mikestar13

Bad players luck into a fair number of good results, the effect is magnified in small/weak fields. A partner of mine had a tendency to dwell on mistakes and make further mistakes while dithering over the last one. I had a talk with him and we agreed henceforth we were allowed only one bad board per error. Our results improved significantly. Examine yourself and judge if dwelling on mistakes contributes to more mistakes (you might also solicit partner's opinion--sometimes partners can see weaknesses in our game that we have blind spots about). But the specific hand you cite is bad luck pure and simple: 4♠ is a bad contract that happens to make, always an undeserved good board for the bidders.

I agree, penalty doubles of slams in matchpoints have better odds than in rubber or imps, but not good enough (excluding slams bid as an obvious sacrifice or a mortal lock like KQJ of trumps).

Pass, if spades should be raised at all, the raise should have been last round. Now 2♠ scarcely gets in their way at all and if partner is minimum with four spades, pray for a 3-3 spade split: if they are 4-2 four two, you have just put your neck on the chopping block.

Absolutely I remember my ancient copy of Goren said precisely this.

But with 33 the chances of the missing point being precisely AK suited is rather small, and is then only a sure set if they are in the opening leader's hand. Surely a worthwhile risk.

This is the type of hand that desperately needs a gadget if playing 2/1. Either 2♣ Gazzili or 2NT artificial and forcing followed by 3♥ is perfect: a hand with the right shape for a direct 3♥ bid but more values. Of course this prime 18 with a good six card suit is bread and butter for Precision or Polish. 2/1 players need to have conventional help to keep even. If you don't have it, every bid is wrong.

When playing with a beginner or a novice who is still tone deaf to inferences from the enemy auction, never lead trumps is a good rule for them. A trump lead will lose more often than it wins averaged over all auctions. It a poor rule for decent intermediates or better.

Missing a slam on these cards is not a problem. The mesh between the two hands is borderline miraculous. Opener has not one but two stiff kings, but partner's measly 7 points included an ace in one of the king suits that can be cashed separately and a stiff diamond and three to the queen in trumps. So declarer can ruff two losing diamonds and ditch the third on ♥A. I couldn't bid this unless I had a wire. Neither could any of your competitors, some of whom likely more skiled than your partnership. Remember this truth for all forms of bridge and methods of scoring: 4♠ making 6 never scores worse than 6♠ making 4. You will get too many of the latter results if you reach for miracles.

I first learned the golden rule of bidding from Alan Truscott's books: "never rebid a five card suit, except in a forcing situation where alternatives are worse." So it might be reasonable to bid 1♠-2♥-2♠ with a five carder depending on your two-over one style, but 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♥ absolutely must be six cards. (Perhaps I'd make an exception with KQJTx depending on the rest of the hand, but usually not -- this can get you to game opposite a stiff.)

With 32 combined HCP, it is rare for the missing 8 points to be precisely two aces, and if they aren't both in the opening leader's hand, they may not cash one or both. I have made a grand slam off two cashable aces after a Blackwood misunderstanding. Opening leader didn't have either, and lead another suit, allowing me to take thirteen tricks.

Never heard of Archimedes over a big club. Alan Truscott is said to have invented the Archimedes double 2♣ - (2♥) - X with 2♣ strong, artificial and forcing. It shows 0-3 point, while pass is 4+ and forcing to game.The double is intended to show the responder is so weak that an opener intending to rebid 2NT may not have game so would be wise to pass for penalties if possible. It is said that he thought of the idea in the bathtub. Rumors that he ran naked through the city streets shouting Eureka! are highly exaggerated.

If we are going to use 1M as 4 cards, why limit it to 4-4-4-1? Use them with longer minors as well. The 1♦ opening can cover minor two suiters as well.

It might be moved to Natural Systems, though the definition is fuzzy. The last truly natural system I'm aware of is EHAA as originally devised--everything else depends on a greater or lesser degree of artificiality. My thought for the 21st century definition of "Natural System" is: All one level openings are non forcing .1NT shows a balanced hand.1M shows at least four cards in the suit.1m shows either at least four cards in the suit or a balanced hand.The suit bids do not suggest length in another suit (though they need not deny it)."Opening Pass" is not forcing.No distinction is made on the basis of any other call except the the opening bid.

If our partnership standard is rule of 20, I pass this in a heartbeat. While the hand technically qualifies, look at all the negative factors. ♥KQ has already been aptly described -- it is quite horrible, one negative factor for the insufficiently guarded queen, another for the inflexibility caused by the absence of small cards. Now let's look at those long suits, headed by the queen and jack respectively, with neither protected by a higher honor nor supported by a ten. Two more negatives, I can reasonably add another because only two of my five honors are in my long suits (with nine cards in two suits, expectation is three honors to the nearest whole number, and I'd expect to see four rather more often than two. In my experience, a negative factor is about -1/3 of a point (a positive is about +1/3 -- and this hand has none). So adding my adjusted 9.333 HCP to my nine cards in the long suits, this hand is a good rule of 18 opening, but because of the tactical value of the fifth spade, I'd stretch and open 1♠ if our standard is rule of 19, but a partner who chose to pass this hunk of junk wouldn't even get a raised eyebrow from me. Of course it would be a mandatory third seat opening.

That seems the most likely of all. After 5♣ the queen ask is 5♦, then she bid 6♠ after your tried to sign off. That sound more like somone who was looking for a grand but got a bad answer. A thorough, non rancorous discussion of this auction seems merited, to be sure you are on the same page.