ArcLight

Pard is no dummy, normally he would lead a diamond. There must be a reason he lead a heart. I think its likely declarer has: Spades: (5) XXXXX Hearts: (4): AQJX Diamonds: (3) xxx Clubs: X (or even 4 diamonds and 0 clubs) Pard has a stiff heart. Lead a heart back for a ruff, then he will return a diamond through declarer. You will get 2 ruffs, 2 diamonds, a heart, and a club for down 2. >Return a heart. Possible that pard has the Ax of hearts and declarer has the KD. I think this is unlikely because declarer would not make a game try with heart losers on top of diamon losers. Pard wouldnt return a heart from 4 to the Ace, he'd lead a high diamond, and signal the heart Ace as an entry.

The opponents have already taken 2 tricks. If they get in again they will set you, having 2 spades and the King of clubs to cash. (assuming they can communicate and cash all this) Therefore, play the diamonds to take 6 tricks. Normally playing for the drop is slighly better (1.5%) than the finesse. However, since East made the Spade overcall, its likely they are a little shorter in the other suits. This probably more than offsets the 1.5%. Plan on taking the finesse. (Too bad you dont have an additional entry to your hand because you could play the top hearts, hoping for a Q drop, and getting a better count on the hand. )

Matchpoint Tricks by Axelsen B., Villy Dam 2004 Master Point Press Should really be titled "Overtricks - how to find them" as it has almost nothing to do with Matchpoint play. There are 58 declarer problems and the reader must figure out the best way to generate over tricks. Unlike a typical matchpoint decision where you risk your contract on a 68% chance of getting an over trick, these contracts are almost all safe. Some of the solutions are clever, but none require extremely complicated technique (there is 1 criss-cross squeeze, 2 simple squeezes, a trump coup, and maybe a few other interesting plays). These are no where near as hard as some of Kelseys "Test Your XXX" problems. A good ingtermediate level book, with some good ideas, its worth reading.

Whats a "Combine" lead?

>i don't remember 26 "hcp" even in goren's writings... i do remember *points* though, which included short suit points for opener and for responder if a fit is found I never said 25-26 HCP, I said points which means HCP+distributional. In Common Sense Bidding (Root & Pavlicek) they also mention 26 points, while today 25 is accepted as sufficient for major or NT game. >I would even agree that the avarage declarer play has improved, but those numbers arent based on the avarage declarer play but on a good declarer play. In his writings Mike Lawrence has said that average declarer play is better today. He was not addressing his comment to experts, but to average players.

>Wow, do you really believe that declarer play has improved that much? I Thats based on what Mike Lawrence wrote, so I'll take his word on it. He wrote the 26 level is old, and 25 points cloer to the average game. There are lots of great play of the hand books today (far more useful than Watsons Classic Play of the Hand) plus some great software (Bridge master, and Mike Lawrences programs) It does occur to me that of pard frequently opens light 10-12 may be better than 10-12.

The common (around here) limit raise shows 4+ trump support and 10-12 support points (as opposed to HCP). Since declarer play is better today, 25 points is frequetly enough for game instead of 26. Since an opening bid theoretically shows 13 points, 13+12 = 25, then shouldnt the Limit raises upper bound be lowered from 10-12 to 10-11 (or a crappy 12). I see some people reducing the upper band to 11 from 12. Karen Walker has this on her website. Is teh 10-12 range obsolete, as declarer play improves?

>Yes, that's what all the experts did so it's probably not an exception. The problem was that declarer was void as well. Aha! That was part of the plan. You see pard ruffed with his highest trump, forcing Declarer to overruff, promoting your J for a trick, coupled with the side suit ace, down one. 100% match points.... Next board ...

The Forcing Pass in Contract Bridge by Eddie Kantar in 1983 Broad and deep coverage, though not a fun read as it was detailed and technical. Worth reading for advanced players and experienced partnerships. Your partner must read it too. You will need to highlight it, or make a lot of notes are there are many situations and sequences covered. (Its available for $6 + $2 direct from www.kantarbridge.com)

Good beginner/low-intermediate works on defense: Defense (software) - Mike Lawrence How to Defend a Bridge Hand - Bill Root Its a long book, with a large number of problems. I think thats good as it doesn't just lecture you, it tests you as well. Nothing too tough, unlike Killing at Defense at Bridge or Defend With Your Life.

>As for Lightner doubles: what would you lead after the auction (5♣)-pass-(6♥)-pass-(pass)-dbl ? >You have a flat hand with KJ9x of clubs, otherwise worthless. Doubleton trumps. 1) If pard didnt double you might lead an unbid suit. 2) Typically the Lightner double calls for the lead of dummys first bid suit (but not always) or make an unusual lead. In this case you are indicating that you dont have a very long other suit, so its unlikely there is another void. Lead a club. Maybe pard can ruff Declarers Ace.

K10xx KQJxx Ax kx vs. Ax xx xxxxx xxxx I heart : 1NT 2 Spades The problem with the 2 Spade bid is pard has denied 4 Spades by bidding 1NT. The problem with the 1NT bid is the contract is wrong sided, with clubs vulnerable. Was 1NT worth bidding, as opposed to pass? What will pard bid after your 2 Spade bid? A preference for hearts at the 3 level? He probably doen't have 3 hearts, so you wull be playing in a 5-2 fit or worse. Should pard show his crummy diamonds at the 3 level? No. 1♥ - pass - let the opps compete, maybe you will set them, maybe not. But going to the 3 level gives them a good chance to set you.

(lets call thee 99% rules) 1) Making a Limit raise with 3 trump support. 2) Underleading Aces against suit contracts. (there may be a rare case against a slam this is worthwhile, to put pard in) 3) Making a Drury bid (2 clubs) then bidding over pards signoff of 2 of their major. Or bidding over any signoff when you are weak and pard knows it. 4) Making a preemptive bid, and then bidding again (unless you mid bid the first time around) 5) Leading the suit pard bid after they made a Lightner double against the opponents slam. 6) Passing pards takeout double because you are "too weak" 7) Doubling the opponents voluntarily and strongly bid game/slam because you have lots of points. 8) Play the Ace when the opponents king is singleton. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't 4♥ be a splinter? A double jump. Wouldn't 3♥ be a very powerful 2 suiter? Say 6-5 Or in that case would you open the major (with 5) even with a 6 card minor?

Ask yourself this question: Why do you play Bridge, as opposed to another game? For me, the answer is "I find the deductive reasoning aspect facinating". I think all the bissing systems are quite interesting and can certainly undersatnd why many people are facinated by them and want to develop their own. For me the destructive bidding systems (which seem popular in some areas) take away from the reason I enjoy the game - the deductive reasoning. The Brown Sticker conventions are surely far more effective than psychic bids. Psychic bids are disruptive to both sides, as your partner will be fooled as well and you will generally not do well over the log run if you have a high frequency of psych bids. As for alerting - you should also alert negative inferences you have, baded on your agreements. Ex: a double of a splinter bidcalls for leading the lowest unbid suit. Pard didnt make that bid so I have a negative inference not to lead it. The opps should know this too. I think these types of inferences are almost never alerted, but the partnership is passing unannounced information.

For me the 2 HUGE advantages of online play vs f2f are: 1) Permanent hand records. I can study my play, the fields results, and opponents play. Also, its easier for me to look at all 4 hands after the hand is over, just to get a sense of the opponents bidding. For example, I can see if they made a weak opener, or made an odd bid. Its easier to see their tendencies than asking everyone to reveal the cards. 2) I can play when is most convenient for me. However, it can be nice to have human interaction as well. Both to meet people and discuss things with pard f2f.

>2) I just played a tg with all world class and expert players, except me. The game on hand after hand came down to basic bridge skills, not world class or expert, WOW. Every hand was winnable with basic bridge skills that 99% of us forum nonexperts have. You mean you didn't have any Shifting Entry Squeezes and the team that won wasn't the one with the most complex system? :P > So learn to focus and, in the meantime, throw out that sexy, new bidding method and spend your study time on cardplay... look for old Reese books or, esp for defence, old Kelsey books. Whoa! Are you actually trying to say that counting and card play are more important than using the new inverted magentized polarized upside down Meckwell cue bids on hands where you have 3 kings and the opponents open 1 Diamond? :blink: What I like about Mike Lawrence's Conventions and 2/1 software is he gives ratings to conventions. Part of the rating is based on frequency. So having a score of conventions that each get used once a year may benefit you little.

>I know little of Kelsey's book, but I understand that Woolsey's Matchpoints is the book to read on this topic - I found it to be excellent. I have heard this too. Thats why I'm reading all the other books first (Ron Klingers "100 Duplicate Tips", Edgar Kaplans "Duplicate Bridge", Kay&Silidor&Karpin "The Complete Book of Duplicate Bridge"), to give me a solid background. I find that I miss a lot if I read "THE" book on a subject without having much background. I'm saving the best for last. I'm not worried that I'll have to unlearn anything, as none of these books contradicted each other.

Match Point Bridge by Hugh Kelsey 1970. This is an advanced/advanced intermediate level book. Nothing on conventions, and simple bidding systems. The emphasis is on how to understand and play match points. He starts out explaining the concept of the theoretical best contract for both sideds, called par. If you screw up in the bidding, abd don't reach (or exceed) the par contract you will do poorly. Next, try and ascertain what the field will do. If they will try for an over trick, you must also make this play. If you are in a different contract, you may have to take a risky play to make up for it. Or hope the field goes down on an obvious finesse. There are sections on defense, leads, sacrafices, deception, and contesting the part score. There are many hands (not double dummy) to go through and figure out what to do. I found the book difficult, but a very rewarding book to read. I rate it an A.

I think the question should be: Why bid only 1 Spade? You hand is far too strong for that bid. A 2 suiter with a void? At least bid 2 Spades. I'd bid Spades ahead of diamonds, despite diamonds being better.

Why is 5 of the trump suit asking to bid 6 if you have the Queen of trumps? If you play that way, then how do you sign off in 5? (which admitedly isn't that likely) Note: Wests double of spades didnt help his side. Better to jump to 4 Spades to kill your cue bidding space.

In addition to conventions, there is also the shared unannounced information from negative inferences. Say a partnership has an agreement that a double of an enemy splinter bid calls for leading the lowest unbid suit. The opponents make a splinter bid, and pard does not make that double. You now have a negative inference to steer you away from that particular lead. The declarer should be entitled to this information as well, shouldn't he? Do you alert the opponents "By the way, in this situation we play that a double of your splinter calls for leading Diamonds"? How about this idea: Someone writes a "convention checker" program, that analyzes a set of games to measure the consistency of a conventions use. For New Minor Forcing it could measue average strength, length, frequency, etc. Then you could run it against certain pairs. I'm not saying it would be all that easy to do this, as a lot of borderline cases would be involved. But it might be useful. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was playing against a pair with a convention card. One of them false carded and false lead every hand, sometimes multiple times per hand. Ex: They had Lead K from KQ on the card, yet this one person would always lead the Q. I asked their partner "Does you partner false card a lot, (pointing out the lead)." I also asked about this persons frequent psych bids, and playing the higher card from a touching sequence instead of the lower, when following suit. I was told no, he doesnt make psych bids, and he can card in what ever way he likes. A player may make what ever non standard carding plays , leads, bids they like, but if their partner is aware of this, they have an obligation to announce it. And more importantly, they shouldn't have secret signals, which in effect the did have. (I left the table after a while, and mafrked them as enemy)

Ron Klinger in his "Modern Losing Trick Count" advocates using Long Suit Trial/Help bids. They are used in a sequence 1M - 2M - 3x where the 3 x bid is asking pard for help in the x suit. If he has some decent support, bid game, else correct to 3M. A short suit trial bid is the opposite, where you are asking pard to reevaluate their hand based on your shortness in the x suit. Are these effective systemes? Are they used by good players?

Perhaps my original post wasn't clear. I didn't mention 2NT as a response to a minor opening, it was a response in general. In SAYC (according to the free software at the ACBL website on bidding) a response of 2NT to openers bid = 11-12 HCP, balanced. I don't think balanced has to be exactly 4-3-3-3. In old SAYC I think 2NT showed 13-15, while in new SAYC 3NT shows a balanced 13-15. I'm aware of the Jacoby 2NT response, and what that 2NT bid shows. It has nothing to do with this question. What I'm wondering is the frequency of the "natural 2NT" response, and what to use as a substitute. In the hand I played, my pard opened 1♥ in 4th spot. We were using 2/1. I had 11 HCP, balanced. I held: ♥ J 2 ♠ K Q 3 ♦ A x x x ♣ J x x x I think thats a textbook 2NT response. But if I can't use 2NT (and with 2 card heart support I cant bid hearts) I can either bid 1NT (semi-forcing as a passed hand) or a minor. As a passed hand my 2♦ response wouldn't be a game force, but I wanted to stay in NT if possible. I bid 1NT, then pard rebid 2♠ (a reverse). I bid 3♠ which may have been a mistake??? Pard passed and went down. (he didn't have a reverse, and 1NT was a cake walk) I like the idea of 1NT followed by 2NT.

In Robson and Segals excellent book Partnership Bidding at Bridge they suggest an alternative use for 2NT, rather than 11-12 balanced. The Jacoby 2NT response also precludes the use of 2NT to show a balanced 11-12 response. In the last 2 sessions I played a text book hand for a 2NT response came up. Question 1 - How often does this type of hand occur? (11-12 balanced, in response to pards sound opening bid). Robson/Segal say that this type of hand rarely comes up, but it seems to me it does come up, at least more than "rarely". (Is there a search engine or card distribution simulator taht could easily answer this?) Question 2 - if you use Jacoby 2NT or Robson/Segals suggestion, what do you bid instead of 2NT to show a balanced 11-12? 1NT then 2NT? Or a crummy 4 card suit at the 2 level, then 2NT? Thats a problem if using 2/1. You have to bid 1NT then 2NT I think.