rmnka447

This hand came up in a club game. It looks to be a good instructional hand for newer players. [hv=pc=n&s=skj6hkj973d6ca643&n=sa74hat862dj4c987&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h2d3d(Inv%2B%2F%204%2BHearts)p4hppp]266|200[/hv] The opening lead was 2 ♣ and the first trick went: ♣ 2, ♣ 9, ♣ 10, ♣ A As South, how do you play the hand to make 4 ♥? (Novices and Beginner replies only)

I'd also start with 3 ♠ over partner's 3 ♣ bid. This is a huge hand and partner has presumably shown 4+ ♣. So why not let partner in on the secret by cueing the opponent's suit?

I'd pass this hand also. You're looking at 17 HCP. Give opener an absolute minimum 14 count, then it leaves a maximum 9 points to be split between the two remaining hands. And it could be less. There's no reason to believe that those points are anything else than split about evenly. You don't have a long suit to provide more trick taking power and help if you compete. So do you want to compete at the 3 level with maybe 21 HCP, no reason to believe you have more than an 8 card fit, and with the bulk of outstanding points positioned behind you? I don't, so I'll pass and take my average minus if that's what happens. But I won't be surprised if the board turns out better than that. I'd also be content knowing that I avoided a more likely potential landmine resulting in a bottom than hitting partner with a perfect hand for a top. Part of winning matchpoint strategy is to pick the right fights to engage in. Competing here has too small a target for success.

The President doesn't have the right to order the DOJ to turn over documents, but he does have the right to declassify anything he wants to. Once that material is declassified, the government has no right to refuse to allow the public to see it. If the DOJ tries to withhold them, then they can be sued in Federal court and ordered to turn them over. There's been enough come out so far to indicate that there may have been abuse of power by the DOJ and FBI. So let's get everything out in the open and let the public discern what the truth is. If the DOJ and FBI have acted properly, they should have nothing to fear from this information becoming public. If the Dems think the information being provided is incomplete or slanted toward Trump then they ought to request the President also declassify those items that might correct the public record. Democracy flourishes best when things are out in the open in the light of day. BTW, the "Saturday Night Massacre" was about trying to keep information from coming out, not for refusing to let information come out.

If the opening leader has led ♣ correctly with the lead agreements, it is clearly from 3 or 5 as it is the bottom card that can be held by opening leader. The ♣ 10 play must be from the bottom of a sequence. If it was the top card opening leader would have to hold KQJ and would lead an honor. Likewise, if it's from J10, then opening lead would have to have underled the KQ. From Q10 or K10, it's likely the Q or K would be played. So the only holding that makes sense for the play of the 10 is QJ10(xx). But if QJ10 were tight, opening leader would have 4 ♣ and the ♣ 4 would not be the 3rd or 5th card in the suit, so a different card would have been led. If this inferential count is correct, wouldn't vacant places make it 10/9 that opening leader has the ♠ Q? As third hand can read the lead as lowest of 3, the deceptive play of ♣ J would give nothing away about the lie of the ♠ suit to declarer. If the opening lead was from 5, declarer has stiff A and the play in ♣ doesn't matter.

I'd bid 1 NT with this hand.

I don't see the opening hand as a 2 ♣ opener and would open 1 ♣. I like to see minor suit 2 ♣ openers be at most 3 loser hands and major suit 2 ♣ opener's be no more than 4 loser hands. As for the rest, mikeh has pretty much said it all.

When partner makes a limit raise promising 4 trump and 10-11 value, you should almost always accept the invitation unless you have a really mangy opener with a terrible trump suit (maybe something like Qxxxx). The extra trump in responder's hand tends to reduce trump losers by 1 which is often critical to enabling game to be made. On the actual hand asked about, the hand has 14 HCP with 3 1/2 quick/defensive tricks. That's at the maximum end of the minimum opener range in point count, but the number of quick tricks is a lot more than the typical 2 quick trumps. So this is a hand you should always accept the invitation on. Even though you hold a maximum minimum hand, slam is normally out of the question. Opposite a limit raise, opener has to have a big hand, typically 17-18 HCP and/or with lots of playing strength. So, I'd be surprised if any top notch players would even think about exploring for slam with it. In this case, the only reason 7 was made was because the robot made a terrible lead, trump broke evenly, and ♦ sit favorably. At a table with real people, the ♣ K would be a normal lead from most players. I concur with the book recommendations made by others on card play. They will help you a lot. One of the things they will teach is developing a plan of how to play the hand. Often, this will include setting up one hand or the other to take the remaining tricks. In NT contracts, this often involves setting up the small cards in your long suits as winners by taking or forcing out all the higher cards in the suit and then being able to cash the remaining small cards. In suit contracts, once the opponents trumps are removed, you can often similarly set up one of the hands with the added bonus that sometime you can use the trumps in one of the hands to ruff out any remaining winners the opponents have in the long suit. So a good question to ask yourself as you try to formulate a plan of play for the hand BUT before you play any card is "What hand am I trying to set up?" Most of the time, the answer to that question will point the way as to how to play the hand. And sometimes, the answer might even be "neither" and you'll have to figure something else out. For this hand, you've got all the high trump with 9 total trump and a 6-2 fit in ♦ with the A and K. So the answer to the question is "Set up the dummy." The robot has led a trump for you and both opponents follow. Only 2 trump remain, when you draw a 2nd round of trumps both follow and the opposing trump are gone. Next, you can go about setting dummy's long tricks in ♦. Usually you cash the winner in the hand with less cards in the suit first. So you play the ♦ A next. You have two ways to continue to play ♦. You can lead the spot card from your hand and finesse the ♦ J. Or, you can lead the spot and cash the ♦ K and try to ruff out the ♦ Q. As it turns out, either method works on this hand. If the finesse would have lost, you could be held to 10 tricks by a ♣ switch. If ♦ broke 4-1, the finesse would let you set up ♦ easier. In any case both opponents follow to the first 2 ♦ tricks and the ♦ Q is the only ♦ remaining in the opponent's hands. If you finessed, you can now cash the ♦ K capturing the Q and cash 3 more ♦ tricks in dummy, giving you the opportunity to pitch 4 cards from your hand. Likewise, if you played ♦ K on the 2nd ♦ trick, you can ruff a ♦ in hand which ruffs out the Q and now have 3 good ♦ tricks to pitch cards from your hand. You can get back to dummy by playing ♥ A and ruffing a ♥ in dummy. In either case, you should pitch the 3 ♣ in your hand on the ♦s and you will be able to ruff dummy's 2 remaining ♣ with the trumps in your hand making 13 tricks.

One of my partners might well bid the hand the way it was bid. But he's a wild bidder and subject to be as likely down 3 or 4 as make. It is not how I would like to see it bid. I'd probably use Jacoby 2 NT as Kxxxx doesn't seem like particularly good holding to be a source of tricks. But as was pointed out, a 2/1 would also work here. Both should be much preferred to the actual auction.

So how would you be handling a "natural" 2 NT hand? Would it be making a negative double and then bidding 2 NT?

Sorry, but anyone who leads a singleton in hopes of getting a ruff with a singleton trump almost deserves the result they got. Nonetheless, West could defend better. First of all, the auction has East using a keycard ask and bidding 6 ♥. So there can be no more than 1 key card missing. It would be beyond belief that East would underlead an A in defending a slam contract. As Badger indicated he also knows that East can't have more than 1 ♠ because of the splinter. So the danger of ducking the ♠ lead from dummy are immense because the ♣ suit looks to be able to be setup to ditch any of Declrer's ♦ losers. So West has to rise with ♠ A and return a ♦ immediately. First rule of IMPs - defeat the contract!!! If I were East, I'd lead ♦ A at Trick 1.

If you could bid 2 ♣ natural, it doesn't mean you will play there. If you have a fit with partner and do play there, it's possible that partner might have a short hand ruff to increase your total tricks. It's also possible the opponents will compete further. And if you pass, how will you feel if the opponents transfer into 2 of a major, make it, and you find that 3 ♣ is cold your way.

Call the director if you are uncertain about a result. It doesn't matter which direction the cards are pointed. As long as the order that the cards were played is intact you can reconstruct what happened. It's perfectly fair to review what happened to make sure the right result is obtained. No one should be upset about that happening because people do turn cards the wrong way all the time. If a wrong result is entered, it's not only unfair to someone at your table, but also to other people playing in the game. There are always ways to request the review that is not accusative and less likely to ruffle any feathers, such as, "Gee, I thought I made the contract. Could we go back through the cards to see where I might have gone wrong?" or "We have several different results. Maybe we should go back through the cards to check and make sure we get the correct result as entering the wrong result affects not only ourselves but others in the game."

3 ♣ (cheapest suit) would have been my 2nd negative in this auction, but 2 NT is Ok if that's what you play. You have a clear 4 ♥ call now. It's not entirely a negative call as with a really bad hand 3 ♠ would be the default I'm really bad bid. It should show 4 ♥. If slam is a lay down because of the 2 Qs, them's the breaks. Bidding isn't a perfect science, just a way to get to reasonably good places with most hands.

North could bid 3 ♠ with a really good ♥ raise. So 3 ♥ limits North's hand. South's 4 ♣ is a control bid and slam try for if South just had game interest 4 ♥ would be bid. At each point in the auction, a player should ask "Has my hand has gotten better or worse based on the bidding so far?" and "Has my previous bidding fully shown my values?" With North's hand, it should be apparent that the 4 ♣ control bid makes ♣ KQxxx more valuable and that the values of the hand haven't been fully shown as yet. So North should cooperate with opener in looking for slam by bidding 4 ♦ to show a ♦ control.

Certainly the opponents are due a clarification of what the bidding agreements are before the opening lead, but after the auction.

The main question is whether OP (opener) acted on the 2 NT bid because of the assumption that it was a Jacoby 2 NT raise. If so, then opener is required to alert the bid to the opponents. If asked by an opponent, in turn, then opener must give his understanding of what the bid meant. After the auction is over and before the opening lead, OP's partner must clarify the partnership's agreement about the bid if it differs from opener's explanation. But during the remainder of the auction, if opener's original alert and explanation were mistaken, then opener's partner (responder) has received unauthorized information about opener's rebid and can't base further bidding on that information. Responder also cannot reveal that there was a misunderstanding during the auction. Also, if opener and responder become defenders, they can't say anything until the hand is over. If opener has not alerted the 2 NT bid as Jacoby, but the bidding agreement is that it is Jacoby, then responder must reveal the failure to alert and bidding misunderstanding to the opponents AFTER the auction is over, but before the opening lead. During the auction, responder may have received unauthorized information about opener's hand because of the failure to alert and can't base further bidding on that information. The problematic case is where opener is not sure whether it is Jacoby or not. If opener doesn't alert 2 NT as Jacoby and takes action consistent with 2 NT being natural, then I don't think any further problem exists for opener. But if opener takes action over 2 NT that is inconsistent with not alerting and 2 NT being natural, then the board may be subject to review and adjustment by the director. So say opener has a 7 card ♠ and jumps to 4 ♠, it would be OK whether 2 NT was natural or Jacoby. If opener wasn't sure and jumped to 4 ♠ with a 5 card suit without alerting that likely would be subject to possible adjustment because it is a bid that isn't consistent with 2 NT being natural. Where it could get sticky is if opener makes a rebid that means different things if 2 NT is natural or Jacoby. Say, for example, that opener didn't alert but rebid 3 ♦ which in standard Jacoby responses shows shortness (alertable), but over a natural 2 NT shows a suit. Then the best course for responder may be to get the director and speak with the director away from the table to explain the situation and get help understanding how to proceed.

When the biggest feature of your hand is the opponents suit, it's probably wrong to balance. With 7 ♦, you know that between you and opener there are at least 10. So it's highly likely that partner had ♦ shortness, yet couldn't make a takeout double or an overcall. Pass. Take your positive and move on. The opponents are not in a good place, so let them stay there.

The most important thing is have an agreement as to what double and pass means over interference. Double values/Pass weak or Double weak/pass values are both workable and have their plusses and minuses. Suit bids ought to show relatively good holdings in the suit and values. As long as you do that, you should have a good chance of handling the interference. If you want to agree to something more sophisticated OK as long as both partners can remember the agreements and remain on the same page as to how they'll use them. Remember these may not come up often enough so that they will remain fresh in both partner's minds, especially when under pressure at the table. Rodwell-Meckstroth may be extraordinary in having several hundred pages of bidding agreements that they have and can remember. For us mere mortals, if that is beyond us, it's better to have more detailed agreements on things that come up fairly frequently and rely on just some basic agreements on things that come up once in a blue moon. Do what works best for you.

I've had a couple hands come up similar to the AKQJxxx hand you mentioned. Both happened to come up versus strong 1 NT openers when we were playing Capelleti where doubles are for penalty. Both occurred in KO events. The first was holding ♥ AKQJxxx and I doubled RHO's 1 NT opener. LHO had an 8 count and elected to sit, so we were +200 for a nice gain. The second occurred in a regional KO semifinal, this time against a team with 30,000+ masterpoints. Both Vul RHO opponent opened a strong 1 NT and I doubled with ♥ AKQ10xxx. LHO Redoubled and my partner ran to 2 ♠ on K10xxx and out. I corrected to 3 ♥ which was doubled and was down 1 for a -200. At the other table, our teammates were playing weak NTs, so our teammate with RHO's hand opened 1 ♣ (3+). The expert opponent holding my hand bid 4 ♥ and our other teammate found no problem bidding 5 ♣ which was lay down. It proved to be a decisive Vul game swing.

The first thing that struck me about your experience was that the "beginning coordinator" suggested that you play in the 0-500 game. Cynically, one might think this was only to increase attendance at that game. But more likely, it was that the coordinator recognized some promise in your game and thought that a little better level of competition might be more helpful to your improvement. IMO, your partner at the 0-500 game was entirely out of bounds. As a first time player at that game and a very new bridge player, it was entirely inappropriate to act that way to you. Your attitude and willingness to learn are commendable. Playing in competitive duplicate games can seem a bit daunting at first, but keep with it. There is a bit of a learning curve that you have to go through, but gradually you ability to play and enjoyment of the game will improve. So stick with it. Many club games now have pre-dealt boards that permit hand records to be available after the game. If one of the games you play in have them, you should get a copy and go back over the hands with your results and see if you can find items to improve on. With electronic scorepads in use, many clubs are now able to post results on-line including not only the matchpoints but the resultant score and the contract played. Going over those to understand how your results differed from the par result or top result can be useful. If you have a hand where you can't figure out how to do better, then maybe you can seek help from a good player. You might ask the coordinator who would be good to approach if you need that help. I often stay some extra time to help the manager of my "home" club game answer questions that newer players have on boards. Those of us who love the game know that the only way that the game will survive and remain vibrant is to help the newer players become better and help grow the game.

Yes, masterpoints are awarded for winning and placing in club games and tournament events. A player's ranking is by total cumulative masterpoints earned. Various categories of rank are assigned by the cumulative number of points won. Currently, to become a Life Master in the US, you must accumulate 500+ masterpoints plus some additional requirements that some of those points be won in sectional and regional tournaments. Additionally, the fields in club games and tournaments are stratified by the most total points by either partner in a pair, so that some masterpoints can be awarded to players in each strata. Also, some clubs games and tournament events can be limited to players with specific maximum masterpoint totals. Some clubs in our are, for example, run simultaneous stratified open pairs games and stratified 0-199 pairs games. Masterpoints are easy enough to win so that 0-20 game is basically a beginner's game. A 0-500 game is basically a non-Life Master game.

The first qualifier about whether a new suit is forcing responding to a weak 2 should be "by an unpassed hand". I agree with cyberyeti that if you're going to bid weak 2's aggressively in 1st or 2nd seat, then non-forcing is probably better. OTOH, if you decide to play reasonably disciplined weak 2's in 1st and 2nd seat, then maybe forcing should be considered. 2 ♥ - 2 ♠ forcing let's you explore for a possible ♠ fit without getting too high. If new suits are non forcing, then the only way to force the weak 2 bidder is via a 2 NT response. Over weak 2 bidder's rebid, responder will have to decide whether or not to show their suit at the 3 level (or possibly at the 4 level).

Playing against someone playing 5cM and weak NT, your best action is pass. Because balanced minimum hands are opened 1 NT and balanced 15-17 hands are opened 1 of a minor followed by a NT rebid, the nature of 1 of a minor hands is changed considerably. 65% of the time, the person opening 1 of a minor is going to have a 15+ HCP balanced or distributional hand. (That compares with minor openers for people playing strong NTs only being 15+ about 25% of the time.) So 1 ♠ is very unlikely to be passed out.

Even if Rdbl is SOS, why would South ever Rdbl with the East hand? South is looking at 5 ♠ and already knows the hand is a gross misfit because of West's opening 1 ♠ bid. Partner has made a vulnerable 2 level overcall, so can't exactly be overcalling on trash, especially in a team game. And as has been pointed out, the double is negative and highly unlikely to be passed out. South just has to observe the first rule of misfits and get out of the auction as quickly and cheaply as possible by passing. If North's 2 ♣ overcall gets hammered for a 500 or worse so be it. South's actual 2 ♦ bid on xxxx is from outer space. I completely agree with ahydra about South not taking any action.