KurtGodel

I would have thought 4♠ is clear. Partner will be able to fill our diamond suit out a bit, and will have at least 3 cards, so I can't imagine too many losers there. Similarly partner should cover trumps a bit. AQxx x Kxx KJxxx is a hand with misfitting clubs, no heart void, no solid trumps and I would still guess that game makes enough to be worth bidding it it (K♠ onside, A♦ on side, and diamonds 2-2 or Axx onside failing to find the ruff).

I am sorely tempted to plant this in a duplicate, constructing hands where it is impossible to get to anything other than 4♠ and where it is very difficult to lead anything other than Q♥, just to see how many people make this. But it really would be an abuse of my running duplicates power.

What you should bid depends a lot on your raising style, if your partner can have Kxx xxxx xxx xxx, then you can't really bash and bid game, but otherwise it's probably worth it, that was a pretty bad hand, and game is still only one off, Kxxx xxxx xxx xx and now game is cold. So if partner raises on complete junk, make a try: I would prefer a natural try showing clubs if that were possible, but if not I would probably make a shortness try of 3♦. If partner needs something vaguely useful to bid 2♠ then I would bid game. That being said, if your partner has made a try you should only accept if you raise on junk. If you normally make a constructive-ish raise then you don't have much more than a minimum - partner could be making a try with AQJxx x Qxx KQJx or AJxxxx x Kxx KQx et cetera...

We have a strong two - what's wrong with using it? I'm not really experienced with these methods, but surely when you have a hand that is extremely strong for a one level bid, but not quite a game force, that would be a good hand to open with a strong forcing opening that doesn't push us to game. Is your P really raising 1♠ with Jxxx xx xxx xxxx? You will now get there opening 2♦. Similarly, now you can get there opposite xx QJxxx xx xxx, without getting too high opposite junk. I think 2♠ will make whenever p has 3 spades, and a lot of the time they have 2 (they could have the J, they could have doubleton heart, they could have Q!h, or a minor suit king, the suits could break). You also don't really miss that much room for slams, unless the auction begins 1♠ - 2x, but in those cases you are probably going to end up pushing over partner's sign offs anyway because they won't really expect a hand like this.

Whilst this isn't extremely tough, I think it would be unfair to describe this as a beginner problem. If this hand came up at a club duplicate I reckon more than half the field would go down. Perhaps a better description of the hand would indeed be 'Interesting Hand', but I think people are really getting at the OP. I know he has said things that people (including me) have disagreed with, but he didn't do anything wrong here.

I think we can eliminate 3♠ immediately, partner can put down a balanced yarborough and game will have play. E.g. partner has xxxxx xxx xx xxx and game is still Q♠ coming down and A♣ onside, yes this isn't great but it's still about 25%. Shuffle a card xxxxx xxx x xxxx and suddenly game is now either Q♠ coming down or A♣ onside, which is pretty good. Giving a sixth spade et cetera are all ways to make game better than 50% In terms of super accepting: I don't really want to bid diamonds as partner might think something like Qx is useful, but the holding we really want them to have is x. 3NT has the big advantage of hearing 4♣, over which we can bid 4♥ - showing our lack of diamond control, now if partner has the diamond king they can right side, and they will feel very good about a diamond stiff. Over 4♦, you can still try 4♥. I'm sure if P has ♦AK and ♠Q they will bid 5♦, if they take control with key card we are also happy.

Is this even a serious question?

I would just bid 3♠, if partner has Qx I expect them to bid 3NT now. If they don't then there is a good chance of their having a stiff and 3♠ will help P on the way to 6♦. Although I must say playing with GIB I would just do what Gordon did and bid slam. Grand could easily be making opposite AQx x AKxxx xxxx, perfect hand I admit, but not very many points. Now that we have bid spades, p will know Q♠ is a huge card.

We have a good hand with a nice trick source, I'll bid 3♣, partner can make a move towards game with any extras, whereas they might be thinking more about 4♠ rather than 3NT if we bid 2♠. I don't think the pull of the honours is that major a factor, but it is a bonus.

Cross to dummy with a heart, play a small club from dummy. a) East rises with the ace. Unblock clubs, take a diamond ruffing finesse (change the order depending on what suit they play back) you make: 6 trumps, 2 hearts, 2 clubs, 2 diamonds. b) East plays low. Win the king, ruffing finesse in diamonds, pitching a club. Now you concede a heart and ruff one in hand, you make: 7 trumps, 2 hearts, 1 club, 2 diamonds.

I think I would pass here, partner probably doesn't have a great hand. The risk is that we could have a huge fit (like on the actual hand), but I feel like in practise most of the time we don't and partner just has 4-6 diamonds (sometimes opener might raise on 3) and we have just fixed them. If we double and we catch partner with 4♠, then we have a pretty bad trump suit to put down in dummy and could be getting doubled. Sometimes we miss out, but I think doubling gets some random -200s and penalties more often than it gets us to a making partscore/game. I could believe that I was wrong on this one though, it's sad to pass with such shape. I would have also bid 1♥ the first time round, facing an unpassed partner, we are just way too good to bid 2♥ IMO. It shuts us out of spades when partner has a good hand, and partner will misjudge our defensive capacity.

I would cash the ace first, but still play for the drop. I don't think there's much to go on, but if you were looking at Qxxx of trumps you'd probably cash an ace if you had one. You can argue until the cows come home about this one. You could say that because West has led an ace they might have Qxx, you could say that because West didn't lead from club shortness he doesn't have it - so he has more clubs so he has fewer trumps, you could say that because East didn't make a lightner double he is marked with at least some cards in the plain suits, so he has less room for trumps. But all in all, you are missing 9 hearts and 13 points, if somebody had shape and hearts, they may well have bid, I would say that spades are probably 2-2. I think you'll just get bogged down over thinking. I think it's too big a position a take to finesse (and that's saying something given how close playing for the drop/finessing is), so you should just concentrate on which 4-0 break you think is more likely.

A fun hand I played: [hv=pc=n&s=skj9ha94dkj65ckt6&n=s8752hkqt62daq82c&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1n(15-17)p2c(Stayman)p2dp3s(Smolen)p4hppp]266|200[/hv] LHO leads A♠ and plays a spade to the queen and king. You play a trump to the king and a trump to the ace, RHO pitching a club. 5 trumps, 2 spades and 4 diamonds makes eleven tricks, you've made your contract - great. Can you make a twelfth? Solution:

I think bidding 6♦ was way off, you don't have a very appropriate hand for slam. You could easily be off 2 (or even 3) key cards or a cashing AK. The West hand feels so terrible I'm not even sure that I would have cuebid. I can think of very few hands where partner needs our cooperation to bid this slam. I don't quite know what kind of hand partner is showing in this sequence, so I guess I'll courtesy cue bid 4♠. If 3♦ was forcing I would have bid that, over which I would have bid 3NT (I am really not interested in bidding slam with 1 ace, ♥Qx, empty side suit. To bid a slam you need 1) good trumps 2) controls 3) a trick source. We don't have anything to advertise that we haven't already said (we are a wknt with 5 diamonds). The sequence would have gone for me: 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT - 2♦ (art. gf) - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3NT - 4♦ - 4♠ - 5♦.

I am not disputing that, I play the method myself, but I could not on this particular occasion.

I don't think that's a valid comment. The hand is not very interesting if you play leaping Michaels, as I presume you would just use it. You are welcome to have takeout doubles. I think 3♦ is probably just the majors.

You are not allowed any form of leaping Michaels, the question is not what system are you playing, it's what are you going to bid given your limited options. It's teams.

This error of mine reminds me of a time I played against you and Martin at the YC and asked whether he could be 5422 after having opened 1NT, he had just shown up with 6 diamonds... No more tired bridge :(

Ah yes of course. Feel sheepish now.

I'm not saying it's not the best play, I'm just saying that you can't pick up KJxx onside. If you cover at most one time, then you still have a club stop! This isn't up for debate, maybe you should deal yourself some cards and try it out.

This hand has 12 cards. If you add any queen or the J♠ then I would open. You don't seem to have one singleton, leave alone two.

You can't pick up KJxx onside either.

Whilst I agree that most beginner/intermediate players play to much gadgetry for their own good, I certainly wouldn't prevent them. Nor do I think that playing conventions is anything other than a wonderful idea. Do you not see that it is part of what makes bridge the beautiful game that it is? It allows you to express your creativity in a way that no other game does. You can choose what suits you, and if nothing does you can make your own thing up! Just take the obvious example of transfers over 1NT: Without transfers: Any sign-off with hearts: 2♥ Any invite with hearts: you must either decide not to invite, to force to game in hearts, or make a general invite, which might be hideously inappropriate GF with just hearts: 3♥, now if partner bids 3NT you are a bit stuck, especially if you have a slam try. GF with hearts and another suit: 3♥, now 4x over 3NT, hope that other suit isn't spades... With Transfers: Any sign-off: 2♦ Invite with 5 hearts: 2♦ then 2NT. You now also have good hands with 4♥ not in your partners range, as they would have broken the transfer. GF with just hearts: 2♦ or 4♦ (should you want to play that, now you can show weak slam tries with no shortage), now you can bid 3NT (p can even cue with amazingly appropriate hands), 4x or 4♥! GF with hearts and another suit: 2♦, now another suit. You have saved a level (or 2 if the suit is spades). This is just a simple bread and butter convention, there are many many other that are worth playing. The only downside of playing this is that they sometimes get to double your transfer bid, and I would say this happens a lower frequency than your ability to correctly place the contract. This doesn't clog your mind up either, because after a while it just becomes an automatic part of your thought process. Learning conventions isn't that difficult especially for more experienced players, who can easily contextualise the bids and see how they fit together. If anything the regulation should be reduced, and we should let people try their ideas, it will help our game to expand and flourish. Sure, there is a place for 'simple systems' for weaker players/players new to the game, but we are talking about the game as a whole. I think if you don't think conventions are worthwhile, that you don't have any sense of romance, and that you are missing out on some of the incredible beauty and satisfaction that our game can provide.

I don't know what tricks North thought they were taking against 4♠X.

I think people are seriously underrating pass here. As well as being able to catch the opponents when they bid (everybody seems to bid so much these days), you also have the opportunity to get a great score when other people overbid. I can imagine those players who are trained to count points might think this is an above average hand and might end up in nonsense contracts like 3NT or even slams! I put this through K&R and it turns it out that it's only worth 12.65, the sterile 4333 shape and lack of tens makes this hand a clear pass. So called 'BBO experts' always seem to overvalue hands like these, you just have to be logical: we have eight tricks, partner rates to be broke, just pass and hope for the best.