kgr

(Quoting this answer to note that it is MP's. So +1 can be important) I took ♠A, followed by the ♥-finesse and ♥A. ♥'s were 3-2; LHO has ♥Kxx (and didn't drop the K under the A :D ) ... From here I didn't have an idea what to do an probably did play it bad. I crossed to ♠ and did run ♦ for RHO ♦J. RHO returned ♣J and I took the ♣A??

I also started with small to ♥Q. It holds.

Is it very wrong to DBL iso bidding 2♦ and bid ♦'s later (...ok, I didn't)? We play Walsh, but that probably doesn't matter here. Is 3NT showing long clubs? What should North bid with a balanced 19 pts? Probably more clear at IMP's? I was South and thought that 4♦ could give extra info to opps in the defense. After 3NT by North I also thought that he had too many pts in ♠.

[hv=d=s&n=sxxhaqxxxdk8xcxxx&s=sakqthjxxdt9xxcaq]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1NT-2♦ 2♥-2NT 4♥ West leads ♠8 (they lead small promises so this can be from 8x, 8xx, 8xxx) and East plays the ♠J. I found this a difficult hand. Should I throw ♦'s or ♣'s on ♠'s; start with playing trump, ...? What is your plan? Note about Heart:

[hv=d=n&n=skqjxhdkqjxcakxxx&s=shaxxxdatxxxxxcxx]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] kind of Standard American; 5542 1♣-(1♠)-DBL-(2♠) 3NT How should the bidding go? Is 3♦ iso 3NT clearly forcing?

I underlined part of the quoted text on which I want to comment. I play constructive raise and weak raises go via a non-forcing 1NT. I got this system from a better player and his idea is that 1NT is more preemptive then 2M. ...But I don't play 2/1

Takeout for me. I wondered if this makes sense after: 1♣-(P)-1NT-(2♦) But probably it does with eg 4315?

Thanks all for the answers. I ruffed a ♠ and took the loosing ♥-finesse. I later used ♣A entry for playing to ♦K (also loosing). LHO had ♥Q singleton and also had ♦K. So I did go -2. My partner said that if I choice to go for the ♥-finesse then I had to take it twice, but I only took it once to defend against ♥x with LHO. I still wonder about that restricted choice question above: If I play a small ♥ from dummy and RHO plays small, then it is more likely that he has HHx then Hxx?

Thanks for the answers! You can also take viewpoint that ♦A is with LHO and play for -1 or -2? Using your entries for the ♥ finesses and give up on the ♦K. Do you mean that if I play a ♥ from dummy and RHO plays a small ♥ then it is more likely that he has HHx than Hxx (probably because of restricted choice)? ....I wonder if this is really true? Thinking about this....To make this contract I need RHO to have the ♦A. Because LHO doubled, it is probably better to play him for a ♥ honor if he doesn't have the ♦A.

Maybe for when to psyche the most important one is when you really need a good result. E.g in a butler that you really want to win and you are 2nd or 3th. You will almost never psyche in a weak field where you should normally win.

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sxxhjtxdxxxcaj9xx&s=saxxha9xxxxdkxxcx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♥-(DBL)-2♥-(2♠) 3♥-All Pass LHO leads ♠K that you duck and he continues ♠J for your Ace. What is your plan? ...I wonder: If it is best to start with the ♥ finesse (in case LHO has ♥x) or rather with ♥A (in case LHO has ♥H). If you start with finesse and it looses then use your other entry for another ♥-finesse playing for (H-Hxx) and probably -1 OR play to ♦K (♥'s 2-2 and ♦K with RHO) for smaller chance to make it.

(I think I had this same issue some years ago ;) ) .....Any suggestions welcome.....: I received a convention card from my partner, edited with convention card editor and I received it in PDF format. When I open it on my computer then no card symbol is shown correctly (they are {, }, [, ] ); It is ok when she opens it on her computer. In Document Properties/Fonts I see: CardArial Type: TrueType Encoding: Ansi Actual Font: Adobe Sans MM Actual Font Type: Type 1 Via Google I found In Wikipedia that "Adobe Sans MM" is a kind of replacement font (used if the original font is not found?). But I searched font CardArial and I cannot find it. The only reference I found for CardArial is: http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/federbrid...loads/22771291/ => It seems that: - I have to install the card editor to be able to correctly read the PDF? Or: - The replacement font should not be "Adobe Sans MM", but another one? Which one and how to control it?

Yes, sorry Yes, correct. I found this counter-intuitive (wanting to ruff with top trump) and therefor interesting

I found this an interesting position: [hv=d=s&v=e&e=s8764h84daq62c986&s=saj3hqt65dk7cqj43]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♣-(pass)-pass-(1♥)-All Pass Partner leads ♦T and your K wins this Trick (T-2-K-4) You return ♣Q taken by the Ace of West (Q-A-5-6), small encourage. Declarer now plays 2x trump (K-3-4-5; A-J-8-6) And a 3rd round of ♥ (♥2-♦3-♦6-♥T) You now play 2 rounds of ♣: 3-2-K-8; 7-9-J-T This is the position (Clubs are gone; Declarer has 2 hearts remaining) [hv=d=s&v=e&e=s8764h84daq62c986&s=saj3hqt65dk7cqj43]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] What do you play next?

Were the clubs QT6x? I just want to make sure running the club 5 works too. QT32

For info: This was another hand against Jack. LHO had a 6c♠ and RHO 4c♥ and ♣QTxx

Yes, I like lmilne's line more. To be sure: Cashing the ♣A doesn't matter, beside that it gives more info to opps for their discards?

I also did go for the squeeze based on intuition. I wondered how to go for it based on 'logic'. Finesse wins if RHO has ♣Qxx or longer and no 4c♥ Squeeze wins if: LHO has ♣Qx LHO has ♣Qxx or longer and 4c♥ => 4c♥ with ♣Qxx or longer compared to not is below 50%, but this is compensated by LHO having ♣Qx??? My guess: B) LHO has 4c♥ with ♣Qxx or longer: 45% => Edit: Is there a tool to calculate this? LHO having ♣Qx: 8% Edit: verified with suitplay: LHO having ♣Qx: 10.17%

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sqjha6dakq74c9875&s=sa9hkq82dj53cakj4]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♣-1♦ 2NT-4NT (4NT=blackw) 5♥-5NT 6♥-6NT Lead ♠5: J-K-A You continue with ♣A, ♦A and ♦J, everyone following Q: Will you finesse ♣ or play for ♥/♣ squeeze?

DBL or Pass for me, but can probably not resist to DBL It is with me. Looks like a good start (and then show my spades). If partner pulls the DBL (=weak distributional hand) to f.i. 2H, will you then bid 2S? I would pass if partner pulls the DBL. If LHO bids 2D/2H then maybe I would bid 2S??

I have no desire to double the first time it's true, but I also have no desire to double the second time. Make it a hand that is almost a take-out DBL initially; something like: KJxx-x-QTxx-KJxx at MP's (And I play that 1M-1NT can include a (non-forcing) weak hand with 3cM-fit). => I prefer to play it take-out

The pair I have this from got it from a Dutch magazine, so it is not surprising that you know this convention. They say that they had 1 bad result like you say, but a lot more good results where opps passed with 4S makeable (and easier to find after 1H-2H then after 1H-1NT). ...but not that I want to pretend that this is a scientific investigation.

In system similar to SA or SAYC we added following agreement: 1M-(pass)-1NT 1NT=Natural (6-9 pts) or 3c weak raise of the Major (3-7 pts). Not Forcing The idea is that it is more difficult for opps to compete if they don't know that we have a fit. And if they compete below 2M we can still come in with 2M. It will almost never happen that we go down in 1NT, while we could make 2M. And of course our major raises are constructive, but we can still play 1NT non-forcing. ...What do you think?

Interesting. I, being no English speaker, pronounce both abbreviations SAYC and udca as words and not as letters. (I learned these words by reading them) It seems that English speakers either use the letters or the original words. I wonder if this is a common thing (and if none English speakers will follow my behavior more)

Not automatically. You decide whether they have an agreement and what it was based on all available evidence, but the evidence is considerably weaker without SCs. But you do not make it an automatic conclusion. For example, if you play somewhere where SCs are unknown [sABF Nationals, for example] you do not automatically assume that no-one knows their system. But they need stronger arguments. Yes, that what I meant. LHO said that it was clearly no transfer because he already denied the Majors (?) and RHO said that it was transfer.