FelicityR

Pass now as there is a forcing bid made by the opponents. Double when they retreat to ♠s. If you double 2♣ and double 2♠s, partner will not know what hand you have.

'None' is a pronoun. I'm nitpicking too :)

I think that when you retire to the bar and start drinking pints of beer the game might be up :) But in all seriousness, having worked for the NHS previously, gender identify is difficult to clarify. There's a big difference between simple cross-dressing to full gender reassignment. Most transgender people end up somewhere in between. That doesn't include people who describe themselves as 'non-binary' either. Where would they fit into this? I expect that bridge, just like cricket, would accept someone who identifies as female at a domestic level until such time as they start winning regularly when probably some bridge authority such as the EBU will have to clarify to what degree that person is transgender. In medical terms, people who have started regular hormone therapy, and/or have had sex or gender reassignment surgery would automatically be considered transgender from then on.

I'm not a great fan of some of the articles from The New York Times, but this one raised my grey eyebrows. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-money-farmers-how-oligarchs-and-populists-milk-the-eu-for-millions/ar-AAJLg5h?ocid=spartandhp Many people, including my own family, have questioned why I voted to Leave the EU. There were many reasons, but one of the strongest was the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. Back in the 1980s I remember the wine lakes and butter mountains, and the bizarre funding of EU money to farmers to stop them growing crops on their land. It seems that the EU hasen't evolved and cut out the corruption in their systems. I dislike Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party, but the sooner we rid ourselves of EU that also looks after the few at the expense of the many, the sooner we might be free as a country. I'm not naïve to realise that there are many corrupt forces in the halls of power around the world, but when The New York Times publishes an article like this you have to question that the EU is surplus to requirements.

I have the Complete Book of Bols Bridge Tips in my library but can't find the reference, although for 10 years between 1977-1986 none are listed (?) Here is the late Grant Baze's tip. http://advocate.district8acbl.com/apr09/baze.htm

1♠ by East: no. 4♠ by West: no. There's lots of losers in both hands, even accounting for the distributional values of the fit.

I respect that you are a world class player, mikeh, but there are plenty of other hands where 6♣ or 7♣ cannot be made. If the X of 3♠ is primarily for takeout, partner is hardly going to leave it in with a good 6 card ♣ suit, even with an honour in ♠s, perhaps especially with only 3 cards in ♠s. That's my view (though I might be wrong, I admit.) My partner and I play 2♣ here as a free-bid with 8-11. Maybe I am giving too much respect to my opponents bidding up to the 3 level vulnerable here, but I trust them not to overbid at this vulnerability, and leaving 3♠X in is a last resort. It's for those minimum hands where partner has something like ♠9543 ♥J5 ♦J6 ♣AK1065 where a bid of 1NT on the first round is not in the equation. Even a final contract of 5♣ on a trump lead would be a difficult here.

Double takeout seems best, and it also gives partner an opportunity to leave it in with a ♠ stack and an ill-fitting hand. I consider 4♣, 4♦ or 4♥ as overbids with this hand, and might encourage partner too much. I'd rather try for +500 than +400/420. Finding a slam with these cards could prove tricky. The opponents are vulnerable: I'll trust their bidding. Partner's on lead, too, so I'll hope partner will lead a ♠ if it's left in to cut down on the crossruffing potential.

Obviously some players take more time than others. We had a middle-aged married couple pair at our club who would regularly call the director for the slightest reason. One day, a few years ago, I retaliated after one session when I told them privately that "Their behaviour was prejudiced to the older and disabled members of the club, and if they didn't like playing against people who's physical and mental faculties are not so quick as theirs, then they should go play elsewhere." Needless to say they didn't come back ever again.

Strange that South didn't bid on the second round. I certainly would have pulled 4♥X to 4♠. Partner has no way of knowing that you are 7510. The ♠s are the stronger suit.

The only assumption I would make is that South is more likely to have ♥K if North has led a singleton ♣ looking for a ruff. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that North has ♥Kx or Kxx and is expecting ♥s to be finesse-able the other way as East has bid the suit but I would bet against it.

3♣ was total nonsense. (I'm sorry to say it like this but it's better being honest here.) I personally see 3♣ as something that might be bid in an auction where not only you hold the balance of the points, but have enough points to contemplate slam. Here the opponents have already shown that they have a strong hand with their 1NT overcall, and your partner has shown he/she has ♣s/♦s. That's a very good reason to persevere bidding space and don't overestimate the potential of your hand. You know already that it is looking like a misfit, and we all know that with a misfit you need to stop bidding as soon as you can. I'll just bid 2♥ and hope for the best thereafter (but whether you can stop in a half-sensible contract is another matter.)

Hello. Welcome to the forum :) And welcome to the world of cutthroat bridge, too. I was a little surprised given your BBO ranking and experience you'd never encountered the 'garbage' weak two at this vulnerability. I'm not a star player, not even an expert, but I would open 2♠ here with any partner who understands the principle of aggressive bidding. https://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=1456-1572318000-40489826&username=stevedrew I personally don't think you have anything to be aggrieved about as the opponents still bid up to the level of the (assumed) fit, even after your partner bid 3NT which your partner could have bid on a strong balanced hand, or a solid minor suited hand with a ♠ stop perhaps. I personally don't think 3NT is the greatest bid in the world, and it's not the worst either. Partner given the pre-empt would have placed you with about 8 points, it's just that your hands fit well for 6♥ to be made. You were well and truly gazumped (in bridge terms) by a world class player. The director was right: in third position, with this vulnerability, anything goes. And, if its any consolation, I doubt whether my regular partner and I would have been able to deal with the aggressive pre-emptive-ness of both opponents any better than you and your tournament partner. When the pre-empt is in ♠s you have less room to manoeuvre.

It's a lovely hand. Thank you for posting, Nigel. Just out of interest you describe the first squeeze as a simple squeeze without the count. Not that I'm any expert on squeezes, but isn't this some form of stepping stone squeeze? And wasn't the count rectified when you gave up the ♥ trick? Please advise me if I'm wrong (which probably I am).

Moysian (4-3 game fits) are not common, especially bid like this. It sounds like you had one of those evenings that I occasionally have at the club, where the opponents bid strangely, but their strange bids get the best matchpoints :( If the opponents had found a 3-3 or even a 3-2 ♠ fit there would be nothing to report, but they have no way of knowing that your and your partner's ♠s are going to split 3-3 either. Maximum matchpoints to them when everyone else is in 5♦. As my son says (rather too frequently for my liking): S*** H******

4♠ seems sensible here. The opponents only have 28 HCPs maximum if the 2♠ opener has a minimum hand, so whilst 5♠ is an option, it might bounce the opponents into a distributional slam that makes. 4♠ probably makes it difficult to find that slam, and I'm a firm believer of bidding up to the level of the fit as quickly as possible here. Bidding around the edges with 4♣ just allows the opponents a little bit more extra space to make a decision, and as you're always going to sacrifice with 4♠ here, so that's what you should bid in my opinion. The salient question that needs to be asked is whether you are prepared to bid 5♠ if they then bid 5♥? I'll leave someone more experienced than me to answer that. Five level decisions are notoriously tricky :unsure:

Whilst not an expert on 2/1 bidding, or GIB bidding either, I remember reading somewhere that Soloway Jump Shifts require 17+ HCPs too, and although distributional hands with strong suits, and/or a fit for opener's suit can get away with less than this, this hand doesn't look or feel like a jump shift hand (which the other forum members have already commentated upon.) Here in antiquated Acol-land we are very familiar with strong jump shifts (SJS) but they were used slightly differently than Soloway shifts: they were a mechanism to warn partner not to stop bidding before a game contract is reached, and whilst Soloway's are sending exactly the same message, the Soloway has extra oomph. I have older Acol books at home where the strong jump shift is even bid on a 4 card suit (!). In this day and age this would be anathema. With a competent partner there are various other bids that keep the bidding moving without stopping below game with a hand like this, for example 4th suit forcing, checkback mechanisms, game forcing second bids, etc. And you don't lose a round of bidding by using a SJS when another bid is available.

Only advanced, not an expert, but I believe most good partnerships will be in 3NT with these cards. The comment by dsLawd about this hand being a misfit puzzles me. It is not ideal having 4441 opposite 4432 but both hands have entries and a few useful intermediates cards. I have played worst 3NT hands with 25 HCPs between them As for playing the hand, play on ♦s and see what happens could work. Cashing the ♣s first just burns our boats straight away with entries. I always thought that the correct way to play a no-trump contract is to set up your 'second' suit first without touching the one with automatic tricks. Admittedly playing ♦s first leaves us open to going down but it also means the opponents have to find the right defence. Showing them the ♣AK by playing on ♣s first will probably make it easier for them to read the hand. I'm not too keen on the 1♦ opening though with 4M Acol (if that's what is being played) it is technically correct - the suit below the singleton with 4441 except if the singleton is a ♠ when 1♦ is opened.

It's an interesting problem. +1 The 'greed' (for want of a better word) of wanting to make 11 tricks at MPs as opposed to actually making the contract at IMPs (and MPs too) may get in the way here. Given that many still play Acol with a weak NT in the UK may mean that the contract could have played by North if this hand was played on this side of the Atlantic, and different bidding and a different lead would have occurred. That's a consideration too. I used to play club bridge with a lovely man (a long-time deceased sadly) who's philosophy was to play to always make the contract first, at IMPs and MPs, and worry about overtricks after. I guess he might have looked at this problem philosophically that (perhaps) on another lead there were only 9 or 10 tricks available (depending on your line of play) so it was paramount to make the contract at whatever cost. Just because you have been presented with a 'fortunate' lead of a ♦ that gives you a chance of making 11 shouldn't mean that you should do so, even though at MPs it could give you a top or shared top. So I agree with johnu's line of play.

4♠ is very chancy. This time it worked out well. East has a better idea of what is happening at the table than South. East could be far stronger than he/she is. South was lucky in my opinion.

I used to work for the NHS (National Health Service) and whilst I am no expert on psychological issues I do have experience, and what you describe may be attributed to this. I say this with sincere kindness, in essence you are perhaps overanalysing statistically what is happening at the table and, perhaps now, it is having an effect on your play and bidding. Effectively, you are stuck in a rut. How you get out of this rut I cannot say, but maybe just try to enjoy the game for what it is and not get too dependent on how you are fairing results-wise. Most people look at bridge as a social game, an interaction with other like-minded people. Winning isn't everything: it's the taking part that counts.

Not similar whatsoever: 8 cards different, 5 cards the same :) As for shape, 4432 is pretty common...

God forbid! I would never read that rag! Zelandakh: I may be wrong here but I would be surprised if the EU does not have the lowest number of civil servants/bureaucrats per capita of any developed nation or federation of nations. The EU employs around 46000 people; the British civil service is 430000. London alone has over 83000 and Norther Ireland has a whopping 14.4 civil servants per 1000 residents. The popular narrative of endless streams of EU bureaucrats doing whatever they want without oversight is a pure fiction sold by people of influence with an agenda. I would hope that anyone taking part in a debate of this nature would be too well informed to fall for such an obvious fallacy. So how much does it cost to keep this superfluous EU layer of extra bureaucracy afloat? And how much do the grand buildings In Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxembourg, and elsewhere cost to build and run? And how much do these bureaucrats and their MPs cost us in wages, pensions, expenses, legal fees, etc.... When you compare what EU civil servants get paid, their gold plated pension benefits - I used to work for the British Civil Service for 12 years before working for the NHS and get a mere fraction of the 70% final salary pension that EU employees get - I feel that you cannot compare like to like. Yes, we all know that the British Civil service is a bloated organisation fond of its own red tape and bureaucracy, but surely we can make our own rules in this country?

If your director can show you a 2/1 book/professional article or a ACBL/CBF directive or pamphlet where the word MUST has been used, then at least there is evidence that such 'guidance' exists. Otherwise, helene_t's comment is right. Supressing a good five card ♣/♦ at the two level for a poor four card ♠ suit at the one level is anti-bridge and also raises the issues of whether canape (short suits before long suits) are allowed too. And, I'm assuming here, probably under ABCL/CBF rules canape bids would not be allowed either.

The point I was jokingly, albeit sardonically, I was making was that the EU has to make a law or directive for just about everything, whether it is needed or not. My Liberal friend was so annoyed when Bombay Duck was banned that he voted to Leave the EU. Yes, extreme in the least, but a way of saying that the EU has better things to concern itself with. It was not the source of the salmonella poisoning mentioned below. At one time, 13 tonnes of Bombay duck were eaten in the UK each year. Following the discovery of a batch of imported seafood contaminated by Salmonella in 1996, the European Commission (EC) prohibited fish imports from India other than from approved freezing and canning factories. As Bombay duck is not produced in a factory, this had the unintended consequence of banning the import of Bombay duck. After a campaign to "Save Bombay Duck", the Indian High Commission approached the EC about the ban, and the EC adjusted its regulations so that the fish can still be dried in the open air, but has to be packed in an "EC approved" packing station. A Birmingham wholesale merchant located a packing source in Mumbai, and the product became available again. And how many lawyers and legal people work in and for the EU? I don't know an exact number myself, but there's plenty of legal people creating every more mountains of red tape and bureaucracy to justify their jobs. It's a vicious circle.