Trick13

https://tinyurl.com/y2r7b6f4 The final bid of 4♥ is described as "4+♣; 4+♥; 3-♠; 12+ HCP; 13-18 total points". I guess that is the correct description for the bid (I shouldn't really complain: it scored 84%), but why would it choose 4♥ over 4♠? Is it because, in the limited set of hands it simulated, 4♥ scored the same as 4♠, so it picked one denomination at random?

If you choose more than one restriction are the restrictions additive? Say you include players followed by the host and also include players from the host's country, can players enter if they satisfy either criteria, or do they need to satisfy both?

I also briefly ran an experimental tournament yesterday and found members were blocked. I quickly recreated the tournament and they could log in. I concluded that you needed to have your include list finalised before you created the tournament.

[hv=pc=n&s=s4hkt975djt5432c3&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1s]133|200[/hv] IMPS

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. At the table I judged that half the field would be in 5m (correct) and that I needed to beat 420 (correct as it turned out) and that 400 would be a poor score (correct - nobody scored that), so I took the finesse only to find ♣Qx off-side.

The auction was 1♥-2♦; 2♥*-3♣; 3NT * slow No discernible pauses from the opponents The event was a tournament, but not strong. You would expect everyone to be in game (only one wasn't), and maybe half would be in a minor suit game. The question is really about what to do with the clubs.

[hv=pc=n&s=skqhkqjt9dat2c932&n=s72hdqj9643cakj64]133|200[/hv] 3NT by South, opponents silent. Not Vul. Matchpoints. Signals UDCA. Trick 1: ♠ J- 2-5-Q Trick 2: ♣ 3-5-A-8 Trick 3: ♦ Q-K-A-5 How do you proceed? ADDED: The auction was 1!♥-2♦; 2♥*-3♣; 3NT * slow No discernible pauses from the opponents The event was a tournament, but not strong. You would expect everyone to be in game (only one wasn't), and maybe half would be in a minor suit game. The question is really about what to do with the clubs.

I think it is the Berkowitz-Manly scheme we use - responder transfers to his first suit, opener accepts the transfer with support and then responder shows controls, otherwise with no support opener bids his own suit and responder bids one step with no support, otherwise shows controls. Opener can try a second suit to ask for 4-card support if there is no support for his first. How does this compare to your scheme? It seems there are pluses and minuses, but yours might be better if you can take advantage of the additional distributional information.

Thanks, I was sort of asking for tested methods, I accept symmetric is better, but we are not going down that path.

We play a fairly simple system. A good start would be: 1♣* - 1♥* 16+; 8+ with 5+♠ 1♠* - 2♦* showing support and asking controls; 4 controls (A=2, K=1) But we might be a level higher. What next? I have devised the following scheme that seems better than the traditional suit asks. Relay to ask about a side suit or trumps. Responses are [steps]: [1] No top honours, or shortness ... [2] relay asks [3] None [4] Doubleton [5] Singleton [6] Void [2] Q or AK [3] K or AQ [4] A or KQ [5] AKQ The responses to a trump ask are the same, except first step shows possible extra length instead of shortness, then [2] relay ..... [3] None, [4] Q or AK, [5] K or AQ etc On some hands this tells you just what you want to know. On others you quickly get quite high without learning much. What else is there that people are using?

Before the hesitation I was planning to play the K - West's diamond plays are suggestive of a 5+ suit. But what to make of the hesitation? It is the end of a tournament when heads get fuzzy. West will be trying to concentrate very hard on defending a grand slam, and the J♣ may have been an unexpected card. At the club I would not be surprised if the finesse lost, and I wouldn't necessarily think West was deliberately trying to mislead me. If I finesse and it loses am I going to call the director? If I decide I will, then, before calling for a card from dummy, I will say that I was planning to play for the drop but have been persuaded to by the delay in following to finesse. If not I might play the K.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa62hdckq&w=skq5ht3dc&n=s984hk9dc&e=sjt3hdjc4]399|300[/hv] 3NT by South. When the ♥K is led from dummy at trick 9, GIB West follows with the ♥10 http://tinyurl.com/ya6f82oq

1♥ (P) 4♥ (4♠) X When 1♥ is limited, the double shows a strong desire to compete to the 5-level but is giving responder an opportunity to defend if the 4♥ raise was based on strength. Should X be the same in the following auctions: 1♥ (1♠) 4♥ (4♠) X 1♥ (2♠*) 4♥ (4♠) * weak X 1♥ (3♠) 4♥ (4♠) X 1NT* (2♠) 4♥ (4♠) * weak, possibly off-shape X Is an ambiguous raise to 4♥, given the seeming inevitability of 4♠ these days, a good idea?

(1♠) 2♥ (2♠) P (P) 3♣ What inferences do you take from this sequence, given you have a re-opening double and Michaels available. And if the re-opening bid was 3♦ you had ELC available to convert 3♣ to 3♦. Advancer also had a weak, non-invitational, raise to 3♥ available.

I passed with ♥108. Partner bid 3♦ which I judged correctly to be a re-transfer (but I prefer natural - our 1NT was weak), and I had to guess whether he was competing or inviting. What methods do you use here?

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj53hdakt932ca7&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1c(16%2B)2d(One%20major)3c(GF%205%2B!C)3h(P%2FC)?]133|200[/hv] How do you handle this?

Why not 3♥?

1C - 2D ... 2M/3m looks for 3-card support. Step 1 = no support Step 2 = support with 0-2 controls, Step 3 = support with 3 controls etc 2NT asks for 4-card suits. Responder bids 1-under their lowest 4-card suit, 3NT = both minors. 1C - 1S is positive with clubs or balanced 11-13 ... Opener can bid 2C to ask which. Step 1, 2D is 11-13 after which bids are as after 1C - 2D. Step 2 is clubs with 0-2 controls, Step 3 clubs with 3 controls etc.

Whatever your double means it should cater for: 1♣ (2♦) X (4♦) or 1♣ (2♠ ) X (3♠) Having played it both ways, these days I prefer immediate bids to be game forcing. But if you knew the opponents weren't going to compete higher, then the opposite would be better.

Nice!

So, after the match (luckily this hand did not determine the result) it was suggested the guiding principle should be 'don't try for two off until you have ensured one off', or as more simply put above, 'don't be greedy'. I am not sure that is a winning plan long term. The winning margin is often less than 200 points - scoring was total points after 30 hands. Back to the signalling. Discouraging in hearts says what, 'I can see a better defence than continuing hearts'? Only partner knows declarer is out of clubs, the scenario hadn't occurred to me. If I had 7 hearts and the ♠Q then I could have discarded the ♥Ace (he says after two days post mortem). So I think in theory partner ought to have got this right, but I was greedy. So is the takeaway 'a signal is just a suggestion, and you can ignore if you have information partner does not have', or 'don't be greedy', or both.

[hv=pc=n&s=s75hakjt7dj873c74&w=s6432h92daqt2c983&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1s2h3sdppp]266|200[/hv] Rubber bridge. ♥K lead (asks for reverse count). This shows the Ace. Partner plays the ♥6 presumably odd from three. Switch to ♣7 to partner's ♣J taken by declarer's ♣A. ♠K lead taken by partner's Ace. Now comes ♣K and ♣Q from partner. I see that I can over-ruff dummy on the next ♣ lead so I discourage ♥. This doesn't work out too well. Partner continues a ♣, ruffed high discarding a ♥. Heart ruff, draw trumps and declarer comes home in diamonds. What went wrong?

If we have an auction where partner bids 3NT, suggestion to play, and we pull it to 4m, then optional keycard, where the first step shows a lack of enthusiasm for slam, seems good. Control bidding might be good too, but there isn't usually room for both. Imagine a different auction where we are in a game force and maybe we had suit agreement at 3m, there may have been some 3 level cues which could have been NT probes, but 3NT was by-passed for 4m, or perhaps we didn't reach suit agreement until 4m. In these cases it is quite likely that only one hand would know what to do after hearing a keycard response, and the flow of the auction may have caused the wrong hand to bid 4m. In these auctions I think we should use the first step, 4m+1, to ask partner for his/her keycards, and for the other bids to show keycards and by implication less slam interest. While pondering this, I saw this hand on BBO which illustrates the idea. [hv=pc=n&s=s63hadq932caq9863&n=s8hkqj643dackjt42]133|200[/hv] You might not get suit agreement until South bids 4♣. North then bids 4♦ asking for South's keycards. If 4♣ was minorwood or optional keycard, South would not know how to proceed after hearing two keycards.

Thanks for your thoughts. Still processing them. It's just steps, so 1♠-2NT is the 2M+1 void splinter, and 1♠-3♣ is 'Jacoby' Yes, 1♥ 2♠, 2NT 3♥ is used for void spades I was intending 2M+1 to be GF. With less we would bid a slightly nervous 2M good raise, and hope partner inquires if we have a shortage. Thinking about for strength showing, I was gravitating away from that. In our original/current system we could have an auction 1♥..4♦ that maybe shows void ♠ and 13-15 hcp. Seems like we might have got uncomfortably high. Maybe it makes more sense for opener, already limited, to show range: 1♥-2♠... 2NT = enthusiastic relay for void 3♣ = less enthusiastic relay for void Another idea for the cue in the void suit would be to show or deny extra length in trumps.

We show suit preference in the trump suit. Works well on this hand.