhaps half the Easts in the bar would have covered the heart as well? The defence cashes three black winners and then leads, say, another club, and there is no play for 3♥.

And I know for sure that Don Smedley, a Grandmaster of both bridge and double-dummy problems (not to mention being a FIDE master of chess composition), was at the event. Perhaps he might have been consulted about the play in 3♥?

Sour grapes Lamford? 3S seems (as I said, compelling). Sure you happen to squeak one off v 3H (as I said).

Nice to recall good old days of double dummy pre-computers.

[lamford]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-May-31, 14:58, said:

Sour grapes Lamford? 3S seems (as I said, compelling). Sure you happen to squeak one off v 3H (as I said).

Nice to recall good old days of double dummy pre-computers.

I don't know who the players were, so I don't give two shakes of a rat's tail what the adjustment was. All I know is that East bidding 3♠ with UI, and North making 3♥ are pretty far off the mark.

And where are dburn and jallerton when you need them? I am sure they would not bid 3♠ in a month of Sundays. Perhaps they would bid 3NT; that needs a diamond lead to beat it.

[lamford]

sorry; duplicate.

[Fluffy]

competing to 3♠ with a 4333 full of defensive stuff? I wouldn't even consider it a LA.

I agree with aguahombre that West doesn't seem to believe his own explanation, he has a 5m drive if he does.

[nige1]

 lamford, on 2011-May-31, 11:20, said:

Perhaps you should have polled a few players in the coffee lounge to get a more sober opinion. And 3H is beaten fairly easily as East has two trump tricks, even if you run the nine of hearts and finesse the diamond, as you still have to ruff a diamond in dummy, so I don't know why you think it would make half the time. Perhaps half the Easts in the bar would have covered the heart as well? The defence cashes three black winners and then leads, say, another club, and there is no play for 3♥.

And I know for sure that Don Smedley, a Grandmaster of both bridge and double-dummy problems (not to mention being a FIDE master of chess composition), was at the event. Perhaps he might have been consulted about the play in 3♥?

At double-dummy this is an Interesting deal. 3♥ by South needs a ♣ lead to beat it. And North can make against any defence, If you swap North's ♥7 for dummy's ♥2.

[lamford]

 Fluffy, on 2011-June-01, 21:16, said:

competing to 3♠ with a 4333 full of defensive stuff? I wouldn't even consider it a LA.

Clearly you are not in the same peer group of those in the bar at Hinckley. It is an expensive bar, too, so I am surprised that those surveyed by VixTD were not sober enough to pass.

[dburn]

Of course I wouldn't bid three spades. I wouldn't bid three spades even if I'd seen the hand records, because if I did bid three spades people would realise that I'd seen the hand records.

[bluejak]

 paulg, on 2011-May-24, 09:20, said:

Particularly when he may only have a weak notrump with just four spades.

I think you should investigate this. In traditional Acol, a player with a weak 1NT hand not playing a weak 1NT would make a prepared opening because a 2NT rebid showed 15-16, or, more likely these days, 15+. One effect of that is that while playing 4cM, a hand which has opened a major has either 5+ cards or 15+ [or both]. As a consequence in many sequences it is reasonable to deduce that partner has a 5-card major on this occasion and act accordingly.



Personally I would pass 3♥ myself - and I do play the above methods. At teams it is important to bid 3♠ only if you suspect both 3♥ and 3♠ are making, which seems wildly unlikely to me.