SimonFa

In my experience most of the world doesn't care about the selection of their own country's team, and that includes most club players.

I'd certainly be unhappy if partner has XX or X in clubs and didn't look for a suit fit, even with a Yarborough. With XXX in Clubs and a Yarborough I'm hoping the eithe 4-4 or blocked.

Thanks all. I was hoping I'd found a quick and simple method or approximation, but obviously not. Looks like a lot more reading and, more importantly, practice. Simon

Yes

MPs RvR. Dummy Me ♠A4 ♥T4 ♦QT ♣AQJT975 (P) P (P) 3C All pass My thinking went something like: 1C lets ops find a Major fit and may next bid is likely to be 3C. 2C is out so I might as well start with 3C. So was it the right bid and I was unlucky or the wrong bid? If the wrong bid how wrong? As always, thanks in advance, Simon

MPs. Pick up partner and only defensive discussion is reverse attitude on lead, standard count and opening lead of K asks for count. R Vs W if it matters. LHO deals, I was West. I can't remember the exact bidding but it went something like: (P) 1D (P) 1H (1S) 2D (3S) P (P) X all pass Partner leads A♥ Dummy plays LOW [hv=pc=n&s=sqj94hkt96dakc986&w=sahq742djt64ca752]266|200[/hv] Which card do you play and why? 3♠X is -2 on best defence and poor declarer play, -1 otherwise and 5D makes, but nobody bid it. Sadly we let 3S make for a bottom and were probably both to blame for the defence but I just wondered what you would do here? Thanks in advance, Simon EDIT Changes in BOLD. Thanks Paulg

I thought I had a reasonable mathematical brain - maybe its age catching up. I've been trying to understand distribution probabilities and have hit a brick wall and was hoping someone could help as it's doing my head in! On page 67 of the Rodwell Files we get a great tip for working out the number of "cases" there for a missing number of cards - straight forward 2^n. This is nice for anyone who has done even a little bit of computing. So 6 missing cards gives of 64 cases. In his book, Expert Bridge Simplified(pp 24), Jeff Rubens explains how combinations work c=(n,r) = n! / (r! * (n-r)!) and even gives a nice shorthand way of calculating them at the table. I get that and find it very useful. But when I put the two tips together it doesn't appear to work. When I take six cards missing and look for a 4,2 split I get 64 cases and c = 15 ( checked this in excel and here, I always double check). These means that the probability of a 4-2 split is 15/64 = 23% for a specific hand to have 4 cards so 46% for either hand to have 4 cards ie 4-2 split, doesn't it? When I check this with the table Jeff provides on page 35 he gives the answer as 48%, but with some rounding errors so I'm not losing any sleep at this point. But then I notice that for 5,1 split he says 15% and I make it 18%, now I'm not so happy. But the worst case is 3,3 split. By my calculations there are 20 combinations which is 31.25% but Jeff's table says 36%. That's a big difference and one I wouldn't want to rely on. At my standard its probably academic as I only tend to look at the bigger picture but the more I play the more I start looking at different lines of play and thinking about probabilities, even if I don't go down to the decimal points. So what am I missing? As always, thanks in advance. Simon

Cancel my vote, I thought pard had bid the spade :(

Thanks, I shall try to use that in future. To everyone else, thanks for the thoughts and I'll try to be a better opponent in the future. Simon

Gordon, It happened in your club on Tuesday evening when you were TD. I didn't think much about it at the time otherwise I would have asked your advice. I'm not sure I know the correct now so maybe next time I'll call you.

What about UI? Partner may have made a natural bid based on us not having discussed the situation.

A good point but I wasn't even sure how good partner was at that stage so it would have been impossible to judge the competency of Opps.

EBU jurisdiction. I turned up at the Bridge Club last week as a visitor and a partner was organised for me a few minutes before we sat down. We only had chance for a brief discussion to agree the basics. As part of that we agreed Stayman over 1NT and transfers. Early on I opened 2NT and partner responded 3C which I didn't alert. When RHO asked the meaning of the bid I responded "not discussed" being very careful not give UI by saying what I was taking at as. I then bid 3S and partner raised to game which made. I've been feeling a bit guilty that maybe I should have declared that we were playing Stayman over 1NT even though we hadn't explicitly discussed the 2NT situation. Given our situation we were unlikely to be playing Puppet Stayman What is the correct procedure in that situation? Should I have said what our agreements were at the end of the bidding? I ask because I'm likely to be playing with a lot of pickup partners over the next few months. Thanks in advance, Simon

Thanks all. Its one thing doing all the reading and theory, and I've done a lot in the past 18 months, its another seeing it in the real world. Another lesson I learned was that if I didn't describe my hand straight away I am going to have a serious problem later. The bidding went: (P) P (P) 1H 2C ? At this point I knew I had really got it wrong. But it was a good lesson and as my first partner said - I don't make the same mistake twice. Once again, many thanks, Simon

Real world game, pick up partner 10 mins before we played and my first time in that club as a vistor. We just had time to discuss basics. Half way through evening things going OK using GBK and I picked up this hand: ♠ xx ♥ xx ♦ AQT9xxx ♣xx (xx is worse than 8) MP, W v W (P) ? When I first looked at this hand I thought I would pre-empt but I talked myself out of it, mainly because I was in 2nd seat but also because it just didn't feel right. I felt it would have been a no-brainer in 1st and 3rd seat, it was the 2nd seat that swung it. In the bar afterwards partner reckoned I should have opened and in hindsight I agree, or do I? Given the circumstances is this a close decision or did I over analyse the situation? As always thanks in advance, Simon

I'd forgotten about a direct 4NT as specific Ace asking, but even if partner takes it as a general Blackwood (not key card) I suppose any response is safe as long as 5D over 5C (0 aces) isn't taken as King ask. I played it one partnership but it never came up and I'm not sure I would have thought about it over opps bid.

Sorry, I missed out the bidding for some reason. Partner deals: P (1H) ? Simon

MP, all white. ♠ Ax ♥ 5 ♦ AKQJ98754 ♣3 EDIT: Bidding, partner deals P (1H) ? Bidding 5♦ seems lazy and 6D a straight forward gamble with partner a passed hand. But if we try some other route there is a danger of getting passed out below game or letting them find out how good their hearts fit. I admit to the lazy route because I was short of time. Any thoughts of a first bid that teases something from partner, bearing in mind she's a passed hand? Partners hand in the spoiler if you want to construct some bidding. I'm interested in any gadgets that could help here. As always, thanks in advance, Simon

AFAIAC it is forcing but I was catering for the odd person who comes along and says that it isn't forcing if partner denies 4 spades. And I mean odd in both senses of the word: weird as well numerically small ie one Simon

Thanks, I had considered there but is a bit far, however I've just noticed they start at 7:30 so I might just be able to make it. Regards, Simon

I hadn't expected a 3♠ bid so hadn't thought that through. On reflection I would have bid 4♥ and let partner correct to spades. Regards, Simon

I find myself on a long project working in Central London, Trafalgar Square, and living in a a hotel in the Marble Arch area during the week until at least the end of June and probably until December. This means that my real world bridge has come to an abrupt end and I'm getting withdrawal symptoms. Because of my working hours I can't travel far and would like to find a friendly bridge club in the central London area where I could get a game, preferably on Wed/Thur evening starting no earlier than 7pm but ideally 7:15. I'm also interested in a few lessons/mentoring/coaching so if anyone would like to combine the two I am open to offers. Regards, Simon

This came up in a GIB MP tourney, W v R. GIB lied but that's not the point, what do you bid with the following: ♠ AKQ6 ♥ AKT732 ♦ 3 ♣ QT (P) 1H (P) 1NT* (P) ? * Alerted as: 3- H, 3-S, 6+ HCP, 12- total points, forcing for 1 round I reasoned that I wanted to get across my strength and would be reasonably happy in a 4 3 spade fit if necessary, so bid what I took to be a forcing 2S. Also, Marty Bergen says to bid 6-4-6 so my plan was to then bid H over partner's expected minor or NT response. OK, not elegant and the plan was thrown off when managed to find a 4th spade, presumably on the floor or among his clubs and leapt to 4S with JT92, Q84, AKT5, J3. So, assuming partner is being truthful with his 3S, what do you suggest? For interest, what you bid with the North hand playing 2/1? I like 2D but realise that it is 1pt light for some. As I see it the Spades aren't great but 1S isn't a bad bid either. The worst bid has to be 1NT in this situation if it denies 4S. Thanks in advance, Simon PS I'm assuming playing 2/1 GIBerish makes this more A/I than B/N EDIT Before anyone spots in the typo is in the title not the hand.

You might not agree with my bidding, I'm not sure I agree with my second bid but I wanted to get strength across and assumed 2S was forcing, anyway that's another debate I'm going to put in the A/I forum, but for now ..... Look at GIBs explanation of 1NT and 4S - http://tinyurl.com/crn5n9n I've come across a similar problem before with GIBs 1NT but the 4S bid and explanation floored me. Regards, Simon

She isn't named but she gets a mention in Ron Klinger's book Improve Your Bridge Memory as one of his students. Also, Dinah Caplan made the England team for there Lady Milne Trophy in 2011 when she was well in to her 70s. However I believe she was a long standing social bridge player before deciding to take it up seriously.