EricK

I think X = Pen; 4NT = takeout used to be standard. Here's a link which supports my understanding. http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=188 But clearly GIB doesn't have a sensible 4NT definition!

When I want you to play a hand, I'll support your suit ;)

I thought standard was X=takeout and 4NT is two places to play. The trouble with playing 4NT as takeout rather than X is that very often partner will want to pass for penalties!

When and what you should pre-empt depends very much on your position at the table, your vulnerability, and the opponent's vulnerability. 2nd seat, V v. NV is one of the worst positions for a pre-empt, and your pre-empts in this position should be sound. If anybody has a good hand at the table, there's a 50% chance that it is partner and you do not want to get in his way. If the remaining points are equally divided between LHO and partner you will probably win a part-score battle anyway, since you have both majors. The risk/reward ratio is just not right for a standard 2♥ opening.

Can somebody explain what infringement partner is supposed to have made?

So it was Xmas party night at the club last night. Wine, food and bridge. The first of these might have had some effect on the last. How would you rate these opening actions which I saw perpetrated? 1. [hv=pc=n&n=sq7h4daqt632ct642&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp1n]133|200|1NT is ostensibly 12-14[/hv] 2. [hv=pc=n&n=sq62hjt9643d74c53&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=3h]133|200[/hv] 3. [hv=pc=n&e=s72hkt9643dcjt962&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3h]133|200[/hv] All three met with perhaps undeserved success.

In my experience a natural, invitational 2NT is a bad bid (albeit sometimes necessary), and the earlier in the auction it comes the worse it is. Another way to look at it, not explicitly mentioned above, as far as I can see, is that there is more room below 4M than 3NT, so the space is better used to see if 3NT is on (or what the contract is) in those hands without a fit; whereas we can better afford to jump on the hands with a major fit as we still have nearly two whole levels to explore before reluctantly settling in 4M.

1. The first call to mention is double by South With shortage in clubs he might well shut his mouth. But if double with this is a part of your style Then on the next round he must Pass with a smile. But North is not blameless from what I can see His hand is quite good for defending N.T. There's an excellent chance that the opps are in trouble And he can express this by means of a double. 2. "Keycard" without any keycards is risky And bidding the slam when you're off three is frisky. Or did he imagine all five held by West? In which case just bidding 5 Spades is best. Partner will Pass you if he just has two And you'll play it in five (and you might make it too) There's no reason to fear (long as partner's alive) If he has more keycards, he won't leave you in five.

A hand which sticks in my mind is a 7 hearts contract missing the queen. I somehow miscounted the number of trumps between hand and dummy so played for the finesse rather than the drop. Naturally the queen was doubleton offside.

Do you have the hands right? There are 13 on top if spades are not 5-0

The Phil Silvers Show (Sgt Bilko) would make my top ten.

That's a bit harsh. You can tell your partner you have at least 6 clubs and less than opening strength and let him make a decision - but he will make more cautious decisions than those whose partner promised at least 7 clubs. Or you can pass and tell him you have less than opening strength and let him make a decision based on that. It is not clear that he will make better decisions in the latter scenario. It is clear that the opponents are likely to make better decisions in the latter scenario though.

Presumably if you play this style of pre-empt then you take the view, in many more cases than "normal", that the opening pre-empt has done its job. i.e. you don't extend the pre-empt as freely, and you tend not to sacrifice. You have taken away 2 levels of bidding in a situation where other people might have passed. The hope is that this will put your side ahead often enough that your side don't have to take the last guess.

I hate 1♣ on this - it makes it easier for LHO to bid a major suit as most play that an overcall can be weaker than an opener. If my methods allowed 2♣ (either as a minimum Precision opener, or a Fantunes/EHAA style 2 level bid) then I would happily bid that. Otherwise I would go with 3♣ unless I was playing with a partner who really didn't like this sort of pre-empting style.

When I view the movie it starts off with the North and South hands displayed. It would be better if it showed the North and East hands.

I don't think this is normal at all. From my extremely limited sample, "normal" is for dummy's cards to be played in the same way as everyone else's - i.e. extracted from the hand and placed on the table. So I can easily imagine that if the 4th player wasn't watching the table, then he might think the 3 had been played. I don't think that is a valid excuse though, as he should have been watching.

Yes. The hand diagram is as in the book. East played the ♣J on the 4th trick

Bridge logic says that 4♦ must be forcing (whatever else it means). East can not know that 3NT is not making and 4♦ will score better - which would be the only conceivable reason for taking out a game into a part-score. As to what it does mean, that rather depends on what the rest of the auction has shown. In many natural systems, both players have limited their hands - West by the 2NT rebid, East by the 3♣ rebid. In such a case, 4♦ probably means that East has misbid - either on this round or a previous one! However, if the auction was GF by agreement (eg because 2♣ response is played as GF bid, or the 2NT rebid shows extras), then I imagine East is showing 3 card ♦ support and some sort of slam potential.

According to 'The Rodwell Files', this hand illustrates the merits of a passive approach by declarer: [hv=pc=n&s=s96hjt72dajtckt43&w=sajt8532hk3dkq3c7&n=sk7haq98d752ca865&e=sq4h654d9864cqj92&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1sdp2h2sppdp3hppp]399|300[/hv] West led ♠A and another ♠ eliminating the suit. So now declarer (Meckstroth) 'was happy to postpone playing either minor' and played ♥Q. West won, played a ♣ to T and K. Meckstroth drew trumps and played a ♣ towards his hand. East won and played a ♦, leaving West endplayed. I must admit that this line of play would never occur to me, and I would have played a ♣ towards hand, drawn trumps via a finesse and finesse ♦. This line also leaves West endplayed as the cards lie, but seems to work in most other plausible lies of the card. So what exactly was Meckstroth catering for when he spurned the ♥ finesse which is surely odds on from the bidding?

If there's ever a position where pre-empts should be super-sound it is second seat, vulnerable. I am very happy to bid 2♠ here. Assuming partner knows my style, it is hard to imagine him making the wrong decision as the auction develops. I think this hand is more of a problem in other seats or at other vulnerabilities.

If the bid was reasonable (albeit borderline), I don't imagine many pairs, however volatile, would be adversely affected. And if something this minor does set them off, then I can't imagine needing to manufacture such a scenario as a genuine example is bound to arise soon enough.

Talking of information leakage, but from the other perspective, 1NT makes it easier for the opponents to enter the auction. But I don't know if, on average, this information leakage helps you in the play of the hand more or less than it helps the opponents' defense.

Even if north shouldn't have passed, I can't see how south can make a non- forcing bid with this monster.

If you can include a 2 loser hand in the 16-22 3-suited group, then partner will never be able to evaluate his hand. If 2♣ is also a strong opening, then I think north should have opened that.

I was specifically referring to the 1♣ 3♦ sequence.