SimonFa

Pairs white V red against experienced pair. (1NT1) X2 (XX3) ? 1. 12-14. 2. 15+ and partner has a habit of going on light hands however we haven't bid this sequence before so she is probably being honest. FWIW We have no agreement about what shape partner should hold. 3. Transfer to Clubs. ♠KJxxxx ♥JTxx ♦x ♣Ax What would you bid here? I must admit I and a few others failed miserably. Lets say you pass to hear partners next bid and the bidding goes: (2♣) 2♦ (P) ? Now what? Thanks in advance, Simon

Yes, he just blurted it out and the end of the auction.

Regular club night, handicap pairs. New partnership that night because both our regular partners were away. We had about 10 minutes beforehand to agree systems. Its fair to say that even as a regular partnership we would be around or just below average of this club field. Opps are a regular pair and relatively strong. Playing Director and the first hand of the night. EBU jurisdiction. Note: The vulnerability is wrong, should be none vulnerable [hv=pc=n&s=sj6ht8dj96542ca93&w=s72hkdakqt7ckjt82&n=st9853haqj54d83c4&e=sakq4h97632dcq765&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1d2n(Alerted)p3cp(South%20explained%202NT%20as%20Spades%20and%20Clubs)3hppp]399|300[/hv] At the end of the bidding South said that the explanation given to the 2NT bid was incorrect and that it was for the majors. I (West) called for the Director and explained that we had been given MI. This was accepted and Director asked if we thought we were damaged. I wasn't sure I could say that with the correct information I would have bid 4♣ as this could help ops and said that I wasn't sure. North also explained that her 3♥ was to correct partners bid - I wasn't sure whether this was an LA and that she had used UI but let that go. The Director said we should call him back at the end of the hand if we thought we were damaged. 3 Hearts went down 3 and we had to then decide if we were damaged. My sense was that we were and partner said that had I bid 4!c she would have definitely gone to 5 over 4!H and wasn't sure after a pass by North. North said she wouldn't have bid 4♥. At this stage we were already well behind and some tables had finished their second boards and getting ready for a move. We could see that the Director wasn't dummy at his own table. In the end I accepted the result and moved on as partner was being passive and I could see there was a bit of agitation around. OK, I accept that I was probably wrong to move on, but say I had insisted we wait for the Director what would have happened? How could he tell if we were damaged as he couldn't look at the hands and he couldn't call for another Director who had played the hand? If it helps the results of the night were: N: 1 x 3♥ -3 N: 1 x 3♥ -2 E: 1 x 4♥ -2 (yes that's correct) W: 2 x 5♣ -1 W: 3 x 5♣ = W: 1 x 5♣ +1 W: 1 x 6♣ -1 In the end we had 9/20 and 5♣scored 16/20 but an adjustment wouldn't have affected Opps position and we would have moved up one place but still been less than 50%. Thanks in advance, Simon

The question is do I play declarer for 7 or 8 Spades? On that bidding I'm more inclined to think he started with 8 and partner can only have 2 Spades, so if I lead up to A♣ declarer gets to dummy with the Q♠ after ruffing out the Hearts. In which case the contract is cold as he only has 1 Diamond loser to pitch. So we have to play declarer for 7 Spades and assume they are solid, which means partner has 3 and declarer can't get back in to dummy to pitch his 2 Diamond losers. Did I say 2 Diamond losers? Surely partner can't have the A♦? Wouldn't he have led it? Maybe not. So this gives us two routes to defeat the contract: either a trump promotion and a Diamond if Declarer has Ax and can't pitch the loser(s) on Hearts or 2 Diamonds if partner has the Ace and declarer xx. As this is a puzzle I'm going for the 2 Diamond option and leading the King. I think in the club I would probably go for the trump promotion as that agricultural bidding implies a guess.

I haven't seen much on discard systems and was wondering about the various pro's and cons. Lots of people at my club play DODDS and I have to occasionally use it when I play with them. I don't like it that much, too much to think about when under pressure and tired at the end of the evening. I suspect that much of that is lack of practice but does appear to over complicate what should be a simple message. I also find it difficult to send a "no preference" signal. Another partner, a beginner who attends regular lessons, was taught revolving Lavinthal and sticks to it religiously. I can see it has lots of flexibility and don't mind playing it although again it requires a bit more care at the end of the evening. When I started playing last year my then partner preferred a simple attitude signal, upside down, and I've been using that with one partner since. I like its simplicity and we can usually find a small card in the suit we would like leading. I accept it does have problems, if we don't have a small card signalling discouragement of another suit might not imply the suit we want. It also has an advantage over the other systems in that you can send a "definitely not this suit" signal by playing a high card. It is a rare case but I have used it to good effect. I also find that a simple attitude signal works well on BBO as most pick-up partners seem to understand "low encourages" in my profile. Another problem I find is that some partners at club level over-read discards to the detriment of the defence. A couple of times I have had to field comments among the lines of "..but I thought you wanted X lead ?" when a switch has let a contract make. Some don't seem to understand restricted choice, especially as the hand progresses, and I have even had to point out that they shouldn't switch to what they think is a signal if it is clearly not in the interests of the defence. What do other members think on this subject? Am I being overly sensitive to the issue?

According to my SAYC book its a 1♦ open.

I was, 4 down.

I wasn't :(

I discounted ♠K but still got agggressive.

Just another night on BBO, but what say you? Pick-up partner, we W v R: (1♠) X (2♣) ? ♠K93 ♥KJ9653 ♦2 ♣T83 This isn't a "look at how bad people are" question, I only want to know if my reading and actions were reasonable, so please look at it in a way that you would expect and not looking for a catch. Thanks in advance Simon

Thank you for the informative discussion of my previous thread on questions at the end of bidding. I have another end of bidding question, this time hypothetical, but based on a real world experience. It also has links to the discussion about 1NTx. Here in the UK, or at least where I play, Lucas 2 is very popular amongst stronger pairs. This is a two level opening showing a 5-card major and a minor suit. From what I gather the values are generally pre-emptive, but depending on partnership agreement and this bid is alerted as opposed to a weak 2 bid which is announced. Furthermore, a weak bid in Benji Acol, the most popular system most likely to be played by those using Lucas 2, shows 6-card major. At the end of the bidding can I ask for clarification of the alert and an explanation of Lucas 2 ensuring it is a 5-card major if I think partner may not fully understand what Lucas 2 means, even of I do? Following on, can I also legitimately ask under what conditions they would open a 5-card weak 2? The reason I ask is that I was on the receiving end of not understanding the alert and didn't realise partner was trying to knock-out declarers 5 trumps, not 6, and we got a bottom. Thanks in advance, Simon

Thanks for the answers, good to know no crime was committed. To answer a question above, yes we always lead face down. Which leads to another questions..... If you get an explanation that entitles partner to change his lead or even change the last bid what then?

Sorry sloppy wording - 3♠ was a jump, 4♥ a bid

I don't know if this is the correct place for this question, please move to B/I if it isn't. EDIT: Changed sloppy wording to describe 4♥ bid Partner opened: 2♦* (3S) P (4H) All pass *Announced as weak. 3S wasn't alerted and something just didn't seem right. I had a reasonably good hand which was 4/4 in the majors, but opposite the weak 2D didn't have any future. Partner is quite indisciplined on first chair opening and I would normally take her to be at the bottom end of our points range (5-11) for this bid. When the 3S bid was made I assumed that it was pre-emptive in nature and knowing LHO to be cautious was surprised when she bid 4♥, especially as I had 2 honours. Before dummy went down I asked about the nature of the 3S bid and was told by declarer it was strong. However when it went down it was definitely pre-emptive. So, instead of playing partner for about 5 points I now played her for more and and constructed my defence around that knowledge. I don't know if that change definitely led to us beating the contract as it was a poor contract, but we may have got an extra trick out of it. Was my question and change of behaviour legal and ethical? Thanks in advance, Simon

I was chided a couple of times for asking about alerts and then not bidding when I first started playing club bridge last year. My response was along the lines of ".... how do I know I'm not going to bid if don't know what that bid means?" Now I understand more systems and who plays them I don't need to ask, but if something unusual pops up I will ask even if it is unlikely that I will bid. I appreciate this is not quite what the OP had on mind but the laws and regulations have to take in to account these different situations, don't they?

I recently bought Bridgemaster 2000, at the recommendation of a fellow forum member, because I wanted to improve my declarer play. Its an excellent programme and I've really enjoyed the challenges it sets. So far it has concentrated a lot on safety plays, something I hadn't really considered although I had read about them. Last night, playing teams, I found myself in a 4♥contract that was relatively easy if a trump a finesse through dummy worked. Previously I would have just gone for it knowing that the rest of the field had the same problem and it didn't really matter if it lost because it was the same for everyone. However, thanks to Bridgemaster 2000 I then considered what would happen with the distribution and realised I needed to guard against a 4-1 split and couldn't do anything against a 5-0 split. So when the finesse worked I made the safety play of losing a trump to guard against 4-1. As expected trumps were 3-2 and most teams made 11 against my 10. I appreciate that this is teams so it didn't matter and I shall console myself on two points - it was the correct thing to do in teams (and we were vulnerable) and the only other player who appears to have made the play was one of the strongest in my seat. I had read about safety plays but it is one thing reading a dry book and another playing against a bridge programme that always wins unless you get the the declarer play spot on. I now look forward to getting my just rewards for the investment in time and money and understanding other declarer useful plays from Bridgemaster 2000. Regards, Simon PS Thanks to the forum member who recommended Bridgemaster 2000, I haven't got time to go though old posts and find out who you were, but great tip.

Sry, fixed opening bid to 1♥

EDIT: Fixed opening bid to 1♥ Playing against one of the strongest, if not strongest, pairs last night an interesting point came up. I dealt, MPs both vul. P (P) P 1[♥] 3♣ (P) P (3♠) P (4♥) all pass Dummy had 4/4 in majors and 3 points (K♠ IIRC)and contract was -1 when we made 3♦ and 1♣. The 9-card Spade fit was cold. In the post mortem* declarer asked partner why they selected the 9-card fit over the 8-card fit knowing he had a monster and wanted to play in game**? That way he would have somewhere to park a loser? I know I, and I suspect many other B/Iers, would have selected the 9-card fit so when the dust had settled I asked about this idea of selecting the 8-card fit and he said it was fairly standard bridge practice. I don't for one second doubt him but I have not come across this thinking (despite reading rather a lot of books and internet articles in the past year) but when I thought about it it did make sense if you are confident trumps are strong and not breaking badly. Are there any guidelines about when to select the 8-card fit over the 9-card? Does anyone have any links to a discussion on this point? Thanks in advance, Simon * I love listening to their post mortems, they are always entertaining and educational as they are both quite tetchy with each other but always extremely courteous and helpful with opps. **Apparently by not doubling me and giving partner the option of playing for penalties it made the hand a bit stronger than a standard reverse.

Simple beginners' mantra - when declarer doesn't lead trumps, defence should.

Some interesting ideas, thanks. Having given it a lot more thought I think Houdini is a better system, but in the end a downside of weak NT is you are always exposed to going for a big number but given so many play it the upside pre-emptive advantage probably out weighs it.

Thanks all. To answer a few points - we play Exit Transfers as stated in the OP and XX is a transfer to clubs. I would prefer Houdini as this gives a fighting chance of finding a fit but that's for another time. I didn't want this to be rehash of weak Vs strong NT but I do prefer the latter, especially vulnerable.

I have found myself playing weak NT (12-4) with a new partner. I know the pro's and con's have been thrashed out elsewhere so this thread isn't meant to be a reworking of them more a chance to learn from my recent experience. Teams, RvR - opps are the strongest teams in the room. ♠KJ3 ♥852 ♦5432 ♣1096 1NT (X) ? We play Exit Transfers so my options were: Pass - We have 16-18 pts, could we scramble 7 tricks with that? If partner had opened strong NT (15-17) I would have left it in with a Yarborough (mainly because very few pairs have an agreement with something like this), so why not now? Transfer to ♦ - Its quite easy to envisage partner with 2 small diamonds and we have handed control to opps and see partner's good suit, say she holds ♠AQxxx, getting ruffed. What would my team mates do here? I don't know we were an ad hoc team put together at the last minute for a weekly club night so I can't second guess their table. Result and answer to question in spoiler

That's where I'm going wrong.

I hate these decisions.. WvR, MPs ♠AQ532 ♥K6 ♦832 ♣432 1NT (p) 2H (p) 2S (p) ? Now what? We play a style that never upgrades or downgrades into NT so 15-17 HCP is honest. Normally on 9HCP and this vulnerability I would look to go to 3NT with 9HCP but all those little cards aren't very promising, even the 5 card spade suit doesn't fill me with enthusiasm. In the end I took the 2NT route but in the knowledge that partner doesn't take much to accept an invite. With T98's I would have gone straight to 3NT So a cowardly bid or pragmatic? As a matter of interest, I've not seen anything on the distribution probability of HCP; what is the probability of partner having 15, 16 or17 HCP? Is it more likely that they will have 15 rather than 16 or 17? Or put another way, do the odds favour bidding 3NT with 9HCP?

My regular partner/mentor has moved away and I have ended up playing with a number of people who play more for social reasons and I'm finding the lack of progress frustrating. I am keen to improve and start attending regional and national tournaments. My standard is probably a genuine BBO Intermediate. I have been playing seriously for a year, most of it SAYC although now playing some Benji, and have spent plenty of time studying books, which I have bought and am willing to share. I've just bought Bridgemaster 2000. My old partner reckoned I was a good learner and rarely made the same mistake twice. I am based in rural North Dorset and am willing to travel up to an hour to play in a regular club night and for practice/reviews. I can also play on BBO most evenings and weekends. I am happy for partner to be either a keen and ambitious beginner, so we can develop together, or someone more experienced who wants to invest time in someone who is the wrong side of 50 and wishes he started playing 40 years ago and is trying to make up for lost time!