dokoko

They should teach beginners to play bridge. To bid contracts they can make and then try to make them. Tell them that it is good to make more tricks than needed for the contract if possible. If the beginners continue to take lessons once being improvers, discuss hands from their tournaments and how they could have done better. Competitive doubles and the like aren't tools for everybody; competitive raises OTOH are. Explain them how MP scoring works and what tactics are called for. That it is sometimes reasonable to bid contracts they probably cannot make. But - very important: Teach them things they are ready for - a good teacher should know where each of his students stands; answer their questions and encourage them to ask more.

I have not read the book, so what I am going to say is just my guess. I think with your example hand you need some kind of keycard asking bid (or some kind of exclusion or shortness bid by relayer). In general it is assumed that a hand open in two suits cannot be interested in slam but if short in one of those suits there has to be a solution.

I think a practical solution would be to explain the agreement during the bidding, eg. one of: - ♠A+♣K, no ♠Q - ♠K+♣A, no ♠Q - ♠K+♣K, no ♥K (hence ♦K) (if opp accepts the explanation could be reduced to "showing where his controls are - details later") and explaining the cards actually shown when the bidding is over (for the opening lead). I am no law expert and I don't practice relay systems but this seems to be a practical solution where everyone should be happy. If at the table both sides don't agree on the correct disclosure process, call the director and follow his instructions. I don't think it would be fair to hide information available to the asker from the opening leader, but I can't imagine a situation where the precise information would be needed by the opponents during the auction.

I think you lose on the hands with M+C: - You have no bid for a strong 54-hand (or else cannot distinguish a 17 pt 5-4 from a 19 pt 5-5)! - What does 1M-1x-2M-3C show? If to play how does responder invite with club support? If natural invite how does responder sign off in clubs?

I win ♦A and cash ♣K. If ♣J drops I draw trumps and then play ♠AK9 discarding a diamond. If the spades are now good (or ♠9 won the trick) I am home. If both follow low to ♣K I play a spade to the ace. If an honor drops I draw trumps protecting against Jxxx in East. Then I play ♠K and ♠9 discarding my diamond loser and claim. If West started with ♣Jxxx I cash ♠K and hope the second honor drops; if it does I discard my diamond loser on ♠9 and lose only a trump. If no honor drops I cash ♠K and (unless West played an honor on that trick) discard my diamond loser on the next spade. If the spades are now good I win the return, draw trumps protecting against Jxxx in East and claim if that works. Otherwise I draw trumps ending in dummy, ruff a spade and claim. If West played an honor on ♠K I try to draw trumps in three rounds and then play ♠9 discarding my diamond if East plays low. I fail if a. either defender has ♠QJxxx(x), b. West has ♣Jxxx unless the spades are good from the start, c. West has ♣xxxx and either defender has ♠QJxx, d. East has four clubs and either defender has ♠QJxx, e. East has ♣Jxxx and ♠Qxxx/Jxxx (very unlikely), f. either defender has 5 trumps.

After the partner of the 1NT opener passes your overcall there usually will be not much competition by the opponents (one opponent limited, the other did not enter the bidding). There is no need to preempt, as you will often be allowed to play at the two-level. You should treat a raise as a natural constructive bid, as well as 2NT.

When you cuebid opponents suit it's usually obvious that you aren't willing to play it there (there are exception of course). So most would take this kind of bid as artificial. This is not the same when opps open NT. While a direct cuebid would still be artificial (you could double them instead if you like no-trumps as strain), later NT bids may come in handy as natural. However, many expert pairs have an agreement that most if not all 2NT bids in competition are artificial whether or not 1NT has been bid by the opponents before. I wouldn't call this kind of treatment a cuebid because usually the meaning of the artificial NT bid depends on the general situation (whose hand is it etc.) but not on whether or not NT has been bid before by opps.

Negative signal for led suit says I prefer obvious shift to the logical alternative. Positive signal for led suit says I prefer logical alternative. Neither is a command.

At the critical moment partner had to decide whether you returned the 6 from ♥AJT64 or ♥A64. You may translate that into declarer having a 1-5-2-5 or 3-3-2-5 distribution. He got that wrong but obviously shouldn't have.

If East were known to hold at most 1 trump, it would be close whether finessing or playing for the drop is the better chance to avoid a trump loser. But East may hold more than one trump ... And even if finessing against West were a 50-50 shot, in case of a trump loser your chances for a 3-3 break in clubs are better when East is void of trumps than when he isn't.

Replacing one insufficient bid by another.

You cannot avoid the guess. How to guess depends on opposition: - Playing intermediate human opponents I would expect East to hold ♠Kx ♣AJ or the like as his last four cards, so play him to have blanked his honor on my last trump. - Playing top level human opponents I would expect East to blank either ♠K or ♣A early at least some of the time. - I have no experience playing GIB but would try the first line.

If you judge East is favorite to hold ♣A, I think your line is far better than the diamond finesse. You lose if East has exactly 2 clubs and 3 diamonds and win against all other distributions. Assuming East to hold the ♣A there are 715 possible hands: 4 diamonds and no small club: 15 hands (10 with ♦Q) 3 diamonds and one small club: 140 hands (70 with ♦Q) 2 diamonds and 2 small clubs: 315 hands (105 with ♦Q) one diamond and 3 small clubs: 210 hands (35 with ♦Q) no diamond and 4 small clubs: 35 hands (none with ♦Q) So you win on 575 out of 715 hands by eliminating instead of 220 hands by finessing. If East would normally open 2♥ on QJTxxx even without a side honor, I would try for West to hold ♣A by leading clubs up to dummy and then eliminate. If East would need either ♦Q or ♣A to qualify for his 2♥ opener, I would play as Mike suggested, finessing against East when ♣A is in West.

In a field where nobody makes the obvious 11 tricks in spades I would not try to win such boards in the bidding. Just reach normal contracts and make more tricks. With serious opposition this is a reasonable 3♣ in 3rd opposite a partner who only raises with help.

I would rebid 2♥. Partner needs to cover 2½ losers and will have an invite on most hands where he does. But that shouldn't have mattered on this hand.

If you want to reach game you have to either bid it or make a forcing rebid. 3♥ is wrong for two reasons: 1. It promises additional heart length. Your partner would have raised with support, so it seems you belong elsewhere. 2. It is nonforcing. So partner will pass when he has no extras. As you (should) want to be in game, you should bid something else. There is a solution to that. When you want to force and have no good natural bid to do so, bid opponent's suit. This asks partner to help you. It does not say that you are super-strong, but enough for game and looking for the best strain. Partner should then bid 3♥ as he has denied 3-card support before and has neither extra length in his suits nor a club stopper. You may then choose between 4♥ and 4♠. What you shouldn't do in such situations is pass 3♥ after your cuebid; partner has not denied extras.

In most systems I think there is no need to describe a "pass" opening. IMO there are mainly two exceptions: (1) There are handtypes where one would usually at least consider opening which you have to pass because there is no suitable opening bid available (e.g. 1♦ opening shows 14+ nat and there is no bid for weaker unbalanced diamond hands). (2) You use some "nebulous" weak openings (like 2♣ here) and it is not clear which hands are passed and which hands are opened with those. An example would be 2♦ showing 4+♠ and 3+♦ 5-9; the system card should tell whether a 4=2=3=4 hand in range is usually opened 2♦ or not. Generally I would expect my opponents to pass with hands that have less than opening values and don't qualify for their preempts. If those are described correctly there should be nothing unclear. Pairs should be "strongly encouraged" however to describe their "Pass opening" where helpful.

I like to play the jump shift as natural weak with a range of 5-8 pts or so. That way it adds definition to responder's nonjump spade rebids after a 1♠ response. Example: 1♦-1♠;2♣ You hold AJxxxx/Kxx/xx/Kx. If you can rebid 2♠ nonforcing but constructive opener can invite with support and pass with a misfit even if holding extras (or suggest some other contract). If you have to jump to 3♠ you may play there opposite shortness. Invitational jump shifts are usually played for that same goal, which I think is technically worse. When I hold a minimum or slightly subminimum responding hand opposite an opener, usually the only reasonable game is in my long major. The same is not true when I hold an invitational hand. So bidding after the jump is usually easy if the jump shows a weak hand but may get involved on invitational hands when opener has extras but no fit.

In your original hand NS missed a 50% game. If ♠A is under the king, 10 tricks are easy. So it's not clear who was preempted.

Seems we need a forum for "Random Bidding" because in a "Non-Natural System" I expect some kind of reasonable structure.

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/77336-dutch-doubleton-negative-or-natural-1d/ http://www.tjoen.dds.nl/bridge.html

It's one of those hands where both partners are happy to accept an invite but none has enough to invite (in the context of your system). If you interchange ♣Q and ♣J your West would have had an invite while standard might have missed the game.

When playing T-Walsh there are basically three schools: 1. unlimited 3-card accept: This is the "classical variation". 1♣-1red-1M shows any hand with 3-card support. The 1M bid is forcing, other bids retain their normal meaning (and deny 3-card support for responder's major). 2. limited 3-card accept: This is what I play actually. 1♣-1red-1M shows a limited hand with 3-card support (11-13 bal or 10-16 unbal). The 1M rebid is nonforcing, 1NT shows a weak NT without 3-card support and there are special rebids for strong balanced hands with or without 3-card support. 3. weak balanced accept. This is the most used method. 1♣-1red-1M shows a weak NT or a limited unbalanced hand with 3-card support and strong balanced hands rebid 1NT. When the major is hearts method 3 seems superior to method 2 as responder can use a 1♠ rebid to ask whether opener has a balanced hand or not. That same luxury isn't available when the major is spades, however. So if you want to use methods like 2-way checkback or the like over 1♣-1♥-1♠ you have to invent rebids to describe opener's unbalanced hands. Has anyone tried to use 1♣-1♥-1♠ as either a strong notrump (say 17-19) or a limited unbalanced hand with 3-card support and have 1♣-1♥-1NT show the weak NT? Or is this just ridiculous? Thanks for your comments!

Thank you

Since Sunday I cannot view the hands of my recent tournaments. When I choose a tournament, I always get a message "The results cannot be loaded" - on my notebook as well as on my phone. Ideas anyone?