FelicityR

It must have been a close decision given that the ♦ suit has a '6' in it :) But I agree with other commentators that a bid of 2♣ as 'semi-garbage' Stayman looks best. You have three chances of hitting the right suit, as for the right denomination that's a completely another matter. You have no way of knowing whether you are playing in a 4-4 or a 5-4 fit if partner bids 2♥/2♠. If you then raise to the three level how's partner going to interpret whether if it is feasible to proceed to game?

I don't have any agreements to contribute to this thread, but your partner bidding 4NT (RKCB/Blackwood) is, on reflection, lunacy. Your partner may be over the weak 1NT bidder, but there are too many holes (and high card points) to guarantee that a slam is on. Yes, you could find the 1NT bidder with ♠Qx ♥xxx ♦KJxx ♣AQxx but that is too precise distribution to ask for. As quoted: The opponents open a weak no trump and you make a penalty double promising 16+ HCP (or 15 and a good lead). LHO bids 2♦ as a transfer to hearts. Your agreements (with this partner) are that partner will double for penalties, pass is forcing and a new suit is weak. That is your agreement: weak, implying a weak hand, a weak suit or both. ♠AKxxxxxx is anything but.

Matchpoint Pairs. Average Club Field. Most playing Acol 4M, weak NT. Love all. This hand generated a fair amount of discussion after the game. My partner and I in need of a few top scores perhaps overbid this hand - please feel free to agree with/criticise the bidding - However, but we both felt the small slam was a fair bet. (Thankfully he was declarer :)) How would you bid and play this hand? And, as always, thank you for replies in advance. [hv=pc=n&s=sahk74da93ck98753&n=s98762ha3dqj7caj4&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1h1sp2cp3cp3dp3hp3sp3np4c(Forcing)p4n(Key%20Card)p5d(Three)p6cppp]266|200[/hv] West led the ♥Q against the 6♣ contract

If partner had a 6 card ♠ suit and about 10 points he/she would have bid it at the 2 level here. Small ♦ may hit partner's second suit - even a 3 card one - and create tricks for your side while you still have an entry.

Even playing a strong no-trump, if you don't open hands with 12 HCPs with 2 and a 1/2 playing tricks then you are playing losing bridge. The result on the hand as shown is irrelevant. You gained as N/S didn't have the wherewithal to compete. There will be numerous times when passing this type of hand will result in a losing score. You have an opening bid: BID!

2NT Jacoby. To lose two rounds of bidding with 4NT is just wasteful. At least explore at a lower level what partner's hand is. 4NT and partner's response can always be saved until later.

Not an expert, as I always say, but running the ♠10 looks as good as any. Hoping ♠s are 3-3 is playing against the odds.

And if a weak NT were used, the opponents would surely have more opportunities to overcall. The data is useful but as with all bridge statistics you need to know the level of the players at the table and their methods. Less experienced players tend to have fewer conventions to call on including conventions to overcall 1NT whether weak or strong. To get a realistic feel of whether the statistics hold up, you probably need to analyse the actions and auctions of a few hundred similarly-experienced players and see whether they are comparable.

If this is Acol bidding, I would take 3♣ as unconditionally forcing. Opener clarifies his/her hand further.

Yes, I agree. But you can take a view of how the outstanding trumps may split before committing to a play. I believe I read in a Terence Reese book that leading towards a high honour with a small card is usually preferable to cashing that honour directly without seeing how a defender plays. Given the bidding on the hand, leading small towards the ♦K is far more preferable than leading small to the ♦A

Only very, very, very, very rarely are there occasions where a defender can provide a ruff-and-discard to declarer that has no benefit to him or her. In the main you are absolutely right, it is usually awful bridge to help declarer along by allowing a ruff-and-discard. I wouldn't take much notice of the bridge level posted by some players. The other thing that contributes to this situation cropping up is poor carding (or not discussed carding between the two defenders). The player on lead that allows a ruff-and-discard maybe thinks that declarer still has a card in his/her suit and partner has the void, whereas the reality is completely different.

Yes I would have made it. This is a common mistake that players commit. Instead of bashing down the ♦A, when you have two top honours in a suit, it is usually best to play a small card to one or the other. This allows you to see one of the opponent's cards before using an honour. As your entries to dummy are limited you can't use the ♥Q as an entry and lead towards the ♦A, so you are automatically obliged to assume the worst case scenario of East having ♦Qxx. And, as you said, finding West with ♦Qxx after his/her overcall was against the odds.

Pass is never (usually) a bad bid, especially as West probably has the strongest hand at the table and you are under declarer here. Also, your hand is no stronger than when you first bid it, the singleton ♥ being a limited asset. There's no guarantee that they are going to make 4♥. "Punting" 4♠ with limited values, trying to bamboozle the opponents into making a rash decision is taking them for granted. If you respect the opposition here, I'd rather pass. Partner has only promised three card support at most. If he had responded with a Bergen bid promising an extra trump, I would feel more confident bidding 4♠ here.

In my post I stated specifically: An opponent opens the bidding with 1♥. You are next to bid. Maybe I have got this wrong, but I have always known "the balancing seat" as when partner has been forced to pass due to an opponent's opening bid, and the 4th player then "balances". And obviously, that auction is another variation where a Michael's Cue Bud could be used. But, for the time being, I thought I would keep things - I hoped - a tad less complicated :)

The recent Michael's Cue Bid forum post by dickiegera in the Expert Discussion Forum - I'm only an advanced player myself - and the various replies made me look at my own methods and whether I was doing things at the table correctly. You have this hand, or similar. Do you bid the suit, at the one or two level, or the shape by way of a Michael's Cue Bid? I have made the poll reflect different table positions and vulnerabilities, and whether you are playing MPs or IMPs as much as I can. And, as always, thank you in advance for your replies. An opponent opens the bidding with 1♥. You are next to bid. What do you say? [hv=pc=n&s=skqj84h7d95cqj765]133|100[/hv]

Found on Amazon.com website:- https://www.amazon.com/Bridge-Steps-learning-Paul-Thurston/dp/1894154460/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=2%2F1+bridge+book&qid=1562551831&s=gateway&sr=8-4 This is a excellent customer review of Audrey Grant's 2/1 book, referencing Paul Thurston's book Very well written reference, characteristic of all Audrey Grant and Eric Rodwell material. It does assume more than basic knowledge of Standard American system, and of bridge in general. This makes it a book for intermediate players. It is not for the beginners, though I suppose 2/1 is really only for advancing players since it is an extension of, and an evolution from SA. In that respect, I would suggest "25 Steps to Learning 2/1 (Master Point Press)." I would give that book 5 stars. If you were to buy only one, I would suggest Paul Thurston's book, which 'talks down to you' by design. And as Vampyr correctly points out, SAYC players usually change to 2/1 over time (as I have, too) so your SAYC book is a good starting point for any new player.

That's an interesting option. Obviously, your system. I would play it as opener further describing his distribution with a 4♠0♥4♦5♣ hand. For all we know responder might have a genuine ♦ suit but chose FSF to elicit more information.

I readily admit I'm not an expert, only advanced, but I always used Michael's as a constructive bid, not as a pre-emptive tool. I agree with the previous comment from dsLawsd that you have to have some substance to use Michael's. Bidding on ♠QJxxx ♥QJxxx ♦xx ♣x even at favourable vulnerability wouldn't interest me. However give me ♠KQJxx ♥x ♦xx ♣QTxxx and I would happily bid 2♥ over 1♥. So my minimum criteria is 8 points for 1♥ - 2♥ Michael's; 10 points for 1♠ - 2♠ Michael's as responder has to bid at the three level. And only guaranteeing one defensive trick at the most.

Yes, I agree. I don't know the personal status of BBO owner, Fred Gitelman, but the surname "Gitelman" is of Jewish origin, and he should be applauded for his freethinking stance on this issue. Obviously, there will be some players who deliberately use a country's flag as a political statement. And that is patently wrong, of course.

Yes I know, nine card suits happen very, very rarely but I held the following hand last night at rubber bridge. What interests me - and I hope that it interests you - is the thinking about sacrificing against opponents who have already shown their strong hands. I have made the poll to reflect MPs and IMPs, too. At rubber I opted for the "sensible bid" of 4♠ as it was the last rubber of the evening and were already a game down, though a part of me felt I should have done more. (At MPs and IMPs, with the favourable vulnerability, I feel there is a good case for aggressive barrage bidding here.) The opponents that night were good club players, reliable bidders, and 2♣ showed a Game Forcing Hand, usually 22+, and 3♥ showed a solid suit with either AKQJxx or AKQxxxx. Given that appears that the opponents are now definitely heading for slam, how would you bid with my cards? And as always, thank you for your replies. Here's my hand:- [hv=pc=n&s=sqt9876543h7dj5c4&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=2c(Strong%20GF)p3h(Solid%20Suit)]133|200[/hv]

Well done in qualifying to be a Director. I toyed with the idea of learning to be a director myself a few years ago, but I have enough trouble playing the game so cowardly shied away from additional responsibilities. As the director at our club says "Hard to be a Director" especially as laws and regulations regularly undergo change and re-interpretation. BBO Forums (Laws and Rulings) just prove that Directorship skills are just as important as the actual game itself.

Since the majority of the Northern Irish people want to remain in the EU, and religion is less prevalent as a dividing tool between the communities, and most of the Irish people respect the Good Friday agreement, it's about time Westminister seriously thought about letting-go of Northern Ireland as part of the Union. There are plenty of European workers already both north and south of the border, and Ireland is as multicultural a country now as many parts of the UK. (I visited Eire recently and was surprised how many Europeans lived there.) Obviously there will be dissenting voices in the Protestant community about such a merger, but having a border which still foments some ill-feeling between communities is not the way forward, I feel. Irish people are Irish whether they come from Eire or Northern Ireland, and its about time they put aside their religious differences and moved forward. Many British people I know visit Eire, especially Dublin, and say it's a wonderful place to go to. The Irish people always treated me with warmth and genuine hospitality.

Good to make the contract but as Nigel pointed out precise defending does beat it. However, the interesting thing is how to bid it sensibly to 6♥, or 7♥ if you fancy a gamble not knowing West's hand. Give West ♠KQJx ♥Kx ♦Axxx ♣Axx and 7♠ is a possible contract. Maybe Stayman followed by the Smolen convention is the way to correctly bid East's hand if West doesn't show a 4 card major in reply to Stayman. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Given that SAYC is 5M, partner could well have a 4441 hand that he has opened 1♦ with about 15-16+ points. As responder hasn't bid a major there's no 4-4 major suit fit, so the only forward move that opener can make is to suggest he has more than a minimum is to bid 2NT. The exact parameters are obviously down to partnership agreement.

The NHS is rather like the European Union: it wastes millions, if not billions of pounds, I used to work for it, so I should know. However, it is part of this country's, kingdom's, heritage. Instead of greedy US healthcare companies circling like vultures post Brexit, we need a government that preserves the NHS and makes it more efficient.