ArcLight

>I have not personally found nor heard of smith giving rise to hestitations or other ethical issues... unlike odd/even, for example. Bobby Hamman calls it a "foul convention" and says it gives rise to hesitations in his book "At the Table".

> So the question becomes, if partner did not play the J, is he denying holding the K or KQ of hearts? Unless declarer opened light (10 HCP missing 3 aces and 2 kings, and a stiff Q of clubs) there is no room in pards hand for the KQ of hearts. Pard is worried you will break a new suit for declarer. >xxx, KQx, xxxx, J853. What did declarer open on? ♠AKxxx ♥Jxx ♦xxx ♣Q Is that an opening bid? As for pard guessing our Club length - South made a takeout double, but that doesn't mean he has 1-4-4-4 shape. He might have 3 Clubs. He can't signal with the J if South has Qx. He will make pard think he has the Q.

Some play 2♣ as a 2 suited bid, perhaps the 4-4 majors. I think thats used in parts of Europe.

>Pard had no idea that you have 5 clubs and declarer has the stiff Q. The 8 should be a normal attitude signal, "please continue clubs". So he has no interest in a switch to hearts. You have a point. Pard didn't know the Q would drop (implying you hold 5 Clubs). Pard may have a finessable holding and doesn't want a switch.

If its a pick up partnership "No Agreement" is fine. I'm talking about regular pairs that play together. Should they pre-alert what their weak 2/3 range is. Or just self alert it when the bid is made? "Our weak 2's may be on 5 or 6 cards with around 0-6 HCP" But if their pard knows that its 90% of the time on 6, they should disclose that. So there is a break in the action while the othe rpartner is asked <"What do you expect for pards bid" >"Our weak 2's may be on 5 or 6 cards with around 0-6 HCP" <"How often on 5?" <"How often on 0-3?" My point is the established partnership still has a better idea of what their pard has than the opps, and they don't explain it well. I could open a weak 2 with 5 cards and 0 HCP once a year, and them my pard could say "he opens on 5 or 6 cards, could be as low as 0". Thats theoretically true, but not what my par expects. Here is another: Opps were in a slam auction. After it was over I asked about a bid. "Its forcing of course!" was the response. Not quite what I had in mind.

>These days, aggressive preempting is practically standard. In 3rd seat non-vulnerable, I think you'll find that most good players preempt about a level higher than "normal". I was not refering to 3rd seat, yes those are expectected to be even weaker/bolder. I'm talikng about 1st seat. >And limit raise with only 3 cards is part of SAYC. Is that true? I don't think most players expect just 3 cards, they expect 4. Todays standard for a Limit Raise is 4 cards, not 3. This does cause a problem if different people have different meanings for teh term "Limit Raise" Me> What does your pards bid mean? Them> A Limit Raise Me> Whats that? Them> 3+ cards and 10-12 points Me> Is that 10-12 HCP or 10-12 Support Points? Them> 10-12 HCP This is annoying to have to do on many hands.

>You are playing with an established partner. On this auction, you decide to lead the club Ace. Dummy plays small, partner contributes the 8, and declarer the Q. From the bidding and play you know partner's exact club holding: J853. I assume your pard is a good player (you mentioned expert, and I'll take you on your word). This is obviously not an Attitude or Count signal. It must be a Suit preference signal. Pard could have played the 3 or J to ask for a shift. In this case the opponents now have a discard on the Club K. Pard is not asking for a shift. - Those Diamonds are frightening. - Declarer has a discard on the Club K - If South has 12 HCP for an opening bid, then pard has at MOST 3 other HCP and probably less. - South has 5(+) Spades, 1 Club and 6(-) reds, say 4-2 or 3-3. What losers does south have? Maybe you can get a couple of hearts if pard has the K. But you will not give pard a heart ruff becaus ethat would mean South is 5-5 in the majors and would have bid again. If declarer has the heart King and pard the Q, you may make 2 heart tricks by not leading hearts. If South has dimes and takes some finesses he will make 3. But maybe he will finesse the Q in order to enter dummy to finesse Spades, and you will make your King of Diamonds. Or maybe not if they are 3-3 and declarer can discard a dime on the Club K. I think the contract is making, but I would not cash out. I would not play the ace of hearts. I would not play a low heart. I would not play a spade. Whats left? Diamonds. Play the 8, maybe you fool declarer into playing teh Q. Maybe declarer plays the Ace! ♦8 >Here are the questions: 1) What significance do you give the 8? Pard had a chance to signal and didnt. Thus "use your best judgment" >2) At imps, do you always play to defeat the contract at all costs, or do you guard against overtricks when it seems hopeless? Is there a risk that if you dont cash out you will lose your cashable winner? If yes, then consider it. If its likely you will get it later then don't. A better example would be if you had teh AKxxx in Clubs and knew the K would cash. DO you do it, establishing Dummys Q? Or wait and risk the loser can be discarded later. In this case your heart ace is safe. >3) When playing with an expert, do you ever make exceptions for careless play? No. Obviously experts make mistakes, but one has to assume they usualy play correctly. If you start making exceptions you will be wrong sometimes and that will cause your pard to get annoyed and question your judgement. It WILL damage your team harmony. >4) If the contract is defeatable on a heart switch, would you credit your expert partner with playing the Jack of clubs? YES! Pard isn't stupid, they are making a request. Consider it. > 5) Would you take a possible meaning of the 8 as I've got a little something in hearts but not much, such as the Qxx? In theory that sounds nice. Will pard always be able to decipher it? Does pard always know you have 4 cards and can make such a signal? Lets assume pard has the ♥Q9xx. How does that help you? IF you lead low, and dummy puts in the 10, your Q is taken by the K and later teh J is made. Only if declarer doesn't insert the J do you benefit, with the 9 forcing the K. In any case dont lead hearts. Lead the dime. Declarer can always finesse, and teh other leads are harmful.

If a partnership uses "very weak" preempts, is it customary to pre-alert at the start of a session? I think one normally expects 6 cards for a 2 level opening bid, and 7 for a 3. I'm not saying you can never deviate, but as a general guideline. Example: A 3 level opening bid with 6 cards, a 2 level opening bid with 5 cards. I find myself constantly asking the opponents partner about "routine bids". - What do you expect for this bid? (1S - 3S = Limit raise, but they only had 3 trumps!) - How frequently does your partner deviate It can be hard to get a straight answer. "We use very weak 2 and 3 level bids, frequently with few HCP and with 5 or 6 cards" is a good reply. "It can be anything" is not. Because then I have to start playing 20 questions and ask specific questions of frequencies, and typical holdings.

I find this a difficult problem. It sounds like pard has at most 5 HCP and could be as few as 2. I think with 0 they might bid more. Im guessing Trumps are 5-3. If Dummy has 4 trumps with 13 HCP and bids 4S they will miss many slams, unless its a 4-3-3-3 quackish hand. I'd like to make a passive lead, but I dont see any. Leading a club or heart can easily give away a trick. Sma efor a Spade as it doesn't sound like they need ruffs. We want to avoid giving away tricks. If they have the K and Q of dimes plus all their other values we sont set the contract, so aim to score as many tricks as possible. Because both N and S have many HCP the prohibition of underleading aces is somewhat lifted. If we underlead the Ace ♦ and Dummy ahs the K and ducks to pards Q and he returns the suit, we may get a 3rd round ruff. That requires both opps be 3-3 in Diamonds. I don't think thats likely, but we may still score pards Q and our ace and another trick and get a good score holding them to 4. For the Ace underlead to cost the opps must have a doubleton diamond, win the first trick, and be able to discard a diamond later. The alternative is Ace and another ♦. GOOD opps would ask themselves why you are making that lead and suspect you have the missing honors. I lead the Ace♦ and am prepared for it to be a bad lead. But I think all other leads will be more likely to be bad.

Better Bridge for the Advancing Player by Frank Stewart Excellent Intermediate Plus/Advanced book on drawing inferences and play of the hand. No Squeezes, just visualization of the hands, and thinking what can go wrong. Example: Looking ahead to problems with communications, or a bad split. 90 Probelms (Not So Hard, Not So Easy, For the Expert) I'm quite sure that non-expert players here would get less than 70%, and wouldn't be surprised if it was closer to 50% or less. These are nice common problems. Problem #71 Playing MATCH POINTs you are playing against Bobby Hamman on your Left and Justin Lall on your Right.[hv=d=s&v=n&n=st52haq96dk94cqj4&s=sakq86ht72da63ck5]133|200|Scoring: IMP Dealer South (YOU) 1NT - 3NT Hamman leads ♣6[/hv] 1. You win the first trick with the ♣K 2. ♠K - all follow 3. ♠Q - ♠J falls on the right (East) 4. 7♥ -> Dummies 9 and Justins J (East) 5. back comes a club, Low from Hamman (West), won by Dummies J. 6. Spade to Ace, Justin (East discards a Diamond) What do you do? Solution hidden:

I also see Uday is playing. (Pair 12) Good luck to all of you.

Play the Club Ace so pard doesn't return Clubs and so declarer can discard a loser on a loser. If you don't take teh CLub Ace NOW you might never get it.

I put declares shape at either 2=3=5=3 or 2=4=5=2 So far 20 HCP have been accounted for and pard had 1. Does declarer really have 20? I wouldn't count on pard for the heart ace. If we lead the Club 10, we spare pards J. Even if declarer gets a 4th round discard on the clubs, he will still have a heart loser. The one led not to make is a heart. Then declarer can ruff the third heart and make. Pard may also have 4 dimes and a slow diamond winner. I wont help declarer finesse it, even though he can. Lead the Club 10. I dont think a heart discard will help declarer.

Since when does FTL say to bid on in the 2nd hand? It also says on the website that you can't count SSP at full value if you dont have many trump. A couple of spade leads and your ruffing value of clubs is diminished. You also need to think about that heart suit xxx. Pard also has xxx. Thats very easy to lose 3 quick tricks (AK ruff).

Hand 1 - Pard should have 6 hearts, and probably 1 Spade. maybe 1=6=3-3 or 1=6=2-4 I think the Spade K = 0 with LHO bidding them and pard showing shortness. We haev around 20 WP and a SST of 4. Im not ruffing anything. 3H is high enough. Hand 2 - We have the death holding in Hearts 3-3. Else LHO would have raised to 2. Pard should have 5 Spades. With 6 and some points he'd bid a weak 2. * - I assume pards 2S is not forcing, since he's a passed hand. I don't assume its a "fit raise". He bid to get us out of a bad contract. Pard has a bunch of Clubs and is short diamonds. 5=3=1=4 ? One thing the FTL website says is with fewer HCP you need more trumps to handle being forced. I pass 3C.

The 2 Club bid should show at least 10 HCP, and probably more. If playing 2/1 then certainly more. Pard probably doesn't have much, say 2-6, perhaps in Diamonds, but not in Clubs (we have the Ace and Dummy thought enough of teh Clubs to show them) Dummy should have 3 Spades, maybe 4. Probably 5 Clubs, maybe 4. That means declarer and pard are short in Clubs. Declarer is probably 5=5=2=1 (we and dummy have almost all the Clubs) Will Dummy be ruffing hearts? We have 3, Declarer 5, and maybe the other 5 are 2-3. Dummy could be something like 3=2=3=5 We should get our Dime K, Spade Q, Club Ace. What about the Heart Q? will it be ruffed out? If Dummy has 2 hearts then one ruff establishes them. I see no way to prevent that. Leading a trump gives away a trick and declarer will then establish hearts. If Dummy has 3 hearts, the declarer may have 4 losers Every lead is horrible. Leading a club established dummies Clubs. I do NOT cash my Club Ace. Leading a heart may give away a trick, and help establish them. Leading a Spade probably costs a trick and doesn't stop the heart establishment. I think it unlikely pard has the Dime Ace, so the play Club Ace, Dime K, Dime to Ace, and Dime ruff/trump promotion is unlikely, but we may have to reconsider that. BUT thats the only choice I see. 1. Lay down the Club Ace 2. Play the Dime K 3. Lead a dime to pards ACE 4. Overruff the Dime return, or discard and win the Spade Q.

Slam try - 5-5 in the majors

Win the Bermuda Bowl With Me by Jeff Meckstroth & Marc Smith Nice selection of bidding and play decision hands taken from Meckstroths Bermuda Bowl hands. Nothing too fancy, no crazy squeeze or Level 5 Bridge master Hands. Instead the emphasis is on: 1 - knowing partnership agreements (it was interesteing reading a little about his bidding ideas, I wish there was more on that - not so much his system, just on bidding philosophy) 2 - deductive reasoning - based on the opps bidding, lead, and card play, how do you procede 3 - aggressive bidding. Using the Fight the Law method (Mike Lawrences/Anders Wirgren) I was able to also come up with the same bid in many cases. Of course Mechstroth is able to play the cards well and back up his judgment. :D 4 - staying cool in case you suffer a disaster. You will easily lose a match (and a place on the team) if you let a terrible board cause you to lose focus Overall a fun read, and recommended for intermediate+ and above.

2♦ - your dimes are worth more than 3HCP. And I dont want to go beyond 3NT right away. I can imagine LHO rasing to 2 or 3♥ and I will compete over that but it gets dicey as pard needs a lot of cover cards.

>However, it will never be popular because it demands way too many calculations at table. People who have computers for brains (e.g. Alan Sontag or Michael Rosenberg) could use it on a regular basis, but most players will never have anything to do with it. They'll keep using the LOTT, which does fine in most cases and is far easier to use. What it requires you to do is picture everyones distribution. That may not be easy, but in my limited experience that is far more important to do (or try to do) than knowing 15 conventions like Namyats, Kaplan Inversion, etc. Visualization is a vital skill in this game. ZAR points are a hand evaluation technique, no so much a competitive bidding technique.

>I suppose this "FTL" method is what Lawrence and Wirgren call SST/WP (Short Suit Totals/Working Points). It's the same as LTC except that it's downwards adjusted in case of duplication. Thats not quite right. They use an estimattion of short suits and adjust for HCP. Not quite the same thing, although it can be close. >Not very original, thus, and besides the information you need is not available in practice. In particular, it doesn't make sense to compare it to the LOTT since it uses different covariates to predict a different outcome. One of the main purposes of the book was to debunk the LAW. Their method is the other point of the book. Also, the information frequently is available during competitive bidding. At least to some extent, and to a point where it can frequently be useful. >The SST/WP method is just postulated without any systematic evidense. They did generate a number of random hands (I think 2,000). I too would like to see a larger set, but they didn't just "postulate" they did show some evidence. >The problems they present with the LOTT is what Cohen also admits in his own books. "I Fought the Law" is just a cruscade against the LOTT, and a very poor one that is. It is a Crusade. Good! Cohen and Bergen in their books went around saying the LAW was better than the best players judgment. They were the ones who arrogantly touted the LAW. People blindly accept the LAW as 100% correct. The authors think its not that accurate in many cases and wanted to show that. They exposed the LAW as far less accurate than many think. BTW, Kit Woolsey in his excellent MATCHPOINTS discusses the LAW 10 years before Cohen and pointed out its problems then. >It's the worst bridge book I ever read. The owner of the local bridge bookshop says the same, which is unusual - they usually talk about the books they sell in a more diplomatic (if not positive) tone. The first half was a bit dull. But the worst book? Its actually an important book. Understand why they included the first half (the "Crusade"), either read it or skip it, then read the 2nd half. I've read many bridge books, some of them medicre. Some books will appeal to a player based on their level. The very first bridge books I read, before I had ever played a hand of bridge against people (as opposed to some hands on a bad freeware program) were Eddie Kantars Modern and Advanced Bridge Defense. I didn't like them at the time. I recently reread them and loved them, and recognized them as classics.

I agree that the first half of the book was far less interesting than the second. I think it was done that way to refute the LAW in detail. On their website Lawrence and Wirgren also explain the cases where the FTL method may be off. As for ZAR points I think it awards too many points for distribution, before a fit is found. Even with the modified ZAR points I don't think it evaluates hands all that well. Axxxx J is much better than Jxxxx A. The last time I read Zars article there wasn't that big a difference in score. Mike Lawrence took some heat because his book (the first half) was a bit rough on Larry Cohen. However, both Larry Cohen (in his 2 books on the LAW) and Marty Bergen (in one of his books) said the LAW was more accurate than the best players judgment, and they mocked various bidding decisions taken by top players (though they didn't mention names). A very worthwhile read once you get to the 2nd half.

Step by Step Premepts by Alan Mould 1997 Good intermediate level book on 2 and 3 level bids. What they look like and hope to accomplish. - Styles - solid, wild, random. - How to respond to pards preempt. Nothing earth shattering, but still a good read, I give it a B+. It doesn't cover conventions like Namyats, Multi 2s, etc. At somepoint I'll have to reread Preempts A-Z by Ron Anderson/Sabine Auken (it was Zenkel back then)

I've noticed that established partnerships will sometimes play major events with other partners. Why? Is it to gain exposure to other points of view, styles, philosophies, etc.? To avoid getting stale? I would think it takes a lot of time to go over various bidding sequences and smooth out partnership agreements. Thus I would think that an expert wouldn't play with too many outside partners. Is it the case that some experts are "difficult to play with" and thus they tend to not have as long a partnership as others? What are some of the causes of breakups on long established partnerships? From what I've read - Larry Cohen said he didn't want to use all the Science that Marty Bergen wanted to use. I haven't seen Mr. Bergen do much since then, though maybe he's voluntarily retired and happy to teach. From what I've read Hamman wanted to use more science than Wolff did. Lastly, do older bridge players tend to lack the stamina for long events. How does an experts skill decline from age 60-70 for instance?

If you lead a spade and everyone follows 2 rounds you know: W E ♠2 2 ♥2 6 ♦ ? ♣ ? Win 2nd spade in dummy. Play ♣ Ace and ruff a club. Back to dummy with ♦J (tempting a cover) to Ace. Ruff 2nd Club. This gives us a partial count on the Clubs, or possibly a full count. IF East shows out then Clubs are 7=2, meaning Dimes are 2-2. Assume Clubs are 4=3 or 3=4 What else do we know? Any Club honors appear from East? Would East open 1♥ with? ♠xx ♥AQJxxx ♦Qx ♣Qx Also, West might have lead ♣K from KQJ, but not from a broken sequence. Assuming no honors appear from East and Clubs are 4/3 or 3/4, then play West for the ♦Q. Run the 10, then finesse the 9. One other point, run some spades first, in case teh opps discard poorly.