JanisW

4NT clearly is not RKCB.

Okay was just checking. Of course I bid 1♠, as I can handle almost any rebid. My Partner came up with a 3♣ jumpshift though...

I have another interesting hand from Mondays Club-game for you [hv=pc=n&e=sjt9654hkt954d5c3&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dp]133|200[/hv] what do you do? regards JW

Could you please elaborate on that? regards JW

That's a perfectly reasonable holding as is Qx, xxx, Qxxx, AKQx or xxx, xx, QTxx, AKQx the latter is just good enough for 6 to be on (which P almost cannot know about), while there is no play with the former. xx,Qx,xxxxx,AKQx makes slam odds on as well. And last but not least, if partner had Kx,xxx,Qxxx,AKxx 5♦ was already in jeopardy. I decided to go for 6♦ because I thought Partner either has 9 minor-suit cards or with West silent over the double possibly 3♠ (2ruffs,2♥,4♣,4♦ was the plan). I surely would've heard about 4♠ with West. Unfortunately, Partner was 2344 with ♦Q and ♣AKQ, but still no play for 6. :( Afterwards, we discussed the difference between 4NT and 5♣, what is your opinion on that matter? regards JW

[hv=pc=n&s=s2hakt9dakj2ct742&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d3sdp4cp4sp5cp]133|200[/hv] MP-scoring; 15-17 NT; 5533 I did not want to Keycard because the most expected 5♥/5♠ response would've committed us to slam anyway. Maybe that decision was already wrong? Now that Partner kind of declined the invite, would you go anyway? regards JW

I'm certainly no expert in bridge, but I can give some insight into chess. My playing strength there is around 2200 so not an International master, but it's still a reasonably high number and I've talked to enough grand masters about this topic, to have an informed opinion. The reason I think, that it might be helpful in bridge is, that I found mikehs statement about remembering the play of a whole session quite interesting. In chess, it is actually quite the same. Even my level is sufficiently high that I can easily replay the games of a tournament after it has finished from memory without a scoresheet for a reasonable long time. Furthermore, there are games that just stick to memory, which I could recite from memory although 10 years have passed since playing them. This is a feat weaker players often lack. If you translate that into bridge, it becomes obvious that mikehs statement is true. I truly believe, that in the progress to become a stronger player, you have to be able to at least remember a few boards for a reasonable time. Here I can only talk about chess again, but I guess it's true for bridge as well, that being able to remember the deals, helps in visualizing hands at the table. You can obviously play chess without a board and it is kind of what you do when you calculate longish variations. Every better chess player I know is able to play a whole game of chess without even looking at a board at a comparable high playing strength. Remembering where the pieces are is just second nature and you actually have no trouble "seeing" the board in your head. An that is kind of what happens in bridge to good players. A very good player will simply know, and here I mean without using much (or maybe even any) effort who played what card. If somebody showed out in a suit, automatically the suit split will appear in their head and with that possible breaks in the other suits pop up. Correct me if I'm wrong there mikeh. If these things become second nature, your brain is freed up to calculate several possible winning lines. If you struggle to remember the cards played and have to count to 13 to calculate how a suit split, you waste too much energy and have less brain power left to actually plan the play. This is obviously a trainable feat, but to some extent, it is also innate and not everyone can reach the same level. A second issue I want to talk about is pattern recognition. In chess, there is a lot of research done into that matter and there is a quote stating, that a grandmaster knows about as many patterns as a linguist knows words in a tongue. This obviously comes with practice, practice and practice again and is easily translatable into bridge. A good bridge player "recognizes" some layout of cards and instantly some possible solutions come to mind. I used quotation marks because most of this happens subconsciously. The more patterns (=layouts/solutions) you have available the deeper you get in your thinking. You can sort of think about it as having a head start in the thinking process. If you have to work out some possible solutions first you obviously cannot get as deep in your thinking like somebody who already has those available and starts his thinking at a deeper stage, Something like: "I recall that solution was working there because the A♠ was offside, but that cannot be the case here. If the A♠ was onside it was actually better to play like that. But if I play this suit that way, the problem is a possible 1-4 split with East which I can only pick up if, and so on and so forth. To sum it up the two most important features in the thinking of a good bridge player (which should also be sound training advice) Visualizing the hand (suit splits, played cards,...) because it is necessary for number 2 and saves energy at the table Pattern recognition, because the solution process starts several steps ahead. regards JW

[hv=pc=n&s=sj43hqdak543ca654&n=sak2h9752dqt62ckq&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp]266|200[/hv] Thank you for your input. How would you've bid it?

I recently had this hand and my Partner in South opened 1 Diamond. [hv=pc=n&n=sak2h9752dqt62ckq&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp]133|200[/hv] Scoring MPs 5CM, Strong NT, 5532, Diamonds always 4+ unless exactly 4432 We had a lively discussion afterwards whether 2♦ or 1♥ was the rigth call, your opinion? Regards JW

On a further note, If I had opened 1NT and the bidding went as it did, I would not consider myself asked if I liked ♣. I would consider myself asked to show a control if I had one. To bid 4NT my hand had to look something like this KQx,KQxx,KJxx,Qx. If I had an Ace I would feel obliged to tell Partner about it.

You've answered that question yourself. He simply bids 4NT, there is no rule that a 4NT bid has to be RKCB, it is allowed to be natural. The 1NT opener should rarely ask for Aces anyway as his hand is much better defined. The 4♣-bid is still unlimited. How is the 1NT opener supposed to decide between 5/6/7 level by employing RKCB? Any other bid then 4NT I would treat as control-showing on the way to 6 or 7 clubs or even 7NT for all I know.

For everybody who is curious, here is Partners hand [hv=pc=n&e=s62ht875daj2cak42]133|100[/hv] hearts split 2-1 and clubs no worse than 5-2 so 6♥ was an easy make

Thanks a lot. I'm really happy I started this thread. In particular the concept of accepting the gametry with a cuebid in case it was a slamtry is really nice and something we need to discuss. Regards Janis

I think here I find my mistake. I considered it neccessary for slam, that partner can bid game over 3♣, which it surely is. But I also get this information by starting with 2♠, because P will show a good ♣ suit by bidding 3♣ over 2♠ as the answer to the help-suit-gametry. He can never have a 4♥ bid over 2♠ and if he has to bid 3♥, denying good clubs, I simply sign off in game. Once he bids 3♣, I can bid 3♠ making my gametry into a slamtry a level lower then I achieved it at the table. I hope I once will be able to figure those things out at the table :D thanks Janis

I agree with that. In a cue-bidding sequence, 5♥ is not necessarily a sign-off. It just says I have nothing more to tell you, the final decision is up to you Partner. (A fact our Partnership misses sometimes, as we have not been through enough of those sequences Does it really force to slam if there is a ♦-control? If that is so, then that translates to the fact, that I'll always be in 6♥ after bidding 4♠ once P has both minor suit aces. Hence the further question, if it was right to try for slam in the first place or if there is a better method, that discloses more information before the 5 level. regards Janis