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.

Hand 1 would be an old-fashioned strong jump overcall if you were playing them. So east should double first and your are well worth game. The failure is one of hand evaluation. East has 15 HCP but a good seven card suit and a void. On values, East is worth shooting 4♠ herself but the double is better in case you are dead broke on the one hand or have the right cards for slam on the other. Hand 2 is a classic the five level belongs to the opponents hand. Maybe opponent have a perfecto and can make, but not too likely. Anyway three tricks are easier to scrounge than eleven. Hand 3 is actually the easiest. East become enamored with her rock crusher and had a brain fart. Could she have thought you were playing 1430? Or were you playing 1430 and you forgot? Hand 4 you might have stuck in a diamond bid at some point, but if they have decent methods, they are likely to get there anyway. Hand 5 the ♦Q is likely to be waste paper, but this is less certain than if the suit involved were a major. I will charitably not comment on your teammates' auction--though you can be certain I don 't approve.

At favorable vulnerability, it might well be well be 0 HCP and ♥xxxxxx. Perfectly legal,and can be sound strategy, especially against players who don't know how to cope with intervention Learning how to cope with intervention is much more important to your bridge education than learning the latest and greatest convention.

Playing this structure, opener has an absolutely easy 7NT. If the partnership would allow 3♦ on weaker diamonds, this is a perfect hand for the grand slam force, assuming you play that.

I'd have bid 3♠ as West (close but swayed by the excellent spades) and would have doubled as East (not close). If they stand the double they win but far less (500 vs 650 is merely unfortunate at imps, not the 11 imp disaster of the actual result).

I had read the title1X-1M Responding with 3CM as asking about responding 1M on a three card suit, which I've never done nor will, but was rather about 1X-1M-2M with 3-card support, which I almost always do with a stiff and will consider with xx in a side suit.

The Kaplan-Sheinwold system book had a paragraph or or so about choosing which way to violate system with 4=5=2=2 shape and insufficient values to reverse: When only a small bit short of a reverse, open 1 ♥ and stretch to rebid 2♠. With strong hearts and weak spades, open 1♥ and rebid 2♥. With strong spades and weak heats, open 1♠ and rebid 2♥ (!) With weakish majors and strong doubletons, open 1♥ and pass 1NT. 2♣ wasn't even considered. Rather than contemplate bidding 2♣ as most people would these days, Edgar inverted the Kaplan Inversion about the same time as Richard Granville was inventing it in England. (I play KI, by the way--this is not a criticism.)

The main advantage of opening 1♣ on any balanced hand out of you 1NT range is that it enables you to use an unbalanced 1♦ opening, which can have a much better response and rebid structure than a standard 1♦. Don't be afraid of passing 1♣ with a weak hand and no major even with a club void--you almost never play it there. If you do and partner is minimum, they just missed a game and you can afford to go down quite a bit (down seven not vulnerable is a good save and even at unfavorable down three shows a profit). If opener is strong balanced or has long clubs, he may scramble seven tricks anyway, or at least make enough to be a good result vs. their partial. The one sequence you have to worry about is 1♣ - (P) - P - (X) ; P - (P) and in that case you can run to diamonds or make an SOS redouble. If in spite of that they nail you and you go down too much that's one bad result to offset many good ones. In fact the main source of loss isn't from being doubled, it's going down a couple undoubled when 1NT or 1♦ would have made or gone down less -- bad at match points, not as bad at imps. Overall, T-Walsh has a fairly strong positive expected value.

My grandfather played (3♠) - X as takeout, and I'm 64 in April. Fishbein himself stopped playing Fishbein after a while, it is a poor convention. Of course there are more hands where it's reasonable to leave the takout double in than in the (1♠) - X case.

I don't think K&R is accurate for flat hands. My personal evaluation is based on Danny Kleinman with modifications, so I rate this hand a bad 16. 1♣ is my choice. BTW, when we played 12-15 1NT in Precision, we required 9HCP or "rule of 17" for a positive response--we responded 1♦ with a flat 8.

Also when you get Av- and got less than 40%.