EricK

It is hard to see how this could be a clear 5♣ call when both 4♥ and 5♣ go down. Furthermore, doesn't the hesitation (if genuine) imply that 5♣ may not be the correct call? In which case one is more likely to bid on over the immediate 5♣, but double them in the hesitation case. It might help to see the actual hands. Eric

A psyche is any bid which grossly (and deliberately) mis-states your hand. So it can happen at any stage of the auction. For instance, one sort of well-known psyche is a psychic cue-bid designed to discourage that lead against a slam. The example you give is also a very well-known psyching postion. South knows that EW almost certainly have a game, and possibly a slam, in ♠ so he bids their suit knowing that he can run back to ♥ if he is doubled. Note that if 2♠ is allowed to play undoubled, South won't even mind if goes 8 off (-400 instead of -420). The psyche works even better if the bid is NF, because West will have to act immediately on this sort of hand. Personally, I think he should have anyway, and East was rather reticent in his bidding too. Although 5♠ happens to go down on a club ruff on this hand, it doesn't take a major change for slam to be lay-down. Eric

North doesn't quite have 44 in the unbid suits! I corrected it while you were posting :) but still think that the non minimum opener justifies the action. As I said, in 1NT forcing auction opps are stealing more often than not, and it is MP. The idea of double is NOT to hope that S has such a good hand, it is to compete for the partscore. It is risky, but so is Matchpoint play, IMO. At IMPS, I'd pass. The trouble is at MPs, vulnerable against not, it is dangerous even to compete the part score unless you have a good reason to believe you can actually make the contract. One down against a making part score is no good if the opponents have the good sense to double you! On this hand, North has no reason at all to believe that his side can make a 3 level contract and will reach the correct contract anyway - If South were 44 in the minors, then NS might very well reach 3♣ instead of 3♦. In some ways it is safer to compete at IMPS. The opps are less likely to speculatively double a part score. Eric

North doesn't quite have 44 in the unbid suits! I don't really think there was much anybody could do here. You have a system whereby the South hand is not considered an opening bid. That is fine, but you will gain on some hands and lose on others. You have to just accept the losses with good grace. It is very risky for North to keep the bidding open on the off chance that South has a hand just short of an opening bid. West could easily have had a much stronger hand, and then bidding by North will be a disaster (down 2 doubled is a bottom even if the NV opponents have a game). Eric

West looks more to blame to me. Eric

That is not me I am afraid! When I chose that nickname it never really occured to me that I might get confused with a world class player. If there is any confusion, a quick read of some of my posts will clear it up. EK aren't very common initials in the general polpulation but they seem to be more common in bridge players (Kokish, Kantar and Kaplan spring to mind) and motorcycle stunt riders (Evil Kneivel and Eddie Kidd) :) Eric

Well I for one would hate to have a mandatory 10 second wait after every "skip" bid. Some are just not worth the trouble... for example... P-P-1N-P-3NT <<<----- I can't imagine the need to make everyone at all tables wait here... My suggestion was only by an unpassed hand... have a forced 10 second wait. The person can bid when he pleases, but the bid doesn't show up until 10 seconds after the last bid. As slow as my home computer is, I have an enforced 5Sec delay I think anyway on all bids... :-) Ben I have never seen an argument given as to why 10 seconds was chosen for the mandatory delay after skip bids. It has always seemed far too long to me. I would think that practically all problems of this sort (whether and what to bid over jump bids) which can't be solved in 5 seconds can't be solved in 10 seconds either. And the shorter pause would still eliminate the "weasel" defence. Eric

There is 2NT which is what you'd bid with a diamond fewer and a heart or club more. It also has the advantage of heading for the likeliest game (although admittedly it heads away from the likeliest slam). Eric

I think 3H was normal. When in training session with my real-life friend, I told him that raised to 2 with 13-15 points (including distributional points), to 3 with 16-18, to 4 with 19-21, cue-bid at 4-level (or bid opening suit at 4-level) with strong 2-suiter (one of them is pd's suit, of course). West has 13 VERY good hcp, good 5-card clubs, and 3 distributional points. It qualifies 3H raise. I think it depends to some extent on what your opening 1NT range is. If you play a strong NT, then a raise to 2♥ may be on a weak NT hand, and obviously the playing strength of this hand is way above that. But if you play a weak NT then a raise to 2♥ will necessarily have some extras (either in HCP if balanced, or in distribution if unbalanced). On the other hand, to say this is a raise to 3♥ suggests that with a trick extra you will force to game but with a trick fewer you would only raise to 2♥. I am not sure this hand meets those criteria: Is ♠4 ♥A743 ♦J85 ♣AJ863 even an opening bid? Only just, if at all. Is ♠4 ♥A743 ♦AK5 ♣AJ863 a GF? Maybe, but it seems a slight stretch when an invite will probably get you to 4♥ whenever it's right anyway. Obviously, if Fred says it is a 3♥ bid, then it probably is. But this is my reasoning for saying that 3♥ is a bit aggressive. Eric

What does redouble show? Maybe 2♣XX is our only making game? Of course, parnter should only leave it in with something in ♣ Eric

There are 7 tricks in dummy. After partner has played the J and Q of spades you know for a fact that declarer must have 9 tricks - a count of the points shows that partner can't have both Aces, so declarer either has both Aces or one Ace and ♠K. But if declarer had ♠K he simply takes it on the first round and runs 9 tricks, so partner must have that card to give you a chance. Now your defence is clear. Eric

If there is a stiff honour on the right, the finesse on the next round wins and I still have A K to come for my 3 tricks. Eric

So East was upset that your hand was weaker than you advertised, yet when s/he doubled the contract made! This is just ridiculous. Eric

It does seem a strange decision. If you had had a 3rd club and one fewer diamond (and West's hand adjusted accordingly), it still looks like 3♦ makes. I assume it was East who called the director. Did East explain what different bid would have been made had they been explicitly informed about the possibility of a 6 card minor? East's double was a risky bid which didn't pay off. An off-shape bid is not the same as a conventional bid, IMO Eric

I think it is better to take an immediate finesse of the 8, followed by a finesse of the 9. This gains over K first because I can change my plan if LHO has a void or small singleton. Eric

Your 4♥ bid was entirely normal. Partner's 3♥ was aggressive, but so what? If he bids only 2♥, you will make an invitation and he will accept. Anyway, what does a huddle followed by 3♥ imply anyway? If anything it implies that it is a stretch, so the UI would suggest passing rather than bidding on. It really sounds to me like they had no genuine reason to complain. As Flame says, they are probably a bad loser. Although I am wary to make any diagnosis having only heard one side of the story. Eric

I hope they make the contract cold :)

That's right. All small slams also make if played by North. 6♣ by North makes on a similar play, but the handling of trump suit leads is slightly different. Here's another one: [hv=n=s82hq7542da93caq5&w=s943hkj83dj76c982&e=skq75h96dq85cj743&s=sajt6hatdkt42ckt6]399|300|[/hv] Whatever the denomination, NS can make exactly 10 tricks double dummy. Eric

I suspect on many of the hands where you have a game, partner will be able to bid something (especialy if he prebalances in a 1♠ 2♠ auction) , or you will be able to bid knowing that you likely have a fit. I am not very experienced but what I have noticed is that when I try bids on hands like this we get into trouble, but when the opponents do they find their partner with a perfect fitting hand. Eric

[hv=n=saqj9ha52dkq8ck64&w=s8632hjt8djt6ca75&e=st74h643d754ct932&s=sk5hkq97da932cqj8]399|300|[/hv] There is something quite unusual about this hand. Can you work out what it is? Eric

I don't think 6♥ makes on a ♣ lead, but the reason it wasn't bid has more to do with the opposition's bidding than with yours. I wouldn't have opened your hand 1♦. Either pass because of the 4 card ♠ suit or pre-empt. The pre-empt is possibly better as with an 8 card suit you are less likely to want to play in an outside suit, and there is a very good chance that the ops have a high contract available. I don't understand East's pass on the first round. An immediate 6♥ looks about right. Eric

I agree 100% with this. Eric

I can see 7 possible appraoches 1. Cash Ace: This wins against all 2-2 splits, all 3-1 splits except x KJx, and no 4-0 splits 2. Run Q, then if it loses run T: This wins against all 2-2 except KJ xx, all 3-1 except KJx x and one of the 4-0 splits 3. Run Q then if it loses cash A: This wins against all 2-2; all 3-1 except KJx x and K Jxx and one 4-0 4. Try to run 9, then if it loses (and 4-0 not revealed) run Q: this works against all 2-2 except Kx Jx; all 3-1 except Kxx J; and both 4-0 splits 5. Try to run 9 then if it loses (and 4-0 not revealed) cash A: this works against all 2-2; all 3-1 except Kxx J and x KJx; and both 4-0 6. Small to the Q then try to run T: This picks up all 2-2 except Jx Kx; all 3-1 except KJx x and Jxx K and one 4-0 split 7. Small to the Q then cash A: this picks up all 2-2; all 3-1 except KJx x and Jxx K and one 4-0 split I think that line 5. is the best. It is clearly better than 3, 6 &7, and I think it is better than the others although I haven't worked out exact percentages. Eric

It's the middle of the night here, and that is my excuse for any errors I might make B) I could cash the A first which picks up singleton Honour on my right or KQ tight in either hand. This doesn't seem too likely. Or I could play for a doubleton T onside (either HT or Tx) by leading low towards dummy and either pinning the Ten on the second round (if LHO plays H or x) or dropping his now bare honour (if he plays T). The problem with this line is that if LHO plays the T. If this is a singleton or from Tx, I should finesse on the second round; if from HT then I should play the Ace next. So it seems if I am going to play small then LHO should play the T from either doubleton holding. Now if LHO goes up with an honour on the first round am I right to abandon my initial plan and play for him to hold both honours? If so, then it seems that LHO should sometimes play the H from HT, but always play the T from Tx. But if LHO always plays the T from Tx what should I do if he plays small? If I can discount Tx, then I must play him for Txx and drop both honours offside. So if he wants to protect his partner he must sometimes play x from Tx. So if my reasoning is correct (and I am not at all sure that it is!) then I can't really deduce anything from the card LHO plays. Which means I ought to just ignore LHO's card and play for doubleton T onside if he plays H or x, but play for Tx or T if he plays the T. Eric

If you have a 100% line for 3 tricks, you'll always have an overtrick. ;) I probably read your post wrong, but I can't see any sensible meaning in that sentence... B) Btw, with this suit combination, there isn't even a line of play which gives you less than 2 tricks anyway, since you can only lose tricks to K, J and T... The 100% line for the overtrick may not be better than the line which increases your chances of making two overtricks at the risk of making 2 exactly. Eric