GrahamJson

Another use of 4C is South African Texas, in which it shows a heart suit. If opener took it as that it would explain his 4H bid (in this treatment 4D would have shown an interest in slam). I wouldn't get too concerned about this hand. I think that I would have led a heart on the basis that dummy is likely to hold clubs, a diamond could give away a trick and partner might have doubled if he wanted a spade lead, although this last point is rather tenuous. At the end of the day, when playing against oppo who have got their wires crossed almost anything could be right.

Leading a diamond and putting declarer to an early guess sounds a good idea, however if you look further it is unlikely to work. The only additional source of tricks, assuming a running club suit, would be a fourth spade; e.g xxx opposite declarer's AKQx. Holding 10xxx you control the suit. However if dummy now holds DQ then you will be squeezed, so the early play of the DA will not stop the contract making. On the other hand if declarer holds the DA then clearly leading the suit risks giving away the 13th trick. Obviously, given the confused auction anything could be right here, but my guess is that a passive lead is best.

I think that it is close, and I wouldn't criticise anyone who passed or bid on this hand. Playing on BBO with a random partner I think it is wisest to pass. Players here seem to get excited very easily. The last thing you want is partner leaping to 4NT just because he has 15 points or doing something equally manic. There are a lot of points to be made on BBO by playing a steady game and letting others be aggressive. Another factor is how good you and partner are at play and defence. Light opening bids are fine, but won't bring in the points if you or your random partner misplay or misdefend the close contracts that you may reach. BBO seems to be full of payers who want to run before they can walk. Most would benefit from learning to play a simple system, with just a few conventions, and improving their play and defence. When they can do that they should be ready to be more aggressive and maybe to adopt more complex methods.

On my iPad I can only see the bidding up to 4NT. I assumed that the final contract was 6H, hence my comments. Even in 5H taking the finesse through W looks right. If it loses E cannot attach spades so you can still discard one on the diamonds.

This does seem simple. If trumps are 3-2 then you need to guess right, if 4-1 you can only succeed if you finesse against LHO. Yes, you might go one more down if RHO wins and gives a ruff, but that is a minor point. There is also a minor inference that as LHO did not lead a trump then he might have the Q.

I must admit that I would assume that partner had just found a heart amongst his diamonds.

Whilst I suspect a revised score would be given due to the misexplanation I can't say that I have much sympathy for N/S, particularly S who made a non systematic bid (3NT). It seems to me that S trusted his oppo's bidding more than his partner's. Never a good thing to do.

It seems to me that this hand contains every feature that downgrades a hand's value; points in short suits, shortage in spades, no lead directing value. Your oppo were talking rubbish.

One minor point. I think that some posters are taking the term "losers" a little too literally. In the old system of hand evaluation there is a maximum of 3 losers in any suit. So, for example, xxxxx xxxxx xxx - would be considered to have nine losers, not thirteen. Of course, the actual number of losers will depend on fit. But then the same applies to points; the value of any hand will go up or down as bidding proceeds, depending on fit.

My view is that the N had isn't that far off a 2C bid. The old rule used to be "more quick tricks than losers". In this case it has 5 quick tricks and 4 losers, so qualifies, although I agree it is a bit light by modern standards. The 5C response is a bit excessive. As 3C would be game forcing a jump to 4C should show a solid suit, so would be a reasonable bid. N could then cue bid 4D and end up in 6C when S has nothing more to say.

One clarification. I should perhaps have added a "present company accepted" to my first para above. I have noticed that players who contribute to discussions such as this usually give good advice and are far better players than most on BBO. I should also point out that you should ignore player ratings on BBO. Most "Experts" are average at best. There are very few true experts around. You can check their ratings on BBOskill.com, but even that isn't very reliable, although it is an improvement on the self ratings.

"I am a beginner trying to improve my game by playing in BBO free tournaments and watching other players bid and play." Stop there. I'm afraid that you will not learn how to play well by doing this. The great majority of players on BBO are of very low standard. You will be much better off by reading some decent books on bidding and play. Start with basic texts and work your way up. Also, don't get carried away with conventions. BBO is full of players who know Cappelletti but can't count to thirteen. Don't forget that most conventions are only useful in a regular partnership in which you have discussed details such as follow up bids. So initially just keep to Stayman, transfers, Blackwood, etc, and avoid more complex stuff such as Drury. My general observation from watching BBO is that players are generally too busy in the bidding, often making pointless (sometimes literally) bids. Usually their oppo let them get away with it because they are just as bad, but that wouldn't be the case against strong players. I think that this applies to your original question. 12 points is a reasonable expectation for an opening bid, but this may go down a point or two if the distribution is good and the points are in the long suits. You might also consider subscribing to Bridge Magazine, which is now available on line only. In short, read, read and read some more. And I mean books, not internet sites.

Maybe I'm being pedantic but you can only say that you have no agreement if you have never discussed the situation. That would not be the case in this case if playing with a regular partner as which minor suit to open would be a pretty basic issue. What you could say is that you have no rule; the choice depends on tactical matters and could be either suit. Certainly the oppo should be aware that you may open the weaker suit in order to inhibit a lead if partner is.

You say that declarer and partner had bid both majors between them. In which case it seems obvious to lead partner's suit (assuming a normal auction) especially as partner may have bid in order to direct a lead. This is particularly the case if he has overcalled. I see that a diamond lead is the winner but, unless there were strong inferences from the bidding, I think you would need second sight, or a second PC, to come up.with that.

No point in asking what 2H means. If it isn't natural it should be alerted. It's obvious that E is jesting and doesn't have hearts, possibly not spades either (although he did in practice). Having said that, it is still a tricky problem. However 4H looks like the practical bid, which p should clearly not pass with his powerhouse. I don't like W's 3D bid. His opening 2D showed his hand exactly so he should leave things to E. The only reason to bid again is to support or give preference, not to repeat his suit. On the actual hand it is probably reasonable for him not to give preference to hearts on the basis that the psyche had been exposed, although I can imagine an appeals committee debating this if N/S were to claim a foul (obviously not a possibility in a casual BBO game).

Yep. Agree with you 100% on that.

Hmm, I'm not so sure. On BBO most seem to play these as TO, but perhaps that happens to be on the tables that I kibitz. Another popular treatment seems to be to play them as whatever you want them to be, with a message to the table to let partner know.

I did say "all" low level doubles. I prefer to play "most" low level doubles for take out, including the one you describe. However I think it makes sense for doubles to be for penalties whenever partner has implied values in the suit, such as by a TOD or bidding NT, or if you are in a forcing situation. So, for example , (1D) - X -(1S) - X should be for penalties, not TO, as should 1S - (P) -1NT - (2D) - X and 1S - (P) - 2C - (2D) - X.

The last time that I regularly played club bridge my partner liked to keep things very simple, so we played old fashioned penalty doubles. It proved to be very effective, catching many oppo by surprise and picking up many penalties. I'm not saying that it is the best method, but is better than playing more complex systems that aren't fully understood, as happens all the time on BBO. It does strike me that the popular current method of playing all low level doubles for take out, with the expectation of partner reopening if you pass, just ends up exchanging the meaning of pass and double, with no real benefit. As to the original question, double can have any of the meanings given, by agreement. However I think it depends on moe than the number of spades held. I would be less willing to double if I held support for partner, as it risks him making a penalty pass. So, without agreement, I would treat the double in the same way as a standard take out double; likely to hold four cards in an unbidden major but not guaranteed, especially if strong .

Nobody has mentioned 3H, which should show this sort of hand. Expert treatment is that a jump in a suit when a non jump would be forcing shows a shortage. I think you are just about strong enough to do that here. However you would need to have that agreement with partner or have confidence that he would understand the bid, so probably best avoided with a random BBO partner. On another point, perhaps I am old fashioned but I don't think that 2D should 100% deny a four card major, particularly a heart suit. In some cases a raise might be better for tactical reasons rather than bid a poor suit. As Terence Reeses said "I see no point on bidding bad suits on bad hands when there is a sound alternative". However I agree that doesn't seem to be the BBO norm.

FWIW my suggested bidding is 1H - X - 4H - All pass

The two worst bids on this board are the 4NT and 2C, which no one has mentioned. S has a text book double; far better than a two level overcall on a five card suit. I don't mind the 3H bid, which is about right on values. The fifth heart is only a big card if you have a shortage, which is not the case here. Note that if you swap E's black suits around even four hearts could fail, despite E having a strong hand

In a BBO individual tournament it is obvious that partners won't have any agreements so asking for explanations is pointless. I can't see how oppo can have any complaints. As for upgrading or degrading hands, that is just good bridge and should need no explanation.

It's not difficult. What I mean is, for example, jump to obvious games rather than bid round the houses in the hope of finding a perfect fit slam. My experience is that you often end up doing rather well when playing in an unfamiliar partnership, assuming a decent partner, as it tends to curb any desires to be over clever in bidding or defence. I have noticed than on BBO some players get round any problems by demanding a redeal whenever their partner misinterprets their clever bids. Amazingly thei oppo often lets them get away with it, although sometimes only after being booted.

I disagree with the last comment. If there are no agreements then partner and oppo are in the same position; having to use there bridge knowledge and experience to deduce your meaning. This means that playing with random partners it is best to keep things simple and avoid ambiguous situations.