FelicityR

You describe yourself as a beginner, OldGranton, and whilst you probably are eager to learn everything and anything that is out there - as I did once upon a time - the phrase 'keep it simple' springs to mind. As other commentators have noted, high card points are only a partial indicator of where a final contract lie, and trying to evaluate opening/responding hands with fractions at this stage is admirable but just complicates things further. I have my own simple rule that void = 3, singleton = 2, doubleton = 1, and if an honour other than an ace lies in these holdings, to adjust accordingly upwards or downwards. So singleton K = 2, singleton Q = 2, singleton J =2; and doubleton K = 3, doubleton Q = 2, and doubleton J = 1; doubleton KQ = 4, doubleton KJ = 3, doubleton QJ = 2 I am not saying it is any better/worse than any other evaluation, but it is something I invented long ago and makes hand evaluation a lot easier than dealing with fractions, and remembering specific combination of cards. In essence, you can never find out what your hand is actually worth until you see what your partner holds. And any holding also depends on whether you finally finish in NT or a suit contract, or whether the opponents have bid - obviously.

Thank you for your replies. I did indeed reluctantly pass (after a bit of soul searching.) I like that interpretation that 'pass' doesn't show a weak hand, but a hand unsuitable for any other actions. Something all of us should learn irrespective of the high card point count.

I prefer 1♦ to 1NT as the two doubletons are in the majors, and the hand is minor suit heavy and probably technically stronger than a normal 1NT 15-17 opener. As for 3♣ that seems wrong and gives the impression that you are a minimum opener. The trouble is that 3NT may be the optimum contract, but if partner had a (semi) balanced 10-12 count why isn't he redoubling instead of 2♣? 3♥ seems a possibility, showing good ♣ support and more than a minimum, but that could also be interpreted as a splinter. Though that is my bid in this situation. If it turns out wrong so be it.

I was playing Solitaire - robots - earlier today, and whilst I would prefer to provide hands from actual play I was at a quandary what to do with this hand. Apologies in advance for not noting the full deal. [hv=pc=n&e=sah6532daq43cak92&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h]133|200[/hv] And would the choice of bid be affected by the vulnerability too?

On my first post on this discussion I passed. I still - perhaps a bit reluctantly as I have seen the poll - pass, even though the 4♥ bidders or pre-empters outnumber us 'passers' on the poll by 3 to 1 as I write. I was given sound advice years ago: Never pre-empt your partner. I take on board that pre-empts have got lighter and lighter in recent years, and that this hand hasn't got any tricks outside the trump suit so, on the face of it, is suitable for a pre-empt. So I'd rather bid 3♥ on the rule of 2/3 than 4♥ if any pre-empt is to be made. 4♥ promises more than this 'horrid suit' as someone commented. Actually, no-one's commented that while 4♥ takes a level away from the opponents, it could possibly also bounce the opponents into a slam easier as a suit, 4NT, or double bid over 4♥ by North would be seen as stronger than a similar bid over 3♥, especially at this vulnerability with a passed partner.

In 3rd position you could consider something, but in 2nd it's definitely a no go. Just pass. Even at white/red.

This is a general novice/beginner mistake, doubling an uncontested auction hoping that partner has some values to add to yours and that the contract is doomed. Even doubling when partner has made a single overcall can be treacherous as that overcall may be more lead directional than good values. The bridge phrase "No double, no trouble" applies both ways. The worse type of penalty double is where a part score is converted into a game contract, and/or overtricks are made by the declarer. The best advice I can give at this level is to use the penalty double cautiously. It is a double-edged sword.

Again thank you for all your replies. I know what I would do at duplicate, but rubber is such a different game as a number of commentators have indicated. West had an extraordinary hand... [hv=pc=n&w=sa2hakqtdaqj4ckq8]133|100[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&n=st9764hjd7cjt9532&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp2sd]133|200[/hv] Opponents are game up only in a best of three rubber. 2♠ is weak, 6-10 HCPs and presumably a 6 card suit (though my partner has occasionally opened a 5 card suit at this vulnerability too). I thought 4♠ was as sensible a bid to make given my poor holding, though it didn't stop the opponents finding their ♥ small slam. I would be grateful for your thoughts on my 4♠ bid, and whether I should sacrifice in 6♠ immediately or later in the auction given that this is rubber bridge, not duplicate. (By the way, I was scared of sacrificing as I didn't wish to push my opponents into a vulnerable grand slam which can be made.)

'Rules of thumb' are all well and good, but not making a takeout double at a low level will usually involve making a very risky bid at a higher level. So double you should do even if the hand isn't exactly perfect. My flexible rule of thumb is if you double a major suit bid, you should have 4 card support for the other major, and if you double a minor suit bid, you should have at least 4-3 support for the majors. But that's just my personal rule. And rules are there to be broken. Vulnerability and position also come into the equation, and whether partner's passed or not. The alternative to not doubling usually involves bidding a 4 card suit at the one level to get into the auction, and that has it's own agenda. There's an Andrew Robson book on doubles I know of, and I am sure there are a few more to get you acquainted.

I would open all 3 with a weak NT (12-14) if using that system, though I would hesitate a tiny amount in 3rd position, vulnerable against non-vulnerable. And, if using a 15-17 strong NT, I would be happy to open 1 of a minor as all hands have a 4 card suit. As for the Kaplan Rubens evaluator, I find it's better when it's used to upgrade hands with good suits, rather than downgrade balanced or semi-balanced hands that contain adequate high card points.

My partner did indeed lead the 2 to the 8 which held, eliminating the ♠ ruff. I personally thought that leading and running the ♠10 was preferable and makes it slightly more difficult for West to put up the ace and provide partner with a ruff.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt92h743dkqj98ca&n=sk84hj52dt65ckt94&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1d1s1np2dppp]266|200[/hv] MP Pairs. West led ♥AKQ, East petering to show 4, and then West switched to ♣8 covered by 9, J and Ace. How did my partner continue?

My club partner and I have decided to keep this simple as opening 2♣ is rare, and interference over 2♣ is rarer. Pass = equivalent of 2♦ bid - negative 0-6 Double = negative double - 7+ with tolerance for all suits (semi-balanced) except that overcalled 2NT = 8-10 with stop in opponents suit (balanced) 2♥ or 2♠ - 7+ with at least a 5 card suit any bid at 3 level - 7+ with 6 card suit I realise the modern method is to double with a virtually worthless hand to warn partner but we just prefer it this way.

Thank you again for all your replies. I certainly learnt something from this hand. That a high level pre-emptive transfer at the right vulnerability makes it so difficult for the opponents to judge what action is best. And when game comes home - as it did on this hand - as a result, it is just another bonus for making a superlative bid.

I think the director would be called if you tried that lol! :) (Assuming the opponents don't run to 4 clubs)

[hv=pc=n&s=sj9432hj6dk542cj2&w=s865hat9875dt98c3&n=sakhkdj763ckqt874&e=sqt7hq432daqca965&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1np4cd4hppp]399|300[/hv] Note: Honour cards and distribution are correct but small cards have been randomly assigned. In the recent Vanderbilt final, Gold and Bakhshi bid the above using a Texas 4♣ transfer. The NT range was explained by the commentator as 11(12-14). Even given the favourable vulnerability, I was a little bit stunned by the high level transfer. I would be interested in others' opinion on the 4♣ bid. Was it a stroke of genius crowding out the opposition, or a normal bid for experts to make, or a double-edged bid that could have gone seriously wrong?

Thank you for all your replies. My thoughts were that with West's not-so-good hand you haven't got a sensible rebid if partner bids 2♥, irrespective of whether the opponent's overcall 2♣. The ♠ suit is not strong enough to rebid as it stands, but with ♠AKJ107 (as kenberg suggested) the strength compensates for not having a 6 card suit two level rebid.

System is 5cM, weak NT, Modern Acol style 2/1s (10+) If you are playing a 2/1 style Acol - very rare in my opinion - I would content myself with 2♠ and see what partner bids next.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa9532h9543da3c52&w=skjt76h72dkq842cq&n=s8hatdjt75ckjt874&e=sq4hkqj86d96ca963&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1s2c2hp3dp3nppp]399|300[/hv] I was kibitzing a friend's game (Pick-Up, IMPs, Main Room) and on correct defence 3NT seems a hopeless contract on a club lead. First, do you agree that 3NT is the correct contract for East/West? Secondly, if 3NT is not the right place with East and West's mediocre hands, how do you avoid it?

You don't have to worry about your 'love handles' (or your choice of lingerie) Swapping partners is not frowned upon You can have a 'stiff queen' in your hand without feeling embarrassed Post mortems do not have involve people who have died [during the sexual act] Simultaneous Pairs are not under any obligation to perform No 'bottom' is going to be spanked You can have a cup of tea and biscuits while playing bridge but, on the flip side, playing bridge is more difficult than the Karma Sutra (so I've been told) :)

My son, who is now 48, now works in two part-time jobs (20 hours + 12 hours) and one other zero hour contract, and his wife works part-time (24 hours) too, to keep a roof over their family's head (3 teenage children). Both have degrees, and both are now working for less than £2 above the minimum wage. They have a mortgage, one car, a cat and a dog. They have just one yearly two week camping holiday in the UK - the last time they had a family holiday abroad (Spain) was 7 years ago. My son sold the second small car and now cycles 10 miles to one job (and 10 miles back too.) They are not wasteful with money, shop economically, and do not have all the luxuries (big TVs, latest phones, free housing) that people on social benefits seem to possess. I admire their fortitude, but things would be easier if both still had full-time jobs that paid well. Both have suffered redundancies over the past 15 years, and now have to tailor their lives to what work is available. That's the reality of living in the UK, as some of his friends have suffered similar hardships, one ending up homeless through no fault of his own. Bringing in cheap labour from European countries has made some people very wealthy at the expense of the indigenous population. If that how capitalism works, and I confess I don't take much interest in politics, then I doubt if I'll ever vote Conservative again. I always believed the Conservative Party were there to support decent, hard-working families: how wrong I was!