Leaderboard

You pick up the following hand in first seat. ♠ AQ832 ♥ Q6 ♦ KT42 ♣ J9 The bidding went: 1♠ - P - 4♣* - P 4♠ - AP *splinter Strange, opps have 10+ clubs between them and haven't mentioned them. Very odd. So, what sort of hand might you expect from partner after this auction?… Perhaps a normal hand like ♠Kxxx ♥KJxxx ♦AJx ♣x? Maybe partner forgot we played splinters somehow or meant to bid bergen? Perhaps the opponents are meek? Story continues in the spoiler…

Provided that responder promises GF if raising the minor with a 4 card major, then it is playable for the raise not to deny a major. It is also playable for the raise to deny a major absolutely. And each camp has its following. If your raise denies a major, then you need to have finely tuned continuations following a 1M response. If your raise does not deny a major, then you need to have finely tuned continuations following a simple inverted raise of a minor. Personally I have a preference for the raise not denying a major, with the fine-tuning of a minor suit raise being the less arduous problem to solve, but I get the impression that I am in the minority camp. In my opinion the former method (1M response follow-ups when a raise denies a major) requires a more tortuous and artificial structure in order to cope with the possibilities, and to deny a major with the simple raise provides a surfeit of bidding space. That does not seem the right balance to me. I also think that forcing a 1M response initially concealing the fit makes you more vulnerable to a contested auction. Whatever the merits, I would tend to discount the rantings of someone who insists that either method is unplayable and that in consequence it must be (eg) "an absolute requirement that the raise denies a major". Such statements diminish the general credibility of the opinions of the advocate.

I think most BBF members have learned quite a bit from these forums, otherwise they wouldn't come here. And it seems only logical to use what you have learned, once you and your partner really understand it. As with anything in life: What is the purpose of gaining knowledge when you refuse to use it? Everything I read about agreements goes through my convention test: Is it making a significant improvement over what I do now? Is it easy to remember, for me and my partner? Does it fit our style and goals? If the answer to all these questions is yes, then it is quite likely that we will try it out. Rik

This is wrong. In the online game, it is the bidder who self-alerts, but in any event it is the understanding between the partners that matters, not the partner's interpretation. Oh, and please don't shout - it doesn't give your posts greater authority.

After south makes a game try, north should bid a game. Not that it's a great game but south did have the (sort of) wasted DK.

The situation I'm talking about it when both partner and RHO have passed and if you now pass you will be on lead. I don't know about other jurisdictions but in the UK the procedure is to pass, ask any questions you have about the opponents' auction, lead face down and ask partner if he has any questions. So my question is, is there anything wrong with habitually asking questions about the opponents' auction before you make your final pass? It makes no difference if you are going to pass anyway but if you are considering doubling and want information, the fact that you always ask questions at this point will conceal the fact that you are thinking about doubling, both from your partner and from the opponents. If you usually wait until your lead to ask questions, then when you ask questions during the auction at your final turn to call everyone at the table will know you are thinking of doubling. Of course this practice might be best avoided when you think that if you double that will not end the auction and that questions you ask might give useful information to partner, but that is extremely rare. The practice would also help to reinforce the habit of thinking about what you are going to lead before doubling a contract! So what would you think of a player who habitually does this? And is it an improvement?

While some idiosyncratic players agree with you, the mainstream consensus is solidly in your partner's camp. I don't like the simple versions of inverted minor sequences that most players use, but at the IA level they are ok. Most players who use an inverted minor are focused mostly on whether to bid or avoid 3N, as the most common game, with minor suit games and slams somewhat secondary. It is for that reason that most methods focus on showing or denying stoppers rather than trying to find another fit. To me this seems very sensible. In the complex methods I prefer, in inverted minors, we focus on showing the general nature of opener's hand (balanced, unbalanced, gf, minimum) with the initial responses, and then, in some sequences, show stoppers. We never show a second suit, with the exception of showing 5+ clubs after opening 1♦. In particular, we can't even show a side 5 card major! However, even with this approach, we are usually giving notrump serious consideration since most hands of roughly 24-28 hcp with a minor fit, and no marked shortness, end up in 3N. It is important not only to look at the gains and costs of focusing on exploring notrump issues, as do most, or keeping an eye open for a 4-4 major suit fit, as you prefer: you need also to consider whether showing the major initially imposes costs on getting back into the minor when no major fit exists. To me, using bidding space over 2m to explore and find a 4-4 major is very wasteful. I suspect, for example, that you can't confirm the fit below 3M, and that even when you do, neither bidder has said very much about their strength. This means that you have virtually no bidding space left to explore slam possibilities. By contrast, if opener fits responder's 1M response, he can immediately show the fit and provide some information about his hand size, and even, with good extras, his shape, thus greatly enhancing bidding accuracy. So I see your approach as making major suit bidding more difficult than it need be, while also making exploration of stoppers for 3N very difficult. The only benefit might be increased efficiency in minor suit contracts, but even there I doubt that there are significant gains to be had, provided that your partnership spends a little time on such gadgets as xyz, or fourth suit forcing auctions, which allow responder, over opener's major fit denying rebid, to establish a gf at a low level, with an artificial bid, and then confirm the fit at his next call. In short, I think you are wrong, and your partner is correct.

I have seen this. I, his understanding opponent, understandingly accepted his "lead". After we laughed a bit, he doesn't do it any more.

South's remark violated stop regulations as well as being deliberate UI. IMO the director should rule 5♣= and consider a PP for South.

♥ can not be the correct lead in "interesting bridge hands" forum so I lead small ♦ http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

Last year I was called as a TD. After playing a board they tried to put their cards back. At this moment 1 player noticed that there were already cards in his box cause he took the cards from the wrong board. So you´re really fast to notice the problem after trick 3.

I met online bridge at Ville De Lille - France, World Champ. I used to go to bridge club everyday, I mean literally everyday since I was 18. And then I opened my own bridge club and had to go both clubs everyday. One of them was my business, and mostly my students, other one was where I give lessons free to college students - high school students and play with good players. Once I met the online bridge, I immediately cut all my offline bridge activities except than professional causes and big events. Mostly I was fascinated to be able to play with different people from different cultures and nations. And bridge I play at the bridge club was never enough for me, even though I played at least 6-7 hours everyday and after the game we all just drink at the pub next door until we all get boozed up by alcohol and talking the hands. (This is the part I missed about Turkey and other European countries that I lived for a while) But the number of good players in my city was limited and we all knew each other from the way they breath. Playing almost same system etc etc...Online bridge gave me opportunity to play bridge about 15-18 hours a day, this was like heaven for me. Now I was able to play as pd or opponent with other good players from Turkey and then from other countries. I have to also mention this; I was able to see at most 3-4 hands played by top celebrities in bridge magazines. Like Garozzo, Meckstroth, Rodwell, Hamman, Helgi.....all hands were hand picked by editor of course. First I was disappointed when see some of them go down in a contract when I thought they could easily make. I learnt that the people whom I thought were GODLIKE, were also making mistakes sometimes or perhaps they were just playing better line which happens to lose on this particular hand. Now I was able to sit and watch them. They were all over the place in OKBridge. This was like my dream that came true. 24/7 available games, kibitzing, learning....I fell in love with it and %80 decreased my offline bridge activity. But that is just me http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

For the Redouble only two things make sense to me. 1) Doubleton support and competitive values. 2) A modification of Rosencranz to show Ace or King doubleton. Including the Queen could result in an unsuccessful underlead by CHO. With 3+ support for the overcall suit, we really like raising the suit.

I'd just bid 4H. Partner could have 4 or 5 hearts, too. I wouldn't invite slam. I like to play thrump doubles here because it handles responder's off shape hands...such as what he actually held. Opposite a thrump double, I wouldn't bid 3N with a stiff ace because I can't hold up etc. I ought to be able to bid 4C without suggesting much of a preference for clubs. Partner will expect 5, but sometimes he will have 4-cd support and other times he'll be able to bid 4D (and you rebid 4H along the way to supporting diamonds) or 4H. If I want to make sure I avoid a 4-3 club fit, I could rebid 4S but now I'm giving up on playing 4H. Edit: actually, playing thrump doubles 1C (3S) dbl P 4S probably ought to be a big hand with hearts or hearts and a minor

You did not give EW hands so we are having hard time to decide whether we should stay in 4 or bid 6 http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

If declarer is 3352 with 1 heart stopper, he will not hold up on the second spade giving you a chance to now set up 3 or 4 heart tricks while you still hold the ace of clubs. His most likely line is to win the spade, play a club to dummy, then go after diamonds. Likewise, with 3343 and 1 heart stopper (and KJx and AJx count as one heart stopper), he is not going to hold up on the spade, his most likely line is to hope for Ax of clubs and failing that play diamonds. The same applies when he is 3433 or 3532, the difference is that there are many more holdings that declarer can have that he will consider "2 stoppers" in diamonds that actually aren't since we have 3 small, including AJT, AQT, KQT. The other likely reason for holding up twice is something like what is actually happening, declarer is 3442 with strength in both suits, in which case a diamond is also the indicated play. I would say that shifting to a heart is a pretty brainless play.

Sure. I have *absolutely no idea* what that means. I believe that I would be one of 99.99% of ACBL bridge players. Frankly, without the explanation I would have thought "teams of eight" or the like.

FWIW I play 3♣ as GF here. This is how it works for me: 2♦ = puppet to 2♥ (opener bids 2♥ by default, breaks show outliers) 2♥ = invitational 2♠ - GF with ♦ values/suit 2NT = bat GF 3♣ = nat GF after 2♦-2♥: 2♠ = GF with spade values/suit 2NT = inv 3♣ = inv 3♦ = inv 4-6 There is various other exotica, but that is the gist of it. Back to the problem - I lead the diamond ace.