SimonFa

Thanks for the feedback. Of course there was a more fundamental flaw in my thinking - I couldn't add up to 13 in Spades :(

Tough problem, well for this B/I anyway. Here's my thoughts....

I suspect that like 90% of BBOers I have never started a table so that is worth knowing. Can I also suggest that table completion rates also appears in a players profile? Perhaps some publicity may incentivise members to hang about to keep their completion rates high?

I've noticed that some of the older Acol players just bid up the line, they don't do reverses. I tried to explain the concept to one player I was partnering but it just didn't work.

Partner has asked just me about this hand from last night and knows I'm posting here.... Teams, W Vs R, better than average opps, I'm dealing 1C - (1H) - ? Partner had: ♠QJ ♥AXXX ♦KQJX ♣XXX FWIW We play better minor and open on a count of 19 in at this vulnerability with a 5/4 or better distribution. For some reason partner doubled, which I alerted as showing 4-spades (our system but partner keeps forgetting). My view is too strong for 2NT and it would be nice to have 2 stops for 3NT. 2♦looks OK and a rebid of NT then describes her hand. On balance I think 3NT is probably best. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance, Simon

Ops are playing Acol and competent players. All red, teams. Regular partner but she has a tendency to get gadgets confused, especially towards the end of the evening. You pick up: ♠AKQ10542 ♥Q ♦Jx ♣KJx LHO starts bidding: (1C) - P - (1S) - ? The 1C bid shows a minimum 12 HCP and at least 4 clubs and it is probably a good suit, which makes your clubs look a bit weaker. It also probably, but not necessarily, denies a 5-card major. 1S promises at least 4 spades and if it is 4 spades it denies 4 hearts. If you bid 2S partner may take you for something else, she has form, and is likely to start bidding Hearts like they are going out of fashion. 3S in this situation hasn't been discussed and you've no idea what partner will do? A double shows the other two suits. You pass the bidding continues: (2H)-P -(P)- ? Same problem, what does p do over 2S? What I'm interested in is the thought process for analysing this at teams and MP. At teams I assume my opposite number had the same problem as our team mates are also playing Acol so my only concern is if there is game in Spades and I very much doubted it. In MPs, on reflection, I think I would have bid 3 spades and trusted partner on the assumption that most of the field would be in spades but I'm still not convinced that it is worth a 4 spades given opps bidding. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Simon

Err no, you've now get East as declare in 4 ♠ :D

Did west bin 2NT as Easts hand looks unlikely? ♣K could be a false card from doubleton to get us to switch but I'll trust his honesty as ♣K is a winner and there seems no reason to force a switch, so partner looks like having 5-6 in the minors for his 2NT bid. South probably has 6 spades for his game bid which means partner has 1 spade and 1 heart. So South looks like 6421. I'm playing ♥A and followed by ♥5 which hopefully partner will read as wanting a diamond back. This way if there was a false card and South only has 5 spades we may get an extra Heart ruff.

I've just been watching the latest of Gavin Wolpert's excellent videos on Bridge Winners and was intersted in why his partner made a play in hearts the way he did (about 3:50 in). The hands are: Gavin (Dummy) ♠J84 ♥74 ♦J752 ♣T943 Joel ♠2 ♥AJ82 ♦AQ9 ♣AKQ75 Edit: Bidding, dealer South, Joel West- (P) 1C* (P) (p) (1S) X (2S) (3C) (P) 3H (P) 4C All pass *From the commentary 1C could be 18/19 balanced or stronger unbalanced Contract 4♣, MPs, WvW 1. ♠A 4 6 2 2. ♠3 8 9 ♣5 3. ♣A 8 3 2 At this point Gavin explains why Joel needs to duck a heart before cashing a 2nd trump. I understand why Joel has to be wary of a 3:1 trump break but why does he shiould duck a heart first: 4. ♥2 3 7 9 rather than play ♥A then low? Is this some form of safety play I should be aware of? Thanks in advance, Simon

Thanks everyone, some interesting thoughts, including partnership cohesion, which is as valid a reason not to pre-empt as any other, which was the question I asked. As it happens the full biding was: (1C) = P = (1S)= P (3C) = P = (6C) All pass So a pre-empt may have been disruptive. Perhaps I should have also said that these were Acol players so that initial 1C did promise 4Cs. Simon

White Vs red, MPs. ♠J8 ♥Q876543 ♦842 ♣J (1C)= P = 1(S) = ? Interested in what other's would do here and why as part of the old learning curve. Thanks in advance, Simon

I'm fairly new to all this and am reading Kit Woolsey's Matchpoints* and it seems to me there is more to this than just the LOTT. We have to consider what the rest of the field is doing. So from my understanding of Kit's arguments we have to consider that: Some will be allowed to play in 2S and if that makes they are plus 110 and we aren't going to take 3D down 3 and down 2 doubled is unlikely as well so we have already lost out to them. How likely is this? If 3S makes then we lose to all those bidding 2 and 3 as leaving 3D in means we have absolutely no chance of matching or beating this score. So biding 3S now puts us on a par with them. Also, how likely is 3D to make? My guess is they have pushed to 3 with 8 trumps, we have the A and partner is likely to have 4 so maybe a chance of -1, so not enough to match 3S-1 and I can't see D going down 2. So the final decision has to be based on what we think the field will be doing and how good are our Opps relative to the field. So what does all that mean? I'm still not sure but in our club against the better pairs I would assume field is in 2S as most won't push to 3D, so I'll take the push because I've already lost out. Against the weaker players I have to assume that all will go to 3D and few will take the push to 3S, so I'm passing. Regards, Simon PS I would welcome any comments on my understanding *Thanks to the BBOer who recommended it, its a really informative read

This is for an EBU jurisdiction. I'm putting some basic bidding notes together for a new partner who is a beginner and tends to learn by wrote. She wants to play weak NT and I have found that we are more susceptible to interference and more likely to have to have agreed responses (not found a problem having played strong NT for a year). As a general rule I want to play "system on" where possible to reduce mental strain so in these responses are the bids alterable as opposed to announced? 1NT-(2C) -? System on P! - No interest in proceedings. I wondered about this because we do play system on and this bid conveys a meaning to partner X! - Stayman - I'm fairly certain this is alerted 2D!/2H! - transfers as normal 2S! - transfer to minor then bid 3C! for usual pass or correct 2NT to play I'd also be interested to know opinions on whether this is a good approach or if there is something better for B/I? Thanks in advance Simon PS Most of the club wouldn't know or care but we have some good players and they will ask or challenge and if she isn't sure partner gets flustered so its important for her benefit we get the rights

This was discussed elsewhere although and it was generally agreed that most people who say SAYC just mean 5-card majors and strong NT. I'm sure I read somewhere in the FAQs of help section that we should self alert when it is not clear what a bid is. Personally I wouldn't even try a splinter unless the profile says so or they are A/E with lots of logins because, as I have found to my cost, even self alerting doesn't guarantee partner will understand.

What Helen says. A previous partner liked to play feature so he could see if he had access to the long suit. Current partner prefers Ogust. Can't say I find one any better with than the other.

Thanks, that's a valuable lesson learned, we ended up in a ridiculous contract for a bottom.

As someone who is having to learn Acol after a year of SAYC I'm not sure that is true, or at least as set in stone as you imply. One (only?) advantage of a weak 1NT is its pre-emptive value. Depending on the points distribution I would usually bid 1NT. If partner has 5 spades he can transfer and we have a minimum of 7, otherwise I'm not interested in the spades.

So would this apply to a recent situation I had? RHO bid 1NT, weak, and I went to bid 2[diamonds, Astro, to show Spades and another. After a brief pause LHO asked partner if she was going to alert? Partner looked at my bid, racked her brains and said no. At this point I looked down and realised I had pulled out the 2H card which is natural.

I've read the ACBL pamphlet (and used to keep t to hand)and bought a book on SAYC because I'm anal and wanted to make sure I understood what other BBO SAYC players were saying they bid. I can honestly say that I haven't had a pick up whose profile said SAYC who really understood what it meant.

Our bidding wasn't the point, otherwise I would have put it in the B//I forum, but FWIW 2♣ wasn't GF and showed 10/11HCP and, usually, 5 clubs. I've been playing 12 months and partner longer, although she isn't as aggressive as I am when trying to learn from mistakes. I posted this here because I thought it was an interesting hand, but thanks for the feedback. Simon

This came up last night. MP teams. [hv=pc=n&s=shajtdkt97caj9865&w=sakjt97652hq86dc2&n=shk93daqj862ckqt4&e=sq843h7542d543c73&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp2c4s5cppp]399|300[/hv] We were playing against one of the better teams. At the end East said he didn't bid 5♠because he thought we had a slam in the minors. Fortunately our team mates didn't gave them the push to for a flat board. At the tables where East bid 5♠there was a mixture of 6♣and 6♦. All N/S made 13 tricks. By my reckoning East can push and sacrifice all the way up to 7♠if they can make the Q♥.

Two thoughts on this: 1. It is not just you that is damaged, in theory every other E-W (assuming you are N-S) is damaged so you have an obligation to them as well so you should have half the room on your side :) 2. If this is a beginners' night then they need to be taught that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and that the way to deal with irregularities and infractions is through the TD. It might be acceptable to allow more time after boards for coaching ie in this case for Op to explain there was no need to pull the dbl and that its normal to lead the bid suit.

Partner is weak but says she wants to learn and be challenged. The system notes we inherited from a mutual partner who has left the area included splinters and after mentioning them a couple of times I thought the time had come to give them a go, bearing in mind I had only used them once. Playing 5-card majors I picked up this hand: ♠A ♥KJ97 ♦952 ♣AK872 R v W, MPs Bidding started: (P) 1♣ (p) 1♥ (p) ? I thought long and hard about my next bid. A raise to 2♥ was on and partner is fairly aggressive, so we would be unlikely to miss game if it is there but what about the lonely A♠? Could this be the time to have a go at splinters even though I was a bit weak and didn't like the diamonds? What could go wrong I thought? Well if partner misunderstood I was sure we could get back to 4♥ and any learning curve has a few mistakes along the way so I took a deep breath and the bidding continued: 3♠ (p) 4♠ (p) Ooops, or words to similar effect were muttered under my breath. Now what? Partner didn't alert so she obviously hadn't picked up it was a splinter and we were now way overboard. At this point I also realised that I might also have a UI problem, although at the club level and with these ops I don't think that was such a big deal. I reckoned I had two alternatives: 4NT for RKCB or 5H. As I had shown slam interest I suppose I had to follow through with it and maybe slam was on. Bidding continued: 4NT (p) 5♦ (p) ? Now I had another another problem, partner showed one ace and if she thought we were in Spades she might not take 5♥ as a sign off, but what else could I do? 5♥ (p) 5♠ (P) ? OK, so now she is either trying to play in spades of showing no kings but we can't stop in spades: 6♥ all pass A bit of a disaster but never mind, if 6♥ is on we got there if it isn't then it was always going to a be a bottom once it went wrong. As it happens there was a slight outside chance. I'll post the full deal later today but I don't want to get distracted by analysing bidding or if the slam could be made, but for now here are a few questions: 1. Is this the right hand to splinter? Looking at what the Bridge Guys say I reckon it is. 2. Did I have a UI problem after partner failed to alert? 3a. If I did have a UI problem did I handle the bidding correctly? If not how should I have bid? 3b. If I didn't have a UI problem how should I have bid? 4. At the end of the bidding I explained to Ops what had gone wrong, should I have called the Director first and explained in his presence? In hindsight I suspect I should as I believe Ops may have been allowed to withdraw their last pass? Thanks in advance, Simon

I know my declarer play is weak at the table, mainly because I tend to be tired at the end of the day and counting all suits and hands isn't instinctive yet. I'm OK with puzzles in books and magazines and discussions on the forums, but then I am not under time pressure, which I find a problem in the real world and on BBO. I have read a number of books (Including Golden Rules of Declare Play by Julian Pottage and Marc Smith) and know its all about practice and was wondering about buying software that will take me through some of the more intermediate to advanced techniques. I'm generally OK when dummy goes down: count my winners, count my losers, count the sides and make a quick estimation of how the suits break and then come up with a plan. The problem is that after the first couple of tricks I find I lose the plot and by half way through if the plan comes off the rails I find I've forgotten who played what, especially the spot cards so it become impossible to think about end plays or the results of squeezes. Any software recommendations? Thanks in advance, Simon

Thanks for all the contributions,I particularly like the 1NT-3H to show slam interest and have already discussed it with partner as it is straight forward enough and she prefers simplicity, as do I. Just to clear up a point - rightly or wrongly we play 1NT- 4NT is quantitative and 4NT after any suit sequence as RKCB.