AL78

MPs, playing Acol weak NT with an inexperienced partner I picked up this hand: ♠Q ♥2 ♦AKT82 ♣AKQT76 I opened 1♣, partner responded 1♥, I bid 2♦, partner did a panic pass because she didn't know what to do and hadn't appreciated a reverse is forcing. Partner held: ♠KJ73 ♥QJ94 ♦973 ♣95 I can understand partner's lack of enthusiasm with a minimal response and none of the HCP in my suits, and when I cashed the two top diamonds and led the spade queen, South ducked so I emerged with 11 tricks. 3NT is cold and was the popular contract. Assuming the absence of Lebensohl, would you say 2NT is a reasonable second bid opposite the reverse?

Poor judgement is one reason I lose at bridge: East ♠964 ♥AQT62 ♦A7 ♣J93 [hv=d=e&v=e&b=6&a=pp1d1s2hp3d3sdppp]133|100[/hv] MPs playing with an inexperienced partner. I doubled because I thought we had the balance of the strength, North was taking liberties, and if it makes -140 will be a bad score anyway. How wrong I was. [hv=pc=n&s=sjt8h9873d52ckt87&w=skhkjdkqj9863c542&n=saq7532h54dt4caq6&e=s964haqt62da7cj93]399|300[/hv] -530 was a bottom and if I had kept my mouth shut, -140 would have been an average: 4♦ W 9 100 3♠ N 9 140 3♠X 9 N 530 3♠ N 10 170 4♠ N 9 -50 4♦ W 12 -170 3♠ N 9 140 How do good players manage to judge how to take action based on what is likely to happen across the field?

That is not going to happen. I was playing with an inexperienced scratch partner and I don't think she is knowledgable enough to signal like that. From what I recall she played the club eight on the third round. I forgot to mention this was MPs, so I'm not sure whether it is best for declarer to go for the finesse into the dangerous hand or play from the top and try to put me in. Holding it to eight tricks gives us 38% instead of a bottom. We can't beat the pairs that limited 2 and 3♥ to seven tricks (they probably opened a weak NT followed by a transfer).

I held this hand in third seat: East ♠JT832 ♥K6 ♦Q72 ♣A74 After three passes, the auction goes 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT (12-14) by the opposition. Partner leads the club three which I win, play the seven back, ducked to partner, who clears the suit, declarer winning with the king. Dummy held: ♠KQ76 ♥A8732 ♦83 ♣96 Declarer cashed the ♦AK from hand followed by a third round. I played low twice and butchered the defence. The full deal: [hv=pc=n&s=sa95ht4dakt94ckt5&w=s4hqj95dj65cqj832&n=skq76ha8732d83c96&e=sjt832hk6dq72ca74]399|300[/hv] With some proper logical thought, I should have dumped the queen under a high one, then partner can enjoy her club suit. I was concerned declarer might hold the jack but if she did, she would have played to dummy and finessed. That was a nice bottom. Frustrating, I am on the verge of finding defensive unblocking plays like that but so far, the only time I have attempted them when I thought it looked like the right play is when it made no difference. What is more, if declarer cashes the heart ace, I need to dump the king under it as well.

I occasionally use it as an additional tool alongside other methods/judgement.

An automatic 1♦ on a flat, almost 8 loser 11 count? I think that might be one issue. If responder errs on the passive side in the bidding because they are afraid they'll find partner with a sub-minimum opener like that, the risk of missing games when opener holds full values is increased.

Doesn't surprise me. This is the sort of traveller we'd end up with at my club with its high variance in standard and a lot of inexperienced players. I've quickly spotted one from last Friday where someone managed to go off in 3NT with eight tricks off the top when the opening lead gave them a free finesse, KQ in a suit, and no chance of the defence establishing and running a suit.

If you play a change of suit as forcing, you can keep the bidding low and use the UCB as an invitational+ hand with support. East knows they want to be in game but doesn't know which game, so if he can keep the bidding low with a forcing 2♦, it maximises room for investigation into the best game contract. There is a risk the opponents will jam the auction with a club raise but I'm not sure that is any worse than cue bidding then trying to get across a solid diamond suit at the four level.

I did find out how one pair found 3NT. After the weak two, North bid 2NT which in their system shows a strong takeout, and South raised to 3NT.

I would class myself as intermediate but I rarely do well at my local club these days, so my results point more towards advanced beginner/novice or weak intermediate at best.

I thought the beginner and novice definitions would be the other way around. A beginner by the literal interpretation of the word is someone who is beginning, so surely should have the shortest playing experience. I am reluctant to define standards purely by length of playing experience. In my experience, bridge students straight out of third year bridge classes are still playing like beginners for many months, if not years, and by that I mean they haven't got a grasp of the fundamentals of either bidding or card play.

Thanks for the responses. I like the suggestion from Cyberyeti which never crossed my mind. I bid 4NT which I thought partner would interpret as showing a strong hand with both minors. Unfortunately partner wasn't sure and responded 5♣ as if I was asking for aces and we played there going down one. The hand is somewhat interesting in that if we play in the nine card diamond fit, we still go one down, so the absence of a common wavelength ultimately didn't cost. [hv=pc=n&s=sqj62hk964dt853c2&w=sakt984ht82d2c965&n=s73hadakq97cakqt4&e=s5hqj753dj64cj873]399|300[/hv] In 5♦, the defence cash the first two spade tricks, then a third round promotes East's jack. -11 imps when the other table lands in 3NT+1. I suspect North doubled, and what South does I guess depends on whether or not they were playing Lebensohl. I guess if South bid 3♥, or goes through a Lebensohl 2NT, North is cueing spades and South bids 3NT.

4♦. With only seven guarenteed tricks 5♦ looks a tad overaggressive. If it were favourable vuln I'd bid 5♦.

♠73 ♥A ♦AKQ97 ♣AKQT4 Teams green against red. Partner passes and RHO opens a weak 2♠. What do you bid?

Oh sorry, I have miscounted the discards.

I think there is double dummy. Win the diamond return, ruff a spade, then run five clubs. East comes down to ♠- ♥Q65 ♦KT ♣- before the last club is played. If East throws a heart, the queen drops. If East throws a diamond, a diamond exit endplays East.

There was no problem on the hand itself, we got into the best contract, just unlucky to go off. I was asking whether the way my partner bids opposite a short 1C is done elsewhere as the way she described it, I hadn't heard of it before, but as some have said, it is effectively an inverted minor in the club suit guarenteeing five card support. 1♣ - 3♣ would be at least five and weak.

The idea is with a balanced 6-9 HCP and 3334 shape, bid 1NT. With that shape and 10-12 HCP, bid 2NT. With 13-15 HCP, bid 3NT. That is what I think she would do. This is the hand where it came up: [hv=pc=n&s=skhk72d942cakq983&w=saqt9863ht83d73cj&n=sj4haj9daqjct7654&e=s752hq654dkt865c2&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cp2c2s3cp5cppp]399|300[/hv] The defence cashed their spade and switched to a diamond. I took both red suit finesses and went one down, although there is a way to make, looking at it maybe a strip squeeze on East, but why would I play to squeeze East when West is the one overcalling?

I play 5 card majors, strong NT and 1♣ opening could be as short as two cards with one of my partners. When 1♣ is opened, her philosophy is to treat it as artificial, and responding 2♣ is a 2/1 response showing 10+ HCP with a club suit (i.e. same as if the opening bid had been 1♦/♥/♠). I've always considered treating it as natural since the majority of the time it is a real suit. Does anyone else take the same approach as my partner?

I'd bid 4♦ on the basis that if partner's double implies something in the black suits, slam is not out of the question, and if the opps bid 4♥ I am not letting them play there unless partner wants to penalise them. The hand seems a bit too good in terms of playing strength and loser count to commit unilaterally to 5♦ after partner has made a noise.

I'm not convinced overcalling at the two level on five to the king is a good idea. I would pass on the West hand. After the overcall, I don't understand why East is changing suit at the three level with nothing higher than a queen and doubleton support for West. Maybe I am out of touch with modern day bidding but any of my partners and I sitting EW would have been silent throughout. If you play double of a multi as showing diamonds that is an option on the first round.

Assuming you mean the choice to bid 5N instead of 5H, I can see cueing a singleton opposite opener's primary suit probably isn't a good idea, you want honor cards opposite suit length, not shortages. The other hand which initiated my separate thread was about cueing a singleton first time round in an unbid suit.

Yes. If you play Acol weak NT and hold 15-17 balanced, you might open a suit and bid 2NT opposite a 2/1 with a suit unguarded.

I have just read this thread about a missed slam and the advocacy of first rouond cue bidding with a singleton was widely posted: https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/79382-missed-a-slam-can-someone-do-better/ When I learnt cue bidding, I was taught that you cue first round controls first, followed by second round controls, so on the hand in the thread above, I might not cnsider cueing 4♦ with second round control. Bypassing a suit first time round therefore denies first round control but not second round control. I understand some people cue bid with either first or second round control, but with that style, although I can see how it could lead to good slams that might otherwise be missed, how do you know you are not duplicating controls? Couldn't one person be cueing a king or an ace and the other cueing a singleton or a void, in which case how does the first person know the other person's cue bid is useful or not?

I'd call it 7.5 losers on an uncalculated estimation that if the queen is missing with a nine card fit, there is around a 50% chance it won't be a loser.