The_Badger

Can you please clarify this, Tramticket. Thanks.

Apologies, George, but I normally agree with your posts, but the problem I feel with bidding 2♦ here is when partner has 5♠s + 5♦s. Is he going to respond 1♦ to 1♣? Fake reverses are fine as long as you don't become unstuck later. I agree with the other commentators that either 3♣ or 3NT are the only rebids depending on style.

Obvious for me, obvious for you, Cyberyeti, obvious for Pete, obvious for Pete's partner...mmmm...the jury's out on that one :)

I don't think it would matter what honour you led, Pete, with a partner that obviously likes holding onto aces, apology or not.

That's it in a nutshell: the raw statistics versus the guesstimate. With the possibility of two potential losers, and only one opportunity to finesse, the finesse of the ten is best. (And trust me, I would have probably done the same as you, trying to work it out at the table and come to the wrong decision too.)

Without the trump lead, you might have been able to negotiate 11 tricks, but best defence suggests that only 10 are available now. There's a possibility there's 11 on a dummy reversal too, but that's asking a lot of suits to behave favourably, which might not happen given South's 2♦ bid. The lead does suggest that trumps will break 3-2 - small card from three small - so I would start off with trying to ruff the third ♠ in dummy but that in itself could be fraught with danger if the suits are breaking badly, but I have a gut feel that ♠s will behave as South could have doubled on the second round with both a ♦ suit and a ♠ suit.

Very, very unlucky in my opinion. The trump break (4%) plus lack of kings just dooms this contract from the outset. I'll let the commentators who have expertise of robot bidding to advise you further, but the one bid that I'm not keen on is 3NT - though your options could well have been limited given GIB bidding - as how does the robot know you have at least 2 card support for ♠s and is quite happy to press on towards slam without that knowledge? You would open 1♦ with a 1444 shape hand and 18-19 so you could have all 4 keycards, but 6♠ or 6NT is a dire contract with this distribution needing a lot to go right. On the actual hand make the two queens into the ♥K and 6♠ is a great contract. I believe many pairs would also end up in 6♠ with the above cards.

I admit I have never come across this before - ever! - and it's potentially more difficult to judge (I assume) given that an opponent has doubled, but many players use super accepts to transfers, without quite knowing why partner is transferring at the moment of using a super accept, so I have to agree with Helene that at favourable vulnerability there is a good case of raising with 4 card support and a doubleton.

Helene: there are always holes in ladders, but this one looks like it's has a few broken rungs too :) The balancing seat is always fraught with problems, especially on the first round, as opener may occasionally trap pass with a good hand knowing partner has nowt and watch the opponents flounder towards a hopeless contract as they try to define their 'not necessarily discussed' values. With GIB it's even harder as no prior discussion can take place, though having a space as large as 15-18 balanced not catered for looks ridiculous. That's why I always played 2NT in the balancing seat as (18)19-20(21) balanced, not Unusual.

I stopped reading The Guardian regularly some years ago, too. It's a shadow of its former self these days. Bridge is probably now looked upon as a pastime that Daily Mail readers engage in. Say no more...

The title of this thread is How to best try for slam and by bidding 2♠ followed by 3♠ gets the message across perfectly, I feel. 2♠ could be a game try; 3♠ would automatically be taken as a slam try. It wouldn't take long for a clued-up in the zone East to work out that partner has a double control in ♠s with length in ♥s, but lacks stuff in the minors.

East opens 1NT. I see from your profile that you use SAYC with a 15-17 no trump. The bidding would go 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3NT. If you open 1♣ and partner bids 1♠, you are telling a lie if you rebid 1NT (12-14) or 2NT (18-19) or 2♥(17+) Before opening you should always prepare a suitable rebid (or pass) whatever partner (or the opponents for that matter) throw at you. I'm not 100% keen on opening 1NT with 5-4-2-2 shape, though this hand is an exception to the rule. It's not a great hand generally, but it just about makes a 1NT opening on the K&R evaluator coming out at 15.00 exactly. (It might have 16 HCPs but it comes out less due to the awkward doubletons.)

I think both decisions (enquiring further via 2NT and/or doubling 3♥) are better than borderline at pairs though you're the only one that knows what partner opens the multi on in 1st position at favourable vulnerability :) What you want to avoid is a complete bottom by doubling the opponents into game if the multi wasn't employed and the balancing fit they may have found wouldn't have been possible, or could have been fraught with danger, for example, partner not opening and you opening 1NT in 3rd position showing 14-16/15-17 if that's how you play it. Though I am sure everyone is aware +200 is a good score for you, and -200 is bad score for the opponents at pairs. If partner has a habit of opening 2♦ with ♠Qxxxxx ♥Qx ♦Qxx ♣xx or a 5-4-x-x shaped hand (as one of my previous partners had an annoying habit of doing when playing the multi) then you have to err on the side of caution.

It's nearly obligatory at this vulnerability and opening in third seat (and near as damn it nearly obligatory too at other vulnerabilities and opening in any seat), and with the opponents remaining quiet for partner to treat a 1♣ opening in 2/1 as more than semi-forcing and drag up a major suit response on jack nothing - well maybe a little bit more than jack nothing (I think you get the picture) in the hope of finding a better major suit contract. As other commentators have rightly said, the hand is far, far too strong for 1NT, and if you do play 1♣ as a possible singleton, it virtually behoves partner to say something with anything.

Yes I agree, there is a case for this as well, but by bidding 3♦ North was effectively hedging his bets if 3♣ was a strong overcall - some players still prefer to use 'old school' methods here - instead of Ghestem as 3NT could be in the frame, which indeed it is.

I think North realised quite quickly that his partner "was in a muddle" when he bid only 3♦ in reply in my opinion.

Yes, here in the United Kingdom too I have seen both bridge and chess columns disappear over the years. It's important to keep a public profile for these games: it encourages people to learn them. My local bridge club advertises in the monthly community magazine to attract both new and old players. Bridge and chess columns - and crossword puzzles, too - have been replaced by mind games that on the surface require less effort and less involvement. Sad to see.

Ricky Jay, the card illusionist, magician and actor. I remember watching him on TV when I was a very young man and thinking 'Wow'. What he could do with playing cards... And what a showman too. Very funny.

I'm a film buff, and whilst some of Roeg's films seem a little bit dated these days, many were produced in the experimental years of the late 1960s/ early 1970s. I watched Performance recently and thought 'If he cut out all the unnecessary sex - I'm not a prude by the way - and the arty-farty pretentiousness of it all, it could actually be a good movie'. My favourite Roeg film is Castaway, with Oliver Reed and Amanda Donohue, that sticks very closely to Lucy Irvine's book.

The one thing it isn't as far as I'm concerned is a penalty double. Given that the opponents have based their auction on the Law of Total Tricks, the worse thing you can do is double the opponents in a part-score into game. Most players I assume would play it as a competitive double, showing extra values and asking partner to make the next decision, either 3NT, 4♥, possibly 4♣/♦ or occasionally to leave the double in.

Agree entirely. Probably an extreme example having 4 card support and three aces, but the only thing to add that the doubler now also wants partner to a) pull the double if they feel their hand is too weak or distributional to leave the X in (as you said), or, b) guide the doubler (whether to extract penalties) if the 1NT overcaller and his partner try to escape to a two level contract. Effectively, the doubler is saying that a penalty-based defence will be more profitable than making a part score or even making game.

I'm not too keen on the takeout double vulnerable on the second round as West could be unlimited, but it does look like your points are 'working' and whilst ♠652 is hardly a suit, I prefer double than a 2♦ overcall if West had opened 1♥.

I looked at this before any replies - I am no authority on robots as I don't play with or against them - and worked out in my own mind that GIB replied 5♠ because it held extra length, which diana has now confirmed. You easily reach the slam, even the grand, in ♠s if North replies either with a 4♥ splinter on the second round of bidding, or alternatively some partnerships use a 4♦ bid here to confirm ♠ as trumps, and to show a solid suit out side the trump suit. Obviously the robot bids differently. And yes, if I was unfamiliar with specialist quirks of bidding, I would be scratching my head as to why the robot had misinformed me with a bid of 5♠ too.

Pass. ♣ lead. With so much in defence, I'd rather go passive here.

And there's me thinking, upon reading the header, GIB had pulled off a brilliancy. Duh! :)