LBengtsson

A friend who is a natural card player (plays poker, canasta, whist also) and plays bridge at intermediate level - mainly due to not having many conventions on her card - asked me what conventions she needed to learn to play a better game of bridge? That question puzzled me also? I had not even asked myself what conventions I needed and I have been playing game for over 40 years! She has been playing bridge 30 years also, I guess. So, with this in mind, without adding a lot of complicated conventions to your card, what do you feel are the essential conventions to play at intermediate level, and what needs to be added to play at advanced level?

You have nowhere to go. My rules, although other partnerships might do things differently, is to bid a five card at the two level as a sign-off showing a weak hand. With the West hand shown you sometimes have to pass and give +380 to the opps. You can not win every hand. Sometimes the 1NT opener will not like to play in 1NTX so they will remove to their own 5 card suit. More poker than bridge.

Agree. The crux of this hand is listening to your opponents. West did not open but called 1♦ on the second round. East could not overall 1♣ (a third-in-hand bid) on the first round, and did not bid after your partner made a reopening X. So what does that leave partner with you playing a 12-14NT? My guess, but it is a logical guess I hope :) is that partner has 4414 or (43)15 shape if you play a 5M system. I suppose partner could have 4423 shape here, but I am bidding 1NT here now. He heard me pass on the first round and the second round. I guess again that you called 1NT (or 2♣) now and that partner bid again. If he did I think I want to be in 3NT or 5♣ because he should know what I have now, so any further bid by partner is a game try imo. Prefer 3NT though.

It came at Matchpoints - just one board. It really does not matter if the opps. go for -500/-800/-1100 as the hand will be at the bottom. It did throw a "spanner in the bidding machinery' South knows that 95% you have game as partner has passed. Given that 1♣ opening can show short ♣s, what suit would South like led against a 3NT contract? The only problem is that North thinks it is a genuine call and doubles 3NT maybe? If East has a genuine ♣ suit then if partner passes - unlikely as they will have cards in the other three suits - then East will find it difficult to reopen with an X. 2♣ is a psychology bid in my opinion. If teammates did this at IMPs I would not play with them again. At MPs with a good partner, I would try to see understand why he did it.

Lol. Rodwell was as aggressive as me! But I do not understand 3♥ - 6♥ bidding. Yes, you can count to 12 tricks easily, but if partner has ♥AKxxxxx there are possible squeeze options to make 7♥. If Mr Rodwell's partner knows how aggressive he is why the hurry to bid 6♥, why not bid RKCB first?

There is a big difference at bidding MP against IMPS. It is just one hand. My style is aggressive here. 1 quick trick, 7 card suit even this poor I bid 3♥, even red/white. Take away the opps bidding space, tell partner you have a 7 card suit and so little defense. I do not see two honor doubletons as good defense when they amount to just 1 quick trick in my hand as they stand. Pass, I feel, puts a lot more pressure to describe the hand on the next turn if allowed to. Opening 2♥ here just makes it easier for the opps. to compete. IMPs I pass, MPs I bid If we end up in 3♥X and go for 500 I will take my responsibility

10-14 6 card suit for me for 2♦/2♥/2♠ in 4th. I guess the idea behind it is that if you have only 10-14, the opps could have their own part score available, and opening at the one level with this type of hand allows them to compete more easily.

First, I do not like splinters with voids - just my opinion - I prefer them with a stiff card, and stiffs turn up more times than voids, and second, this is an ideal hand to use a Bergen raise of 3♣ (7-10 with 4 card support) and then show the control after. That way it shows the control as a void or an ace. And that your hand is worth slightly more and you are interested in slam if opener has extra values/controls.

Yes, Fantunes-style. Which is a more structured system than EHAA where a EHAA two-bid shows 6-12 high card points, and a five card or longer suit. There is no restriction on suit quality (xxxxx and AKQJxxxx are accepted!). A defense to EHAA two bids, I guess, are even more difficult to counter.

The ♠3 would have been a unusual lead from a doubleton. Either the lead is a stiff (where I guess that east would play ♠J from ♠QJx so your always going to lose a ♠ trick, or the ♠Q is stiff and the lead is from ♠Jxx Most players consider the 'ten' as a minor honor card so that is why the Robot covers, I guess. And does not when the ♠9 is led.

Until such time as GIB learns defense, and taking tricks that need to be taken, and to discard correctly, then it is hopeless. As for the bidding on the hand, very unusual that South bid 2♣ instead of 1♠. Is that why East allowed the contract to be made, discarding ♠ and allowing the small ♠3 to take the final trick? I mean, let us face facts, except if you have a partner who makes a unusual lead like Rusinow, South will have 100% have the♥Q so taking the ace puts the contract down at trick 1. Usually putting down a grand slam at trick one is a result! That is so not complicated as it gets. Beginner bridge. For the robot to duck is nonsense.

It is not just 2/1 but every system that I know other than with a big 1♣ opening system this shows a minimum of 17+ In 2/1 with a 15-17 strong no-trump opening partner will be 18+ Though if partner has a 1♠5♥3♦4♣ shape hand I guess that you can shade it a little, but never 12-14.

4NT seems the right bid though it takes all the bidding space away. I smiled at Cyberyeti's suggestion for imagination though :rolleyes:

Solid 8 card suit and a couple of stiff honors, with an opp. that has opened, it is 4♦ from me also. Let partner decide whether he wants to bid 5♦ if they bid 4♠.

3♠ just makes it easy for the opps to compete so it is 4♠ from me also. Either they pass quietly, or X, bid 4NT or at the five level, and at that level it is a guessing game whether to stick, pull another card (or two), or go bust. Taking away the opps. space is what this hand is all about.

I am not working out here how North became declarer on this hand, even if not using 2/1. I go with Cyberyeti's auction and South ends up in 4♠ as PAR contract. Difficult hand to play: a few options to think through. The opps. hands must have distributional to end up 3 down. What went wrong? I will let others answer before having a try myself here.

Nothing unusual here - that's just my opinion. If North overcalls 1NT instead of 1♠ with a 4 card suit which is acceptable, you will still end up in a ♠ contract. I would have bid a direct 4♠ as South to North's 1♠ call. 4♠ should not make with correct defense though there are chances of an endplay as the cards lie if the defense take their tricks in the wrong order or play the wrong card. If GIB overcalls 1NT then you are probably going to end up in 2♠ as opposed to 4♠. I think overcalling with a 4 card major suit at the one level is acceptable if there is not another obvious bid available. 1NT looks the better bid but GIB decided that 1♠ was just as good and chose the cheaper bid. Not so much 'a low point' but annoying nevertheless.

If we are using a weak NT here, I think East needs to X to show values, as partner will either have a genuine ♣ suit and/or 15+ points here. However, I do not think we will end up in a ♥ grand slam :) It is easier to judge with all four hands showing, but when West I guess bids 4♣ after X though that looks not sufficient (and would it be forcing?), and East bids 4♥ West must be worth 6♥ with ♥AQ and the other aces up his sleeve. I guess West could cue bid 4♠ after 4♥ and go the long way round to finding slam, perhaps it is possible to get to the grand this way. Good question to post, Evies Dad

No sarcasm at all David. I have some notes - that I looked at before posting on the forum about defense to a Multi 2♦. The defense is called 'Dixon'. It actually says on the notes not to overcall at the 2 level with a poor suit, though my notes also give that you can overcall 2♥ here with a good 4 card ♥ suit also. The poor ♥ suit and ♣K stiff just say 'no' to me. Thinking again about this hand, maybe with 5/5 shape it is best to overcall on the first round, but that depends on how much understanding and gadget you have with partner to the Multi. If the bidding goes 2♦ - P - 2♥ - P - 2♠, then X should show ♣/♦/♥ and maybe 2NT takeout would show just two suits? I have little experience against the Multi so maybe best for me to retire and let others post their comments.

I have not played against the Multi that many times, only in Europe. I agree with nullve and AL78 that you should not overcall with a poor suit at the 2 level. Better to pass and see where things go, or X to show ♦s if that option is available.

It is an excellent analysis, mikeh, but you can cater for East holding ♦Qx or Qxx. There should be 9 tricks with 3♣4♦ and 2♠ barring bad breaks and dummy entry problems. But as you say, if only we knew how the cards lie. If only... But that is too easy a solution, I guess... Good hand to post, chasetb

If X = 4♠ and no more, then 5♦ seems the right bid. Even if partner has a 5♠ suit, I still think 5♦ is the best bid. No plan other than to make the most sensible bid at the table. If we miss slam then that is unlucky.

I have just made a quick calculation - hope no mistakes - using this useful bridge tool. http://www.automaton.gr/tt/en/OddsTbl.htm Thank you Theodore :) I have entered all 1,2,3,4,5 combination of ♥ cards using mikeh's analysis with out the 6-0 as that will probably result in a ♠ ruff. I can not combine all the 3-2, 4-1 ♠ distributions into the analysis but looking at ♥ suit in isolation the results are as follows. Dropping ♥J in 1,2 or 3 rounds = 54.1% Dropping ♥J in 1,2 or 3 rounds (with West showing ♥J on trick 3) or finessing West for ♥J on trick 3 = 56.9% I do not like the idea of playing on the ♦ suit to try to make a winner to discard a ♥ loser as lack of entries, trumps need to be drawn, and possibility of a ♠ ruff. I like mikeh's play to closed hand of ♥Q early in play: the defense might be off their station and give away clues, though a good defenser might see around that asking why is not declarer drawing trumps, setting up other side suit ♦? Edit: I always get beaten to the post, lol! Thank you Douglas43 for your probability analysis also.

That is 14 cards, Cyberyeti. I guess partner's actual hand was ♠AK ♥Qxx ♦Jxxxxx ♣Jx. Even though you open 11 counts, I guess. That hand could be pass, 1♦ or 1NT playing weak (11-14 white), certainly with Fantunes , but I guess you play Acol. That will make life easy if you open 1NT here instead of 1♦. But this suggestion is only made having seen both hands. I do not think rebidding such a poor ♦ suit - even a six carder - at the 2 level is a good plan. Though all down to partnership agreement, I concede.

I enjoy reading the replies to this discussion. I am a fan of NFB, and this hand sorts of proves that they are necessary on this specific auction. I think that without NFB, this hand is very difficult to evaluate, especially if the opps. get involved in a competitive auction. There again, either doubling or bidding does not quite show the playing strength or (lack) of high points in this hand. I usually want - but it can not happen all the time - one-and-a-half honor tricks to either double or bid on this auction. The distributional strength of a 6/5 makes up for the lack of honor cards. To answer Cyberyeti's original question, I would hesitate bidding without Qxxxxx/Qxxxx. I think the vulnerability, and whether playing MPs or IMPs might change the answers slightly. I think you need a gadget here where a 2♦ raise here shows this 5/5M or 6/5M not quite right for doubling or negative free bidding hand, and a 3♦ raise is 4+ card ♦ support (6-9) and pre-emptive, but statistically that is a very, very low percentage so is it worth an artificial bid? Not probably. I prefer X to bidding, as X shows the two major suits (or at least one of them) here and implying shortness in the opps. suit, but it will be difficult for partner to know that just 3 or even 2 card support for a major will be adequate for a suit contract, whereas bidding either major suit directly over the 2♣ intervening bid is implying for more high card strength, I guess. It's one of those 'spin a coin' hands where 'doing the right thing' might lead to the wrong result, and 'doing the wrong thing' might lead to the right result. I'd rather bid suits, if at all possible, but I still come down with mikeh that X deceives partner less than bidding when I should have better values.