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

he´ll obviously bid 3♦ and had not bid 2♥ in the first place...

Agreed my post was too unclear as to what is expected for a 4♥-bid. Changed it. So no T9xxxx is not enough for 4♥ opposite a possible Qxx, but you could not have known when you answered to my post. Sorry Janis

I held the following hand this Monday and was unsure how to proceed [hv=pc=n&w=sak7haj9432d82cqj&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1cp1hp2hp]133|200[/hv] I went for 3♣ (promising Q+ in ♣, kind of Help-suit-Gametry), which is forcing for us and asks Partner to bid 4♥ with good support in clubs and settle for 3♥ otherwise. After my partner was able to bid 4♥ I liked my hand even more because my QJ♣ greatly improved in value. I followed it up with 4♠ after which Partner unfortunately cued with 5♣ (I think he should have skipped the club cue in favor for the much more valuable ♦-cue. He almost is marked with a club control for the bidding so far, isn't he?) Now I'm none the wiser and lack a bid somehow. Should I have started differently? How would you have proceeded? Is trying for 6 too ambitious anyway? regard Janis

I quite recently held red vs green ♠x ♥- ♦AK 9th ♣KQx I opened 5♦ and got a good result, because most of the field was in 6♠X-3 There are several ways 5♦ could be the winning call - opponents might not find their sacrifice - you might be allowed to play 6♦, because of some fishy auction like 5♦ (X) P (5♠) 6♦ (X) aP while an ordanary power auction would've led to 6MX-2 or -3 - 5♦ might be the right contract anyway Of course 5♦ will let you miss some cold small slams and even grands. I'm not experienced enough to judge what does happen more often. What I would argue is, that it is better to open 1♦ then 2♣ - you do not enough quick tricks - you are at 3♦ (if opps are silent, which is not guaranteed) when you begin describing your hand, which for all P knows could still be Ax,x,AKQxxxx,KQxx and not the actual hand regards JW

[hv=pc=n&s=sk872h9763dqt53c6&w=shakq852da82cakq2&n=saqjt9543hd97c743&e=s6hjt4dkj64cjt985]399|300[/hv] I quite like the idea of a forcing pass. 7♥ is an easy make, but do you really get there? 7♣ would have to be played by West We finally arrieved in 6♠X-2 after West bid 6♥ and East was not up to bidding 7 after South bid 6♠. If East had bid 7♥ would you have bid 7♠ from S or hoped that there somehow is a ♦-Trick?

Sorry MP-Scoring added

[hv=pc=n&w=shakq852da82cakq2&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=2c4sp5s]133|200[/hv] X by East would've been a bust. What do you do now? MP-scoring

No1: Balancing 1NT I'd expect something like a semi-balanced 10-11count without a five card major. No2: unusual, as I am not in pass-out-seat and cannot have a natural 1NT-call No3: natural with me, but might easily be played unusual. 1NT natural is quite dangerous in this spot. And should have good stop(s) and a source of tricks. Therefore it will rarely come up and the unusual use becomes attractive. No4: unusual No5: unusual, as it cannot be natural with the initial pass.

I really like these example hands. To evaluate the merits of a hand you always need to take into account what purpose you want to achieve. As dealer the purpose is to open the bidding, which both hands easily qualify for. I would even disagree on the fact, that Hand No2 is as good as No1 for that purpose because No1 has a much sturdier ♠-suit and is, after all, a 3 Loser hand with a semi-self-sustaining suit. Let's say the bidding goes 1♠ - 1NT Now the purpose of our hand has changed. Now we need to decide at what level to show our ♥-suit Hand No1 should probably insist on game, while hand no2 should content itself on a passable 2♥-call Of course, if the bidding goes 1♠ - 4♦ One can immediately see why No2 could be better than hand No1. But let's say the bidding started 1♠ (2♣) pass (3♣) Again the purpose of the hand has changed. The question is whether further competition is warranted and if so how. I think we can agree that further competition is warranted. But I would argue that Hand No2 should (can) double while with hand No1 probably 3♥ is called for. With hand No2 we should probably double for take-out. If P has KJTx in ♣ and not much else we are ready to do business with our 3 Aces and the X shows our red-suit holdings just fine. If P has x,xx,KQxxxxx,xxxx we can raise his 4♦-bid to 5. With hand No1 double is quite dangerous. If P has KJTx in ♣ and not much else we cannot blame him much for passing and will not beat 3♣s. Bidding 3♥ has its own drawbacks because P might have x,xxx,AJxxxx,xxx and we will not make it to 5♦ and 4♠ (if we get there) is okay but far from save (Di-ruff(s)). So we might conclude that Hand No2 is better to further compete than Hand no1. So back to our first question what hand is better No1 or No2? I hope I managed to argue that the strength of a hand is dependent on the purpose you are trying to achieve and not only described by HCPs LTC or adjustment for Aces and Tens vs Quacks

We sacrifice the natural 2NT-bid as showing a sound 4card raise, while 3♠ is preemptive. Given the fact that everybody has had a bid, how many times will you look at your hand and consider it ideally described by a natural 2NT bid? Now partner will know, that you have enough to force the bidding to at least 3♠ and will expect some defense when it is his turn to act over a possible 4♥-bid. I strongly advise not to splinter, as it is possible that you'll end up defending 4 or even 5♥. Why tell the opponents the distribution of the trump-suit, when your partner is often able to deduce your ♥-shortage on his own. regards JW