ArcLight

>It became apparent pretty quickly that fewer than half of the attendees were able to grasp concepts like the ruffing finesse, loser-on-loser plays, or endplays Then they are not intermediates. Those are not difficult plays "in general". meaning that a player may not always be able to execute them, but they are not complicated at all. I think defense is linked to declarer play. If you are not very comfortable with a number of declarer techniques, it will hurt you on defense. Examples: 1) Declarer is trying to perfom a trump reduction to shorten trumps and deal with a bad trump break. A defender who isn't familiar with trump Coups/Reductions will think he is making a good move by forcing declarer with the short suit (as opposed to attacking dummies entries). 2) defender will not play or unblock a high card, resulting in an endplay >This is getting off-topic, but successful simple squeezes are, IMO, one of the rarest type. Double squeezes and strip (throw-in) squeezes are much more common. In essence, a simple squeeze requires the same hand to be guarding two suits; a double squeeze requires different hands to be guarding them which is intrinsically more likely. Thats the opposite of what Mike Lawrence says in his Private Lessons software. And Terence Reese wrote something similar in his "Squeeze Play Made Easy". Just look for a case where you have 2 suits that are say 4-3+ and 4-3+ and you may have squeeze possibilities, at least consider them. A direct quote form Mike Lawrences Private Lessons Vol. 1 on Squeeze Play: "The fact is that the HUGE majority of squeezes are easy to find and easy to execute. The problem is that squeezes have always been discussed as if they were a sacred secret reserved for great players who then sent their deeds to newspaper columns where they could be recorded into history" All the examples he gives are simple squeezes. >Unsuccessful simple squeezes are very common! Declarer may have made a mistake, or the squeeze may never have been on, but that was the only chance they had of making their contract, so they took it. Having said all this, I would still save Squeeze Play for later.

>A BIL friend told me that he was taught on BBO to respond to 1S with 2H even with a 4 card suit, i told him i cant believe it and maybe he didnt understand or something but he insisted and told me he asked this specific question to many of his BIL teachers and most of them said 4 cards is fine. Is it true ? is this a way of making it easier for them to learn a system even if its not the right system ? In Mike Lawrences notes for 2/1 he states that 2♥ in response to 1♠ shows 5♥ Thats the wonderful thing about 2/1, with a pick up pard you can never be sure what their bid means. :unsure:

>Reading books is good, no doubt about it, but there is no substitute for practice, practice and more practice at the table. You don't improve your bidding, dummy play and defence, let alone win tournaments, in your study or in the library. I agree. But in order to improve you will benefit more by some study (reading) and application (playing) than just playing and trying to pick things up. This is especially true for squeeze play. I don't remember who said this, but one very strong playre said you should spend one third of your Bridge time studying. Perhaps thats true up to a certain level.

>personally I think to much time in intermedaite level is spent bidding, teach people our level, to play better and defend better (this includes counting and visualising etc) and most importantly teach our level how to communicate with each other From what I've seen many players are either lazy and wont study (read books) or poor and can't afford them. Why "take courses on play" when (in the USA and probably much of Europe and Austalia) you can go to the library and get a ton of older books on play of the hand and defense and read and reread them? (These are old books and should be in libraries with older collections from the 70's) Read and reread these "old" books: Bill Roots: How to defend a Bridge Hand + How to Play a Bridge Hand, both classics! Victor Mollos: Card Play Technique - a classic! Kantars - Modern/Advanced Bridge Defence (or its predesessor, "big red" titled Defensive Bridge Play Complete). Hios other books are also worth reading. Terence Reese: a ton of books on declarer play Fred Karpin - has a bunch of books on declarer play Ron Klingers - Card Play Made Easy 4 volumes (96 pages each) all outstanding SJ Simon - Why you lose at Bridge - Classic Dorothy Truscott - Winning Declarer Play - Classic Jeff Rubens - Secrets of Winning Bridge David Bird - Bridge Technique Series - however this is a newer series and may not be in most libraries (only a few were available in New Jersey, USA) Danny Roth is another good author. Robert Berthe - Step by Step Card Play in No Trumps Mike Lawrence - Card Combinations + Read Your Opponents cards and whatever else the Library has *Marc Smith/Tim Bourke - Countdown to winning Bridge - *ok, this is not an old book but its a fantastic book on counting After you have done them all twice, try the Hugh Kelsey. Kit Woolsey - Match Points. These will cover declarer play and Defense. Forget about Squeezes until you can recognize an end play or elimination play. I have left off "Expensive items like" Freds Bridge Master or Mike Lawrences Private Lessons 1&2, Counting at Bridge 1&2, Defense, Conventions

"When three No Trump is one of the alternatives, choose it." A quote by Mr. Bobby Hamman. Does this apply more to MPs than IMPs? What is the background to this quote, I wonder if its being taken out of context? I wonder if it is really a hardcore "Law"? It seems that frequently if one can make 4 Spades or 3NT, 4 Spades is better because it scores more in MP. With extra strength, say 30 HCP then you may very well get an extra trick in 3NT. One advantage of bidding 3NT is the opening bid may be away form an Ace (underleading the Ace) and this allows Declarers King to make, while in a suit contract that would rarely happen. What are your thoughts?

>He mainly explains system through examples. Very true. I spent HOURS going though his CD on 2/1 (twice!) and reading the book, taking notes, trying to come up with rules. I came up with 9-10 pages of system notes, plus a few extrapages of extra conventions he covers on his disk. I think it would have been nice to have a guideline like this provided, (I'd have paid extra). However, the book still helped. And I very much like the fact that he presented both sides of many issues, rather than just telling you to do one thing. and not even mentioning alternatives I very much liked The Uncontested Auction Bidding Quizzes

Why would you expect the defense to lead a trump against that sort of auction? >(1NT-2H-2S-3NT-4S) Implies declarer has at least 3 Spades. H emay have 4 with a minimum too. If declarer has 8 or 9 trumps I'm sure he would appreciate a trump lead.

>I expct it is unlikely pard can produce anything useful, and, if, so, opps are cold for 11 tricks in a suit contract. I assume pard is long in their fit suit, so it might not be so easy for them to make 11 let alone 12. 11 may have a decent chance but I don't know that its cold. I estimate something like: ♦ as 5 - 5 - 3 ♥ 4 - 4 - 5 ♠ 3/4 - 3/4 - 4 There is room for each opponent to have 1 club for 1 loser, plus another 1 or 2. Its possible the HCP are roughly divided. Pard could have a useful 7, though he probably has less. The ♠Q and J would be very useful on offense. On defense maybe he has a Q or JQ or K of ♦. Frederick, what were the hands?

>You need to decide if 2/1 is 100% game force or not. In Hardy and Lawrence it is NOT! I think in Hardy style a 2/1 is 100% GF, including 1♦-2♣.

>This is one of the problems with 2/1, and one of the (many) reasons I prefer not to play the forcing notrump convention. From the 2/1 players I've talked to, the consensus is that hands like this are a 3♥ bid and that with 10-12 points and four hearts you basically blast game and hope for the best. I dont like this. Your spade shortness is not necessarily an asset as it may be difficult to set up spades, your diamonds are probably of no value, the AQ of Clubs is nice though. I'd bid 3♥. Pard will need 15+ for game. He hasn't shown that from the bidding yet. Its true this is IMPS, but I'd still bid 3 ♥ with this, not 4 ♥.

>All serious bridge players should read and think about the law of total tricks. Then, the naive ones should read Lawrence's book too. I'm not sure what thats supposed to mean. My impression is that there are quite a few players who blindly follow the LAW. "I Fought the Law" was a good rebuttal to blindly following the LAW. It showed many cases where the LAW fails. The LAW is pretty accurate at low levels (2) but less accurate at high levels (4+). "I Fought the LAW" is well worth reading. Some dont like the fact that the first third of the book is spent showing problems with the LAW. I think thats necessary because too many people will just blindly accept something and not be willing to think critically and reevaluate. The remainder of the book is spent showing what the authors think is important: Working Points and distribution A good book, well worth reading. Available from Carl Ritner (Carl on BBO or acbl@carlritner.com) for $15.95 (he sells on behalf of the ACBL and is very reputable, I've bought perhaps $200 worth of books over the past year from him)

>And this thread has recalling what the TD told an intermediate pair who kept badgering opponents with these sort of questions: "Opponents aren't obliged to teach you the game of bridge." When I ask about bids I frequently get cryptic replies. If the opponents had said "Nat, 10+" up front maybe that would have been sufficient. When opponents are evasive, it naturally upsets the person asking the question, and this invites additional questions. Whats obvious to the person making the bid may not be obvious to the person asking the question. Why shouldn't you have the right to ask what the partnership agreements are? If there arent any, then thats ok too. But its quite annoying to play against partnerships that do have agreements and they wont explain them whan asked. >Sometimes new partnerships or new players don't know the answers to these questions - they should describe as best they can. If there is no agreement or they don't know, then I dont think they are required to say anything. "No agreement"

>When I hear 1NT-2NT-3NT, the books that I have read suggest that you might go passive. Give nothing away since they have no extra values Thats what I though too, especially in Match Points. Here is the authors reasoning if I remember it correctly (I'll check later on): 1NT - 3NT - they are likely to make their contract (>50% probability). Thus the over trick is important. In the 1NT-2NT-3NT sequence not everyone will stretch to reach game (that would be far more likely in IMPS though). Lets say half the field stops in 2NT or some part score. If 9 tricks makes, those who bid 3NT will get 8MP (using his British scale with 0,2,4,6,8,10 MPS for the 6 tables) those who faced them will get 2MP. If you give up an extra trick it wont matter much, but setting them will matter a lot, going from 2MP to 10 MP. If 9 tricks dont make, you will get a good score provided you dont blow the making trick. The point was the pay off from going from 2MP to 10MP was worth the risk. I will try and post the complete reasoning later, as I dont want to put false words in the authors mouth.

Opening Leads in Bridge: How to Choose the Correct Card and Use All the Available Information by Tony Sowter. Very clear, nice coverage of the subject. While it's not as long as Mike Lawrences "Opening Leads" it still does a good job. It covers all the basics like the Rule of 11, 4th best leads (and others), not leading unsupported aces or away from an ace against suit contracts, etc. When to lead trump is covered well, in its own section. There are a number of excellent quizzes consisting of bidding sequences and a hand and you are asked to make a lead. The quizzes are good because they really test your understanding of the bidding. This is necessary for bidding and for defense. At the end is a section on match point leads. It doesn't just say "lead passively" which a lot of people think you need to do at MP. It gives a number of quizzes where the correct action is opposite what you would expect. Ex: whats the difference between 1NT - 3NT and 1NT - 2NT - 3NT? What type of lead do you make against them, Active or Passive? 1NT - 3NT = Passive 1NT - 2NT - 3NT = Active!!! Not eveyone will be in 3NT. If 3NT makes you get a terrible score. If you set them, you get a great score. While I won't say its better than the Mike Lawrence book, I will say its an excellent book, well worth reading. I suggest reading it and then reading the Mike Lawrence book later.

I down graded the ♣Q and 4333 and bid 1NT. Your ♦K is also under the opening bidder. You dont have a long suit to run for 3NT, 1NT is enough. I dont think ATx is so great under teh heart opener. If he has KQxxx you get 1 trick in Hearts

>What will you do if pard bids 5C over 4N? What about if he bids 5D? I pass 5♣ and hope it can make, we probably have a decent chance. I dont look for slam. 5♦ forces a 5 ♥ bid. When you bid 4NT you told pard you had a 2 suited hand. Hopefully he has a better tolerance for ♥ than ♣.

Just make sure you are in tune with pard. Playing 2/1 with a new pard I amde a Strong Jump Shift, only to have it alerted as a Weak Jump Shift and I was passed out in 2 Spades, making 6. Also keep in mind how you will identify what type of SJS pard is making. In Mike Lawrences 2/1 system he uses a similar Strong Jump Shift, but has modified it as follows; There are 3 types: Solid suit, Good 6 card suit plus 18-19, Good suit and good fit for pard The HCP and shape vary between these 3. SJF ALWAYS intend to the final contract to be: your suit, pards suit, or NT. Therefore strong 2 suiters may not jump! And don’t show a new suit without a great reason. Example: AKQTx AKQTx xQx x You must bid 1 Spade over 1 Club, not 2 Spades. 1C – 2S – 2NT – 3H => shows a heart stiff and 4+ clubs!!! 1. Solid Suit: 13+ HCP AKQJxx or AKQxxxx, but NOT AKQTxx. Must be self sustaining. Jump shift, and rebid your suit. 1C – 2H – 2NT – 3H = solid suit strong jump shift 1D – 2H - 2NT – 4C = self-splinter in Clubs 2. Good 6 card suit: 18-19 HCP Jump shift and bid 3NT. a) 2 of top 3 honors b ) stoppers in unbid suits c) 18 – 19 HCP d) No singlton/void 1C – 2H – 2NT – 3NT = good 6 card suit with HCP SJS 3. Good suit & Good fit: Can be 10-11 HCP (unbalanced 5521), but usually more 14+ (balanced 5422) Jump shift and rebid pards suit. 1C – 2S – 2NT – 3C 1C – 2S – 2NT – 3D [splinter] – new suit shows 5-4 and stiff 1C – 2H – 2S – 3S [splinter] 1C – 2H – 3H – 3S (Ambiguous) Solid Suit and cue bid OR Fit and singleton? (Rare) When responding to a SJS show: a) Support for partners suit b ) Original suit if strong c) Concentration of strength/honors (AKJ not Q9786) d) 2NT (least important)

What are your agreements? They are far more important than the "correct" bid. Personally, I don't like 2♣ as a Heart Limit raise, but thats your agreement. What does 3♣ mean? Is that a help suit game try, asking pard for help in Clubs? If so, I will go to 4♥ because of the ace, and I also have another ace, and the K of trumps. Is it a short suit trial bid? My ace of clubs will still cover one loser and I have an ace and the K of trumps, I still go on to 4 hearts. Is it a slam try? A cue bid? A good second suit? I don't think pard is looking for 3NT, so I wont bid 3♠, I think its either a game try or a slam try. My point is that without prior agreements, you have a BIG problem. In the absence of agreements I will bid 4 Clubs, and hopefully pard can continue where he/she wants to go. Since I'm past 3NT eitehr they will signoff in 4♥ or bid Blackwwod or cue bid. (Hopefully you know what flavor of Blackwwod, RKCBW 1430/0314, regular)

I was South, after pard rebid his ♦, I figured: * he was showing a minimum, so it was unlikely we had 33 HCP for slam * in the absence of HCP, we probably didn't have a fitting long suit we could run for extra tricks * with a pick up pard, I was concerned that we would have a bididng disaster at a high level, where he mistook a cue bid for a suit and we ended up in a 4-2 fit at the 4 level. 1♦ - 1♠ 2♦ - I bid 3NT with the 2 tenaces to protect (♥ and ♠). I wanted to bid 3♣ but was concerned we might have a problem. Result: 3NT making 6 Most others ended up in 6NT. We got a bad score in IMPS (losing 7 IMPS) With a regular partner I may have considered exploring for a slam, but with a pick up pard, I was afraid we'd get stuck in some bad contarct, going down 1. I accept the blame, I was just wondering if my reasoning was faulty. As for Strong Jump Shifts, with the Mike Lawrence 2/1 system there are 3 types, definately not worth trying them without discussion! Also, since this was a SAYC pick up pard, if I bid 2 Spades, did I really have a strong enough spade suit?

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s8hkq94dakt852c82&s=saq653haj6d7cak64]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] North opens 1 Diamond. How should this be bid?

>the book recommended playing the opening leader for the Q♣ because he would have less diamonds. Page 90 - the author says the PARTNER of the opening leader (EAST) will be more likely to have the Q♣. Thats because West had 4 ♦ to Easts 1♦. Thus West has 9 vacant spaces to Easts 12. Hence the odds are 4 to 3 that East has the Q given no other information. However, there are other factors, such as the bidding and distribution in other suits. The author would say to first explore them, as the odds may change. He would not say "blindly take the 4/3 chance". In this example, one might think that West would lead a 4 card major over a minor. If thats so, then its likely West has the Q because East has 8+ cards in the majors. But the emphasis was on vacant spaces based on cards played, not deductive reasoning based on what West probably should have lead. (The author has a book on that too). Maybe West had a hunch that his Jxxx in Hearts would be a bad lead? Maybe your partnership doesn't use Stayman, so the West is unsure that you have a major shortage. Maybe you almost always open 5 card majos as 1NT, etc. Again, the point the author was making is given the info available, not counting deductive reasoning.

Bridge Odds for Practical Players by Hugh Kelsey. Very good book, quite clear. Some id pretty obvious, some less so. While Kelsey discusses how to calculate probabilities, he also shows how to use some quick and dirty estimates at the table to improve your chances 3%-15% here and there. Overall I'm not sure how much it will help your play, but its well written and interesting. Worth reading. * Percentage Play - suit combinations * Combining Changes - proper sequencing of suits. Ex. How do you play this? 6NT West leads the ♠J [hv=n=sa85hq72dj62ca764&s=sk7haj4daqt954ckq]133|200|[/hv] Win the ♠Ace and run the ♦J, right? It wins when: ♦K is with East = 50% + ♦2-2, K with West, and Heart finesse wins = 10% for a total of 60%! Wrong! Win the ♠A, finesse the ♥J. If it loses you have 2 entries to Dummy for ♦ finesses. If the ♥J wins, you can lead the ♦Q from hand. If the K doesnt appear, unblock ♣ and lead the ♦10. If West is void in ♦ use the A♣ as an entry and pick up the entire ♦ suit ♥J loses but ♦ finesse right (50% x 50%) = 25% + ♥J wins and West doesnt have all 4♦ with 4+♣ (50% x 98%) = 49% =74% * Care of Options - playing in such a way that the opponents dont force you to make a decision before you have more data. * Changing the odds - Length & Shortage A K Q T x vs. x x * Vacant Places - how to use this properly, pitfalls players fall into. Such as when a player is forced to make discards, counting them against the vacant spaces and thinking the other defender is now more likely to hold some missing Queen. * Freedom of Choice (aka Restricted Choice or Bayes Theorem)

The method I described seems ok to me, but I was told that it's not used by strong players. Its been around for a long time yet isn't used at the top. This implies it's not worth the effort. I'm curious why. The only downside I see is allowing the opps to show interest in Spades at a low level, by doubling the 1 Spade (which is the forcing bid). Otehr than that, I don't think it hurts.

>The trouble is with 1H P 1S P 2S showing 4 spades 5 hearts and a minimum is that responder might not like spades at all, and want to go back to 2H. Which of course can't be done. I think opener bids 1NT rather than 2♠. I better check in the book, in case I have misspoken.

Assume 2/1 GF system - In Danny Kleinmans excellent book "No Trump Zone" he discusses the forcing NT by an unpassed hand. He's fine with 1 ♠- 1NT - forcing. But what do you do as opener with a minimum with 4 ♠ 5♥ and 2-2 in the minors (or maybe 3-1)? You can't rebid 2 ♥, as that shows 6 ♥. Bidding 2♠ is a reverse and you havent got the values. Bidding a 2 card minor is not fun either, as you can end up in a 3-2 or 4-2 fit. By bidding 1NT responder is probably denying 4 Spades. But you may want to end up in 2♠ rather than somewhere else. His proposal is to swap the meaning of 1NT and 1♠ afetr a 1♥ opening bid. Responder bids 1♠ over 1♥ to force for one round. If responder has spades he bids 1NT. If opener has a minimum 4=5=2=2 he "raises" partners 1NT (shopwing ♠) to 2♠, and responder can pass. If opener has a balanced hand, he can bid 1NT over pards 1♠ , probably right siding the 1 NT contract. A weakness is if opener has a good balanced hand 1♥, with 18-19 HCP, which is between 1NT and 2NT. He will raise responsers 1NT to 2NT with the contract wrong sided. Any thoughts on this method? Weaknesses? Worth the effort? Too infrequent to worry about? This came up in the authors discussion of Flannery.