EricK

But this is the sort of thing I can't do. After the hand is over I can't remember sufficient details about it to mentally replay it. When an evening of bridge is over, all the hands merge into one (well not quite, but a lot of them get confused in my head). My father is one of the "born experts" I was talking about. When he used to play a session as a young man he could remember every single hand that he'd played that day; but I can't do that. Maybe it is because I am not concentrating enough or maybe my memory doesn't work that way.

There is a class of player I will call the "born expert" who is picks up the game very quickly. Counting comes naturally to them, and they can become Advanced or even Expert in a remarkably short space of time without seemingly applying themselves. After they have played a hand, and so seen all the cards, they will very likely be able to work out if they played or defended the hand correctly - whether or not their actions were actually successful. For the rest of us, it isn't so easy. I have no idea if I played a hand correctly or adopted the right defense. I can see afterwards what would have worked, but that is far from being the same thing. eg I take a finesse - it works, but maybe there was some elimination I missed which would have increased the odds. Or I take a finesse it loses but I could have made it on a squeeze. If the squeeze was less than 50% chance I played correctly, if it was greater I misplayed. But I am not capable of working this out for myself. Or we defend a contract and it goes one off. Did I defend correctly? Maybe the contract would always go down as the cards lie, but my defense would have given away the contract in certain other distributions, whereas a superior defense always beats the contract whenever it can be beaten. How would I ever spot this? It seems to me that this is the sort of thing that prevents most players reaching their true potential. There is no way for them even to see the errors they make, and hence to correct them in future. It is not like in chess where for £30 I can buy a programme of supergrandmaster strength who will point out every single one of my mistakes. So what to do?

This looks like a double to me. 4NT would be two places to play, but what are 5♠ and 5NT?

I don't have much to add to what has already been said. But I would note that if your partnership is in the habit of opening 1♦ on minimum hands with 4♦ & 5♣ then this problem becomes even harder.

Do people think that Australia will remain on top of the tree once Warne (and McGrath) retire?

"The stronger the opening the weaker the responding hand is likely to be". This is true, but I would imagine the responding hand only gets weaker by 1/3 as much as the opening hand gets stronger i.e increase the opening hand by three points and you would expect the responding hand to drop by only 1 point. Whether this affects your point, on the other hand, is open to question.

I think bidding 3NT is better than looking for 5♦. Swap the EW hands, for instance, and I doubt they'd have found the ♥ lead! If, however, 3♣ asks for a 5 card major, you might try that and then bid 3NT if partner doesn't have 5♥.

Is QJxxxx not a strong 6 card minor? It is certainly not a weak one. The auction might have gone more smoothly if he could have shown his suit straight away at the two level rather than at the three level.

Correct. Anyways... This hand has a good theme. When trumps are your only entries to a long suit in dummy that may need to be set up, you should keep a high one in dummy and test the long suit. On the flip side the defense's goal should be to tap the dummy in order to kill the dummy (not possible on this hand). Which brings me to a question I have been meaning to ask here for a while: How does an expert decide how to play a bridge hand? eg. How much of it is pattern recognition? Do you think of lines of play and then see how many distributions they cover OR do you think of likely distributions for the enemy hands and then use that to deduce a line of play to deal with them OR do you go back and forward between these methods? How often to you reassess your initial thinking based on information received in the play? etc etc

Gilchrist is on the scrapheap already? Sean I would play Sangakkara ahead of him as batsman/keeper.

The Aussie's hardly have 12 champion cricketers. They certainly have more than England, but they aren't really a patch on the some of the teams when Steve Waugh was captain - in those days a world XI would be almost totally Australian, nowadays you would have Ponting, of course, and still probably Warne (but for how much longer?) and maybe Hussey.

I would open both hands 1♣ planning to rebid spades as often as necessary. It doesn't take much to make slam (especially on the second hand) and you want to give yourself the best chance of getting to the correct one. I wouldn't go as far as to say one should always open the 6 card suit, but I would need a good reason to open the 5 card suit first.

It certainly seems that the Aussies have had a lot of bad decisions going there way in this match (not outs being given out and vice versa).

It was a well timed pre-empt and sometimes you are going to lose out to those. Even so, I think the North hand is a raise to 6♣. Apart from the times it is cold, there will also be times when it makes because of the wrong lead (eg 7♣ 3♦ 2♠ ruffs when a ♥ lead through the King would defeat it)

This is bridge related, but you have posted it in the "Off-Topic" section, which is meant to be for non-bridge related stuff. So it is off-topic. So were you right to post it here after all? My head hurts.

This always sums it up for me.

1NT if 1435 and 2S if 3415. Aren't the same rebids made (after 1♦ 1♠) on a 1453 or 3451 hand?

What sequences are problematic?

The descriptions of Polish Club I have read suggest that with minimum hands with a (24)25 or a (34)15 shape should open 2♣. Wouldn't it be better to include them in with the 1♣ opening? Maybe even (14)35 hands could be included too. After a 1♦ response opener can rebid 1M. After a 1M response opener can either raise or rebid 1OM or 1NT. Meanwhile the 2♣ opening becomes much better defined.

If one partner has, say Kxxx and the other xxxxx then there is often no reason why either of them would have had a bid at any time.

Maybe one could use this sort of system over (1♣) X (P): 1♦ artificial, strong but not GF (8-11 ish) no 5 card major 1♥ weak, usually 4+ but occasionally 3 if 3334, 3343, 2344 1♠ weak, usually 4+ or 3244 1NT natural 2♣ GF any distribution 2♦ weak with ♦ as only suit 2♥/♠ 8-11 5 card suit rest as standard.

♥Maybe one should play transfers at the two level in response to a take out double. So here you can bid 2♣ as a transfer to ♦ followed by 2♥

The argument is not so much that you should change your system because RHO has intervened but that you can use RHO intervention to make a distinction which you would always like to be able to make but can't when RHO doesn't intervene!

Very early days yet, but what do you think of this (it's a sort of cross between Fantunes and Little Major)? 1♣ 14+unbalanced ♥>=4>=♠ or 15+ balanced ♥>=♠ or 11/12-13 with 5+♥ & 4♠ 1♦ 14+ unbalanced ♠>=4>♥ or 15+ balanced ♠>♥ or 11/12-13 with 5+♠ & 4♥ 1♥ 14+ unbalanced ♣>=5>♦ 1♠ 14+ unbalanced ♦>=5>=♣ 1NT 12-14 fairly balanced 2♣-2♠ 9-12/13 5+ (as in Fantunes) So the 1♣ bid promises ♥ if unbalanced but might only be 3 in a balanced hand with 2 or 3 ♠. And the 1♦ promises ♠ if unbalanced but might be 3 if balanced with only 2♥. All the 1 level bids are forcing. In response to 1m openings, the cheapest bid is a relay and shows at least invitational strength opposite a strong NT (so about 8+) other low level bids are natural and weak (5 cards in a suit not suggested by opener, 4 or at a push 3 in the major suggested by opener). After eg 1♣ 1♦ something like 1♥ 5+ unlimited 1♠ 4♠ 5♥ 12-13 1NT balanced, forcing 2♣ minimum (i.e. not GF over responder's minimum) 4♥ 5+♣ 2♦ minimum hand 4♥ 5+♦ higher bids various GF hands Something similar after 1♦ 1♥. After the 1♥ opening, 1♠ is a relay after which 1NT shows 4♦ 5+♣ minimum 2♣ shows 6+♣ 3-♦ minimum 2♦ shows 4♦ 5+♣ extras 2♥/♠ shows extras and a good 3 card major Something similar after 1♠ and a 1NT relay.

To me, the South hand is not a 3NT rebid.