The_Badger

Best deleted. (Writing rubbish - as usual some might say.)

It might slow the game down a tad but I've always wondered why after a lead is made both declarer and the defence are not obliged to wait a period of several seconds before playing any card, especially at club or tournament level? I personally find it very rude when declarer plays instantaneously from dummy on the 1st trick, and as a defender you are familiarising yourself with dummy and your possible defence. It would cut out situations like this.

Now that's what I call analysis :)

That's the most logical explanation I've seen written here. You don't go stayman-ing with a balanced 10 count opposite a weak NT, especially, no not even especially, never, if you know partner opens with 1NT with rubbish. The odds do not favour partner having a maximum NT, and/or a four card ♠ fit. As for doubling 3♣ that's pure madness. North is going to have a very strong hand at this vulnerability; with a lesser hand North would/could have doubled East's 2♣ Stayman bid.

Flat 12HCPs. 1st seat. 4333 shape. Aceless. Less intermediates (10,9,8) than small cards. No touching intermediates. Vulnerable. NOT A WEAK OPENING 1NT. Kaplan & Rubens hand evaluator - used after writing the above - calculates this hand as a crummy 10.05 count.

Agreed. Even better idea. Open 2♣ with your next three count, watch her eyes light up. Bid up to game, she hopefully will bid Blackwood, and then arrive in a silly contract. Go five down doubled. And then say without a trace of emotion on your face, "Sorry. I pulled out the wrong card out of the bidding box, partner. 2♣ is forcing to game, so I had to bid game after that, and answer your Blackwood call honestly as it is a forcing bid, you might have had a good hand yourself."

My advice. Grow a pair. Take her to one side and tell her directly what you think, and what the other players think of her obnoxious behaviour. She's just a bully and has probably been like it all her life and she's one of those people who hasn't got anything better to do than moan or be miserable or create misery for others. Probably sits behind her living room curtains, twitching at any minor indiscretion (in her blinked eyes) any human makes. Until you get it off your chest it will continue gnawing at you. Inaction is not an option. Ahhh....don't you feel a lot better now. Other than that I suggest you invest in a roll of black gaffer tape, and tape her mouth in the same way that Tape Face does. At least you can do that these days since bidding boxes were invented :)

This is an interesting theory, but Trump and his advisers perhaps feel they are in a no-win scenario. Either they "mow the lawn" now - a Noam Chomsky idiom - or let the grass grow higher and higher until it becomes impossible to deal with. Even though I do not have much time for Trump, and his UN speech was unbelievable, shooting from the hip with all guns blazing, I sometimes wonder what I would do in his shoes? There's no easy solution, I feel, except if Kim Jong-in abandons his rhetoric and nuclear aims and comes to the negotiating table, something that is very unlikely to occur. Just what happens next is anyone's guess, but I do agree with the article that war is now a distinct possibility - sadly.

Even red/white, with a good suit and shape and with a passed (experienced) partner, my one level (especially 1♠ over an opening of 1♣) overcalls can be bordering on 'spectacularly crap', for 1.) a lead possibly 2.) to try to disrupt their bidding.

Yes, a Drury sequence, or I have a feeling 2 ♦ is a Reverse Drury enquiry, asking responder to clarify his hand looks just right here. Opener is saying I have a good overcall and asking his partner what his UCB is based on. Believe you can clarify whether partner has 3 or 4 card support for opener and keep the bidding at the 2 level if his hand is not right. (3 card support only, balanced hand) Yes, definitely the best method, but by agreement, obviously.

Certainly did, John :) I expect partner to be about a 10-11 count, with a good fit (4 card suit, or 3 with an honour and maybe a side suit, just short of a opening bid, something like:- ♠Qxxx ♥xx ♦AQxxx ♣Qx

Tough call. Unassuming Cue Bids are a bit like Drury. 2♠ as a rebid just seems the wrong call here, in my opinion - minimum. However, I personally don't like the aceless 5-3-3-2 hand, but it is a 13 count. What does 3♠ as a rebid show here? Invite or forcing? Anyway, hasn't partner made the invite already with the UCB? Vulnerable I'm inclined to trust partner and bid 4♠. 2NT or 3NT don't feel the right bids here. But it is a tough call and very borderline.

[hv=pc=n&w=st98hakq3dqt653c2&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1cp1hp1np3cp3hp4hppp]133|200[/hv] Pairs MPs (or equally it could be Teams IMPs) 1NT rebid is 12-14, 3♣ limit raise 11-12 with 4♣s. Choose your lead.

i should let someone else have a go That's good of you. I have withdrawn the solution.

[hv=pc=n&s=s73hak732dq62ca84&n=sak652h864da53c92&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1sp2h2n3hp4hppdppp]266|200[/hv] Rubber bridge from a few nights ago. Plan the play. West's 2NT is unusual (minors). West leads ♣K, East contributing the ♣3 (standard) If you decide to duck, West switches to ♠10 N.B. After I withdrew the solution after wank's analysis, I noticed something that changes the dynamics of the hand. On the first trump lead from either hand, East plays the ♥5.

+1 for thinking it through, but technique-wise it's not quite right. West is indeed 3-4-6-0 but with ♠Qxx ♥Q9xx ♦KQxxxx Declarer played his ♦J at trick 2. West tried a small ♥ covered by 10, K and A. Declarer then played ♠J (not covered) but was then able to set up 4th ♥ for a ♣ discard.

There are many 'wriggles' from weak 1NT. I'm unsure what this one is called though. And I know a few. As for responder redoubling with a 12+ count, that isn't going to happen that often just on the law of averages. I'd rather have a mechanism where responder's pass is then automatically redoubled by the opener, similar to Helvic. Responder redoubling can then be used as another escape bid.

Welcome to the forum, Malachi :) Cyberyeti is correct in saying that it does come down to style in many partnerships, and that is true, but wank's viewpoint is also mine. Your bidding in my view shows 16+ with a 6 card suit or 18+ with a 5 card suit. Partner must raise. I think the problem also, to a very, very small degree, is your hand with it's good 6 card ♠ suit and 3 aces and 6-4-2-1 shape is probably worth nearer 19-20.

Additional info: please see main diagram

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt842ha72dajc43&n=sk96hjt85d63ck872&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1s2d2s4c4sppp]266|200[/hv] ♦K lead, East plays ♦2. Plan the play. Additional information after tramticket's two replies. 1. 4♣ is a bid where most players would assume it showed some tolerance for ♦ too. 2. Carding is standard

Words fail me, smerriman... As to replying to "No trumps, partner?" the only reply I can think of is "Sorry. I thought the opponents were in 7NT. Silly me!"

One has to play in a Moysian fit with GIB every so often :)

miamijd (who I have a lot of respect for whenever he posts) said this on a thread a few days ago:- You can open 1nt with 5422 hands but only with 5c. 4d 15-16 5c 4h 15-16 5d 4h 15-16 With any other 5422 you have an easy rebid so there is no need to be a hand hog. I'm not apportioning blame here as GIB did not do 'what it says on the can'. But we've all been guilty of opening 1NT with 5422 without giving it a second thought. Now I am giving it a 'second thought'.

Partner is an unlimited hand bidding 3♣. Except if you have an agreement that it is a free bid, you should make the appropriate response. With a stopper in ♠s just bid 3NT. Keep it simple. Don't talk yourself out of the right contract that this is going to happen, or that is going to happen, etc.

I've deleted my original reply and given +1 to zenbiddist as it is intricate, and even Nige1 has changed his original post I see (4th attempt - I know how you are feeling, mate, I'm writing this at 3am having woken up in the middle of the night with this hand churning in what's left of my brain - lol!) Be interesting to see what the final layout is of the hand, zen. Good problem.