FelicityR

There's some similarity between this hand and a hand Tony Forrester held in the World Championships. One less trump mind. And a one level opening as opposed to a weak two. (Board 32) https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=65789 As the opponents haven't raised ♦ pre-emptively after the X at favourable vulnerability, it does suggest that the other suits may be stacked against you. I assume 3♥ would be invitational here, so I would just bid 4♥ a la Mr Forrester and hope for the best.

Thank you for that information. It's an entertaining and enjoyable read: a bit different than many other run-of-the-mill bridge books. I loved it.

No. Because the last thing you need at any bridge format is a bad score. There's an element of bluff too with using The Law of Total Tricks, and also there are other considerations to make like whether you are using it after partner has opened, or if partner has overcalled. In principle they should be the same, but usually an opening hand is better than an overcalling one generally so there's the likelihood of more quick tricks on defence or an extra trick on offence. [i am sure you now see how complicated it can get if you analyse this too far.] As long as you have a shapely hand, not balanced, and partner knows you are bidding up to level of the trump fit as a pre-emptive tool, this is ok. Let the opponents guess is a good maxim. Plus, surprisingly, it pays sometimes to raise a weak two to the three level with only two card trump support, semi-bluffing the opponents into making decisions a level higher. It's not uncommon to get a bad result with using LOTT, but in the long run what you will find is that there are many plus scores that will compensate for that.

Heaven knows? Trusting partner has his/her bid - and his/her suit is probably, but not necessarily ♣ - even with 16 HCPs points 3NT from your side could be awkward due to entry problems. East must have a Yarborough here. Bidding 2♦ as a relay could come unstuck if partner's suit is ♦s as he/she could pass - lol! Bidding 2♠ is telling a lie as it should be a 6 card suit. As I said, 'heaven knows'. Bidding anything or even passing (yes, even passing!) could be right or wrong here.

Not the easiest topic to clarify as hand shape and vulnerability will play an important part here, and whether the opponents have overcalled or one has passed, etc. Bidding to the level of 'the fit' as in the Law of Total Tricks is a subject, as you rightly said yourself, that is discussed and commented upon at advanced/expert level, and even I have difficulty getting my brain around it sometimes. The Law of Total Tricks works reasonably well at the 2,3 and 4 levels. It also works well, but not perfectly, when the division of high card points is evenly spread between yours and the opponents' hands, and the hands are distributional in shape. There will always be hands that ill disobey the law, but in the vast majority of cases it is a good rule of thumb to use in the absence of any other. I personally tend to adjust it slightly if vulnerable against non-vulnerable as at MPs you can end up with the dreaded -200 or obviously at IMPs a phantom sacrifice which will not make your teammates happy.

Easier seeing both hands, but South's hand isn't suitable for no trumps really with its 7-4-1-1 shape. If North calls 2♠, it shows that North hasn't got 4♥s as he/she would have doubled. After North calls 2♠, South could call 4♥ as a splinter. That's a slam try in my book. Though it's still hard to bid the slam I feel, whoever takes control of the bidding. More a let's bid it and hope scenario.

I wouldn't try to complicate this too much as a transfer to 3♦ by your preferred method of 2♠ or 2NT should automatically show a 6 card suit as far as I'm concerned, and then a cue bid of 3♥ by responder will show slam interest. It's then up to opener to clarify things further. 6♦ is at worst dependent on a finesse or at best makeable on a squeeze. 6NT might too be a feasible contract, but if you don't try to get there you're not going to get there (as my husband says). There's plenty of minimum 15 HCP no trump hands where 6♦ or 6NT is always there. And even if you are two aces light, there's always that horrible harbour of a contract of 5NT which I doubt would go down except with a bad lie of the cards.

Yes, on the current auction, 3♣ came into my reckoning, too, but as you rightly say it's whether South feels that he/she is good enough for that bid.

Yes, not a good result. But England had their own slam mishap in the earlier rounds missing a 13 trick laydown grand against Indonesia. Board 19 https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=65554

Watching the Bermuda Bowl again last night - it's getting addictive - in the middle of the night in England and this board came up in the match against England and Italy. [hv=pc=n&s=shak9654dj974cjt9&w=st764ht82d86cq432&n=sak95hqjdqt532ca5&e=sqj832h73dakck876&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n2c2n4cpp4dp5cdpp6ddppp]399|300[/hv] Even though the hand benefitted England by 12 IMPs, it was sad to see two great Italian players end up in a small slam missing the AK of trumps. I would be interested in other players views on what went wrong. One of the commentators said at the time "Prediction there will be a director call", though from where I was sitting I thought that North/South's disaster was of their own making. Here is the (Vugraph operator's) explanation of the bids. 1NT 15-17 2♣ - M[ajor] (Or should that be ♣s and a major?) 2NT - by pen 4♦ - transfer X of 5♣ by E - by pen And, as always, thanks you for your replies.

Personally, vulnerable, with a passed partner I prefer X to 2♥ as North.. To me, if you're going to overcall vulnerable at adverse vulnerability at the two level, especially with a passed partner, the suit should be 6 cards+. The shape of the North hand suggests double than an overcall, despite having three honour cards in the ♥ suit. [Only, my opinion which, yet again, is probably wrong :()

That's what I was thinking about when I saw the hand played. However, the problem is South is unlimited when the 2♦ transfer is made. If East has a Yarborough or near Yarborough hand here instead of an nine count, it could result in either a big penalty against East/West vulnerable or a contract where North/South possibly make overtricks in a doubled/redoubled contract. It's easy enough balancing with a double when the transfer has been completed if you are short in the opponents suit, but what parameters would you set to double the artificial bid of 2♦? How big a hand, and what shape, etc. It's easier at favourable vulnerability to do this but adverse vulnerability presents a problem. That's probably why West never competed.

England were doing well - 1st place - in the World Championships, and leading Canada comfortably after 8 boards until this hand came along. I was watching live in the middle of the night with a cup of tea silently cheering on our team, but the next three boards saw them, sadly, lose 34 IMPs, and this board was pivotal to Canada fighting back. And Canada eventually won the match after a few more topsy-turvy boards. https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=65509 I realise the mini NT (10-12) is a useful bidding weapon to have in your repertoire at favourable vulnerability but was there anything, or any defence, that could be effective against it on this board? The bidding at the other table was after 3 passes 1NT by West, 3NT by East making 10 tricks. [Flip the East/West hands and it's an easy second seat double with 15 HCP balanced.] However, after the 2♦ transfer by South, West in 4th seat seemed powerless. [hv=pc=n&s=s95hq7653dj7ckt97&w=sa83hak98dqt62cq4&n=sqt642ht2dak5cj82&e=skj7hj4d9843ca653&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1n(Mini%2010-12)p2d(Transfer)p2hppp]399|300[/hv] And, as always, thank you for your replies.

I remember someone posting a similar post on the forums about a couple of years ago and then doing an analysis of a large number of robot GIB hands to prove that the hands were randomly dealt. As I remember it surprised the poster that the distributions were within 1 to 2% of the statistical probabilities so GIB was not doing anything strange with the dealing. I remember, too, someone making a comment that cards dealt in a club environment may be more 'friendly' distribution-wise if they are not shuffled properly. As for Mr Tu's comment that robots do not cheat this video you may find funny, depending on your point of view. (Hopefully the bug's been removed.)

My line would to finesse the ♥10 and then play for a 3-3 split in ♥s overtaking the ♥Q on the third round. Finding West with JX or J is about 8-10% I feel whereas the immediate ♥ finesse after the ♣K, is half of 36% (18%) [i have probably got this wrong, if so I apologise.]

Only occasionally do I buy a new bridge book as there are plenty to pick up from charity shops, secondhand booksellers and eBay. However, I am really glad I found this one by accident as it is very instructive and funny, too. Master of Bridge Psychology by Jeppe Juhl and Peter Fredin. It deserves to be a bridge bestseller. Having read the book, I can conclude that Peter Fredin is the Scandinavian equivalent of Zia Mahmood, not only an excellent bridge player but a larger-than-life character too. Not only do I like the idea of a biographical - Jeppe Juhl is a personal friend - analysis of Peter Fredin, I personally like the way the book is presented. Anecdotes asides, I enjoyed the format where you are given the opportunity to think like Fredin, only to realise that your own bridge psychology and play is, for me, never going to be anything like his, and then actually admire how brilliantly intelligent the man is. I found it a great read, brimming with good humour, published in easy to read print, and it has now replaced 'Bridge in the Menagerie' by Victor Mollo as my favourite bridge book. And whilst I still like 'Menagerie' and the St Titus monastery articles of David Bird, there is a difference reading about a real bridge character as opposed to imaginary ones.

The only small inference I can pick up here, and I am finding this tricky too is that ♦ are more likely to split 4-3 than ♣s or ♠s. I can't imagine West leading a singleton trump, but it's a fair possibility that West had ♥Q653 to start with, and given the bidding felt a trump lead was safe. But surely that is playing against the odds with a 3-2 split in ♥s over twice as likely as a 4-1. If I choose to play against the odds, ruffing a ♣ with the ♥K, discarding a ♣ on a high ♦ and ruffing a ♦ then playing trumps should suffice (assuming a 4-3 ♦ break). I assume you played a ♥ to the ♥K, discovering the bad break, tried discarding your losers on the ♦s but West refused to overruff you when you came back to hand with a high trump ruff, and you were left with two trump losers. That's unlucky but it's the way I would have played the hand too. Edited to reflect the 'flip' :)

Yes. But for the life of me I can't remember how the TD scored the board. My opponent as declarer, a lady older than myself, had inadvertently dropped a card in her lap during play. We got to the final trick, and there was an air of slight embarrassment all round as she saw both my partner and I (and dummy) had a card left and she had none. She then looked down, saw the card, picked it up and placed it on the table saying 'Oh dear' or words to that effect. Like your scenario, there were multiple revokes, and the lady just kept apologising. My partner said the TD needs to be called, and the TD looked at the cards played and said he couldn't make a decision there and then because he'd never come across this before. By which time we were ready to move table.

You are doubling for penalties. If partner cannot stand it, he/she will bid. Your hand is defined within specific limits. Think about the sequence without the opponents interfering. You would have bid 2♠. Double says the opponents have bid your suit and defending 2♥X is going to be the best result for your side.

Vulnerable overcalls against non-vulnerable opponents who have both bid are usually solid and sound. Low level doubles are usually for takeout. Hence 3♣

Surely someone could reset the alarm, or is that too simple a solution to contemplate? I like to hang around and compare scores after a session. Being told to get my hat and coat mighty quick, and being ushered swiftly from the premises sounds more akin to a cheap pub with knowledge of a police raid than a bridge club! But yes, I agree, some players need a good prod to hurry things up. Slow bidding and play is very annoying.

That's difficult to say. I think that both sides of the Remain/Leave argument were fed misinformation and propaganda. I have now met intelligent people who voted Remain in 2016, who after three years of (as my husband says, please excuse the language) 'piddling about' would now vote Leave. And, there must be others who voted Leave who no doubt would now vote Remain. Immigration was a big issue in 2016. Many people probably voted on that single issue, that's for sure. The other major issues probably came secondary in their consideration. I have an open mind about immigration because I worked in the National Health Service, and it would never be able to function without overseas workers, most who were excellent. However, on the flip side, many NHS services are now stretched to the limit due to extra people who have chosen to live in this country. I remember not so many years ago when you could get a general, not emergency, doctor's appointment within a couple of days. Now it is a couple of weeks wait in most major towns and cities. Social housing, too, now has incredibly long waiting lists, and many families are ending up in sub-standard housing, cheap hotels, or bed and breakfast establishments. However, well before the 2016 referendum both my husband and myself had thought membership of the EU as 'surplus to requirements'. It has its good points, and it has its bad points, but as an organisation it makes sure it looks after 'its own' and doesn't take kindly to criticism. That's why we voted Leave.

I'm no expert on the 2/1 type of bidding (as shown on your profile), so I'll let someone who is to advise you here, but the first sequence I assume is an inverted (pre-emptive) raise 1♣ - 3♣ so opener would have to be strong to continue bidding. As for the other examples, sequence two I would take as asking for a half-stopper, as you have. That looks logical. Sequence three I would take 3♠ as a mmmm...I'm not sure because if opener had both ♥s and ♠s stopped then would have bid 3NT, and probably wouldn't have bid 2♦, the weakest bid over 2♣. That is my interpretation, but there are plenty of better theorists/commentators on here, so I'll be interested in their take on things.

Maybe RHO has the ♥AKQJxxx and an outside ace, and hopes you will double again, and your partner pass again (!), and collect the game bonus :)

I readily admit that both my husband were less aware of the difficulty this border issue would cause between the UK and Ireland when we voted. Before the vote we saw that Northern Ireland was staunchly remain, we were aware of the reasons behind it, notably The Good Friday Agreement, but I am one of those people who believes that there is a solution to every problem. Brexit means a lot more than the issue of one border, and I'm sure many people would agree with that. I was brought up in the era of butter mountains and wine lakes and the Common Agricultural Policy. Add all the sometimes unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy that the EU generates, and the profligate waste of money on some of the EU projects, and we just felt "enough's enough". Our own government (whatever party is in power) creates enough red tape and bureaucracy itself, and quite happily spends like no tomorrow. We do not need another political entity on top of that doing the same thing. I liked the initial idea of a joining a Common Market back in 1973. But what the EU has become, in our opinion, is something many people didn't want or ascribe to.