SimonFa

I like to play 2/1 and its all fairly basic Acol round here and we have had some club success, as long as these types of bids don't come up, so I persevere.

MPs, any vul (please say if makes a difference), ops quiet, partner deals. What does the following sequence: 1m 1M 3NT mean in 1. Standard American 2. SAYC 3. 2/1 I suspect they are all very similar but wondered if I had missed something. What would you bid next with 2=5=3=3 and 12HCP given you have discussed quantitative raise but they've never come up and you aren't convinced partner fully understands them. As always, thanks in advance, Simon PS For the avoidance of doubt we play better minor and bid clubs with 3:3 in minors.

I would prefer to play take out doubles but he doesn't seem to be able to get his head round them and promises me he will play them and then lapses because he is always desperate to show me his points. I've just lent him my copy of Judgement at Bridge and if he still doesn't get it I've promised to have a go at his system. However if I am I would like a better understanding than he has been able to give me. I'm also genuinely interested in understanding his system on the basis.

I had another disagreement with partner over doubling last night. He keeps telling me learned to play "Standard American" in Bermuda a few years ago and that it includes a system of doubling that I haven't heard of nor can I find any reference, so I have referred to it as the Bermuda Double. In this system partner doubles based purely on points with no consideration of shape using what he describes as 8, 10, 12, 14. I can't get to the bottom of it but non vulnerable he doubles with 8 HCP and when vulnerable 10HCP. I'm not sure what the other two mean, we've never really got that far, which is my fault because I get exasperated as the discussion normally follows another disaster. Has anyone come across anything like this and if so can they point me to some documentation? As always, thanks in advance, Simon

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. Hopefully partner won't get so dogmatic now he's see some of these responses. Simon

I know this sort of discussion has come up before but I can't find a specific thread. Unusually for UK we play 2/1 SAYC but don't have a great deal of time for discussions so we do get the odd disagreement at the fringes and don't have anyone to ask. Anyway last night we had a disagreement on this hand: ♠ KJxxx ♥ Kx ♦ AQJT9x ♣ ♠ T ♥ AJxx ♦ 8xxx ♣ AQTx (hands may not be exactly right except for partner's Diamonds as I didn't write them down) RvR, MPs, partner deals 1S (2C) X (p) 3D* (p) 3NT AP * partner tanks, thinking about 6D At the end of the hand I mentioned that partner should have bid his diamonds first because I would never believe they were longer than his spades. Partner is adamant that in SAYC he has to show his 5-card major first. I said I would look in to it and I can't find anything in the SAYC booklet of my book Standard Bidding with SAYC. However, as it happens I am rereading Mike Lawrence's Judgement at Bridge and he goes to town on the theme of bidding your longer minor first, so maybe that's where I got it from. So, my question: is their a "standard" opening of partner's hand in SAYC or is it a GBK thing? As always, thanks in advance, Simon

Using the iPad 3 to watch vugraph has slow graphics. Simon

Thanks everyone, some stimulating reading. I have decided to alert and the first time I did one of the better players was most appreciative. Regards, Simon

Just a thought, having spent a frustrating 15 minutes trying to find a decent game in MBC. I appreciate that BBO Materpoints are necessarily indicative of ability (they can't be I have some :D ) but they do indicate a willingness invest time and money and therefore, one would hope, a basic skill level and willingness to learn. It would also help if there was something like the help me find a game button, but instead within the Masterpoints club, but the Acol club runs alright without one. You never know, it might even drive some revenues. Thanks, Simon

Well done for increasing the time limit. I came under time pressure a couple of times when GIB hogged the bidding and I played 3 or 4 hands as North. Simon

Thanks everyone, some comments. Perhaps one difference is that I didn't take partners first bid as being as strong as some people assume, partner does like to get in to the bidding: ♠72 ♥QJ3 ♦AQT2 ♣A862 He's about a Q stronger than I gave him credit for at these colours and I knew he would get another go if he was a bit stronger. If they hadn't bid 3S I would probably have gone back to 3H to give P a shot at 3NT if he had a stopper. Perhaps we need a long discussion on what we bid in those situations if it is to be forcing. Simon

IMPS, Teams, W V R, you deal. ♠ 43 ♥ AKT92 ♦ K973 ♣ K4 1H (2S) 3D (3S) P (P) X (P) ? Ops are regular partnership but not the best in the club. We play 2/1 with system off over intervening bids. I couldn't remember if we played jump fits as we only play sporadically but we did play regularly at one point and it may have been discussed. Partner does like to double but he did say at the start that he was going to be conservative. I thought long and hard before pulling to 4D which partner converted to 4H and 11 tricks were made, but he was convinced straight after the board that we would have been better off leaving the double in. Some questions: 1. Do you leave it in at Teams given the info I have provided? 2. Do you leave it in with a regular partner and if so what sort of hand do you expect opposite for the double? 3. Is it different at MPs? 4. Finally should I have not put myself in that position by bidding 4D instead of passing? I was afraid it would have shown a much stronger hand. As always, thanks in advance, Simon

Maybe I remembered it sub-consciously, which is most likely if I found that sequence. I pick up so good may tips from here I often forget what I've agreed with partner.

Way above our pay grade so no problem for us.

IMPS, WvW, partner deals. ♠ 5 ♥ JT632 ♦ AQ8632 ♣ 7 1NT (P) ? When faced with this I thought all possibilities were available from slam to 2-level struggling. I tried transfer to Diamonds then bidding 4H for no other reason that I just couldn't see any way to what level we should be in and didn't want to be the only one missing game, even if it was W v W. Partner corrected to 5D which was -2, as was 4H for those who tried that route. Would anyone else stop in 3D, the only made contract out of 13, once you decide to bid or is this always destined to game level failure? As always, thanks in advance? Simon

A great innovation. It was disconcerting and I reckon I was slower but I'm sure that will improve with practice. Can we also have it when practicing with 3 Robots, please? :D

:D

Thanks everyone. Perhaps I should have been clearer, systemically we play T/O doubles which I always assume ops will take as 1444or possible 2344, hence my concern. Simon

Thanks. I'll alert from now on.

Both. It drives me mad but I'm more concerned about ops.

EBU Despite long discussions partner continues to use T/O doubles to show a "opening hand" and may be flat, as well as having classic shape. I know this could be ok in pass out seat but he also does it in direct seat. It's got to the point where I think I should be alerting. However I am worried that ops will see this as a penalty and are equally likely to misread pertner's bid. Leaving it until the end of the auction to clarify may also mislead ops. Any thoughts on the best approach other than bashing partner over the head with a bidding box or getting a new partner? As always, thanks in advance, Simon

2/1, W V W , IMPS, dealer North, you are South: ♠ AQJ64 ♥ Q63 ♦ A73 ♣ 52 1H (P) ? At most tables the bidding went something like: 1S (P) 1NT (P) 4H AP which makes +2 on a favourable Heart finesse, but that's not the point. Is there a way for South to set up a GF after 1NT or would it have been better to bid 2D instead of 1S? As always, thanks in advance, Simon

I've just finished the book Why They Win by Stephen Cashmere and Justin Corfield reckon that 70% of it is because of the stronger teams better bidding judgement. They have some recommendations at the end which are worth considering, one being to prune your convention card. Its quite an entertaining book, especially the last match which involves Zia.

I can't decide if I got lucky or subconsciously figured the best line on this deal. I certainly didn't consciously figure it out and even with a bit more time and some text books I'm not sure of the best way to approach this problem. MPs, W v R, South deals ♠ QT95 ♥ KJT832 ♦ 8 ♣ J5 ♠ 743 ♥ AQ74 ♦ AQ2 ♣ K93 1NT (2C) 2D (P) 2H (P) 3H (P) 4H AP 2C is Cap showing a 6 card suit. Play starts ♣ 2JA3 ♣ QK65 I suppose you don't have to make the decision at this point but I wanted to end up in the correct hand for the finesse after drawing trumps. The way I saw it LHO is most likely to have Diamonds, he could have spades but I would expect him to bid over 2H? Which makes the Diamond finesse probably less than 50% if not approaching 0%. But what are the odds of playing Spades for only 2 losers are they worse than the Diamond finesse? When I drew trumps ending up in hand LHO had 1H and and discarded 6D. In the end I played 3S from hand intending to cover JS or play 9S if LHO ducked. I also thought I might get a chance at the Diamond finesse if RHO had JS stiff or didn't return a Spade for some reason. Anyway, if anyone would like to show how this problem should be approached, especially if you don't have the inference from LHOs 2C bid, I would be most grateful. Thanks in advance, Simon PS LHO had ♠AJx and ♦KJxxxx

I was playing random vugraph deals (a brilliant innovation)when this deal came up. I and one pair quietly settled in 6♥and was surprised to lose 7IMPs. At the other table.... R V R, Swiss Teams, West deals ♠ AKT8 ♥ Q63 ♦ AQJ96 ♣ K ♠ 3 ♥ AKJT72 ♦ K875 ♣ 76 (P) 1D (3C) 3H (P) 4C (P) 4D (P) 4S (P) 4N (P) 5S (P) 5N (P) 7N (X) AP No explanations of the bidding. Was the X Lightner or did West reason that N wouldn't bid 7N without the A♣? And if that latter was 7N a brilliant bid or just a wild gamble? Regards, Simon