S2000magic

I did do that.

You're right, of course, but as someone who's been teaching for over 30 years, my heart breaks when I hear someone say, in essence, that they won't try to learn.

"Then no, there was no way you could set it." To RHO.

I recently played a hand in 3NT (poorly, I admit), making 4 when (as I played it) I should have been down 1 (but if I'd played it correctly I would have made 5). After losing a club finesse I shouldn't have taken, LHO was on lead with ♠ K 8 5 on the board; she led the ♠ 3 (from ♠ 10 6 3), I covered with the ♠ 5, RHO won with the ♠ J (from ♠ A Q J 9); I held ♠ 7 4 2. I won the return, rattled off the rest of my 10 tricks, and that was that. After the hand, RHO asked if there were any way they could have set me. I said that if LHO had led the ♠ 10, they'd have taken 4 spade tricks plus the club. LHO said that she would never lead the 10 from 10 6 3. (Emphasis hers.) I hate criticizing players at the table - well, except for myself - so I didn't say anything. But it seems that in the proper circumstances someone ought to point out that there are times - this was one - when leading the 10 from 10 6 3 is not merely correct, it's imperative. (I haven't played against her much, so I don't know how good a player she is.) What do you say in that sort of circumstance?

Drury didn't invent Drury because he opened understrength 1M bids, but because his partner did. B-) Touché.

I agree. I don't play Drury because I don't open under-strength 1♥ or 1♠ in 3rd seat; I'd prefer to open a 5-card weak 2 than an under-strength 1. (I do make this clear to new partners.) (On Monday night my 3rd-seat 2♠ WvsW on ♠ Q x x x x and other assorted junk got the opponents to a cold 4♣ . . . instead of their cold 6NT.)

I'd open that 2♣: as little as ♠ K x (x) in partner's hand makes game, and he'd pass 1♠ if that's all he has. Back to the original questions: 1. Yes. 2. Yes, 3♦. 3. Probably 5♣, but I won't be overjoyed. 4. Essentially, CSG's first line: finesse the ♣ 9 (restricted choice), ♥ to the A, ♠ A, trump a spade with the ♣ 8, finesse in clubs.

As did Roth-Stone. As does Kaplan-Sheinwold.

Why didn't North open 1♣ and give you an easy takeout double? You should have told North that the only reason you didn't redouble is that you thought that he had longer spades than clubs; did you ask the director for redress? Did you tell North that your partner also thought that you promised a balanced hand? Did you tell North that you'd missorted your hand? (As presented, this is a tough hand. I hate passing, and I hate doubling even more. I'd probably stick my ♠ J 9 next to my ♣ 8 and bid 1NT.)

I'd hoped to find out their opinion on standard practice, but perhaps you're right.

In the club in which I've been playing lately I've encountered a couple of interesting opinions about forcing NT responses: one widespread, the other maybe not. The first is that while a forcing NT is appropriate in a 2/1 GF system, it is not appropriate in a standard (5-card majors) system. This usually comes to the fore in this exchange: Partner: 1NT Yours truly: Forcing RHO: So, you're playing 2/1. (Usually a statement, not a question.) Yours truly: No. RHO: Well, you only play a forcing NT in 2/1. Yours truly: Oh. The second is that by a passed hand a 1NT response to a major is not forcing, even when you've agreed to play a forcing NT. This happened once: Partner: Pass Yours truly: 1♠ Partner: 1NT Yours truly: Forcing - remainder of auction - Partner (before the opening lead): One notrump is not forcing by a passed hand. Yours truly: I thought that it was. Partner: If you read all the books, it's not forcing by a passed hand. Yours truly: Oh. So there you have it. What is your opinion on standard practice in these situation? Thanks.

4♥ looks about right to me. I'll be interested in seeing what RHO holds. I'd expect clubs and diamonds.

Yup. Partner should be expecting about 5 tricks; I have 5 tricks.

2♥

Does either 2♥ now or 3♠ next round show any length, or only strength? OP said that 2♥ shows concentration . . . . If not length, then I don't know that you'll show (even approximately) this hand. This suggests that you shouldn't try to show your hand, you should try to let partner show his hand.

2♥ I want to give partner a chance to show something in spades, which should be the key to a diamond game or slam. 4♣ will use up too much room.

I like vanilla, but maybe not in whisky. (I know I don't like it in soda; hence, my preference for Pepsi over Coke.) Thanks for the reply.

I work with a gentleman whose surname is Yamazaki, and recently learned of Yamazaki single-malt whisky (12-year and 18-year). If it's decent, I'd like to buy him a bottle. Has anyone here tried it? If so, what do you think? Thanks!

Ditto. My hand's worthless at NT.

I'd have bid 3♥ without much thought. Certainly without misgivings.

It's right there, next to yours . . . um . . . never mind. ;)

I think the title would more accurately be "7 billion and estimating". Still, that's a lot of people: more than double the population of the late 1950s.

2♦

1. No. (It would be helpful to know partner's proclivities in reopening, but this still looks like a massive misfit; I prefer to let the opponents play massive misfits.) 2. Yes, if it's played for penalties. As the original negative double should show short hearts, this double would also show short hearts, so the penalty interpretation is, at best, tenuous. 3. ♣8 By the way, against a competent declarer, prepare to be endplayed in trumps at least once. Unfortunately, partner's likely void, so he won't be able to lead trumps through declarer.

I'd sure like to know what the "other" vote is.