AL78

I opened 1♣ deciding this was good enough to reverse if partner responds 1♠ and if I get the chance to bid the hearts twice, I have effectively put my hand on the table. Unfortunately the pesky opponents got in the way of that grand plan: [hv=pc=n&s=sjt52hk87dajtcqj2&w=skq863hjdkq943ct3&n=s97haqt64dcak9874&e=sa4h9532d87652c65&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp1s2d2hp3npp4dd(long%20hesitation)ppp]399|300[/hv] I really wanted to pull partner's double to 4♥ offering a choice of games, given she has bid strongly and we are almost certainly better off in game in one of my suits if we have a fit which is virtually certain. Unfortunately the hesitation, which could imply she took a marginal decision and wouldn't be unhappy if I overruled it, means I have to pass as that is a logical call. I was directing and there were no other experienced directors in the field (only four tables) so if I pull the double and LHO complains, I have to make an objective ruling against our side on my own which I didn't want to get into. Needless to say -100 was a bottom compared to the choice of three cold games our way. We can make 10 tricks in 3NT but can only get 4♦ one down. :( Do you agree that I am compelled to pass the double after the long hesitation?

MPs, 1st seat, red against green, playing Acol, weak NT, three weak twos. North ♠97 ♥AQT64 ♦- ♣AK9874 What do you bid? In case it is relevant, East is a fairly decent club player getting back into bridge after a long layoff, West and your partner are inexperienced players.

Yes it has. I attempted to reverse the order of card play based on the misplacement of the players but only partially managed to do that. I now realise my trump holding is sitting under declarer so my previous response is probably nonsense.

We need one more trick outside my black suits. If partner has a club honor, there is little room for another useful honor in his hand unless declarer has bid game on distribution as much as HCP strength. If dummy plays low I am inclined to win and play the ten back hoping partner led from Q9xx or Kxxx. If declarer plays the jack from dummy, I give declarer for the king so win and switch to a top heart hoping partner has the king. I find it difficult to go through all possible hand layouts declarer could hold on the bidding, filter out the ones where the contract is cold, and calculate the most likely source of a fourth trick from the remainder based on the limited HCP partner holds, so I am somewhat guessing here.

This is all too deep for me. I have no idea why partner hesitated, but it is irrelevant as I automatically ignore such hesitations anyway so I just bid 3♥. If playing 5CM I would have supported hearts with a cue bid first time round.

Bidding NT has the advantage of narrowly defining the hand and allowing responder to take charge. The disadvantage is if responder has a minimum response with diamonds and hearts, they will pass and miss a potentially superior 2♥ contract.

I would probably bid 3♥ now.

I found out from one player I know who was one who missed the slam. It went 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 3NT.

I'm beginning to appreciate that. We bid a making slam earlier in the session which should have been flat but we got 14/16 MPs: [hv=pc=n&s=sj763hj42d72ck865&w=saq84hkqdk983ca42&n=st52ht863dt654cq7&e=sk9ha975daqjcjt93&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1np6nppp]399|300[/hv] I won the spade lead and counted 11 tricks off the top. I decided to play for split club honors which worked so I made 12 tricks. Three pairs stayed in game and three out of five pairs in slam went down. That was an undeserved near top. I am loathe to use the weakness/randomness of the field in general as an excuse for mediocre/poor results, as someone could come back and say if the field is weak and you get a mediocre result, what does that say about your ability?

I don't think she would, she would probably either bid 4♥ or 5♣. That is our agreement so that is how I described partner's 4♦ bid, and vice versa. What this means is along the lines of what came up in a past thread, that it is better to cue controls rather that start with first round controls followed by second round controls. I have shifted to that method of cue bidding with a different partner.

4♣ and 4♦ are first round controls. I cued 4♣ with the king because I wanted to investigate slam but don't like using Blackwood on a hand with two top losers, so cued 4♣, and if partner can show the diamond ace, I can bid Blackwood and go to slam missing one key card without the risk of losing an AK off the top. LHO questioned the 4♣ and 4♦ bid and it took a few seconds for her to accept the explanation. She was holding the club ace so didn't understand why I had cue bid 4♣ when I clearly didn't have first round control.

I thought we did quite well to bid what looks like a decent slam on these cards: [hv=pc=n&w=s74hak7654dakjcq5&e=sakj82hq3dq43ck82&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1hp1sp3hp4cp4dp4np5cp6hppp]266|200[/hv] South led the ♠T out of turn and partner chose to let me declare. Unfortunately I go down because South held ♥JT92. I went for the additional remote chance of South also holding four spades which would allow me to ditch the two clubs but that wasn't happening either. South had found the inspired lead of the ten from ♠QT doubleton. This was a near bottom as all but one pair were in game, the only pair that did worse was in 6NT-3. I commented to my partner that it was a reasonable slam and we got an undeserved bad score (meaning/clarifying it would make the majority of the time and most people should be in it), which provoked the comment from LHO "Of course it was deserved, it went down". The joys of playing in a highly variable field. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure if she noticed, but I won the first trick with the HK then cashed the HQ when I got in. I hoped this would show the doubleton honor and give partner the heart layout. I'm guessing, but she may have thought she should cash the jack because it was not clear if she was going to get in again to cash it later.

That is a good idea, after a pre-empt a new suit response in competition is a fit non-jump which alerts the pre-emptor to any big double fits.

[hv=pc=n&s=s5hat52dat2caq643&w=sq98hj9864dq765ck&n=saj743h73d83c8752&e=skt62hkqdkj94cjt9&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1cp1sp1nppp&p=h6h3hkhacackc2c9cqd7c8ctc3h4c7cjhqh2h8h7djd2d6d3d4dtdqd8hjs3s6h5s8sas2]399|300[/hv] I was East. We were playing HELD discards. When I decided to play a diamond after getting in with the club I didn't know what was the best card to play but ended up leading the jack which is probably not right but I couldn't work out all the key layouts in my head to decide the optimal card to play. In the end it was irrelevant as declarer wrapped up eight tricks for a joint bottom to us. First question, should I play 4th best diamond instead of the jack, and secondly, could I have done better somewhere? If we hold it to seven tricks we at least manage an average.

Here is an extreme board partner and I got on the wrong side of: [hv=pc=n&s=sjt7432htda86ct52&w=sq5hq843dt3cakj97&n=sak86h9dkqj9754c4&e=s9hakj7652d2cq863&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d4h4s5h5sppdppp]399|300[/hv] I was East. I thought about a simple overcall but in the end decided to try and shut out the spade suit. It didn't work. Partner doubled thinking she had a couple of club tricks and a heart trick not knowing we had a nine card side fit so two tricks aren't likely to stand up. A shared bottom with one other pair. If partner doesn't double it is a shared second from bottom so it made little difference. Everyone else was allowed to play in 5♥ or 6♥, a few making 12 tricks (including the one pair doubled in 6♥).

This is kind of what I do. I got friendly with an improver who is very keen and during the pandemic when the club was entirely online, I used to try and give her advice after looking at her bad boards (e.g. missed games were common and it was due to poor bidding). Whilst doing this over time, I realised that because she was partnering other improvers, it would be very difficult for her to improve as her partner's bidding was very erratic. Hence I offered her a once a month game to give her some practice opposite more sound bidding (I'm not saying I am perfect but I can bid better than the beginners) and defence. She does seem to be getting better slowly, she seems to know when she has made a mistake soon after making it, so we need to work on slowing down a bit and identifying a mistake before making a bid/playing a card so it can be avoided.

Somewhat OT, but in my primary club, we have always had a strong teaching element which has successfully kept the club strong in membership for many years. My only mild criticism is that since the pandemic which threw the club calendar up in the air, I feel the club has moved a bit too far in prioritising beginners/improvers, to the point where there is now little opportunity for experienced players to have a solid game at the club. It has moved from having beginner/improver aimed sessions along with sessions where experienced players dominate to having all standards mixed together, so the randomness element has increased (you can see examples from some of my past posts), and there are signs of some animosity between inexperienced and experienced players (a them-and-us attitude is one of the less desirable human cognitive biases, and it is the inexperienced players that seem to do this), with reports of one or two inexperienced players complaining about lack of friendliness. I don't know the details of all cases but one complaint I suspect was indirectly referring to me (I am on the committee so heard the complaint and who made it) because I made a claim on the last board of a round when we were behind in time and the move had been called. Over recent years I have changed my focus on trying to be competitive at the club (I used to be but no longer) to trying to enjoy the game and help less experienced players, which is why I partner one of the improvers once a month. Friday evenings at the club have always had a reputation for being aimed at strong players (although this has never been the club policy) and so inexperienced players have steered clear. A decade or two ago it used to be well attended. This year it folded because the attendance dropped to one and a half tables after what has been a slow decline over the last five or six years, and because this was the random teams monthly competition, it was eventually deemed unviable and dropped.

Yes I accept I am not going to get better playing in the circles I play in currently, but there are few options in my part of SE England for a quality game of bridge. One of my local clubs that I have played at for nearly 20 years is going down the road of morphing into a beginners/improvers club since the pandemic. The club I joined earlier this year (because I want to play F2F) has turned out to be a very mixed standard, which increases the randomness factor. The EBU seems to be suggesting bridge clubs need to go down the road of attracting new people and having a thriving beginner section in order to survive, which may mean getting a good game of bridge at a club will become rarer in the future. It is almost impossible to get a game with a genuinely strong player as they have their own strong partners and want a quality game of bridge, so they are unlikely to have the time for me. As such I have now accepted I am unlikely to get too much satisfaction out of bridge from the gameplay and now play primarily for the social aspect.

Yeah this is the problem with the clubs I play at. Sometimes people make baffling bids and it can be very difficult to counter them sometimes. The session didn't start well having to defend on all three boards against a pair that said they don't play reverses, which makes defence a bit more tricky than normal. I didn't really like jumping over 4♥ but I can't find out anything else useful without going past 5♣ so decided to punt slam on an educated guess partner would have a spade control, plus partner has to have some useful values for her opening, and they are not in her club suit. Good point about West bidding 2NT next time. I would likely settle for 3NT which makes, although if North decides to bid 3♠ over that, I would likely swing the axe.

[hv=pc=n&e=s9652hkdk7cakq983&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1c1s2sp3c3s4dp4hp6cppp]133|200[/hv] MPs, playing Benj Acol weak NT. The auction was fine up to the point North rebid their suit at the three level. Wishing to initiate slam investigation I cue bid the diamond control, to which partner cued their heart control. At this point I decided that North must have a lot of spades and for some reason decided not to come in with 3♠ the first time. I put partner with a high chance of a singleton, maybe even a void and it was a 30 point pack with no spade wastage, so I punted 6♣ expecting it to have a fair chance. This was the full deal: [hv=pc=n&s=shj987543dqt42c62&w=sak43had853cjt754&n=sqjt87hqt62daj96c&e=s9652hkdk7cakq983&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1c1s2sp3c3s4dp4hp6cppp]399|300[/hv] Two down -200. I didn't anticipate that layout. We even got 75% for this nonsense. Here I was bidding slam expecting a decent chance to make whereas in reality, I was sacrificing against the cold 4♥ the opposition had failed to find which was bid at six tables.

I'm not worried about partner holding that hand. My partners never hold such pinpoint precision perfect hands that make slam cold opposite my rubbish.

I've been thinking more about pre-empts and responses to pre-empts, in particular whether new suits are forcing. How do people play a new suit at the two level when their partner opens a weak 2 (e.g. 2♥ (P) 2♠). I get the impression some people play it NF and some play it as forcing, one works well when responder is weak(ish) with a long spade suit, and the other works well when responder is strong with a long spade suit. How about opposite a three level pre-empt?

Yes, it is a matter of style. I can see that aggressive bidders would open 4♣. One advantage of opening 3♣ is that it leaves 3NT in the picture when it is right.

This was the full deal. I will admit to not having what I would call an ideal pre-empt but I was loathe to pass. We haven't had any detailed discussions on what to expect with pre-empts at various colours and seats, but in the first two seats, my pre-empts are fairly sound with an expectation (or hope) of six (green) or seven (red) playing tricks opposite a small doubleton support. I don't tend to pre-empt on something like Qxxxxxx and a bust except in third seat non-vuln. We do play gambling 3NT so I won't have seven to the AKQ. The full deal: [hv=pc=n&s=sj97haqj82dakq5c9&w=sqt86hkt543d84cj2&n=sa43h97d3ckq87543&e=sk52h6djt9762cat6&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=3cp3nppp]399|300[/hv] Partner got a fourth best heart lead and drifted one off, we were in good company and got an average plus with several pairs in 3NT making between six and 11 tricks. Despite the combined 26 HCP 3♣ is the last making contract so passing is the winning action on this deal. If I pass and the opponents don't bid (likely here) I think we still end up in 3NT played by me.