EricK

I suppose we should cash the ♥A (in case a far-sighted defender wants to unblock the King to avoid a throw-in), then draw trumps, eliminate ♣ ending in dummy and lead a ♥. Now if RHO has ♥K and ♦Q, then he can see the throw in coming, but because he does not know of our ♦T may decide to duck in the hope that partner can win the ♥ and fire a ♦ through from his side. If the ♥Q holds, we can finesse RHO for his presumed ♦Q. That gives us a free play for the overtrick against expert defenders. So this hand is suitable for the B/I forum (as it is a pure example of an elimination play), but it is also suitable for Advanced or Interesting hands. If a beginner partner found the 100% play for the contract, I would certainly say VWDP, and mean it! Eric

What tricks are we trying to make? On top, we have AK in every suit. That is 8, so we need 4 more. If we can find the Q in either minor suit, we will get 2 more tricks, and the long hearts are another 2 tricks. We can't make the long ♥ without giving up the lead once (unless we are lucky and drop the Q). So we have to do that first, before we have set up any more tricks for the opps. Once we have driven out the ♥Q, we turn our attention to the minor suits. We could take a guess as to which finesse to take, and if we are right (50% of the time) that would give us the contract. But if we are wrong, we are down straight away. By first playing the AK in the other minor suit, we significantly add to this percentage, because if we drop the Q, we make our contract, and if we don't we can still try the finesse. Is that clearer? Eric

With that line, if there is no good news, you are already a trick short even if the ♣ behave (2♠, 2♥, 2♦, 5♣). Counting your tricks is a habit which everyone should have! Eric

If bidding starts 1♦ (1♠), I would double on ♠xx ♥AQxx ♦Kxx ♣KQxx. I reserve the cue bid (2♠ in this example) for hands with support for partner. Of course, this isn't the only way to play, but it is fairly common and is what I like. As far as I know they haven't changed their minds, An immediate 2♥ is risky on the given hand, as it will often get you too high if opener has a singleton or void ♥, and it might also get you too high if partner has a fit and plays you for more strength. If you want to bid 2♥ on this sort of hand you ought to play negative free bids, but they do have certain drawbacks if opponents have good methods for competing over a negative double (which you are now forced to make on a lot of strong hands). If you don't have such opponents, negative free bids are actually a good idea. Eric

This sequence is a difficult one for a new/pick-up partnership. Put yourself in partner's position and try to think what problems he may have. He may be worried that 3♣ would be passed. He may be worried that if he doubles and you jump to game in ♥, then you will mis-interpret a correction to 5♣ as a cuebid. He may be worried that 4♣ would be interpreted by you as Leaping Michaels. (i.e. ♣ and ♥). These are genuine "technical" worries. Depending on what you have on your profile, how you played previous hands, and what sort of person partner is, he may be worried about giving you any decisions to make or letting you play the hand! These issues may not be valid in a well-practised partnership, and the last one shouldn't be valid in any partnership, but... So, whereas 5♣ should, IMO, be strong, and my hand should be strong enough to raise to 6♣, raising may not be the best move. If slam is there, I doubt it will be found by most pairs in most fields; but if it isn't there, we are probably going to be alone in our failing slam. Eric

There is for everyone a maximum level they could possibly reach. It is disappointing to realise that however hard I try, I will never be world championship material. But there are players I know who try just as hard as I do, and don't reach even my level. And there are people who have played for decades, and not just "socially", who seem unable to grasp even the simplest of plays. One can study any number of books or get tuition from the best tutors and still not get above one's personal ceiling. It is as true for bridge as it is for every human activity. Eric To me, bridge has two parts, the technique part and the mental part. In some sense, one may not master the complicate technique in his life, but his bridge on the mental part can still improve. It's a game of decipline, a game of concentration, a game of understanding the balance, a game of understanding life, and a game of trying to follow the nature. In that sense, nobody is really limited. Yes, you might not be a world champion, be you still can be a great player. You might not be a great player, but you can be a great person. Not like the physical sports, bridge is a game that If one tries hard, one can always improve. I have never been convinvced by any distinction between physical and mental. There is a fastest speed I could possibly run at, but there is also maximum level of concentration I could attain, a maximum level of understanding I could have. and so on. I would agree that one can always improve, but only in the sense that one can never quite reach one's own maximum potential. But here, the improvements will get smaller and smaller as one does approach one's best. It is like the sum of the sequence 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 etc. The partial sums get bigger all the time, and they get as close as you like to 1, but they will never reach it, let alone exceed it. But while the improvements are still measurable, I will carry on trying. Eric

eric, i see a lot of polish club systems that have differing 2- and 3-way 1c openings... within the framework of a 12-14 nt, are there theoretical drawbacks to this? 1c=any 15+, or any 11-14/15 with clubs, or any 2 suited hand with clubs (clubs may be canape) for example, 1c can show 1345 hands here, or 1354 or 4225, etc... this seems to (i admit i haven't thought deeply on this) free up 2c and 2nt, it seems to allow a 1h opening to guarantee an unbalanced hand, even if 4 hearts (say 2452) the main reason for opening 1h on 4 cards is to have a rebid over 1s (assuming a hand in the 1nt range that i don't open 1nt with - i try not to open 1nt on 4522) another thought i had, is a 2-way 1nt bid allowed under gcc? i was thinking of 1nt=12-14 OR 18-19... the responses are very easy (responder passes with any hand that would pass 1d/1h/2nt, except of course responder always bids a 5M, even with zero points) You need to find bids for all the hands included in 1♣ after a negative 1♦ response. Standard Polish Club will bid 1M with any of the weak hands, and hope to scramble to a playable spot at a low level. I am not sure what I would like to bid if I might have a 2-2-4-5 hand. I think strong/weak bids work better if either the weak hand(s) or the strong hand(s) is well-defined. Otherwise you can have difficulty sorting everything out, even in an unopposed auction, let alone a competitive one. Eric

For most people who don't play negative free bids the double of 1x (1♠) simply shows ♥ and says nothing about the other unbid suit. It also tends to show a weakish hand unless there is no biddable suit (ie it might be a strong balanced hand). The rationale being that if you wait until you have stuff in both suits before bidding, you will be forced to pass on a lot of hands, and so miss major suit contracts, possibly game contracts. It is not so serious to miss minor suit contracts, as the chance of game is less. So playing that style, partner's bidding was correct. Eric

I agree :rolleyes: I have a line but I have no clue whether it's best. I disagree. I think this is an excellent problem for Intermediates. It involves a technique which is easy to understand, yet widely applicable. A problem which is suitable for this forum is not one which the most of the intended audience can solve, but one which the audience can learn from. Eric

Hi Giving up forcing NT is the disadvantage. I can't imagine how to bid 2/1 without forcing NT. cheers Al But after 1♥, 1♠ is the forcing "NT" response (slightly improved because of the extra step it allows). Eric

The question is, who has all the spades? Partner doesn't have 5 or he had bid them. If he has only 3, opps have an 8-card fit. I don'T like my Qs and Js playing myself, but better defending. Therefore: No doubt: PASS cheers Al This assumes that partner will bid 1♠ on any 7-9ish point hand with 5 ♠ however poor the ♠ are. Even if the ♠ are KTxxx, most of the hands are not 1♠ overcalls. Eric

1c is any 15+ or 11-14/15 with clubs... i'd rather use 2c for something else, maybe a roman type bid... as for 2=5=2=4 and 2=4=2=5 hands, open both 1h... you need an asking bid for responder, to look for opener's 2nd suit.. if opener has no 2nd suit, he rebids his suit just thinking out loud here :rolleyes: If we're just thinking out loud, then how about something like: 1♣ strong or 12-14 NT 1♦ 4, or 5+ with 4♣, or single suited 1♥ 4, or 5+ with 4 ♣, or single suited 1♠ 4 or single suited 1NT 5+♠ and 4♣, or ♣ single suited If the opening is 1♦ or 1♥, then a rebid of 1NT shows the 4♣ hand. Or you could make 1NT natural, and include the 5♠/4♣ hands in with 1♣ This leaves the whole 2-level to do with as you wish. Eric

Eric, when I was young I took tennis lessons and had fantasy tennis matches against Rod Laver in my backyard - of course I almost always won and dreamed of the days when I would be winning Wimbledon. Similarly, in my backyard cricket games I was always the star bowler and batsman. Don't be too disappointed that you'll never be world championship material but I guess this only reinforces my opinion that bridge is an incredibly ego-driven past-time. Dwayne Freud All hobbies are ego-driven aren't they? "I do this because I enjoy it" is the rationale. The disappointment comes largely from realising that I am missing out on the enjoyment of finding e.g. guard squeezes and other "expert" plays, and that I could not play professionally, so I have to continue with my lousy day-job. Eric

Maybe it is not best to play on ♣ straight away. If you play a ♥ towards dummy at trick 2, East will win. Then, he may very well switch to ♦Q. If you read this as a true card, you can place ♦K with West, and so ♣Q is more likely to be with East because of his opening. Eric

I haven't had much experience of canape systems at all, so I wouldn't like to comment. I am not sure exactly what you are proposing: Is 1♣ 15+ any shape, or 15+ balanced? If the former, why not put single suited ♣ hands into a 2♣ opening. How do you differentiate between 2-5-2-4 and 2-4-2-5 hands? On a related note, I have been trying to get a system like this working: 1♣ strong 1♦ a 5 cards major or 54 in the minors (so a sort of Multi!) 1♥ 4 or 6+ (with inverted 1♠/1NT response) 1♠ 4 or 6+ (with forcing NT response) 1NT weak NT 2♣ 6+ no 4 card major 2♦ 6+ no 4 card major But I can't quite get the follow-ups to the 1♦ opening to work. Eric

You have almost no realistic way of making the contract if you don't make a lot of ♣ tricks. Playing AK♣ picks up Q or Qx offside, finessing picks up Qxx (but not Qxxx) onside. I think the latter is more likely than the former. Eric

There doesn't seem to be a bid for eg 1-3-4-5 hands. Eric

When you open them with 1M you are already unlikley to be able to rebid 1NT (never if you the major is ♠). If you want to treat them as balanced hands open them 1NT or 1m. Then, after 1♥ 1♠ (0-4♠), your rebids are all specific: 1NT = 4♠ 2♣ = 4♣ 2♦ = 4♦ 2♥ = 6♥ and after 1♠ 1NT, 2♣/♦/♥ =4+ suit This way, you never have to bid 2m on a 3 card suit. Eric

Because of the old bromide against opening a preempt in a suit when holding a side four card major no doubt. Here's a thought. If you think the main reason for partner not opening a six card suit is the posession of 4 cards in the other major, then you can bid 3NT and gamble a pass over partner's 4♥ transfer. You may look silly when the reason for partner not opening his hand was he had seven spades to the Ten and an outside Jack, but maybe the risk is worth taking. Eric

There is for everyone a maximum level they could possibly reach. It is disappointing to realise that however hard I try, I will never be world championship material. But there are players I know who try just as hard as I do, and don't reach even my level. And there are people who have played for decades, and not just "socially", who seem unable to grasp even the simplest of plays. One can study any number of books or get tuition from the best tutors and still not get above one's personal ceiling. It is as true for bridge as it is for every human activity. Eric

The thing to do is to commit some irregularity which will get partner barred from the rest of the auction. And then bit 3NT. :D Eric

I seem to remember this hand (or something similar) being in "Bridge with the Blue Team". It may be "easy", but there are a lot of people who have been playing for years who would get it wrong. Eric

The very question "How do you play with a novice?" implies that beginners are all the same, or at least similar in some important aspect. I do not think they are. A far more important distinction than novice/experienced is talented/untalented. Everyone eventually moves from the novice to the eperienced category, but I have never known people move from the untalented to the talented. I would play the same opposite a talented novice as I would opposite a talented experienced player (although the number of conventions I might agree to play would be lower). And I would play the same opposite an untalented novice as I would opposite an untalented experienced player. Opposite the talented player I would play what I consider to be my best bridge and not try to mastermind in any way. Opposite the untalented, I would try to minimise our disasters. So if I think the par contract is not our way, I will not attempt to put the opps under any pressure, if there is a danger of partner sacrificing over their "last" guess. Or if slam looks to be good, but requires some play by partner, I will settle for a safe game. Or I wont make a game try which requires partner to exercise judgement, but just make the decision myself. Opposite a player I do not know. I will assume they are talented to begin with (the triumph of hope over experience ;) ). If I judge that they aren't, then I would switch tactics. Eric

If 2♣ is FSF, then opener might bid 2♥ IMO. If it is GF, then he should definitely bid 2♥. You have already shown 5♦ and 4♠. Why not show your ♥ tolerance? Eric

I like Ben's methods here. But, I like even more using a 2NT response as 3 or 5. ie a hand which is exactly a limit raise or a trick better than a minimum GF. This is combined with 3NT as minimum GF, support and no shortage, and splinters showing a raise to game but no extras. This allows opener to evaluate the slam potential of the hand straight away and so not give away too much information on hands where there is no chance of slam. Eric