AL78

I normally wouldn't but 36% is bad even for us. On our previous session we came second with a little over 57%. The reason I partner her is to try and bring her on and give her a bit more of a sound partner than her other improver partners. I know enough about the fundamentals of bidding and card play to do that (e.g. we don't miss 28 HCP games). She's keen and I wish to fuel her enthusiasm for the game and coming last with a very low score doesn't help with that, although I accept with a small mixed field the randomness element is higher than normal.

Wasn't Rixi Marcus an advocate of KISS when it comes to systems and conventions?

My partner was inexperienced (what is defined in the UK as an improver).

Thanks, it has just occurred to me that this would a better rule than assuming 4NT is always Blackwood. In the circles I play the latter is pretty much universal. The partner in question here is open to discussion and taking on new things so I will suggest this to her.

Thanks for your thoughts. My partner held the hand in question and was unsure what to do so I said I would post it on here. The full deal: [hv=pc=n&s=sqj76hak72dt86c93&w=s9543hqjt94d54cq5&n=sa2h85dacakt87642&e=skt8h63dkqj9732cj&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1c3dd4d5cppp]399|300[/hv] With the ten card fit and the clubs 2-1 I covered three of her four losers and we made +1.

I have played in half a Swiss Pairs local club event and we were doing well before the snow came down and the decision was made to halt the event (some people who have a fair distance to travel on country roads were getting anxious). This hand came up on the second round which was awful because we don't have a robust system in place for slam investigation: Acol, 3 weak twos, weak NT: [hv=pc=n&s=s86h9863dt82cat72&w=sqt7hakqjt5dkq5cq&n=sk52h72dj974ck654&e=saj943h4da63cj983&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1hp1sp3dp4np5sp6nppp]399|300[/hv] South finds the low club lead and they take the first three tricks. I was West. My plan was that bidding 3♦ on my second turn establishes a game force and if partner bids 3♥, I can bid 3♠ to show delayed support, then we might find a good major suit slam. We however end up in the hopeless slam. My interpretation of partner's 4NT bid was RCKB in diamonds, although it is debatable whether 4NT here should be RCKB or quantitative. The problem seems to be that the way the auction has gone, I cannot show a powerful hand with secondary spade support. Can you suggest a way to take this a bit more slowly and advise on whether there are general rules on when 4NT should be Blackwood and when it should mean something else.

Swiss pairs playing Acol weak NT, three weak twos, game all: [hv=pc=n&n=sa2h85dacakt87642&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1c3dd4d]133|200[/hv] Your call?

I can't remember for sure but it is possible partner threw a heart when declarer established and cashed their clubs.

Thanks everyone for the constructive feedback. I am playing in a club swiss teams this afternoon so will make an effort to reprogram my mental attitude. Scoring pairs across eight board rounds in a mixed field amplifies the effect of rogue boards. That is a very kind offer and I may take you up on that. Many hands I post on here have resulted in criticism of my partner but I know there are things I am missing in the defence, so I will try and post defensive situations where I had a choice of plays and got it wrong, which means I have to note the board and try to store the play of the hand in my memory. Example of a recent mis-defence: [hv=pc=n&e=s64ht3dajt7ckq765&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1c1hp1sp2dp3nppp]133|200[/hv] I decided to lead a club but didn't fancy a low one into what I suspected would be AJxx in declarer's hand and it doesn't look like suits are lying favourably for declarer, so I decided to lead a top honor hoping partner could get in an push the ten or high spot card through the jack, or at least hope it wouldn't be expensive. That brilliant play cost us a complete bottom as dummy comes down with a singleton ace and declarer holds JT983 so I set up his clubs for him. 3NT+2 on a hand where double dummy says we can hold it to eight tricks. Three out of the other five weren't in game and the other two made nine tricks in 3NT so we needed to get this down to get anything other than a poor score. [hv=pc=n&s=st5hkq987d96543ca&w=sa9832hj652d82c42&n=skqj7ha4dkqcjt983&e=s64ht3dajt7ckq765&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1c1hp1sp2dp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

Thanks, that is a good psychological analysis. Regarding your third paragraph I am not trying to prove myself to the other players, I am trying to prove myself to myself. Lack of confidence in myself is triggering emotions that override logic so when I apply what I think is a sound strategy on a hand and get punished again and again it is kind of proving to myself I am a bad player hence the despair kicks in. I will try and go back to a strategy of avoiding looking at the result after I have entered it into the Bridgemate. I am less likely to slide into despair if I am ignorant of the result. I will try and encourage my partners to take turns sitting North/East.

I can explain the frustration: 1. If I am playing in a weak field and struggle to break 50%, that doesn't say much about my ability at the game. 2. I used to get much better scores many years ago when the club was stronger and better attended. Regression is never a good thing. 3. The occasional gloating or the pair of near beginners that claim to be nervous because they think I am an expert then proceed to get a 70% board or two against me which comes across as mocking, even if that is not the intention. 4. The apparent inability to perform to the level that I think I am capable of, which really means in a weak field I should break 50% in all but the most unlucky sessions. 5. Long periods of poor performance which cannot be written off as s**t happens but with no clear reasons. 6. Low self esteem, and validation of being a poor player through the poor results, when I would like to think I am at least somewhat competitive at my two clubs. Chess is different from bridge in that it is easier to analyse a game (because it is a game of complete information with no luck) and if you lose at chess, it is because you blundered or were outplayed and you can usually find out where you could have doen better and what you missed on the board.

I tend to start with that assumption but a bad run of hands can be verified as can getting hit with the only opponents to bid a cold game or slam. I will never deny a good portion of bad results are down to my sub-optimal play.

I agree 4♠ is a poor contract and was aggressively bid, although when declarer drew trumps and played ace and another heart, partner flew up with her king which eliminated the guess. The problem partner has is that I play the two under the ace (playing the jack giftwraps the suit for declarer) so she might think I have three hearts and will go to bed with the king if she doesn't win. The diamond ace was knocked out at trick one so dummy has no entries but I'm not sure I can blame partner for not playing low on the second heart.

I'm currently going through a major bridge slump at the moment with not much end in sight. My last session at the club in a variable field partner and I finished with 42.3% which follows on from my result last week with an inexperienced partner of 36%. Some might see the funny side of this but I am finding it increasingly frustrating and embarassing. I am going to end up the whipping boy of the club before long at this rate. The evening in question started off badly and got worse, mainly because there was possibly the worst hand bias I have personally experienced. My average HCP was 7.71, partner's was 9.19, so on average over 21 boards the opponents had game invitational values. There is a correlation between the level of hand bias and my final score which is (I think) a combination of my sub-optimal defence and because it is hard to generate anything when you are passing and following suit most of the time (we will get most of our good scores from opps mistakes). I declared twice and averaged 68% so that is one good thing I guess. The question is, given I start off a session looking forward to a good game of bridge and inevitably finish it feeling rubbish, does anyone know of any psycholoogical techniques to improve mood and become more mentally resiliant to getting hammered at the table over and over again in a session. As an example, this is the sort of thing that chips away at me and happened several times over the evening: [hv=pc=n&s=s632hk96dkq973cq4&w=st87hqt543da54cj7&n=skhj2dt82cat98532&e=saqj954ha87dj6ck6&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1sp2sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] We didn't beat it and it was a bottom when no-one else finds a game.

Out of interest, in a three and a half table field of mediocre standard, can it ever be right to save at the six level when they haven't bid game yet, bearing in mind what you think will happen at the other tables?

I did consider doubling but decided to leave it, none of my partners know anything about forcing passes and I am not sure in most situations. I decided to bid what I think I can make and if they bid on, it will be a top if they go off and a bottom if they make whether I double or not as I judged our auction is not going to be repeated. Mikeh: I agree, I would not have bid 2NT on that hand (assuming I have the hand right, I know partner had very little in diamonds other than five of them) but at the clubs I play at, people frequently overcall on rubbish. On another hand I had a vulnerable 2♦ overcall against me with no honor cards for the sake of being a nuisance. You'd be surprised how difficult it is to punish properly when it is reckless.

Sorry I got the vulnerability wrong, it was NS vuln. Mikeh has pretty much nailed it, we don't have agreements in this situation and I decided 6♣ must have excellent play opposite the kind of hands I would bid 2NT with, and maybe the grand is on but I am most unlikely to be able to find that out, so I bid 6♣. My LHO bid 6♠ which was passed out. Partner led the ♣K and it didn't take much thought for me to overtake and cash a heart (the queen coming down from LHO), one down. Dummy had something like ♦AJxxx, three small hearts, four spades, singleton club. Unfortunately the hands were manually dealt so I don't have the deal to hand. Partner had (I think) ♠x ♥Jx ♦9xxxx ♣KQxxx. 6♣ is unbeatable so technically they found a good sacrifice but we still got a top as at the other two tables they played in 5♠ making 12 or 13 tricks.

Picked this hand up in fourth seat recently at MPs, no vuln: ♠- ♥AKT9865 ♦T ♣AJ863 LHO opens 1♠, partner bids 2NT (unusual), RHO bids 3♠. What do you do now?

I am an advocate of supporting with support when it comes to majors but the hand has too many losers to respond 3♠ so I would raise to 2♠, and be prepared to apologise if partner with an ideal nine count passes and we write +170 down.

Crowhurst: https://www.bridgebum.com/crowhurst.php I'm not a fan of the wide ranging NT rebid myself.

Form of scoring?

Whether an action is sound or not on average cannot be determined from two non-randomly chosen examples. Is it possible the dubious doubles were desperation attempts from a pair behind in a match to claw back imps or MPs. If you are playing opponents who seem to land in the perfect spot as if guided by radar then play the cards as if double dummy, one might feel there is little hope other than to gamble on a low probability action that will reap rewards if successful but won't make things any worse if it fails.

Yes, sorry I overlooked that bit of the plan and somehow assumed the duck happened at trick two.

You also need to hope the defender with four clubs doesn't lead one for his partner to ruff when in with the ducked club.

I wouldn't open on the North hand. I've done that sort of thing before with 5-5 and it has rarely, if ever, turned out well. It is asking for partner to be 5-5 in the blacks and end up in some hideous contract two down.