Leaderboard

My policy is to only rebid 2♠ when it is wrong.

Agree with bridgewinners, you have to overcall with 6 tricks in your hand. You even have two defensive tricks. I think the redouble was silly. 5D is down opposite any normal 3♦ overcall if responder has his double. Why can't doubler have two aces and JT9x of trumps? Are you saying KJ KJx AQxxxx xx is not an overcall??

It's somewhat alarming that Ted Cruz retweeting porn is just about the only even remotely human action he's seemingly ever performed. It is sort of the perfect scandal for him, aside from learning that he is, in fact, a lizard person who dropped out of the primary to tend to his thousands of glistening eggs. The reptile doth protest too much, methinks.

I think bidding 7♥ is right. Down 5 is what we'd expect opposite a typical preempt, and that's a good save against their small slam. So the whole logic of "Even if 7♣ makes, you are booked for a bad score anyway" doesn't convince me.

http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:b9010e74.97a1.11e7.8113.0cc47a39aeb4-1505210650&u=elyk25 Elyk25 v. Zzzzisaac 53-2

Terrence Reece wrote of a hand in which, playing against two little old ladies, he needed to find a queen in order to make a slam (grand I think). He had another suit of something like A10x in dummy opposite KQJ in hand. He led the J from hand and LHO hesitated for a little before playing small. He then led the J of the key suit from hand. This time LHO did not hesitate so he let it run, successfully.

I couldn't blame Partner too much on rebidding 1NT as 1♠ is usually 4-5, but he does have 6 honours in the black-suits and only thin red-suit-stoppers. Yeah, the problem is most agreements are designed to find the right game opposite a minimum opener, such montsers by responder are very hard to describe and I'd probably have to guess at some point I hope I would be able to produce something like that with my partner 1C-1D 1S-2H 3C (no stop in ♥) - 3H (half-stopper) 3NT - 4C (now my 3H should be reinterpreted as ♥A and trying for a ♣-slam 4D - 4H 4S - 4NT (Blackwood, 1430) 5C - 5D 5NT - 6C know I know about the ♠A, the ♦K and the ♣Q and no major-suit King 7♣ might still be missed though and up to 4NT bidding would not have changed if the ♠A were the ♠K, so might not be much more scientific then blasting 6C instead of 2H.... regards JW

There is an old bridge adage "Eight ever,nine never" meaning with 8 cards missing the Queen, you should take the finesse. With 9 cards you should play off the AK and hope the Queen falls in two rounds.

http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:58c80e5a.9643.11e7.8113.0cc47a39aeb4-1505060165&u=xavierf Xavierf Broze 19-12 Great match! Please have a look developers to the defence from my robot partner on board 6, where he throws from ♦10963, first the 6 and then 10 and the 9. So the 5 in dummy promotes. He even throws the 10 and the 9 on two high cards of me... Luckily the robot could Always make it by finessing on the 9 of spades, but I don't know if the robot would do that.

http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:e0d24bc7.9767.11e7.8113.0cc47a39aeb4-1505185806&u=linxu01 linxu01 60 : 19 Hrothgar

Broze / Powerduck 13-24 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:2d98b6eb.9717.11e7.8113.0cc47a39aeb4-1505151146&u=powerduck

stoppiello / powerduck 29-18 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:914ae019.9630.11e7.8113.0cc47a39aeb4-1505052099&u=powerduck

There's some quality out-of-the-box thinking to advance the game. ;)

I understand writing this about the various trolls that come here but Nigel? Come on man - don't be an idiot!

hi MrAce, I love the challenge of a difficult hand, and I'd wish I was as quick at analysing these problems as some players, but this is an interesting point in itself, having knowledge of GIB (for example, the ♦ finesse is losing, ♥s are probably 4-1, etc.) is probably making this into a double dummy hand where a player will make a 'contrived' (for want of a better word) play well below the standard odds of let's say a 50% finesse for example, to achieve success. It's great having knowledge of GIB, and knowing that it will make things as difficult as possible for you, but if the odds of success are dependent on a layout of the cards that occurs, let's say just 10% of the time as a random figure, surely you are playing against the odds only because it is GIB. If West had bid ♦s on this hand, then many declarers would make the assumption that the ♦ finesse will lose and find this alternative line. Fair enough. That is information provided in the bidding - that's different than knowing how a bridge robot works (without bidding). The point I'm making is because you are familiar with GIB, you are now probably playing the hand differently than if you were playing against humans. And that's probably a talking point in itself. And yes, it'll be great to see the whole hand soon. My brain is well and truly fried on this problem!

100% blame with North. Those commentators who advocate opening 1♦ or that 1♦ "is not a bad bid" should hang their heads in shame. The rule of 20 is one of those rules that should be consigned to the rubbish/garbage bin. Many a time I see experts opening poor 10 or 11 point hands, and if they can do it, it must be right. Not in my book! The one thing I look for when opening at the one level is quick tricks (A, AK, KQ, AQ, K usually supported with a J or 10) not turkeys with stuffing (this being Xmas lol!). There's a good case for passing with the North hand (especially vulnerable) as technically opening a weak 2 or 3 bid in a minor with an outside 4 card major is anathema, but, I see many players do this nowadays so 2♦ is so much better than 1♦ as the hand offers little in defence. E/W are dead lucky (or cheating - it does happen, sadly) to find the unbeatable ♥ game, but overall North's bidding is truly atrocious in my personal opinion. (Hope you weren't North :unsure: )