The_Badger

I entirely agree with the principle of rescuing partner once but not twice, but I also think that 4♣ is the right bid to make as your suit is longer than partner's and is half-decent. He doesn't need much for 5♣ to be on the cards.

Only with a total misfit will this hand play badly, but that can happen with any hand irrespective of the point count and hand shape. Trying to second guess partner's cards, or for that matter the opponent's at this juncture, is ludicrous. It's not the greatest 1♣ opener I admit, but it's totally insane not to open in this day and age. You have an easy rebid. K&R put it at 12.75. Enough said.

North just shot himself in the foot, pure and simple. No sympathy whatsoever. Pre-empting an explanation of a possible (interpretation of an opponent's) bid is a new one on me.

Not much to add to the hrothgar and Tramticket comments other than the restrained bidding of East/West is unbelievable. Against an advanced/expert human partnership you may have been talked out of a slam by aggressive sacrifice bidding. The robot North, in my opinion, doesn't recognise that a known 10+ card fit with his own array of controls - even discounting the dead ♦K - opposite a 2/1 responder is a beautiful hand and is worth another punt beyond 4♥. And yes, South could have done a little bit more, but North is the real culprit here.

I don't normally disagree with you on here, Alex, but losing to a singleton ♣K is 11% as I am sure you already know. But laying down the ♣A may work if ♣ are 2-1 or possibly 3-0 with North, but I think the bidding might have been different if that was the case, North dragging up some sort of response to his partner's 1♦ bid after passing in first position.

Partner apologised...not soon enough, in my opinion. Laying down the ♣A is just awful bridge.

No. No. No. Playing safe for an 11% (half of 22% 3-0 split) chance is just bonkers, in my opinion.

In a human (as opposed to a robot-playing) world this is how I see things. For the hand you posted - a good example - I would open 2♣. The reason is I have 6 quick tricks, a good 6 card suit, and need as little as Qx in the ♠ suit for game. (Or similarly other small cards.) If you make the 2♣ bid not universally game-forcing, allowing responder to bid negatively twice, opener is allowed to let the bidding rest in three of a major, or four of a minor if they want. Some players do use this caveat in the SAYC system. I am more inclined to open 1♣ if the hand is ♠Axx ♥x ♦AKQ ♣AK10xxx. The reason why is that with 2/1 partner is encouraged to bid a major at the one level with a poorer hand than standard in the hope of finding a major suit fit as more-than-occasionally the ♣ bid is made on a three carder. The same applies to a 1♦ opener. If you open 1♣/1♦ there is also more chance the opponents will overcall at the one level, allowing you to bid again whereas a 1♥/1♠ opener means the opponents have to bid at a higher level to compete and statistically you will have less opportunity to bid again. A ♠Axx ♥x ♦AKQ ♣AK10xxx opener is looking for 3NT or 5 of a minor contract, and for that to occur you need partner to have more cards to make it happen, so you're less likely to miss anything if partner hasn't got a bid. And as I said with the hand you posted, four of a major is achievable with just Qx in the trump suit.

The simple answer to this is 'yes'. As you have an eight card fit so you can use the Losing Trick Count to evaluate hands. The strange thing is that I am actually reading an article today by Andrew Robson (in English Bridge Magazine) about countering interference by the opponents over weak two bids with a two card fit and he uses The Law of Total Tricks for this example. (Andrew wrote a very informative book about the LTC about 10 years ago.) However, the Losing Trick Count is a very accurate tool in evaluating hands. You are right to put the number of losers at eight for an opening weak two generally, though there are times when the suit quality and distribution will change that number given how flexible pre-empts are these days. But maybe you wish to stick with pre-emptive weak twos that have at least two of the top three honours or AJ10/QJ10 heading the suit. That may suit your style, although it is commonplace for today's players to bid a weak two with a lot less. And welcome to the forum :)

The other commentators have covered all the bases. Basically Blackwood is a one of the simplest types of bridge relay for information. There are whole bridge systems based on relay responses. One is the driver, and the other a passenger. So it's important if you are passenger not to grab the steering wheel. Bridge bidding is disciplined. The bidding up to 5♥ is textbook and exemplary. When you bid 6♠ you have effectively lost trust in partner. (And yes, logic dictates that if the robot has made a previous game try and is asking for the ♠Q that it wants to play in a slam, and you know that you are already missing the ♣A) Ok, on this occasion, your partner is a robot so it doesn't matter. But if you were playing with a regular human partner and 'try to bid their cards for them' then you are going to become unstuck. I hope the above doesn't sound too didactic, but it is a valid point. Bridge is a game based on trust. This sentence is interesting: I made the decision rightly or wrongly to go to 6S myself (signoff) but considered 5S (even having the Queen, but didnt want to miss possible slam) since I didn't like the look of 6S . What didn't you like about 6♠? You had told partner in a number of bids previously your hand perfectly, absolutely perfectly. You had four card support headed by an honour - it could be three card support on some occasions - and had described your maximum balanced hand. It is then partner's decision whether he or it (being a robot) decides whether 6♠ is a feasible contract. 6♠ is a great place to be. Don't worry too much about going down at this stage, especially if you are getting back into bridge. It's annoying, especially as the contract can be made, but over time you will be making more and more contracts as you practice more. The important thing is bidding those contracts in the first instance.

I am assuming that 6♥ makes. So the point I am making is that how many times in a lifetime do you expect to be in a makeable small slam after the opponents open a genuine(ish) 2♣ opener? I think many players would say zilch. I think 4♥ is the wrong bid here as it just says pre-empt, pre-empt, pre-empt. I actually prefer 2♥ followed by 4♥, however when the opponent just bids 5♣ you are just stymied. You expect your partner to have nothing given the bidding. It is just an unlucky board.

Strong Two Acol, Weak Two Acol, Benjaminised Acol, Reverse Benjaminised Acol, Multi-Coloured Acol, Five Card major Acol (not really Acol, in my opinion, but many play it these days), Strong No Trump with a Prepared ♣ Acol, Variable No Trump Acol, Crowhurst Acol, Stone Age Acol, Basic Acol, Modernised Acol, etc. etc. Happy place Acol is out there somewhere, Tramticket, but not as we know it :)

How do you know you own the ♠ suit? Rule of 15 says open (but I'm not a great Marty Bergen fan myself). K&R puts this horrid 11 count at a even grottier 8.85. Are you that desperate to gain 3-4 IMPs here, whereas you could lose 7-11 if doubled, even 13 on a bad day? Even with Drury this could go horribly wrong; without it it's even worse. One of Badger's rules is "Don't bid grot hands if you don't have to". In my Acol Noob day I wouldn't dream of opening this hand. Why should it be any different now?

Explain it better, Helene? Rofl. Isn't that the idea of having a convention card?

It's not 12 points (including distributional points) until you find a fit. There's no guarantee of a ♥ or ♦ fit, and you know a ♠ fit only marginally exists. As Nigel rightly says, 3♥ is an overbid here, except if you play it as a free bid in this situation (unusual), showing 8-11 say, but I certainly wouldn't bid it as free bid at the three level with such a mediocre five card suit.

As Cyberyeti rightly says, it is the Mexican 2♦, but to me - just a personal opinion - it is just a waste of a bid for one type of hand. I prefer using 2♦ as a Multi where it can show weak hands and strong. The reason behind this is simple: most natural systems (Acol, SAYC, 2/1) play a 2NT rebid in the range of 17-19 already. If partner has enough to respond, 5-6+ HCPs, you won't be missing games anyway, and the same applies to the Mexican 2♦. A 18-19 balanced hand can be opened at the one level and constructive bidding can take place if responder has enough to bid. The only very, slight advantage it has is if opener is 4432 and 18-19 in a five card major system, and has to open one of a minor in a three card suit, and responder is too weak to bid, and the opponents do not have enough to balance, and you are left to play at the one level in that minor. Or alternatively, opener opens one of a minor with a four card suit, and again responder doesn't have enough to bid, and there's a better fit in a major suit available. But statistically that happens rarely. But as I say with everyone who plays this game, it's your system and if you feel happy playing a Mexican 2♦ that's your choice. And welcome to the forum :)

It's not a great hand, the unbid suits are poor, but with one-and-a-half honour tricks, and an extra card in both unbid suits, it's just about (marginally) worth a double at the three level, however the problem being is how to proceed when and if partner bids next. If you don't double now, you run the risk of allowing the opponents free rein. If you 'pass' partner could well have a fit for one of your suits but not enough to balance. Better to double now and risk a vulnerable penalty - you can't go through your bridge life without taking risks - than to lamely pass, I feel.

But it is entirely responsible for you missing game. Period. Bidding 4♥ instead of 3♥ is a slight overbid imo.

I think that one sentence sums up this hand entirely, Pete, but finessing at trick 2 was not unreasonable as that was your plan, but there is no guarantee that West had led low from three to an honour. (Many players lead small from three un-honoured cards these days.) As they say, it's not over until the fat lady sings the last trick is played :)

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) Big lol! And here's many of us concerning ourselves whether we might miss a slam when East has a few key cards, when in fact he has every key card for 7NT to be made. That's made my day, Dinarius :)

Jerry. It would be interesting to see your partner's hand and the bidding and the vulnerability here as I am puzzled how after 'denying a 4 card major' you have ended up in 4♥s. There's also the issue whether you play IM as a one round force or as a GF too. Also, were the opponents upset because 1) They would have bid it differently 2) You were obliged to bid 1♥/1♠ with any 4 card major after a 1♣ opening 3) The result didn't go their way, etc., etc? In my eyes you took a view, a personal view that you didn't want to bid such a poor suit. That's your prerogative surely?

K&R evaluator puts it at nearly 24, so opening a lacklustre 1♦ isn't my cup of tea, nor is deceiving partner with a 5♦ pre-empt, but blagging a 2♣ opener doesn't look so bad even though technically it isn't right. Four-and-a-half quick tricks and the ability to play at four of a minor without any support is a good enough reason to tweak the bid to suit the hand, but only with an experienced partner. p.s. If you are wondering why I have put 'four of a minor' - yes, I know it's strong enough on its own to be in 5♦ - as a number of players who use a 2♣ opening do not necessarily insist on it being game forcing, and can reside in three of a major or four of a minor if the hands don't fit well. If you blag a 2♣ opening here, you do stand a chance that the opponents won't find their major suit fit, whereas I think if you open 1♦ it is inevitable that they will. I'm not too averse for players to open 5♦ because I'm a firm believer in the Rixi Markus philosophy of bidding what is in your hand, but I do think you diminish your chances of reaching slam considerably by doing so.

Cashing the 4th ♦ seems better than tackling the ♣ suit.

I never concede in this situation since I risk nothing but 1 out of like 10 times an extra trick is gained. I think you have answered your question with this sentence. And as you posted it in the "Novice and Beginner Forum" I would encourage all players at this level to play their cards as they wish. For me, there's nothing wrong in doing what you are doing. There's no rule that says that you have to make a quick claim, though some opponents might complain if the situation is obvious. Sometimes it is just as quick to play out the last few cards than to make a claim on here, especially if an opponent misses it.

A good illustrative hand, eagles. I'm trying to work out the percentage plays in my head and its getting the better of me so far. Usual plan in NT is trying to set up winners in your longest suit so a ♣ to the Q feels the right move: whether it is, is another matter! p.s. I prefer IMPs too