EricK

This is very interesting. According to Suitplay, Ace first is the best play for 4 tricks, trying to run the 9 is the 100% play for 3 tricks, but playing up to the Q is the line which maximises your expected number of tricks. So at IMPs, needing 4 tricks you should play the A, and needing 3 tricks you should run the 9. But what about if you need 2 tricks? And at MPS, assuming you are in a normal-looking contract and not doubled and not in desperate need of a top and so on, what line should one take? Does it depend on how many tricks you need for the contract or should one always try for 4 tricks regardless or always go for the maximum expected number regardless? Eric

Is it just me, or does the bidding show that North doubled South's bid? Does that mean that North is confident that South will make it ;) Eric

It is rather disingenuous to use a missed grand slam in ♥ as a possible reason to avoid opening 2♠ with a side 4 card major. The last time I checked, a making grand slam in ♣ also scores better than a ♠ game, but I don't hear many people recommending that one doesn't open a weak 2 with a side 4 card minor. I accept that the possibility of missed game in 4♥ is a counterargument to pre-empting. Isn't this also the opponent's goal in bidding? So isn't another of our goals in bidding to make it hard for them to find their right contract? This is, after all, one of the main reasons for pre-empting. Pre-empting can gain in a number of ways. One of those ways is to cause the opponents to overbid and then we can defeat them. This is more likely if we have defensive values, than if we have a "pure" pre-empt. If the opponent's overcall the pre-empt (as opponent's often do) I would much rather have the given hand than your example hand. You will often get another chance. But you will also often have to guess what to do at the 3 level. If it starts 1♦ 3♦ you have the choice of bidding 3♠ which is one level higher than your opening would have been and is even more likely to miss a ♥ game, or of doubling, which has the serious risk of getting to the wrong major, or of passing again, which seems rather pusillanimous. I am not saying you are wrong, but you were only giving one side of the argument. 2♠ will sometimes gain over pass, and it will sometimes lose over Pass. I honestly wonder whether the gains outweigh the losses or vice versa. Eric

I am happy to open this 2♠. If partner really hates a side 4 card major for pre-empts then I am also happy to pass. I am less happy opening 1♠ - for some reason, that sort of bid just never seems to work out right for me. Eric

At MP there is no advantage to bidding vulnerable games compared with non-vulnerable games so ones strategy should be the same at any vulnerability (when you are bidding to make at any rate). But at IMPS, even playing solid invites/aggressive acceptances still leaves the question open as to whether, when vulnerable, one should make less solid invites or more aggressive acceptances. Now it seems even clearer that the inviter should adjust his range - there is less scope for the partner (who already accepts often) to accept even more often! Eric

It is well known that at IMPS one should bid games more aggressively when vulnerable. This means that in vulnerable game auctions one or other of the players' bids must have a different range to what it would if non-vulnerable. In Auctions like 1NT 3NT it is clear (isn't it?) that responder will have a lower lower limit for the 3NT raise than he would if non-vulnerable. But in an auction like 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ 3♥ (Inv) 4♥ I can see three possibilities: 1. reponder invites on exactly the same hands he would when non-vulnerable and opener accepts more often 2. responder invites with a weaker hands than he would non-vulnerable (and bids game directly with the upper range of non-v invite) and opener accepts on exactly the same hands he would when non-vulnerable 3. a mixture of the above i.e. repsonder invites slightly more often and opener accepts slightly more often. The same applies to all invitational auctions. So, in general, which method is best? Strangely enough, I have never seen this discussed in any books or heard of any partnership agreements on this topic. Yet if the partners are not on the same wavelength I can imagine responder inviting on a lower range (because we're vulnerable) and opener accepting on a lower range (because we're vulnerable) and so getting to vulnerable games which are well below the theoretical lower limit. My hunch is that 2. is optimal (i.e. the person making the invite adjusts their range, their partner accepts or declines in the same fashion whatever the vulnerability), but I would be interested in other people's opinions. Eric

I am not very surprised that many players don't know this combination. After all, only a relatively small proportion of bridge players actually study the game. However, I wonder how often a trump was lead, thus negating the need for a safety play. Eric

Terrible bidding all round! South is a trick or so short of a 2♠ opening. North should raise to 3♠ (it is generally wrong to raise straight to game with an Ace) so the best contract of 3NT is reached. West has no reason to double 4♠ (he has only 2 certain tricks). East shouldn't take out the penalty double with an Ace. He certainly shouldn't sacrifice at this vulnerability unless he thinks there is a chance of only being one off. West's 5♥ was ill thought out if he planned to revert to 6♦ West's 6♦ is ridiculous once 5♦ has been doubled for penalties. West's redouble is ... Help! I've run out of non-insulting adjectives. Eric

No system can work on all hands. What hands will come up most often after the auction 3♣ 3♥? Either RHO has a genuine 3♥ bid in which case we will very rarely have a hand which is happy competing to the 4 level, or RHO is making some sort of bluff. By far the most common bluff in this situation is bidding a short ♥ suit with ♣ support. In that case, we are likely to have a strong hand with some ♥. To be honest I don't recall ever seeing an auction like 3♣ 3♥ (X). I would be interested in seeing real life examples of it and also of the 3♣ 3♥ psyche, to see whether a take out double or penalty double has more use. Eric

I wonder whether double in this position should be psyche exposing. If RHO is strong, we are rarely going to have a hand which genuinely wants to compete but can't bid 3♠ or 4♣, and if he is psyching we need a bid to expose it without getting too high. Eric

Do people use this 4♣ bid as minorwood? I can understand it if ♣ has already been agreed, but it strikes me as more useful for this to simply be suit agreement. If you then want to play 4♦ by opener as some sort of Ace ask then that would be sensible. Also, how often can the weaker hand simply ask for Aces so early in the auction? Not often enough for it to be part of the system, would be my answer. Eric

Certainly 4♣ is better than 4NT. Partner may not have a diamond control! There may not be a way to find out about the ♥Q, but there is a way to let opener know how important the card is. 1♣ 1♥ 3♣ 4♣ 4♦ 4♥ 4♠ 5♥ 7♣ The 7♣ is a bit of a punt in that opener can't quite count 13 tricks, but responder's 5♥ cue, since it forces to at least the small slam, obviously shows a little bit extra. So opener can see 7♣ 3♥ 1♦ 1♠ and many chances for a 13th (♥J, outside singleton, outside K, plus a few more which give a play for the grand) Eric

Vulnerability and type of scoring are important here, as are opponent's methods. Is LHO the type who will overcall his longest suit even with very strong hands or would he double first on that type? Also, is partner the sort who would pass initially with a spade stack or would he bid NT? Eric

A 1NT opening. But unfortunately it's too late for that :( Eric

But wouldn't opener often bid a 3 card major at the one level if he wanted to play in the 4-3 fit? If they often work at the 2 level they will work even more frequently at the 1 level! And aren't 5-4 hands much more easily handled by bidding naturally? And if they are handled by a first round double then a second round take out double is just begging partner to pick the wrong one! Eric

This looks like a 5♦ to me. You will occasionally miss out on a slam. You will sometimes miss out on a good 3NT. But you will often cause the opps to miss a good game or slam or overbid into a bad one. And you will sometimes make 5♦X for an excellent score. Eric

I don't understand the point of a second take out double by responder. He has surely denied a 5 card major (else simply bid it over 1♦) and we have denied a 4 card major (else we wouldn't bid 2♣). And we will often have bid a good 3 card major instead of a 5 card club suit or a raggedy 6 card one. So what exactly is partner looking for? If partner has a second take out double, we are going to have some length in ♦, so something like 2236 is not unlikely, and we will have to go to 3♣. But if 3♣ is right, partner could have bid it himself (he knows we almost certainly have 6 of them). But partner may very well have a penalty double of 2♦ (eg a 4441 hand), and if we are minimum, we can't be expected to keep the bidding open on, say, a minimum 2326 hand just in case partner has that hand. Eric

I think a response of 1♠ is mistaken on the North hand and he should bid 2♣ (and I am not just saying that because I have seen South's ♣ suit!) If the bidding starts 1♥ 1♠ 2♥, North no longer has a sensible bid. He is too strong to sign off in 3NT or 4♥, so he is practically forced to bid 3♣ in order to force. Now if partner bids 3NT you are again stuck! Should you leave it or take out to 4♥? And I don't think bidding is any easier if partner gives preference to 3♠ or makes a probe with 3♦. Also if opener might raise a major on 3 cards, you are in a tricky situation after 1♥ 1♠ 2♠. Unless you play quite sophisticated methods it is very hard to determine the correct contract (3NT, 4♠, even 6♣ if partner has a perfect 3514). These problems disappear if you respond 2♣. Firstly, if partner rebids 2♥, you can force at the 2 level with 2♠. Now partner's possible NT rebid is at the 2 level and you have room to explore if you want. Secondly, opener will only raise 2♣ to 3♣ with a 4 card suit (and, playing SAYC, with extras). Now you have an easy route to look for a ♣ slam. Thirdly, ♣ is a much better suit than ♠, and you shouldn't bid bad suits on good hands if you can help it. Here for instance, a singleton ♠ for opener is better than a singleton ♣, but how is he meant to diagnose that if you bid ♠ and not ♣? Eric

When playing A attitude K count, you should also play that Q asks for attitude. So with KQx(x) where you are worried about declarer's AJx you should lead the Q. Partner encourages with the A or J and discourages with neither. Eric

If I understand you correctly (and I genuinely don't know if I do), what you are saying is that if you discourage immediately you are asking for the obvious shift (here, presumably a ♥, becuase of your bidding) but if you want partner to switch to the non-obvious suit (in this case ♣) you have to encourage to begin with so that you can throw an "unusual" card on the next round. I am not sure that that system is better than one in which you give your genuine attitude on the first round and hope that partner can work out which switch is required. Especially in the case where partner's continuation of the suit you have falsely encouraged sets up a trick or two for declarer Both seem markedly inferior to the commonly played system of being able to ask for count or attitude from suits headed by AK. Eric

Your analizing is a post lead analyzing, could west know that before he led so he could have led a card asking for count ? maybe Could they know this hand will come before they agreed to play attitude and not a hand which would be better not to play count ? maybe Anyway they agreed to play attitude and not count. With AKQx when do you ever need to know attitude? If you are looking for an entry in partner's hand in ♦, then the Q is probably the correct lead (then eg partner can play the J from JTx to show it is safe to underlead the ♦ on the second round) Anyway, don't many pairs play A asks for Attitude K for Kount (or vice versa). It is odd that experts wouldn't have some sort of agreement on this. I think if they are playing attitude signals only, then West has got to lead the second ♦ to get a suit preference signal from partner. So East should play the 2 then the 3. Eric

Isn't this an example where West should be asking for count? Once East shows an even number (almost certainly 4) West can count 3 certain tricks (♦AK ♠K) so only needs one more. On the bidding and play, South has probably 7♠ and 3♦ and probably 2-1 in ♥/♣. If he has a singleton ♥, a ♥ switch can't help. If he has a doubleton, then the ♣ switch wins immediately of East has ♣A. If South has singleton A♣ and no ♥K, I don't see how he is making the contract on a ♣ switch either. Not having a way to ask for count on the opening lead does make it harder. Eric

I wouldn't worry too much about this. For some this is a minimum 1NT overcall, for others this is a maximum pass. What that implies is your expected score (in a statistical sense) is about the same for each action. It also implies that whatever you choose will be right a lot of the time and wrong a lot of the time. Anyway, what has happened here? You have missed a 23 point 3NT game which happens to make. If you swap the ♥9 with the ♥3 you would have avoided the 23 point 3NT game which goes down on a ♥ lead. Eric

1♦ 5♦ 6♦ is not unreasonable if the opening is by North. Eric

On the hand which started the thread, if responder makes the obvious 2♦ response then he doesn't have to manufacture anything. 1♣ 2♦ 3♣ 3♠ (cue) etc As to your method, it is probably OK. But I am wondering about the sequence 1♣ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3♥ Where opener has presumably shown 5♣ 4♥ and not 3♠. What does responder do without 6♠ but no ♦ stop (eg a 5332 hand)? Eric