jschafer

[hv=pc=n&s=sakht62daj852c987&n=sj7543hak83dq3c63&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp3cppdp3dppp]266|200[/hv] The play goes: T1: Q♣-3♣-K♣-9♣ T2: 7♦-2♦-K♦-3♦ T3: T♣-6♣-A♣-8♣ T4: 9♦-5♦-4♦-Q♦ Leaving: [hv=pc=n&s=sakht62daj8c7&n=sj7543hak83dc]133|200[/hv] Now what?

Nice beginner problem :)

AK842 973 You need 4 tricks and have all the entries you need.

I agree with 3♥ and Pass now. There are still a lot of bids between 3♥ and 4♠ that partner could have made to show more slam interest.

I'll Double but not happy about it.

Everything standard here, Double just tends to show a hand with 4♠ and 1♠ would show 5+♠. A second double would be take out according to our agreements. The scoring was IMPS.

You open the bidding with 1♣ and the auction proceeds as follows: 1♣ - (1♥) - X - (Pass) 1NT - (2♥) - 2♠ - (Pass) ?

Thanks for all the responses, they have been interesting to read! Unlike what the OP suggests, when playing against weaker pairs I do agree with the sentiments expressed about disclosing more (than legally obligated) in the spirit of the game. I got quite defensive after what they said and usually I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, over-disclosing rather than strictly what is required legally. Here my opponents were stronger than my partner and I am relatively sure they knew about the disclosure regulations and the meaning of 3♦ (they knew my p was a beginner and that I would be crazy to assume fit jumps or splinters in a situation like this). I already mentioned normally I would be happy to volunteer a description of 3♦ but I really didn't like their approach of trying to figure out what 3♦ was. First grilling my partner (who was a beginner but had given the correct explanation for 3♦!) and then forcing me to say what I actually held, claiming it was a bridge law. If I am not legally required to share this information, they either knew this wasn't legally obligated in which case I think their behaviour is highly unethical or they were genuinely mistaken and in that case they shouldn't claim it to be a bridge law unless they are certain. I know that the attitude of the opponents shouldn't affect my behaviour at the bridge table but sometimes it is hard not to be defensive when opponents are attempting to influence your game by trying to be intimidating :)

We had a simple auction of: 1♣-(1♥)-3♦-(Pass)- 3NT-All Pass During the auction the 1♥ bidder asked my partner what the 3♦ bid meant and she said we had not agreed anything. After the auction the 1♥ bidder asked me (I bid 3♦), what it actually was. He claimed that I was obligated to tell him what I meant by the bid regardless of what we had agreed (he has done a TD course but it still seemed strange to me, then again I don't know much about bridge laws). I said a 2♦ would be forcing but that 3♦ was undiscussed. How much am I forced to reveal about my hand in such situations? I realise this may change slightly from region to region but it seemed a bit odd that I would be forced to provide more information to the opponents than my partner. On the actual hand I just had a weak hand in ♦s and the contract was not going to win more or less tricks on any defence, so this is mostly a question of curiosity. This happened at a club in Belgium. Thoughts?

I want some of whatever you're having?

First you need to think about which layouts let you make that 3 tricks. First thinking in terms of splits and only then specific layouts sometimes makes this easier. Here only 3-2 breaks well let you make 3 tricks (you don't have the spots to set up a 4th round top card), the layouts are : HHx xx xxx HH Hx Hxx HH xxx Then you need to try and find a line that caters for as many of these as possible and if you have to choose between layouts go for more frequent layouts (eg. Hxx Hx would be more likely than xxx HH). A first round finesse by playing the Jack caters for the cases when the trumps are 3-2 and both honours onside. If it wins you need to play for HHx xx or HH xxx, both cases will give you 3 tricks easily after successful a finesse. If the finesse loses you can still recover if the remaining honour is doubleton. In that case you play the Ace next (dropping the honour) and drawing the last card in the suit with the Ten next.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa7hakt973da52ckt&n=s84hqj8d976caqj42]133|200[/hv] Can you 7NT get to 2/1 on this hand with North being dealer?

Would never bid 2♠ with this hand in balancing seat, it could be way weaker too. 2NT for me, I'm really liking ♥AT7x for NT.

Yes you need all the tricks, I have edited it.

♦AKJ86 ----- ♦975 You have all the entries and stoppers you need, you just need 5 tricks from this suit. Trick 1: A-4-5-2 If I told you RHO never gives count and always plays his lowest spot card given the choice, is the finesse on the second round of ♦ still superior to cashing two top honours? EDIT: Need 5 tricks, not 4.

Sorry for the confusion, you were correct as to how you would bid the 54 majors GF. Smolen just means you'd bid the shorter major instead of your longer one (after 1NT-2♣-2♦), that way the strong hand gets to play the contract if you end in 4M (similar idea to transfers).

Reverse smolen, aka natural :P

My hand was: ♠T863 ♥QT752 ♦A92 ♣J I know many would not bid 2♥ on this regardless of what 1♣ is. Imo it is far more suicidal over a strong ♣ than a regular 1♣ opening but I can see it is just my word claiming that I wouldn't do it over a strong ♣. As far as the 'strong' referring to the double goes, I would probably suspect that is what happened if I had been playing against beginners or intermediates and not pressed the issue. But when your opponents put 'World Class' in their profile I would at least expect them to know the alerting procedures for self-alerting. The TD didn't tell us to finish this board, he just said to keep playing and that he wasn't going to do anything regardless of the result.

Let me start by saying that I know very little about laws and rulings so I am just trying to get an idea of how this would have been handled by a TD. This was a BBO tourney so you have to self-alert and I'm not sure how that compares to rules for regular alerts. So the following happened when RHO deals and opens r/w: (1♣)-2♥-(Pass)-Pass (X)*-Pass-(Pass)-3♣ (X)-All Pass *RHO self-alerts 1♣ as strong after doubling (I do not know if my p asked for the 1♣ to be explained at this point or if he decided to alert it now himself). At the table my partner and I claimed that if the 1♣ had been alerted initially (when it was bid) I would not have preempted 2♥ (which was already dubious even at favourable). Even if 1♣ had been natural and there had been an alerting 'mistake' by alerting 1♣ as strong instead of double it meant we would not have ended up in 3♣X without the incorrect information provided. There was a break in tempo when RHO suddenly alerted 1♣ as strong and we asked about why now, so he had more than enough time to correct if he had made a mistake. The TD who came just took the easy way out, said had been no false information provided and told us to play the next hand. At no point did RHO say that they did not play strong ♣ or mention anything about the alerts when we asked (to the table) why 1♣ had only been alerted so late. LHO was quite abusive during this whole deal and also said that they do not play a strong ♣ after the hand! (presumably because he saw his partner had an 18/19 balanced 1♣ opener in a natural system). Both 2♥ and 3♣ would have been bad places to play in for our side and would result in near bottoms (MPs) for our side because they went down 1-2 too many vs their vul game. What do you make of this all and LHO's statement after the hand, how would you rule?

I would take that as 5♥4♠ to play (based on the reasoning that invitational sequences being less frequent and less important than yet another way to invite with majors). What would others assume the 1NT-2♣//2♦-2♥ and 1NT-2♦//2♥-2♠ sequences to be undiscussed?

I would assume that would show 5♥+4♠ invitational undiscussed. It seems more important to be able to show 5♥4♠ invitational frequency-wise than 55?

I would have signed off (opposite ~15-17 and 4♣ being a cue) so I guess that makes me an underbidder and a wuss :( Oh well...

Would people really bid 4♦ over 3NT on a 5-5 shape? I would have thought that shows at least 6-5.

See above. EDIT: Sorry I didn't realise how these poll options worked, fixed now.

I would bid 1NT because I Double way too agressively and on too many shapes already so I need to take some pressure off the Double. Double is my second choice but I really don't like passing these hands.