EricK

If by "don't know who your partner is" you mean that even during the tournament you have no way of knowing who you are playing opposite or against, then I don't see any reliable way of cheating. But since I am not a cheat there may be something obvious I am missing. Eric

I think the 4♣ bid was suspicious. However, I don't think that a misclick provides UI. Do we really want honest players to have to adjust their bidding because partner has mis-clicked? Making 6♣ seems even more suspicious. What evidence is there that would lead declarer to drop the singleton ♣K? I would tend to watch this pair to see if any other strange goings-on occur. Eric

Not only would i opne with 1♥, over 1♠, there is an excellent chance i would jump rebid 3♣ showing a strong hand. A jump bid is going a bit far with this hand, I think. However, the fact that most who have replied would have opened 1♥ does not detract from the difficulty of the posed question. Supposing the other hand had been dealer, so that the opening bid is going to be 1♠. It is very hard to get to a ♣ contract. I suppose something like 1♠ 2♥ 3♦ 4♣ 6♣ is the simplest way. But I am not sure I would venture the 4♣ bid at the table. Eric

I don't think opener should have to double to show it is his suit. I hardly ever play multi, nor indeed play against it. One hand which sticks in my mind, however, went (2♦) 2♥ all pass. ♥ was of course their suit, but I still made my contract easily. I know the auction you state isn't quite the same, but when the patrner of the multi bidder might have a weak hand, double could be a BIG loser. Eric

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sk93h85dkjt5ca872&s=s864hj6daq73ckqt4]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] S N 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 2NT P 1NT was 12-14 2♣ was stayman, but the only way to invite in NT The lead was a small (4th highest) ♠. South played the King on the first round hoping to make the first 9 tricks. Instead East took the Ace, and the defense took the first eleven! Did NS do anything wrong? Eric

This post says it all. I absolutely agree. Eric

This doesn't look like a borderline decision to me. I open 1♦. It describes my offensive strength, defensive strength, gives a good lead to partner if we end up defending, gets the first blow into the auction and so on. As such it could do any of the things you suggest and more! Eric

3NT is not a higher scoring contract than 5♣! 3NT with overtrick(s) is a higher scoring contract than 5♣ just making, but 5♣ with an overtrick is a higher scoring contract than 3NT just making, and 5♣ is a higher scoring contract than 3NT going down, and 5♣ down 1 is a higher scoring contract than 3NT down more than one. I am not at all sure on this hand what the probability of each scenario is. Could someone run a simulation? Eric

Given 4 cards in opponents' hands here are the ways the suit can be distributed 4-0 1 possibiity @ 4.78% = 4.78% 3-1 4 possibilities @ 6.22% =24.88% 2-2 6 possibilities @ 6.78% = 40.68% 1-3 4 possibilities @ 6.22% =24.88% 0-4 1 possibiity @ 4.78% = 4.78% When one says that the suit is more likely to break 3-1 than 2-2 it is because 24.88 + 24.88 > 40.68. However, the probability of a 3-1 break with LHO having 3 is only 24.88%, so a 2-2 break is more likely than a 3-1 break with LHO having 3. And this is the case you are concerned with! If RHO has 3 , then you can't catch the Q anyway. The other case you quote is similar (but you have written Axxx instead of Axx!). A 3-3 division is less likley than a 4-2 division, but a 3-3 division is more likely than a 4-2 division with LHO having 4. Does this help? Eric

A 3-1 split is more likely than a 2-2 split but it covers 2 cases - LHO has 3 or RHO has 3. A particular 3-1 split is less likely than a 2-2 split. Once one player has followed twice, there are only two options - a 2-2 split, or a particular 3-1 split, so playing for the drop is correct (with the usual proviso that there are always other things to take into account eg the bidding, the known division of other suits, etc etc) Eric

Which side should declare never depends on who has more points, it depends on who has holdings which need protecting. If the weaker hand is say ♠xxx ♥AQ ♦xxxx ♣xxxx and the stronger hand has no tenaces and no high cards in ♥, then the weaker hand should be declarer despite having only 6 points. In fact, make the weaker hand's ♥ holding Kx, and he should still be declarer. Of course, there are other issues to apart from right-siding. If, from the bidding, one hand is unknown and the other very well known, it might be best to make the known hand dummy. Eric

My opinion is that if you are doing these things with a genuine desire to win, then that is OK. If you are just doing them to have a bit of fun "because it no longer matters" then that is wrong. I don't think you have to tell opponents in a teams match - they know as well as you how badly you are doing so they must expect that you may try something. I also don't think you have to tell opponents at pairs. You don't have a duty to the rest of the field, you must simply do what you feel is most likely to bring in enough MP to win (or come in the top 3, or whatever your goal is). Eric

The ability to show this hand obviously makes it safer to show the 4 cd major. But if you don't have this ability, then you are weighing up the possibility of missing a Spade game on a 4-4 fit, with the possibility of reaching the wrong part score. I know games are worth more than part scores, but if the chance of game is very low, it may not be right, on average, to look for that game at all (and quoting hands where it is right or wrong does not really help answer the question of what is right on average). On a related note, aren't you one of those people who advocates bypassing a 4 card major as opener with a balanced hand on an auction like 1♣ 1♥ 1♠/1NT? If so, isn't that slightly inconsistent? Eric

Whether it is a convention or not depends on your basic system, :D However, on Chamaco's criteria? The Weak NT! Given x HCP in your hand, your partner's expected HCP holding is (40-x)/3, so your combined expected holding is (40+2x)/3. From this we deduce, that a 12-14 NT has an expected combined HCP around 22 i.e. just right for making 1NT, but a 15-17 NT has an expected combined HCP of 24 ie almost enough for 3NT! Hence it is the 15-17 NT which could be considered conventional (cowardly, even!). The 12-14 NT is 100% natural. Eric

I would bid 1♥ 1NT 2NT 3♥ 4♥ I prefer not to bid 3 card suits early in the auction if I can possibly help it. But, I am not sure your comment about bypassing weak 4 card majors is quite right. I don't think people advocate bypassing weak 4 cd majors on every hand, but only on hands where there is a likely better spot (usually those with a long minor suit) With the balanced hand given here, I think most people would bid 1♠. But the hand from the other thread had an excellent ♦ suit. If you don't play methods which will allow you to play in 2 or 3♦ after a start like 1♥ 1♠ 2♣, then responder has to weigh up the pros of bidding 1♠ (easily get to good game if partner has a fit) with the cons (miss best part score because can't show ♦, maybe miss low HCP 3NT game because partner can't find out about ♦ fit). The weaker the hand overall, the more likely the cons are going to outweigh the pros. Eric

Agree with Todd. I forgot carding agreements. Add them to my list :P I didn't include carding conventions on purpose. Whereas playing with carding conventions is better than playing without, I am not at all sure which specific set of carding conventions is the best. Eric

The conventions I don't think I could do without are Take out and negative doubles Control showing cue bids (although I might be persuaded to change them for a full set of asking bids if partner really insisted) The conventions I could do without but only under protest are Cue bid of opponent's overcall to show a good raise along with Pre-emptive direct raises splinters a coherent response structure to 1NT (Keri, or stayman plus transfers) The convertions I like are 2NT response to 1M as a forcing raise (I prefer INV+, but would accept GF) along with Pre-emptive raises of 1M in unopposed auctions Fit Jumps in competition (in fact, practically the whole Robson-Segal method) RKCB I have done this rather rapidly, so I have probably left some great conventions out. If you are such a convention, I apologise :P Eric

If the double promised 4 spades, then why not bid 3♣ on the south hand, then partner knows about the double fit, and so can bid on in the actual case where his ♣ are genuine, and make a cautious pass when they are not. Eric

1) You were unlucky - I would expect 3NT to make a large proportion of the time, either becasue clubs break, or on a non-club lead 2) You are, IMO, too weak to raise to 3NT. Sixteen of your eighteen points are in short suits, so they don't help to promote long cards., and your long suit is short in high cards, so you may have to lose the lead a few times before you can set it up. On many hands for repsonder, I can easily imagine 3NT going many down on a ♠ lead if ♦ don't behave. 2NT is closer to the mark. That also allows partner to give delayed support for ♦, if he so wishes. 3) You don't say what system you were playing, but I assume it was some 5 card major system. If, however, you were playing Acol, I much prefer a 2♦ raise to a 1NT bid by partner. There is a big danger of wrong siding a NT contract. This doesn't apply here as opener has no tenaces, but give opener something like ♠AQ ♥AKQ ♦Txxxx ♣Ax, and any NT contract is so much better played from that side. 4) Your partner was being a results-merchant. This is a very bad habit to get into. In the worst cases, after each bad result, the partnership finds a convention which would have prevented that result then adds it to the system without properly discussing all the follow-ups, nor even the pros and cons. This is why you see so many pairs playing a mish-mash of conventions which they don't fully understand. Eric

I find it hard to believe that no-one got the 6NT hand right! Especially as it was lesson 12. I would have thought that the general structure of a beginner's bridge course would look similar to (this isn't divided into lessons, it is simply the sort of order to do things): Basic rules (eg following suit, winner leads to next trick, trumps and so on) Play of NT hands where tricks are on top, no entry problem Play of NT hands where tricks are on top, mild entry problem Play of NT hands where high cards need to be knocked out Play of NT hands where finesse is needed Then on to simple suit contracts (I will stop giving a breakdown at this point) basic defense basic bidding more advanced plays (but still "elementary stuff" eg hold ups) more advanced defense more advanced bidding and so on My point is that they should be able to handle this sort of hand really early on in the course. Eric

Having unauthorised information is never unethical. Acting on unauthorised information is unethical. Say partner, NV against V, opens 1NT (ostensibly 15-17) in 3rd seat and the next hand overcall 2♠. If you bid any differently to how you would if partner was in first seat, then you are acting unethically. This is true whether or not partner has ever psyched 1NT in this position before. And, this is the case whether or not you disclose to the opps that partner has been known to psyche this bid. Eric

Just because you play 1m-3NT as 15-17 balanced no 4 cd major, does not mean that every 15-17 balanced hand with no 4cd major should bid 1NT! If you had ♠AKx ♥Kxx ♦Axx ♣Kxxx you would be crazy to bid 3NT in response to 1♣. If you had ♠KJT ♥KQx ♦QJT ♣KJxx you would be crazy not to. I you reserve jumps to 3NT (or even 2NT) to show NT oriented hands (ie 4333 hands with very few controls) then opener will know which hands to make slam tries on (because it will totally obvious), and he can make entirely natural follow ups. Eric

What on Earth makes you think you need Stayman? Eric

Sorry. I meant the original hand. I put my question in response to that post because that was the one where Ben said he played 2/1GF. Eric

What would be your complete bidding sequence on EW hands (asssuming NS pass throughout)? Eric