FelicityR

I have spent plenty of time trying to teach various members of my extended, talented family bridge - a few with science degrees and the like - but either you have a bent for playing cards or not. I have one son who is exceptionally good, a non-gambler: the other goes to the casino, plays poker, bets and studies horse-racing, football, etc, and wins, and still grapples with the fundamental elements of the game. Work that out.

I held the following hand at matchpoints, we were vulnerable playing a simplified version of 2/1, and I couldn't decide what was the best bid after partner's 2♦ bid. And would you have bid differently without North's double? It'll be interesting as always to read your replies. I feel I made the wrong choice. (We play 1NT as forcing but with less than 3 card support for opener's major suit.) Thank you. [hv=pc=n&w=saqjhjd653cq86542&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1hp1n(6-11)d2dp]133|200[/hv]

Here is the whole hand [hv=pc=n&s=shat64dakqjcaqt53&w=sa53hkdt98752ckj2&n=sk642hj753dc98764&e=sqjt987hq982d643c]399|300[/hv] After partner bid 3♣ I thought that he's unlikely to have anything in spades, and could well have the ♣K but we were playing RKCB (1430) so couldn't bid 4NT - hopefully agreeing clubs - and elicit any further information. Even without the ♣K, it could drop singleton; or, he might have ♥K and we could throw some heart losers on the diamonds; or, he might have QJx in hearts, etc. And if he had the ♣K we might be missing seven clubs. So after what seemed ages I thought why not bid six clubs as a compromise, between five and seven, because there's a reasonable possibility it could come in. I don't know if that's logical, but sometimes you have to bid what you think is right. Alas, West doubled, and that was the bottom score for us on that board. Was I unlucky or stupid?

I played a session at the club recently and this hand proved very problematic. Unfortunately, my partner (not my regular partner) and I came up against the best pair and they play the Multi, and the only pair to do so. We had not discussed any defence to this, except a immediate double of 2♦ showed a takeout of ♥s, and everything else was natural. I held the following hand:- [hv=pc=n&s=shat64dakqjcaqt53&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=2d(Multi)p2hp2sdr3cp]133|200[/hv] I had a good hand and felt it was best to allow the Multi bidders to go through their relay and bid on the second round, fully expecting opener's suit to be ♠s, as indeed it was. Then I came alive with a Takeout Double. I suppose both my partner and myself were at fault not asking what the Redouble meant, but when partner bid 3♣ I really did not know what to do. As always your replies will be appreciated.

It's a poor hand, no honours in long suit, doubleton queen, more like a ten count than an eleven. There's only one situation I know of when you open on a similar hand in fourth seat. It is governed by the rule of 15. http://howtoplaybridge.co.uk/the-rule-of-15/ However, I might open 1NT in fourth seat playing Acol with ♠KJT KT9 AT98 T98. That looks a 12 plus count because of all the intermediate cards and tenaces.

Pass. If you were going to make any 'silly' bid - apologies for being slightly rude - 5♥ after Blackwood would be equally bad as 7♥ now but it stands a chance of disrupting the opponents if they haven't got DOP1 on their bidding card.

This hand cost us a few pounds (again!) at rubber bridge, game all +40 to the opponents, and I am thinking to myself that I didn't handle this right - again! North is a very wily player. My partner (West) allowed himself a wry smile after the hand was over. Was I like a (rueful?) rabbit caught in the headlights. Over to you, and thanks in advance for your replies. How would you handled this? [hv=pc=n&s=sqjt965h65dk852c2&w=shqj732daqj7cak95&n=sak74ht4d643cjt74&e=s832hak98dt9cq863&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2s(Weak)dr(Business%20XX%20)3h3s(Weak%20hand)d(Extras%3F)4sppp]399|300[/hv] After the hand, both partner and myself said we were tempted to double the final contract, but that would have been small consolation to missing a laydown slam. It was the last rubber of the evening, and we were already losing (£40 if I remember correctly). Timidity was our downfall, perhaps?

I would pass. The hand looks like a misfit. The auction's still live. The last thing you want to do is to encourage partner, especially vulnerable.

Having looked at all the replies, I'm too in the 3♦ invitational camp, but any bid could be right here. And the contract could depend on the right lead or wrong lead, and many other things and that's stating the very obvious. I think the subtle difference here is that the opponents are playing Acol, presumably with 4 card majors and usually minors too and a weak NT. That suggests but not guarantees that East is either 4414 with a singleton ♦ bidding Classical Acol - the suit below the singleton; or a 4315 shape or even shapelier. So when declarer has 3♦, with the right guess those ♦s are likely (but not guaranteed again) to come in. What I don't like about the hand is that the only entry outside the ♦ suit is in the suit that the opponents have bid, so the opponents will probably lead it, especially if the defender knows partner's longest suit is ♣s [Compare that with 2/1/SAYC bidding where a prepared ♣ is used]. All in all a difficult decision, but it's right to give partner the opportunity to bid the vulnerable game.

I think you are horribly right. Trying to introduce the spade void by bidding 5♠ immediately then correcting 6♣ to 6♦; or bidding 4NT, 5♣ by partner then 5♠ could be horribly misinterpreted. There's not enough room to investigate a grand slam. I'll be content with a small one, if it exists. Partner could have a hand such as ♠AQ ♥x ♦xx ♣AKQJxxxx: now that would be extremely unlucky :(

As primarily a rubber bridge player nowadays, I have been curious on more than one occasion about BBO's Money Bridge, but whenever I access this option on BBO (even in the middle of the night in England) I haven't found many playing on there.

I'm bemused why players think the ♥A is the best lead. Why give up the tenace position? You have 16 HCPs. Partner has shown 3-6 HCPs. You have reasonable control of the other three suits. If declarer runs the ♠s (in the hope of poor discards) partner can signal. The ♠A allows you a look at dummy. Trying to find the setting trick through a ruff is speculative, but there again speculative leads sometimes do work. Call me boring...

Don't give partner the opportunity to go wrong. Ruff his ♣Q and play the ♥A. Contract down.

A 3♠ rebid seems the ideal solution, a default bid, having seen all the replies. Opener cannot have a 6 card ♠ suit, or if he/she does it's going to be poor quality as he rebid 2♥ not 2♠. If the hand were 5-5 or 6-5 in the majors then 3♥ would be rebid. what is really transparent here is that with Acol and 4 card majors and its non-forcing 2 bids, this hand is extremely clumsy to bid. With 2/1 it would have been a run in the park.

6♣ is probably an easy make if the cards turn up in the right place. At this vulnerability after 1♠ - 2♣ (2/1) or 1NT - 2♣ (Stayman), 2♦ could be lead directional with shape not points. Additional Edit: I would only consider the dicey contract of 6♣ if I were looking for a top in a pairs competition. Though how you get there is anyone's guess. Playing 2/1 a bidding sequence such as 1♠- 2♣ -(2♦)- 2NT - 3♣ - 3♠ with 3♠ showing a maximum NT rebid hand (good 14 count) and ♣ support, ♠ control is a suggestion but whether that is a valid sequence I honestly do not know not being familiar with the intricacies of 2/1.

Now that's the sort of password my husband would use. :)

Looks like you will end up in a 3NT contract played by North.

Playing a 15-17 NT it's a borderline NT opener. It's a 14 count with a five card ♠ suit with a bit of everything. I'd probably open 1♠ and rebid no-trumps. If the hand were ♠AQJxx ♥T9 ♦KT9 ♣KJx I'd open 1NT

This is on the Novice and Beginner Forum, so I'll try to deal with this in a straightforward manner. Having complicated conventions in your armoury may help but 4-4 or occasionally 5-4 fits in both balanced hands will probably not produce any extra tricks to warrant a grand slam. Having established the ♠ fit via Stayman I would just bid 6♠. Grand slams are rare. If no fit exists, then you could choose between 4NT (quantitative) or just bidding 6NT hoping partner hasn't got a bad 12 count. All a bit agricultural but direct bidding is sometimes better than giving the opponents clues.

The psyche possibly might have been illegal but the 4♦ bid was totally illogical opposite a passed partner.

Your ♠Kx isn't working under the pre-empter, but could produce a trick if they play in 4♠ if dummy doesn't have the ♦A. Nice hand but not quite worth the second bid.

This hand - the smaller cards have been 'guesstimated' - turned up at rubber bridge last week, though, in truth, whatever type of bridge you play, pairs or IMPs, is just a nightmare. Yes, being forced to bid with a bad hand. Or should I have passed? (Very, very reluctantly and hope partner can snaffle four tricks) I felt I was between a rock and a hard place. Or were we just unlucky? As always I'll be interested how other players would have dealt with it, and thank you for your replies in advance. The opponents were vulnerable, no other score in the rubber. I was East. [hv=pc=n&s=sqj987654hdqjt9c2&w=s2hak43dak743ckqt&n=sak3hqjt9d8caj983&e=sth87652d652c7654&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=3sdrpp4d4sppdr]399|300[/hv] 1. Was I wrong in passing North's redouble of 3♠? (West's double doesn't necessarily guarantee ♥s) 2. Was West wrong rebidding 4♦ where 3NT would, I assume, be interpreted as pick-a-suit? That's how I would have interpreted it 3. Did my partner get too involved non-vulnerable by doubling 4♠, looking for a cheap sacrifice (to keep us in the rubber) or to push the opponents to 5♠? 4. Now that partner has doubled 4♠ what would you bid now as East? Pass, 5♦ or 5♥? Needless to say that after the dust had settled, my purse was a little bit lighter :(

Here's one I found useful https://www.amazon.co.uk/Simple-Squeezes-Kelsey-Squeeze-1993-04-03/dp/B01FKSZUSI/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&qid=1532858358&sr=8-18&keywords=squeeze+play+bridge Squeezes range from the simple to the seriously complicated. I don't know what level you play at, but it's always best to learn comprehensively the basics of bridge before embarking on learning what I consider 'advanced and expert technical play in the endgame' which effectively are what squeezes are. It's probably the most difficult aspect of playing bridge. I consider myself an advanced player, of many years, and i'll be honest and say that I still find 'squeeze territory' difficult, especially working out how to anticipate in advance as both a declarer and defender, which is what expert and world class players can do. That sets them apart from mere mortals like myself :)

Irrespective of whether the opponents have provided 'duff' information - what level were they? - South with 3♦s and an AK and an A should raise to 5♦. The West hand isn't strong, just a standard 3♠ pre-empt vulnerable, though some might prefer opening 1♠ and rebidding ♠s twice. Yes, N/S were given wrong information.

I readily admit I'm no director but if a bid is illegal due to contravening a national association's rules (as opposed to actually making an illegal bid) I would think the best result would be to void any bids that North has made and adjust the score to E/W making 3♦ for 110. Whether that is actually covered in the rules is another matter. The illegality of the bid is on a far higher level than a simple misunderstanding.