EricK

In one sense it was unlucky. Based on the information North had at the time he punted the grand, it was quite likely to be on. However, North jumped 3 times. Surely some of the bids he missed out, could have been used to find out more about South's hand. This will obviously depend on your exact methods, but here's one example: if you play that a "serious 3NT", demands partner bids his cheapest 1st or 2nd round control, then N would immediately discover that S does not hold ♣K.

I've seen someone suggest using 3NT as a specific Ace ask.

Yeah, I'm sure there are some people who know Fred and Bob's game enough to tell the difference, but most probably could not. Again it is kind of random depending on who knows whos games etc. I'm sure there are a group of 20 experts I could nail and a group of 20 I know nothing about and would just be guessing a lot. My impression is that Fred and Bob have very similar bidding styles though, but again I don't know Fred's game from personal experience very much at all. When I said the top 20 US players, I was sort of assuming that this was a group who played against each other frequently, and so would know each other's bridge personalities if such things existed.

At the clubs I play, the players all have distinctive bridge personalities. But to a large extent these relate to the mistakes they make - some are compulsive overbidders, some love underleading aces, some always draw trumps at the first opportunity, some bid their hands twice (or three times!) etc. I think that I would have a good chance of working out which pair I was playing against purely on the bids and plays they made. But to what extent do the top players have such distinctive bridge personalities? If, say, the top 20 US players were to play against each other in an individual tournament on BBO, where they were all compelled to use the same relatively simple system (but one which leaves lots of room for judgement), would they, after a sufficient number of hands, be able to work out which player was who? [To clarify, each player would know the list of competitors, but they wouldn't know which player corresponded to which BBO nickname. Also, assume there is no chat or post mortems etc so all conclusions are based purely on the bridge]

3NT right sides the contract. And by that I mean it prevents partner playing it.

In that case we need a new category. As well as Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, Expert and World Class, we would need to add Ken Rexford.

Assume you sit down to play with 3 strangers, and everyone agrees to play a simple system. How many hands do you think it would take to work out how good everyone was (eg to say in what BBO category - beginner, intermediate, advanced, etc they belonged)? Let's say there are two scenarios - one where there is no talking or post mortems (so you just get to base it on the bids, plays and tempo), and the other where you get to listen in to the other people's post mortems but you're not allowed to ask any leading questions.

Why isn't there an option for "I bid 2♣ on hands like this but want my partner to bid 2♠ when he holds hands like this"?

What agreements do people have after 4♣? What are typical hands for 4♦, 4♥, 4♠, 4NT and 5♣?

What do bids other than 2♦ or 2♥ show? Does responder have a way to show a positive in ♥ and if so, what does that promise? This hand isn't a positive in ♥, but it is important to know what inferences opener can make over the failure to bid a positive in ♥. Also. after 2♣ 2♦ (assuming this means we are GF) 2NT what is the difference between 4♦ (transfer to ♥), and 3♦ (transfer to ♥) followed by 4♥ (bearing in mind that in both cases, responder has denied a positive in ♥)? With all these distinctions available, it ought to be possible for opener to know by the time the bidding reaches 4♥ that slam isn't very good here.

I have a good hand, but partner's 2nd, 3rd and 4th bids are about the worst possible ones. Hence I would give up at 4♠.

My first reaction was 6♣. I don't believe I would be able to intelligently find out whether 7 is there, or whether 6 is terrible. Other people may have more confidence in their partnership agreements.

Partner's double asked you to bid, and implicitly tells you that he can handle any response you make. If he doesn't have ♠, he should have ♥ and ♣ with enough strength for at least the 3 level, or a balanced hand with ♥ and a ♦ stop and enough strength for at least 2NT.

If I recall correctly, in Principle of Restricted talent, it was a WJS of 2♥. i.e. in the case where Chthonic held ♥QT9 it was quite likely that if partner had no help in ♥, the 2♥ bidder had AJxxxx or KJxxxx and opener had the remaining honour.

Personally I would try to find out what partner had in ♠ as that will help towards making the slam decision. Ideally, we'd be playing fit jumps here :P. But since we aren't I'll bid 2♠ as a SJS. If we're not playing that either, I'll bid 1♠

I would simply open 1♣. I like to look for reasons to upgrade to 1NT but I hate auctions which start 2NT so I am far more reluctant to upgrade at that level. Do I have a hand which would benefit from being declarer in NT? Not particularly Is my natural suit bid a good suit I feel happy mentioning? Yes Will I be able to express my strength if I choose the suit opening? Probably Clearly there are bad things which might happen if we choose 1♣ - we could get passed out when we have a game on, or the opponents might be able to get a cheap bid or two in, and disrupt us. But equally there are bad things which could happen after 2NT - we could miss 6♣, or partner with 55 in the majors might insist on one of his suits thinking we must have a fit. So all things considered, I don't see the need to upgrade here.

Whether you ask for advice or not, the chances are that if you play a lot of bridge you will receive a lot of advice - either directly with people telling you how you should have bid or played, or indirectly eg when oppoenents discuss hands with each other in post mortems. So I have some meta-advice for you - be careful who you accept advice from. It is true of bridge, as it is with most other walks of life, that most people are just not very good at it, and their advice is worthless if you want to progress far. In fact, it is often worse than worthless, because every bad habit you get into, is one which you will have to get out of if you want to improve. Obviously you are now left with the problem of determining whose advice is worth listening to. And if you only play at a small club it is possible that none of the other players fits that bill. But here on the forums there are a number of players whose advice is worth listening to. So if you do get some advice from someone which sounds plausible, it is probably worth asking the guys here whether it is good advice or not. That way you may eventually determine which of the people in your circle, if any, are worth listening to.

What I have learnt from this thread is that if you have ♥A8 in dummy and are playing against someone who is hard of hearing, then saying "Top heart" (or "low heart" etc) is an infraction, and saying "Ace of hearts" or "Eight of hearts" is unethical. Probably best to play another suit altogether.

I noticed there were a few useful phrases missing, so here they are: Italian: The Blue Team were the greatest Team ever American: Everybody knows they cheated Italian: That's just sour grapes - you accuse everyone who beats you of cheating American: We're the epitome of honesty - they have a different culture out there.

Has anyone considered the possibility that this is an outright fabrication? It seems to me more likely to be all made up, than it being like something out of the x-files.

The danger on this hand is that there is no F it.

It could probably be done now using mobile phones.

West's 2♥ is a big overbid, and what caused East to keep driving forward. That being said, I think East's bids were overbids too - his ♠K is wasted, he has no honours in West's suit, he only has 4 of his suit, and his hand is balanced. None of this points to 5♦ (or even 3NT) being makeable when his partner has tried to sign off in 3♦ earlier.

Open 1♥, rebid 2♦, and if necessary claim you had a ♦ mixed in with your ♥. That seems to solve all problems on this hand type.

This is my take on each of the bids. Double looks wrong. Once we have found a fit, it is more penalty oriented than this hand. 3♣ looks right. It suggests greater things, pinpoints our outside strength, but doesn't get us too high. 3♦ is an underbid. Partner will never guess we have this much playing strength 3♠ is an overbid, partner would not play us for this weak a hand. 4♦ is about right on values, but is not as descriptive as 3♣ and takes up more space 5♦ is a stab in the dark. Partner has only made a single raise, and could easily have a lot of wasted values in ♠.