GrahamJson

I have to disagree with the last two posts. I prefer to bid my own hand, not partner’s. If 4S is a better place opposite a bust with no support then partner should bid it. There is certainly no guarantee that he has six spades. With some partners he might not even have five. He could have a hand too good to limit himself to limit himself on the second round by bidding NT. He might even be 4144 (again, with some partners).

There's no arguing with success, but even if partner has a diamond stop and clubs are good for six tricks that is still only adds up to eight tricks. Hoping for another trick from partner seems to me to me to be a step too far.

Playing with a partner with whom you have no agreements 2NT is perfectly reasonable. I would not assume 3C to be the second negative unless agreed so. Personally I think 2NT is preferable as the second negative as it allows opener to rebid 3C, which he should certainly have done on this hand. Hence, if you rate the hand a 2C opener, which is boarderline but reasonable, bidding should go 2C - 2D -2S- 2NT - 3C - 3S - 4S.

Whilst I don't dispute that the aces and the diamond queen are great cards don't forget that the 3C bid showed values, although exactly how good these are depends on your agreement. Also, I consider south's hand to be just about as good as it could possibly be on the bidding so far. I wonder, would he bid the same with KJxxxx of hearts, say, or without the diamond king? If so then you certainly don't want to venture beyond the four level.

Agreed. My initial analysis was a bit pessimistic, but I did say it was off the top of my head. I still wouldn’t lose sleep over this. As Reece says in Practical bidding and practical play, no partnership is good enough to bid every slam that comes their way. The sensible thing is to bid the obvious ones and not worry too much about the others. In this case both partners have maximums for their bidding and as a consequence they miss a reasonable, though far from lay down, slam.

I suggest that if you come across players such as this particular east you report them to BBO Abuse.if this happens enough times action might be taken and they might realize it is not a joke. Having checked hand records I see that east routinely overcalls or preempts on singletons, giving away 1100 or more. That’s dozens of players scores affected each day. Whilst many won’t take much notice of that some will. It also puts people off playing on BBO. Incidentally, why do people act in this way? It’s totally beyond me.

Hmm. For slam to make you need trumps 32 onside (about 32%) or diamonds 3-3 (40% of the remaining 68%), and that’s not including hands with two certain trump losers. Off the top of my head that’s about 55%. That seems to me to be pretty boarderline, a slam you’d be happy to be in but shouldn’t be too worried about missing. Also, would the bidding go differently if south had AKxxxx in hearts instead of AKJxxx? Without the jack it becomes a very poor slam, with even five being far from safe.

I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over this. 6H is an ok contract, but certainly no better than that, particularly given the 2S opening increases the chances of bad breaks. I think your sequence looks perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe one or other could have done more, but I don’t blame either for taking the safe option.

it's impossible to say what the best lead is without knowing the auction. For example, does the auction suggest that partner has good values, hence no shortage of entries? In that case leading low is probably correct. On the other hand if the bidding went something like (1D) - 1S - (X) - P - (3D) - P - (3NT) it now suggests that oppo will have plenty of tricks unless you can cash yours first, in which case the lead of the queen looks correct.

I must say that I don’t understand an immediate 3D bid. In most defences it is natural, not showing a two suiter, let alone specifically a S/D one. After all, at that point in the auction RHO’s suit is still unknown. Well, I figured that LHO must have some values for his 2S bid, so partner probably held very little. Also it looked like everything would be breaking badly. On that basis I settled for bidding 3D. I considered passing, but didn’t think I would get rich in several down in fifties (shame we weren’t playing Dixon, in which case a double now would be penalties) whilst 3D gave partner a chance to speak in the unlikely event that he did have values. As it happened 3D just made, with 3NT being hopeless, so we gained on the board (I think 3NT was bid at the other table in an unopposed auction). RHO had Jxxxx in spades and little else. We were well up with only a few boards to play so oppo were trying to mix things up a bit.

For amusement’s sake I offer the following problem I had a few weeks back. RHO opens a multi and I held AKQ10x void QJxxx AKx. I passed, expecting 2H to be passed round to me enabling me to cue bid 3H, which must show something like this. To my surprise LHO bid 2S, showing heart support, and this is followed by two passes. Now what? (Not surprisingly we were red vrs green).

Ok, you hold AQJxx KQxxx - xxx and partner opens 2C. Putting your 12 points together with partner’s suppose 20+ you are not going to stop bidding until you reach slam, which opposite the hand given will be hopeless. For this reason I think you should rule out a 2C (or Benji 2D) bid. If you don’t have an Acol two bid style opener available then you have to make do with opening 1D. If you follow up with 3C and 5D partner will at least realize that any major suit values that he has are unlikely to be of much value. You still might end up too high opposite an ill fitting hand, but I think you are less likely to than after a 2C opener.

I’ve always played weak NT but never with a formal escape system. Often 1NTX going down is not a bad score, so I’m not that keen on methods that don’t allow you to play there. Also there is no guarantee that two of a suit will be any better. Finally, fourth hand will sometimes rescue you by taking out if the double is passed. Our methods are that an immediate redouble is for business (as would be subsequent doubles and redoubles) but that any other redoubles are SOS. Obviously responder will normally take out into a five card suit so passing the double would indicate a balanced hand. Opener can then take out into a five card suit if he has one or redouble if he has a bit of shape and doesn’t fancy playing 1NTX (this might depend on RHO’s demeanor when he passed the double). Responder can also use his judgement as to whether it is worth rescuing on a semi balanced hand. So with 4432 shape he might bid 2C, then redouble for rescue, redoubling a second time if 2D by opener is doubled. Of course playing these somewhat seat of the pants methods make it difficult to find 4-4 minor suit fits as an immediate take out to 2C or 2D would normally be a five card suit. On the other hand if you do have a 4-4 minor suit fit it and are going down 2 or more in 1NT it is very likely that opponents are making game in a major, so it may not be a bad result.

But if partner has the king of diamonds and an ace it means that oppo have bid 6NT on a combined 30 count, which doesn’t seem at all likely. It sounds like dummy has enough to make a combined 33 count; there is nothing to suggest he has a long suit so he must be bidding on power alone. If so, partner can have four points at most. The best hope seems to be that your queen of diamonds makes a trick and partner has an ace or a well placed king. So the last thing you want to do is lead a diamond and give away your one potential trick.

There has been no comment regarding the play of the 9 by south at trick one when, sitting over the 863, the 5 is an equal and hence the normal play. Play of the 9 risks partner placing declarer with AQJ7 and therefore holding on to his fourth club in the end game (maybe not an issue on the actual hand, but could well be on a different lay out). This hand illustrates a common point on BBO; before worrying about signals make sure you understand basic card play, e.g. the lowest from equals in third and fourth position, the highest from equals in first and second. The same applies to bidding; get your basic hand evaluation and bidding right before adding on lots of conventions.

It strikes me that Rodwell’s suggestion is just an example of how sometimes you have to improvise when there is no bid available that accurately describes your hand. This happens all the time and it isn’t usually necessary to devise a new set of continuations in order to take these exceptions into account, although I guess if you have time you can. It seems to me a bit like when you raise an overcall with two card support, say KJ doubleton, because you have reasonable values but no other bid is suitable (e.g no stop, no good side suit). It sometimes happens, but not often, and it’s unlikely that you are going to develop a set of continuations to deal with it.

This sequence is a good example of a bid that you shouldn’t make unless you have a clear agreement as to what it means (this might be a general rule such as “a jump when a non-jump would be forcing is a splinter”). To make this bid without some sort of agreement would be inviting disaster, especially if one partner thinks it shows a five card suit whilst the other thinks it shows a singleton. Winning the postmortem is of little satisfaction if you’ve just lost 12 imps.

It seems to me that south has a clear pass over 3D. Yes, you could miss a miracle fit and be making 4H, on the other hand the E/W bidding makes no sense and strongly suggests that they are in the wrong contract, quite likely missing a making 5C contract. Playing against flesh and blood opponents I would certainly imagine that a wheel had fallen off and would only consider bidding on if I asked oppo for an explanation of their bidding and they came up with a convincing one that indicated that 3D was a sensible contract. Even then I would probably pass. I don't think that I have ever played against bots so cant comment as to whether this auction is silly or just a normal day at the robot office. As for "many very good players".... I've been kibbing on BBO for a while now and am not sure I have seen any very good players (apart from on viewgraph) let alone "many". OK, I have probably seen a few, but only a few. I'm just guessing here, but I have noticed that players who rate themselves as "experts" also tend to list dozens of conventions on their profile. Perhaps some bid 2C "Michaels" over 1C, showing the majors, with north then competing based on a probable 5-4 heart fit. Actually bidding 2C is not that silly, provided it doesn't guarantee 5-5 in the majors, although I still think 1S is probably the better bid.

If my interpretation of Law 36 is correct then the best action is to redouble 4H. You are then obliged to substitute a legal call, i.e. double, and partner is forced to pass. What can possibly go wrong>

You are missing KJ1092 so to lose only one trick you need to find the king onside with trumps splitting 3-2 or 2-3. You will always lose two tricks if the king is offside or if trumps break 4-1. There is therefore no difference between taking a finesse or cashing the ace first.

I play mainly in Scotland, but did visit Young Chelsea a couple of weeks ago (I used to play there regularly in the distant past). Acol is certainly less dominant than it was a few years ago, with many pairs playing some form of 5 card major/strong NT system. Even those playing Acol tend to play a version that would be almost unrecognizable as such in previous times. There doesn't seem to be a standard version any more. I guess it all makes it all the more interesting. Enjoy your visit.

Hmm. Interesting. There clearly should be a difference between 5S and 5nT, but what is it? Going from first principles a cue bid normally shows a two suited hand whilst 5NT these days tends to be “pick a slam”. I therefore suggest bidding 5NT. The trouble with bidding 5S is that partner with, say 4153 might decide to bid 6C, afraid you might hold hearts and clubs. This contract might not be a success given the expected bad breaks. In contrast 5NT suggests a hand that is playable in three places. Of course, as others have already said, defending might be the best option as even a theoretically good slam might be going off on a ruff or bad trump break. However I suspect most will find it difficult to resist the temptation to try for twelve tricks.

I’m reminded of the time John Collings made 7H with a trump suit of AJ986432 opposite a void. The defence was not the best. http://csbnews.org/bridge-humor-the-unpredictable-john-collings/?lang=en

One fairly common treatment has not been mentioned. This to play a jump shift of three of a minor as invitational, showing a good six card suit and about a 10 count. This is especially useful if playing 2/1 where a 1NT response has to cover a very wide range. It enables 1NT followed by a minor to be clearly weak. On the subject of weak jump shifts most players on BBO seem to play them in the majors but without realizing their implications for the system structure as a whole. If WJSs are played it enables a simple rebid (e.g. 1D 1S - 2C - 2S) to be constructive, even invitational. As a consequence jump rebid (1D - 1S - 2C - 3S) can be played as forcing. This is the method used in the “Bridge Magazine Standard” system, which is claimed to be based on current expert best practice.

Like some others I believe that 4S is the sensible bid. Even with no agreements a good partner will assume that you have something like this as you didn’t splinter or jump in a new suit.