EricK

I occasionally play in a club. Most of the people there are weak players. Because this is England, they mostly play Acol of some variety - but some of the common agreements are dubious at best. For example, it is fairly common to play, in response to a Weak NT (12-14), that 2♠ shows exactly 11 points and 2NT shows exactly 12. This, I hope you'll agree, seems a ridiculous way to use two bids. Now it is not too surprising that weak players have bad agreements, but where exactly do they get them from? I have never seen the aforementioned use of 2♠ and 2NT recommended in any book, or any website purporting to teach Acol. So anybody looking to any outside source for a system opposite 1NT would find something different (and better). So how can something like this take hold? Is there anything similar happening where you play?

On borderline hands for a double, what swings it for me is whether I have a good lead I.e one which is guaranteed to set up tricks and/or guaranteed not to blow a trick. So here I double. After a few rounds of ♠, it should be clear , from the sight of dummy and partners cards, how best to continue.

Does anybody play transfers by 4th hand when the bidding starts (1♣) X (P)? It seems like the extra space could be useful eg to allow jumps to 2M to promise 5+, while a transfer-completion-raise sequence could show the same strength but only 4 in the major; or to allow 4th hand to show both majors at the 1 level by transferring to ♥ then bidding 1♠. Because you've lost the natural 1♦ response, you could also play that a 1♠ response shows a balanced-ish hand with no 4cd major, and 2♣ is 2-way, either weak with 5+♦ or various strong hands.

Probably a ♣ to the ace followed by a ♠switch.

To make a slam in a suit requires three things: Good trumps, good controls, and enough tricks. Good trumps are important because, for example, if you get to slam on a suit like Axxx opposite xxxx, then you will definitely go down, or with Axxxx opposite xxxx you will often go down no matter what you have in the rest of the hand. Controls are important because you don't want the opponents to cash two Aces, or the Ace King of a suit. But even if you have great trumps and lots of controls, you still need to find 12 tricks! eg ♠AKxx ♥Axx ♦Kxx ♣Kxx opposite ♠QJxx ♥Kxx ♦Axx ♣Axx has great trumps and loads of controls and still only makes 10 tricks most of the time. When partner has supported your suit with some sort of limit bid (eg 1♠ 3♠, or 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ 3♥) you generally have a reasonable idea of whether 12 tricks is a plausible target. So slam bidding becomes a matter of determining whether you have good enough trumps, and sufficient controls. This is why one of the most common approaches to slam bidding involves the partners cooperatively cue-bidding suits with controls to ensure there is no suit uncontrolled; allied with some sort of Blackwood to determine if the trumps and good enough, and there aren't 2 Aces missing. Game in a suit, on the other hand, does not require so much. You don't need great trumps; you don't need every suit controlled; in fact, if it looks like you have the playing strength for ten tricks, then you are best off just bidding game and hoping you can set up and make your ten tricks before the opposition can make four. However, a lot of the time, whether the two hands have the combined playing strength for ten tricks depends on how well they fit together. A common way of finding out is bidding a suit in which you need help, and allowing partner to make the decision. This is generally known as a 'trial bid'. If you are the responder, how can you tell whether partner is showing a control or asking for help? If you are in a game forcing situation, then partner's bid must be looking for a slam, and so is a control. If you are already at the 3 level, then partner's bid effectively forces you to game, so again it is a control bid. However, if there is still room for the partnership to subside in 3 of the major, then responder should initially assume it is a trial bid asking for help with a view to seeing if the hands fit well enough for game. I say 'initially assume', because if opener is slam interested he can start with a trial bid and then bid on even if partner tries to sign off at the 3 level.

The same player as in the OP did this to me a few weeks back: Me LHO CHO RHO P P P 1♠ P 2♥ 3♣ I never seem to be able to get through to him how this sort of bidding makes no logical sense. Why is it that some people can never seem to grasp "bridge logic"? I'm no expert, and I might not have been able to work this sort of thing out all by myself, but I never needed it explained more than once.

What's the worst 2 level overcall you've ever seen? By 'worst' I simply mean lacking in bridge merit. How does this one compare?: Vulnerable against not, dealer passes, 2nd hand opens 1♠, 3rd hand holds ♠AQx ♥Jxxxx ♦xx ♣Kxx and bids 2♥

Playing MP Pairs, partner opens 2NT (ostensibly 20-22 HCP), and you hold ♠Q ♥T963 ♦KJ82 ♣KQ95. What's your bidding plan? eg if you are going to start with 3♣, what do you intend to do over each of partner's possible responses?

If partner plays the hands well I'll bid 6NT; if he plays badly, I'll look, for the ♣ fit ;)

Hand 1 (MP Pairs): [hv=pc=n&e=sqt976432hjt3dt4c&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1hp1sd2d5c]133|200[/hv] You might not like the 1♠ bid, but you're stuck with it now. 2♦ is undiscussed, but partner is no expert and has a limited bidding vocabulary - so assume it is natural of some sort. Hand 2 (MP Pairs): [hv=pc=n&e=s4hqt953dkq84cj74&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1s2h4s]133|200[/hv] The opening bid is Acol, so could be a 4 card suit if in a strong balanced hand. 4♠ is pre-emptive.

[Original reply deleted as it was based on opening of 2S] How weak can West be for the double? He would probably double with eg KJxx x AJxx Kxxx, and the given hand looks a couple of tricks stronger. If East thinks he might have a shot at 3NT opposite a minimum double, then a 4NT try looks warranted by West.

This book might be the same as Mendelsons guide to the bidding battle.

If you run 5♦ immediately and they both come down to singleton ♥, then you do the throw-in without touching ♠. If one of them keeps two ♥ and throws a ♠, then you can play ♠AK, but don't need the throw-in as you will have a sufficient count of the hands to play the ♣ correctly.

If West turns up with 1♦, then do we even need to risk his having made the inspired lead from Kxxxxx? If you run all 5♦, then in order to give you any problems, West must discard 4 ♥ (if he discards a ♠, you will get sufficient count on ♣ after cashing ♠AK; If he discards a ♣ you will know what to do after cashing ♣K). East, can't discard a ♣ either, and if he discards a ♠, then you will also know what to do after cashing ♠AK (either East follows to both, meaning only West could have 4♣, or he shows out and you have a complete count of the hand), so to give you a problem, he must come down to a singleton ♥ as well. Now you can throw either player in with a ♥.

I bid 3♥ and I'm quite happy with it. If we end up too high because the hand is a misfit it's probably because partner should have doubled rather bid 2♠!

I think it is useful to also point out to your student mistakes made by the robots. Learning from your own mistakes is good; but learning from the other sides mistakes as well is much faster. And, as you say, the robots don't mind if you chat about their mistakes!

Did you also point out that the ♣6 is a terrible lead?!

Probably the most important aspect of system design is how to cope with interference. It is really rather easy to construct a system which gets to the right contract nearly all the time assuming the opponents remain silent. An opening bid which guarantees length in a given suit is far less prone to disruption by the opposition than one which is ambiguous. Partner can rarely support your suit, if you mightn't have that suit! So if you open, say 1♣ showing 5♠, and the next hand calls 2♦, if responder happens to have 3 card ♠ support he can show it. But if your bid shows 5♠ OR a balanced 15-17 hand, then responder is on less certain ground. Now I'm not saying that it is impossible to construct a set of responses which can handle all responder's common hand types after a 2♦overcall (and a 2♥ overcall etc), but this is the kind of problem you should be concerning yourself with when trying to construct a system.

Partner leads a singleton ♣. I get in early and give him a ruff. At the end of the hand, partner, who started with four trumps, says "if I didn't have to ruff it might have been better". "So why did you lead a ♣?" I innocently ask. "Well, it was a singleton" he says.

Don't you need a small ♠ in a lot of the examples, as there is no entry to the ♠ otherwise?

Declarer does much better if he immediately cashes the second club before going for the ♠ ruff, doesn't he?

Well don't Passover it any more.

Follow up question: So if instead of trebletons, LHO majors were both doubletons i.e the ♠ have split 5-2, and the ♥ lead was, say, from ♥73, then we shouldn't play the person with 5 ♠ for the Queen ("naive" probability 5/7), but should play the opening leader for a doubleton Queen (probability 1 - 1/2 x 5/7 = 9/14)? Because that almost renders the process of counting a hand like that pointless!

Yes. I meant to say the lead was a Heart!