GrahamJson

Not really an answer to the question, more an observation. There seem to be many players on BBO, often claiming to be Expert, or even WC, who list a multitude of conventions on their profile yet whose declarer play and defence is hopeless. Many seem to think that being a good bidder means playing lots of conventions whereas it is much more about hand evaluation and general approach. If I were forced to answer the given question I would say that, at least as far as the average BBO player that I see, they would benefit most by improving their play (assuming this also includes defence). This is because the bidding on a lot of hands should be reasonably straightforward, e.g 1NT-3NT, which even relative beginners should be able to achieve. However many seem incapable of playing even simple hands, especially if the correct line does not involve drawing trumps as soon as you possibly can. I've noticed on several occasions that, when playing with an unknown partner, they often leave the table at trick two or three if, as declarer, I play anything other than a trump as soon as I get in. Presumably thinking that I don't know what I am doing.

The modern approach is to be more flexible with regard to responses to 2C. So, for example, the south hand is a clear positive of 2H in response to 2C but, swap the red suits around, and 2D is preferred to 3D, which takes up too much bidding space. Hence, whatever the agreement, it is better to pass over 2S as south, bidding hearts on the next round. This approach should easily result on n a club slam being bid, although whether you get to the grand depends on methods and judgment. On a related matter, I dislike the current trend (more on BBO than in expert circles - although it is close) for virtually all doubles to be negative. My view is that after a 2C opening all doubles are penalty. In addition, a bid in a doubled suit is natural. This makes is more difficult for oppo to come in with random bids with the sole purpose of disrupting your bidding. Other doubles that should also be penalties include after a takeout or negative double. E.g (1D)-DBL-(1S)-DBl showing, say, KQxx xxx Ax xxxx.

Completely agree. If the 3NT bidder can deduce that his partner is void why is it necessary to double to confirm it? If he can't be certain of the void then why should he not assume that the double is for penalties, or at least warning partner off from competing further. We've all seen players bidding UNT with 54 distribution, or supporting on hands when it was unwise. How do you punish them if it assumed that their bidding is perfect to such an extent that even a double at the five level is for take out? Finally, if the double were for takeout presumably it would show something like AKxxxx AQxxxx x void, in which case wouldn't he just bid 5H rather than risking his partner misunderstanding the double?

Maybe the double was intended to be take out, but I'm not sure how LHO is supposed to deduce this. He doesn't know you have six or if your partner has four. If he held KX, for example, why would he not think his partner was doubling on Q10x, for example? Would he trust his partner's bidding or his opponents? Overall I think that the double was penalty, although probably a bad one. Putting it another way, I think it is more likely that someone doesn't have their bid rather than someone has invented a five level take out double with the expectation that their partner will be able to read it as such.

If there were an easy way of dealing with these sorts of hands players would stop opening 4S. I think I would probably pass as east and double as west, with east passing again. But it is easier when you can see both hands. Certainly if east doubles it is difficult to see how west can avoid bidding six. The problem with doubling on the east hand is that you are short of offensive values to allow partner to play at the five level and don't have the defensive tricks to believe that 4S is likely to go off. West, on the other hand, has better offence and defence. Also, being in the pass out position east may not expect the same values as in direct position, although I think that this is a relatively minor factor.

I've noticed that how you play hearts might be influenced by East's play to the first trick. If he drops a small card then, if it were from Qx, west would have 1098. In this case he might have lead hearts rather than spades. If east wee to drop the 8, 9 or 10 then the chances of him holding a doubleton queen would be greater.

Looking again I suspect the answer is to cash AK of hearts hoping that the queen drops. If it doesn't then take the diamond finesse. This assumes that the clubs come in for four tricks. If they don't I guess you need both red suit finesses to work.

My instinct is to run the spade to the queen then take an immediate heart finesse. If that loses and a diamond comes through I'd go up with the ace and cash clubs and hearts. Depending on breaks there might be a throw in or squeeze, or you might have to lead up to the DQ. No doubt there is a better line but, if so, there wouldn't be enough time for me to find it at the table. Maybe testing clubs first is best but I'd be reluctant to do that in case I needed the entries later in the play although I admit it does appear that there are enough entries around.

I assume that LROB means limit raise or better, so LHO could still have values in hand. They might even be heading for six. To double now seems to me like madness. Of course, you may be lucky, with partner passing and turning up with trump tricks or maybe the contract failing in some other way because of cards being badly placed. If so I would be happy to pick up +50. Again, you could strike it lucky and partner turns up with a great fit, maybe five or six diamonds. Or maybe not. I certainly don't think the odds favour taking the risk.

A factor that should be taken into consideration is that partner had the opportunity to double 3C if he had support and a few values. It was a risk free call so would not require much. The fact that he passed argues strongly against your bidding on.

Maybe I've made the mistake of treating the 7 as equal to the J, 10 and 9 thinking that they could be played at random. However obviously if the 7 isn't played by north or south then the 8 is promoted. So, if the odds in the given situation are evens then it follows that if north had played the 7 on the first trick then the odds are strongly on the king being with south in order for the a priori odds of 3 to 2 to be maintained.

Suppose S had played 9 and J, and N the 7, what difference does that make? Now the 10 and the K are outstanding and S could have either. Is it even money that the king is with north and will fall? Put it another way. The initial odds, assuming a 3-2 break, are 3/2 that the king is with south. Now what cards played by north and south will keep those odds at 3/2? You will always end up with the king and one other card outstanding, either of which could be with south, or north. Ok, they can't play J, 10 and 9 on the first two tricks, the 7 will have to be played by north or south so does it matter who plays it?

That makes no difference. Take another situation. Suppose it was AQxxx opposite xxxxx. The odds are 2/1 in favour of the finesse. Does this change when you lead up to the AQ and see the card that LHO plays? The king could be the unknown card on your left or the unknown card on your right, but it is not even money. Going back to the original hand. The initial odds favour the king on your left, assuming that the suit is 3-2. Suppose when you play the suit you don't see what cards are played by E and W, other than they don't include the king. The odds don't change, in the same way as with the coins. Why should knowing which card is the J, or 9, or 10 make any difference?

The situation we are catering four is when west has three cards and east two. In that case the odds are three to two that the king is with west. Nothing has happened to change those odds as east and west can play their cards in any order without potential loss, and they would know that. Suppose it were coins, with one head and four tails. You have three coins on your left and one on the right. The odds are three to two that the head is on your left. You then take two coins away from the left and one from the right, with the proviso that all are tails. The odds are still that the head is on your left.

It seems very odd to me that there is so much debate over what seems to be a very straightforward situation. The outstanding cards are all equals, except for the 7, and given the bidding both oppo know exactly what the situation is so can play their cards at random. Hence little can be read into the sequence in which they are played. Given that the a priori odds favour going up with the queen I see nothing to change my mind. Would the same discussion come up if it were AQxx opposite xxxx? Surely everyone would take the finesse or play Ace then small to the queen, depending on the play of the hand as a whole. Would anyone play Ace then small from both hands unless there was clear evidence of Kx over the queen.

Agree with Badger. Partner made one of the weakest calls available so pass is not only a LA it is probably the best call. With something like xx Qxxx xxx Axxx wouldn't he have bid 4C?

The second sequence is straightforward I would think, showing a limited hand with a (good) six card suit, something like xx AQJxxx Kx xxx. Encouraging but not forcing. In the second case the 3H bidder could have doubled again to show a two suiter with equal length so should have something like xx AQJxx xx KQxx. With xx AQJxx xx Qxxx I would say that you bid 2H first then double on the next round. Of course the meanings would be different if you had specific agreements with partner.

It's all very well playing weak raises but I suspect most partners will expect something a little better than this for a raise, even to the 2 level let alone higher. It seems to me that bidding on this mess has far too big a risk that partner will go 800 to more in 4Sx or higher if he is weak or going one or two levels too high if strong.

As for 1S-2C-2red categorically showing five spades, Crowhurst gives the following example of a 1S opener:- AKJx KQ102 3 10875

My copy of Precision Bidding in Acol recommends that with 4441 (any singleton) with one poor suit you treat it as a two suiter. I can find no book on Acol that recommends opening 1D with 4441, singleton club. A wide range 2NT rebid would be 15+ (assuming 12-14 NT) so is not an option.

By all means bid this way, but you are not played no Acol if you do. Yes, textbooks will recommend opening 1H with this distribution but that ignores suit quality. I would open 1S. I'm not happ with this but all other calls are worse.

My vote, which I made too quickly, went to Pass, although I now think that 4NT is probably better. It's certainly close. If i kibbed anyone on BBO bidding 4S on this hand, and making, I would suspect they were the owners of two computers.

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge have just been revised and I have checked what the new, 2017, version has to say on this. In fact there seems to be no change. You are entitled, when it is your turn to call, to ask the meaning of any bids made, or not made, by the opposition during the auction. The explanation should normally be given by the partner who made the bid. If his partner believes that a wrong explanation was given he must say nothing until the end of the auction at which point he should call the tournament director, who can award an adjusted score. The partner must also not take advantage of the mistaken explanation and must continue as if the correct one had been given. For example, if he makes a natural 3C overcall and his partner mistakenly describes it as "majors" he must assume that any bid his partner makes is as if it were opposite a natural 3C. National bodies can add to these requirements, for example by requiring a specific convention card to be completed. If you go to the English Bridge Union website it has a large section on Laws and Ethics, including detailed reports on appeals. These give a good indication of how the Laws are interpreted in practice. For example, in the 2014 report there is a case in which a player bid 3D, intending it to be fourth suit forcing. However it was not alerted as such and the opposition were subsequently awarded an adjusted score when they did not cash two diamond tricks early, fearing they would be setting up a side suit. One other think that the EBU requires it that certain bids are "announced" by the bidder. These include the range of 1NT openings and a few other common bids. http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/laws/law-book-2017-ebu.pdf http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/appeals/ebu-appeals-2014.pdf http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/convention-cards/announcements-table.pdf

The double is close and I wouldn't criticise anyone who passed, although I think I would be a doubler. The 4S bid is however very questionable. You don't expect more than 8 trumps between N and S with maybe 10 between E and W, so if 4S is making 4H is probably two off and if 4H is making 4S is certainly also at least two off. As the bidding went there is no way S should be bidding further except perhaps trying 4NT when west's double comes round to him, asking north to try a minor suit. That of course might not improve matters but may be worth the risk.

There is a style of weak two played by Zia and others known as Trent Twos. These are a little stronger than traditional weak Twos (9-12 I think) and have few limits on distribution, so 6-5 is ok. The idea is that, having limited your hand by opening a two, you are free to rebid other suits to show your distribution. However even opposite a Trent Two I think a double would be penalties, although opener might pull it with an extreme two suiter, something that would not occur using traditional Twos. A full description of Trent Twos is given in Granovetter's book on conventions. Fantunes uses similar two bids, although perhaps these are more effective if you get additional information from partner.