geofspa

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=skqj765h72dk9caj7&w=st93haqt9d6ct9542&e=s42h84djt87543cq3&s=sa8hkj653daq2ck86]399|300|Scoring: MP At the table the bidding as follows:- 1N p 2♥ p 2♠ p 4♠ p 5♦ p 6♠ p all pass Opening Lead ♥A[/hv] So the story is as follows:- I, sitting south, love to open all balanced hands within the point range 1NT. Partner makes a jacoby transfer bid and follows up with 4♠. In our agreements this is a mild slam try holding 6 spades. At the table I bid 5♦ (1st round control, and holding prime cards in all suits) and my partner bid 6♠. So later in the evening we were going through the boards at the bar - and after a couple of beers a good idea? My partner of the night was a little miffed that I had opened this board 1NT (we had agreed earlier that it might have a 5 card major but I think he had forgotten) and he stated we were lucky to make the slam. He also said that if I had opened 1♥ that there would be no way we would be there. Later I got to wondering if he was correct. Now over to you the experts at pulling hands to pieces - open discussion please!

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=skq62hkq92dq2ckq3]133|100|Scoring: Total Points bidding -- p p 1NT 2♠ 2NT p 3♣ p 3NT p ? 2♠ - Spades and a minor 5-5 or better 2NT - Lebensohl 3♣ - forced 3NT - ?? [/hv] Hi So a couple of questions here about the bidding seqence here. 1. After the lebensohl sequence my partners 3NT shows values for NT game but what stoppers is he showing - I am presuming he is only showing a spade stopper (slow shows)? 2. With the hand above I wonder if I should bid again as the diamonds look very fragile? I have the full hand and if required I will post it after replies - for discussion on whether partner is correct in his choice of bids Thanks in advance Geof

For my 2 pennyworth I agree with Wayne 100% Partnership agreements and knowing how your agreements work are worth more than any "system" of bidding. This is very true for a regular partnership which should hold regular postmortems of their play - and practice together at the partnership tables within BBO. Now on the other hand in pickup partnerships I am a great believer in the KISS system. (Keep It Simple i'm Stupid). I much prefer to agree any natural system with very limited conventions - Stayman, Red suit transfers, Blackwood may be 3 I would like - and if SAYC fits the bill for you then stick with it. Geof

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sak86hkdakq8ckq87]133|100|Scoring: Rubber[/hv] Sitting South I was dealt the hand shown above. I know 4441 hands are awkward but this 24 HCP 4144 did give me pause for thought, what should I open after 2 passes? My thoughts are that I might open:- 2NT - sort of discounting the singleton ♥K ... It has been known for me to open NT on 4441 hands in the past. 2♣ - showing a balanced 23+ or a game forcing hand... But what do I bid when my passed partner bids a waiting 2♦. 3NT - well that was out as we had agreed a gambling NT convention showing 8 solid tricks in a minor with nothing outside. In the end I did open 2♣ and after the expected 2♦ from partner I bid 3♦ ...YUCK! You thoughts on how I might have opened this one would be appreciated. Geof ps I will post the full hand, bidding and the outcome later.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sqt3h973d6ckj7632]133|100|Scoring: Rubber Bidding 1♣ x p p? p[/hv] The could we do better will come a little later :) The other day playing high stakes rubber bridge (not really it was social bridge) I converted my partners takeout double into a penalty. My question here is - should I convert partners T/O double ? I have a weak hand but my clubs are nice ... even if sitting under opener. I believe I should here bite the bullet and bid 1♥ [hv=d=w&v=n&n=sa52haqt6dakq4cq9&w=sk76hkj8dt97cat54&e=sj984h542dj8532c8&s=sqt3h973d6ckj7632]399|300|Scoring: Rubber The play 1 n ♣Q 8 2 5 2 n ♦Q 2 6 T 3 n ♦K 3 ♣3 7 4 s ♥9 J Q 2 5 n ♦A 8 ♥7 9 6 n ♥A 4 3 8 7 n ♥T 5 ♣6 K 8 s ♠3 7 A 4 9 n ♥6 ♠8 ♣7 ♣T 10 w ♠K 5 9 T 11 w ♣A 9 ♦J J 12 w ♣4 ♦4 ♦5 K 13 s ♠Q 6 2 J [/hv] Honestly I do not know why West opened the bidding - we were playing the first game in a rubber so there were no part scores on the board. In the play my partner berated me for trumping her ♦K at trick 3 (Never trump partners winners?). Although I did argue that if I trump this I can lead hearts through declarer. We managed to take 10 tricks for a nice little 800 above the line. Did we do as well as we could have expected, and could declarer have done better than he did?

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=saq6h872da54cak82&w=sk973h9dt98ct7654&e=sj852hkj5dk7632c9&s=st4haqt643dqjcqj3]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] So here is the full deal ... guess we were lucky to make the 12 with everything sitting right. Thinking about things in the light of hindsight I could open this 2!h in 2nd seat (we use very sound 2nd seat weak 2's) and would definitely open 2!h without a hint of delay in 3rd

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=st4haqt643dqjcqj3]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] East passed Sitting South I was dealt the above hand, I considered it to be too strong for a pre-emptive 2♥, but not strong enough to open 1♥, so I passed. West passed, and my partner opened 1NT (15 - 17). Bidding to me - I bid 4♦ (transfer to hearts) and passed my partners 4♥, all pass. My partner proceeded to make 12 tricks and could have made 13 if he had tried the heart finesse. Later, when discussing the boards, my partner was questioning whether I could have made more of a move towards slam by using a Jacoby transfer followed by a jump to 4♥, a mild slam try according to our agreements. Did I under bid (considering this was pairs scoring) ? Looking forward to your views.

[hv=n=skt5&w=s&e=s&s=sq976432]399|300|[/hv] RHO opened 1NT (15-17) LHO transfered and then invited in ♥, at which point my partner overcalled 3NT. I called 4♣ which is where we are playing. I can see 20 HCP between my hand and dummy, and the contract depends upon pulling this suit in for one loser. My first thought is to lead the King ... but am I correct ?

A chat room has much more chat area and is a lot easier to find than a common playing table - even one marked as teaching. A playing table also is subject to a deal being made if 4 sit, or constant requests to sit if the seating is locked.

Hi I am once again running a teams league. Prior the setting up of the matches the players congregate in a chat room from which one has to exit to see who is online. This is awkward in 2 ways. 1. You are leaving a chat mid flow and may miss an important announcement. and 2. The chat log is cleared from the screen thereby removing what may be an important piece of information from your screen. I have asked before but surely now that a lobby view is available from everywhere else within BBO would it not be easy to encode to be able to see 4 lines at the top of the screen for a lobby view. It may be permanent or user selected I really do not care which but I would like to see some movement towards a lobby view. Geof BTW I know some work has been completed in the chat rooms as now I can see more than 5 or 6 attendees.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s96h8652d87643cj3]133|100|Scoring: XIMP 1NT X 2♣ P .P 3♥ AP 1NT = 15-17 X = penalty orientated (15+) 2♣ = 2 suited ♣ and another [/hv] Sitting South with this I passed partners 3♥ bid and he rattled off 10 tricks. He afterwards said that I should have bid on to game! He has bid strongly but should I bid with this garbage? One of my favourite mentors does say that beginners/inters under bid weak hands and over bid strong hands.

Oh and I can't count ... the hand is 8HCP not 9

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=st95hqjt86dq7ck96]133|100|Scoring: IMP Bidding so far - 1NT P 2♦(transfer) P 2♥ P ?[/hv] Sitting South with this hand should I assess this as a minimum, or invitational? I have 9 HCP and if partner has 16 or 17 we have the values for game. I have some nice tens and nines, but the hand does look quacky. Should I invite with 2N here?

It seems that there is agreement on all but 2a. This sequence if not discussed is going to cause problems. I can see one half of the partnership expecting it to be quantative, while the other is thinking it is Blackwood. All in all I myself would think that this is quantative showing a balanced (5=3-3-2) hand in the range of about 16-17 HCP, as the Jacoby Transfer only promises 5 cards in the suit. Why are there always undiscussed sequences? Isn't this the beauty of this wonderful game, there are an almost infinite number of ways we use to describe the hands we hold. Oh and this sequence did occur for me - undiscussed - and you guessed it we both thought differently :P

Maybe you should look at variable NT opening 10-12 non vul :)

Recently, playing SAYC, I have been rather forgetful of the meanings of bids following my partners opening 1NT (15-17) bid. If anyone feels the need please enlighten me. Sequences are unopposed. 1. 1NT - 2♥ 2♠ - 4♠ (a.) Jacoby Transfers agreed. What is 4♠ ? How many ♠'s minimum? (b.) Jacoby and Texas Transfers agreed. What is 4♠? How many ♠'s minimum? 2. 1NT - 2♥ 2♠ - 4NT (a.) Jacoby Transfers agreed. What is 4NT? How many ♠'s minimum? (b.) Jacoby and Texas Transfers agreed. What is 4NT? How many ♠'s minimum? 3. 1NT - 4♥ 4♠ - 4NT Texas Transfers agreed. This one I think should be Blackwood of some variety ... feel free to correct me

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=skq8hakjt54dajcaj&s=sa9754h8dk9c95432]133|200|Scoring: IMP Well OK I gave a positive response to a 2♣ opening bid and I played in 6♠ ♣K led[/hv] I wonder is this a good slam to be in? How would you plan the play?

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sk2hkjt73dkqj7c84]133|100|Scoring: IMP 2/1 agreed with little discussion Bidding so far: - - - 1♥ P 1♠ P 2♦ P 3♣ P ? [/hv] Sitting south with this hand I was was faced with this auction, I did not know what to bid ... it should be simple as 3♣ is fourth suit forcing to game. I do not have ♣ stopped so 3NT is out ? I do not have 3♠ ... can I support partner with 2 ? (this was my choice after agonising for hours ... well it seemed like hours! B) ) I do not have 6+ ♥ don't want to rebid them ? I do not have a 5th ♦ ... What to do here ?

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=shq7542d62cqjt975&w=skjt9543h98da83c8&e=sq6ht3dkqt9754ck2&s=sa872hakj6djca643]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding : - p 3d x 4d 4h p P* p So A hand that causes concord throughout the bridge world ... well those that have replied. I too agreed with pass having forced partner to speak I do not want to punish him more. As it happened the ♣K was lead and partner cruised to 13 tricks. Well done partner.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa872hakj6djca643]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding so far - P 3♦ X 4♦ 4♥ P ?? What does south call now ? .... I was south :P This one I will leave open just for comments ... I'll show the full deal later.

Albeit that partner rebids 2NT I begin to see your reasoning. If using checkback (assuming 3!c here is check back) the sequence might be something like 1♣ : 1♥ 2NT : 3♣ where 3♣ is looking for 3♥ or 4♠ ... therefore a direct bid of 3♠ by south (me) over 2NT must be showing at least 5 cards ... the penny is dropping very slowly! :angry:

Any checkback structure that the partnership uses ( and it was a pickup partnership with limited agreements) would, as PBleighton says, give priority to opener showing 3 cards in spades. We would therefore on this hand always end in 4♠

I would never bid a shorter suit before a 6 carder.

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sq86hak73dkj3caj2&w=sak2h54d764ct9863&e=s4h962dt9852ckq75&s=sjt9753hqjt8daqc4]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Sitting south with this hand the bidding went as follows (EW silent) 1♣ : 1♠ 2NT : 4♠ My thoughts for 4♠ Partner has shown 18-19 and a balanced hand ... he must have at least 2 spades therefore we have at least an eight card fit. Why go looking for another? I have 10 HCP enough for game, just bid it. In the post mortem I was wondering if the heart fit should be looked for or if my reasoning at the table is correct. Feel free to abuse me if I am being stupid :unsure:

Holding the following hand Should I prefer to support partner or make a negative double ? [hv=d=s&v=b&s=sjhkq98dj984cq763]133|100|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] W N E S - - - P P 1♦1♠ ?