kereru67

Pairs is the usual format in clubs these days, yet they teach bidding as if we were playing rubber bridge. In pairs you compete aggressively for the part scores, especially when not vulnerable. You use doubles at low level as a vague takeout request rather than penalty until you've sorted out your preferred suit. Why do they teach beginners to bid as if they're playing rubber?

Totally off topic of course... but he didn't claim to "invent" the internet, just to "create" it. He did play a major part in the legislative framework that made the internet a part of everyday life.

Based on my own experience playing goulash on BBO, it's usually right to lead anything but your partnership's suit in a wild auction between 2 superfits. Even without the double I'd be inclined to lead a long side suit and try to find partner's void. Failing that I'll just lead something safe like J10xx

ok so it's still standard, it's just that the mathematics at pairs is completely different and most people are taught a bidding system more appropriate to rubber bridge.

Even though it only comes up about once a year and there's a good chance partner won't recognize it and will make a "normal" lead and give them a doubled slam.... the Lightner double is still part of standard bidding. At rubber bridge the convention makes perfect sense. Mathematically there's no sense in using a double of a slam in its natural sense, you're risking 500 or so points for the gain of 50, so only double if you have a void and want to direct your p to lead that suit, or if you are 100% sure of beating the contract (e.g. KQJ of trumps). However pairs scoring is different. 6♥x= may not be that much worse than 6♥=, whereas 6♥x-1 may be significantly better than 6♥-1. In other words using a double of a slam in its natural sense may be more appropriate at pairs scoring. What is the current thinking on this?

Knowing that my p is promising zero points, I would not consider raising a 1♥ response. My double has already indicated four card ♥ support and I have nothing over and above what I've described. I will take the opportunity to show a minimum double, p can bid again if they have anything decent. It's hardly the end of the world if we get left in a 4-3 fit in 1♥ and go off one or two.

Should I be suspicious that W found the devastating A♦ lead rather than the normal Q♦?

[hv=pc=n&s=st84h965d8653ckq2&w=sa2hj84daqj942caj&n=skq97haqt2dkc8754&e=sj653hk73dt7ct963&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1ddp1ndppp]399|300[/hv] This went down for a huge number. I thought the double was OK according to the modern competitive style (shape is more important than HCP), and I can't fault the 1NT response. Should N attempt a rescue after W doubles? Or should N just not have doubled in the first place?

I guess in general my feeling is that bidding is a conversation, and if your partner makes an open-ended bid, you should avoid conversation-shutters like an immediate 3NT. If you must jump in response to an open-ended bid, then make it a bid that clearly defines your hand (e.g. splinter, or a very precise shape and point count in the case of 3NT). After that, your partner is in charge and decides the final contract.

OK what I'm getting from this is that the 3NT response should have a very specific meaning. If you have a 4 card major you should show it first because that may be the best spot. Something like 1♣-1♥-2♥-3NT is a good way to give the option to your partner, in case they raised you with 3 card support or a flat hand. So 4-3-3-3, no 4 card major, 13-15; or else some conventional treatment. It will almost never be the correct response to 1♣.

For me it's 3NT. There's really no excuse for making that bid without making a one round force to find out a bit more info about your partner's hand first. You are not in a position to decide the final contract without a good description of your partner's hand, which could be anything from a flat 12 to a 20+ near game force.

The unfortunately influential old school guy at my club told my beginner partner he should have opened 1♣ and rebid 2♣, but my every instinct rebels against rebidding a weak 5 card suit. The one bid your partner never wants to hear is a minimum rebid of your suit. I'll only rebid a 5 card suit if absolutely forced to, for example if I'm minimum, partner bids the suit directly under mine, and I'm too weak for a NT bid. Anyway, I haven't come across any books that recommend opening 1NT with 5-4-2-2 hands, maybe the more recent ones do, but 1NT looks clear to me too. At my club opening 1NT even with a 5-3-3-2 hand is considered a bit avant garde. I guess the lesson is don't fall in love with a 5 card suit. 5 card suits are not special and should only be rebid if no other rebid is available. That includes the bid "pass" if your partner responds in NT; I've had partners who insist on repeating their 5 card suit even in sequences like 1♥ - 2NT (showing 10-12 balanced), which to me is just an abomination.

Dealer N, NS vul, N passes, E has ♠K3 ♥K7 ♦QJ72 ♣K9875 Agreed system is something resembling Acol, i.e. 4 card majors, 1NT is 12-14.

Hopefully we can at least put to bed the myth that you always lead the highest card of your partner's suit... most of the time you lead the same card as you'd normally lead if it was an unbid suit. only reason to lead K from Kxx is if there's a pre-empt and you want to check out dummy

There are three schools of thought, top of nothing, MUD and low. They all have advantages and disadvantages. If playing top of nothing you should in principle play your second best card on round 2. Then if your partner is paying attention they'll hopefully notice that the low card is missing and deduce that you're leading from 3 rather than 2. A downside is that even if your partner is clever enough to do this, declarer can easily mess up your signals by withholding a low card. Also, it gives up the remote chance that your 9 or 8 spot might be worth something after an honour pile-up. MUD doesn't solve either problem. The initial lead is ambiguous and could more easily be mistaken for a 4th best, especially from a holding like 832, and the follow up card might not resolve the ambiguity. Not really a fan of MUD at all. That leaves bottom, which is probably technically the best option, but the least popular. Perhaps the best way is to use 3rd and 5th best leads, and give up on the idea that a low card promises an honour? Also, is there any difference when leading an unbid suit and leading your partner's bid suit?