FelicityR

Britain leaving the EU will be the catalyst for other countries to follow. As I said previously, I like the idea of being a member of the EU, but I don't like how our citizens have been taken for granted for so long. The EU will have to take a long look at itself and the way it operates in the next five years, too, and it needs to be reformed on many levels. I voted Green, by the way, because Greta Thunberg is right: every election the world over is about climate change. My vote was for my children and grandchildren. As for Sterling, I'm not an economist but I do know that our coins and notes actually feel more like real money than the Monopoly money of the Euro which feels and looks fake. The IMF and ECB are run by bankers for bankers and to make rich people richer, etc. My friends living in Greece say that the Greek people are still very resentful of how their proud country was decimated by the European banks. That said, I do not welcome another 5 years of Conservative government in this country. Our own country has already suffered greatly under the Conservatives. Will things get better? Only time will tell...

Not expert-class, as I have said previously, but I believe it is real gamble to bid 7♠ here. The ♠s aren't solid, you're missing the ♣AK, the ♥K and the ♦A could well prove to be a useless honour if partner is void. Furthermore, North could well be void in ♣s and a Lightner Double could be made by North, when it may be possible to pick up the ♣ in a 6♠ even if South leads one. I'll stick here. I prefer solid grand slams where the opponents haven't bid than distributional ones when anything could happen.

Penalty, penalty, penalty. Maximum no trump opener with 5 good ♥s. No interest in partner's ♠s, doubleton at the most. Let's try to get +200 here in MPs for a top as opposed to +140. Partner then decides what do to next.

From Wikipedia:- NORM In linear algebra, functional analysis, and related areas of mathematics, a norm is a function that assigns a strictly positive length or size to each vector in a vector spaceexcept for the zero vector, which is assigned a length of zero. A seminorm, on the other hand, is allowed to assign zero length to some non-zero vectors (in addition to the zero vector). A norm must also satisfy certain properties pertaining to scalability and additivity which are given in the formal definition below. A simple example is two dimensional Euclidean space R2 equipped with the "Euclidean norm" (see below). Elements in this vector space (e.g., (3, 7)) are usually drawn as arrows in a 2-dimensional cartesian coordinate system starting at the origin (0, 0). The Euclidean norm assigns to each vector the length of its arrow. Because of this, the Euclidean norm is often known as the magnitude. A vector space on which a norm is defined is called a normed vector space. Similarly, a vector space with a seminorm is called a seminormed vector space. It is often possible to supply a norm for a given vector space in more than one way. Bridge is a game of mathematical possibilities, and, Unusual Distributions became this? (Help! Can someone translate? :)) And YES! The forum members have commented on this again, and again, and again......Time to let sleeping dogs lie, or should that be, unusual distributions die?

Which proves that in an experienced partnership, if you have the range of conventional bids available, you will always outscore players who haven't got these conventions and gadgets at their disposal. I read in an American bridge magazine recently that many players - a poll was conducted amongst top American players - consider bidding to more important than declarer play and defence put together, some even rating it at 80%, though the usual figure was nearer 60-70%.

As I said in a previous post recently, when there isn't any other sensible bid available I am happy to raise 1♥ or 1♠ to the 2 level with three card support, and that includes three small in my own personal book. Rebidding poor opening suits isn't an option here. What you have to remember here is that when partner bids 1♠ in reply to 1♦ his/her ♠s should be longer than any ♥ suit except if partner has a poor 5♠/5♥. If partner has 4♠/4♥ then they should mention ♥ first at the one level. Occasionally you will miss a 4/4 ♥ fit in preference to a 5/3 ♠ fit when partner has 5♠/4♥.

It's more of a problem bidding than it is to play as it stands. As both Cyberyeti and Tramticket have constructively commented, changing some small honour cards over can make all the difference between 6NT being available and 7NT or 7♦. Given South the ♦Q instead of the ♠Q and except if you have a way of finding out all the controls, red queens and 4-4 ♦ fit available between the two hands after a 1NT opening bid, then you are going to be unsure whether a grand slam is available. [hv=pc=n&s=saj3haq74dq632ck7&n=sk2hkj2dak94caq42]133|200[/hv]

5♠ looks particularly sensible here as partner should get the message that you are looking for a grand slam, not just a small one as you could have bid 6♥ immediately. Depending on your methods for dealing with a further possible disruption bid of 6♦ by the opponents, it does give you the option of either your partner or yourself responding accordingly to a forcing pass bid scenario to show extras or controls. Your responses at this level would have to done by agreement. Flying in and bidding 7♥ or 7NT directly here is just not constructive.

NS should have called the TD in my view. As I said previously, I played the Multi for many years and the East hand hardly qualifies for a 2♦ opening in first position even at equal non-vulnerability. That said, what were the East/West agreements about the point range and quality of suit of using a 2♦ opening in this position? Did North/South consult East/West's convention card? If East/West's convention card was up-to-date and allowed the opening bidder to bid 2♦ with such a hand, South is truly at fault here by not making any noise after partner's double. Passing is. as others have said, not an option.

East's 5♣ is diabolical opposite a multi, knowing ♠ is partner's suit. As for passing the opening bid of 2♦ previously as well.... ....if you're going to use a multi 2♦ opening bid - which I have used for over 20 years - then at least practice with hands like this. If one of your options for the multi is a strong hand, then passing 2♦ is ludicrous. If not, at least go through the motions of bidding 2♥ and letting partner decide. The level of opponents isn't a factor here, just your own judgement. And sorry for being so honest here: when you use any gadget or convention just be prepared for situations like this.

Bidding is not a precise science, as we all know. Partner has shown 5-4 distribution in the minors or better. The chances of him having a better fit in ♠s is more remote. I've always been advised by expert players far better than myself to confirm a fit at the earliest opportunity. That ♠ suit is very nice, but I would bid 3♣ now. Rebidding ♠s, and then bidding ♣s later will always come over as preference as opposed to a genuine fit.

I now know why I get so confused with squeezes :( There are just so many! In an effort to find a definitive name for this type of triple squeeze I came across the following:- Copyright Richard Pavilcek. I trust that he wouldn't mind his analysis of squeezes added to this entry as they are on the internet for all to view, and they gave me a joyous couple of hours of finally admitting that I could never attain this level of bridge in my advanced years. Mr Pavilcek, like Mr Love, is a genius. Maybe I should stick to dominoes with my husband :) I hope you enjoy them as much as I did. http://www.rpbridge.net/9m01.htm

I hazard a guess it's a type of strip squeeze, but I'd have to look in Clyde E. Love's book to give a name to it.

Raising a major to the two level on a three card suit in Acol is really only an option where you don't have any better alternative bid available. To supress a 'jolly' good six card ♣ suit headed by AKJ would be anti-bidding to me. If partner has extras, you can show ♠ support on the next round.

Yes, I am aware that the TD can only adjust the score at the table, but I have seen where appeals have been lodged after a board is played, or a session has been completed (to be more precise) and East/West must have decided against that - goodness knows why? British judicial laws have been re-written on appeal, but it seems that the EBU's Blue Book is absolute gospel. Nothing is set in stone, especially laws, rules and regulations in this world. Also, I don't agree that if South does overcall 2♠, East/West will find it extremely difficult to bid to the seven level. West has a two ace hand opposite a partner who opens 2♣. After 2♠, West has a natural 3♣ bid. It is only hypothesis how the auction would proceed after that, and how far North/South are willing to sacrifice, and whether East/West would be able to get to the seven level.

Judgement should be made on arbitration not just rules and rule books. Here the decision to aware the opponents the 3 IMPs on the board is completely RUBBISH! There's far more considerations than whether East had misled the opponents:- First, no other opponents sacrificed against any contract bid by East/West on any of the other boards, and sometimes where only game was reached by East/West (!) Second, the opponents are vulnerable (which we all know is not the time to sacrifice in 999 out of 1000 situations, and even more so at the seven level) Third, a majority of other East players also agreed that a 2♣ opening bid described the hand. Fourth, no other opponents took issue with East opening the hand 2♣. Fifth, if a rule book law had been broken in toto, then it behoves the tournament director to adjust the score on all the boards where the infringement had taken place.

The danger here is partner may interpret 4♦ as a second five card suit rather than a four card one, or an advanced cue bid agreeing ♥s. As you said, Nigel, the auction is particularly cramped here, and ill-defined with most partnerships except if they have some specialist gadgetry to deal with this. It's easy commenting seeing both hands to know that 6NT is the right place to be: with other combinations of 33-34 HCP hands it may be off and 6♥ or 6♦ will be the superior contract. And it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a grand slam could be playable, too. Except if partner has a 2NT hand that can super accept the ♥ transfer, I would view any 4NT bid as quantitative here. Even after an auction such as 2NT- 3♦ - 3♥ - 4♦ - 4♥, etc I would take 4NT as quantitative as opposed to RKCB as opener has only given preference to ♥, not supported them directly. As you say, a potentially awkward auction due to lack of space.

It's not just the ACBL but the EBU (English Bridge Union) too. However there's a big difference between bitcoins and masterpoints as bitcoins can go down (as my regular partner will testify having made a pretty penny when bitcoins were all the rage): masterpoints are more like Government Premium Bonds :) I have played against players who have their 'maximum' share of Premium Bonds in masterpoints, or who have a substantial holding having played for many years, but still play at a level below their elevated title. Blockchain technology - something I know not too much about (at least I'm honest) - might save the ACBL and the EBU but a protocol for masterpoints based on blockchain seems too complicated in my opinion. And rather silly, as Hrothgar says. I'm more inclined to suggest the coffee shop loyalty card as the basis of masterpoint distribution :)

It's a nice hand but partner's still got a second bid to make - though what any second bid would show is open to question? I prefer pass here because occasionally you will get 'gazumped' playing a strong ♣ system and guessing that partner has enough values to warrant game is exactly that: a guess. You have shown your values on your opening bid. If partner has anything of note they have an opportunity to re-open. You still may end up in a rather horrible contract. C'est la vie. p.s. I forwarded this forum entry to my son (who's more experienced than me) and who plays Precision regularly, and he said that with three cards in the opponents' presumed suit ♦s he would be very cautious despite the solid ♠s. Pass 10 points; 3♠ 7 points.

Difficult but surely with 6-5 shape you don't want to be playing in NT here. My sequence (with my regular partner) 1♠ - 2♥ 3♣ - 3♦ 3♠ - 4NT 5♠ - 5NT 6♣ - 7♠ 2♥ is 2/1 GF 3♣ shows extras (15+ HCPs) and second suit. (2NT or 2♠ would show minimum hand.) 3♦ (Temporising. Showing control or suit.) 3♠ - at least 6 card suit. 4NT agrees ♠s, asks controls RKCB 5♠ - 2 aces + ♠Q 5NT (ask for specific kings) 6♣ - ♣K, etc. Even if opener is 6-4 shape, responder can count nearly 13 tricks barring bad breaks. (Yes, that ♣J is an important card, but so could the ♥Q or ♦K be. Yes, not totally straightforward to bid, I agree.)

Priceless :)

I would be overcalling 3♦ with the West hand at this vulnerability. If my partner can't say anything in second seat over the opponents' opening bid of 1♥, it looks odds-on the opponents are heading towards game, perhaps even slam here as actually happened. I'm not quite sure what the 2♦ bid meant - just lead directing...hmmm...?

3♠ looks sensible, but I'm inclined to bid 4♠ here. Over a pre-empt I give partner about 8 HCPs, and partner is hardly going to raise a 3♠ bid to 4♠ with a doubleton and about an 7/8 count. Your hand is worth about a 17/18 count in support of ♠s with its ♣ void. The problem with all this is why haven't the opponents raised ♣s here, though? That doesn't make sense. Aggressive bid 4♠; sensible bid 3♠

My view - for what it's worth - is always raise to the level of the fit (Law of Total Tricks) if partner overcalls, except if you are at unfavourably vulnerability, where the overall shape of the hand might dictate whether a slight adjustment of -1. As partner has overcalled the likelihood is that his/her hand is weaker than the opener, so I want to obstruct the opponents as effectively as possible.

I believe the whole part of this problem is beyond making a guess in the ♦ suit - but making a guess is all we might have - but cashing the side suit winners in the right order. This allows us to work out what hand it is best to be in at the critical moment that we tackle the ♦ suit in isolation. As both ♣ and ♥ can be manipulated to end up leading from both the North and South hands, it is essential to cash the ♠s first as there is no 'flexibility' there. But, there again, except if we encounter exceptional breaks in the side suits, we are at the mercy of the defenders discarding honestly...