AL78

One way the spade suit gets lost is if responder holds 5♦ and 4♠ and a rock bottom minimum for a response. It goes 1♣ - 1♦ - 2NT - Pass and you miss the best partscore. That is probably a very rare scenario though. It is interesting you show an example hand with a strong responder holding clubs. I held a very weak hand with clubs: ♠J ♥J8 ♦JT95 ♣J98652 Partner opened 1♠ and I could not find a response other than pass. It drifted one off for -50 which shows it is not a good idea to play in the opponent's 8 card fit. The contracts were all over the place but two pairs found a club partscore, one was in 1NT+2 and the other in 3NT-1 so we didn't quite get a bottom.

Sorry I should have included the basic system. Benji Acol, weak NT, no support doubles. I did say when the round was over that her hand was a good advertisement for support doubles, and she didn't know what I was talking about. At the end of the evening I wrote down on a piece of paper what a support double was which she appreciated. In the absence of support doubles and if she had made a standard TOX instead of bidding 2♦, what do you think my next call should be? 2♠ is understating the hand but jumping to 3♠ sounds like overstating the suit quality, or should I hope for three spades to an honor opposite and just bid 3 or 4♠?

Matchpoints [hv=pc=n&s=sj75h743dt9732cak&w=sat862ha65dj5ct92&n=s94hkt9dkcqj76543&e=skq3hqj82daq864c8&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1dp1s2c2dppp]399|300[/hv] A bottom with all but one other pair in 4♠. I'm inclined to think partner should have doubled on the second round but if she does, do I jump to 3♠? 2♠ would be an underbid I think.

My partner picked up this nice hand at matchpoints: ♠AT82 ♥K75 ♦Q3 ♣AKQ7 Normally with a hand too strong to open 1NT you open a suit then bid NT next time round. The question is, do you start with 1♣ or 1♠? If the former, what do you bid if partner responds in a red suit?

[hv=pc=n&s=sakhaq96daj2cq842&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=2n(19-20)p3c(5%20card%20puppet%20Stayman)p3d(A%204%20card%20major)p3s(4%20hearts)p4hp5cp5dp5hp]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints. Your call.

MPs. This was embarrasing against the weakest pair in the room. [hv=pc=n&s=skqj742ha3dj8c432&w=sa83hkj9dq972ckj9&n=s965h765da53caqt5&e=sthqt842dkt64c876&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp2sd3s4hppp&p=sksas5sthkh5h2hasqs3s6h4h8h3hjh6d2d3dkd8hqs4h9h7d4djdqdas9hts2s8d6s7d9d5d7c5dtsjc6c2c9ctcac7c3cjcqc8c4]399|300[/hv] Yes I should have found the club switch earlier and got it more off, but thought at the time being passive was the way to go. Everyone else is playing in spades our way making 140 or 170. A bottom. Of course as usually what happenes against near beginners they rub my nose in it. Looking at the hand it looks like I have to lead a club at trick one then lead another one when in with the heart ace. That gives us three club tricks and two red suit aces. Double dummy says we can take another trick somewhere, a diamond lead ducked then club through, DA, D ruff, another club through. I don't know how to find that defence at the table.

I'd have been tempted to bid 5♥ with the West hand although there is a small chance of pushing them into a making slam, so I'd be hesitant.

Another hand from Friday evening teams (on RealBridge), partner and I were playing 5CM, 1M - 3♣/♦ showed constructive raises, direct raises were weak with some shape and good support. I had revealed the system at the start of the round but had only mentioned the constructive raises part, not the pre-emptive raises part. ♠73 ♥98543 ♦AT2 ♣J93 Partner opened as dealer 1♥ and I raised to 3♥ after LHO passed (felt the hand lacked the shape to raise to 4♥). Partner failed to alert and that ended the auction. I explained the raise was weak prior to the opening lead and my LHO wasn't impressed when my hand came down. As I suspected he had a decent hand. The full deal: [hv=pc=n&s=sak2h2dkj6ckqt862&w=s986hakqj6d543c74&n=sqjt54ht7dq987ca5&e=s73h98543dat2cj93&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1hp3hppp]399|300[/hv] NS have a big two suited fit and can make game in any of the other three suits (of course they are never going to choose to play in 5♦) so we gained 11 imps after we drifted two down undoubled. South said if he knew the raise was weak he would have doubled. At the time I felt we had fixed the opponents in a bad way with the lack of alert, so should I have called the director on their behalf who might have given an adjusted score? Out of four teams, two other NS pairs found 4♠ and one was in 3♣. On the other hand, North could have overcalled in spades then no amount of pre-emptive raising by me will stop South bidding game, so perhaps they were at least partially responsible for their game swing out?

How would opening 1♦ have made any difference? I still have the same decision on whether to double, and I still have a TOX hand. Looking back I really should have doubled, and hope if partner took it as penalties it at least goes off, or many off if she holds something like ♥KJx. Why open 1♦ when I have longer clubs and no bidding problem if partner holds the hearts and I don't get a heart barrage?

This hand from Friday evening random teams has been niggling me: [hv=pc=n&s=s97hakqj765dq2c52&w=skj43h832d965ca74&n=s652ht94dkj87cq96&e=saqt8hdat43ckjt83&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c4hppp]399|300[/hv] I thought for some time about what to do at my second turn and very nearly doubled, but bottled it. Two off undoubled was a poor score compared to the other table: [hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c1hdp1s3h3s4h4sppp]133|100[/hv] Eight imps away. From the brief discussion after the implication was my partner would take a double by me as penalty and passed. +300 our way would at least have limited the loss to three imps. Was I a coward?

Thanks for another very solid response. My club has a fair few players (hundreds) and isn't very weak (although it has definitely got weaker over the years as the experienced players die off and are replaced with beginners), very mixed is more accurate. A mixed field does increase the luck factor as the result on a particular board can depend heavily on who you play it against. There are some players who are very aggressive in the bidding (or undisciplined lol), but play the dummy well, and people at my club are reluctant to double for one off, so they get decent results. Get a distributional competitive board against them and you are lucky if you get an average. They are like the Witchdoctor from the Reese/Bird series of books on the monks of St Titus. It is maybe worth me looking back at some (or many) of my past sessions where I only declared 2-4 times in 24 boards and look at the hands where I defended to see if I was in a minority. It does seem some sessions that when I pick up a decent hand, partner holds rubbish, and vice versa, so one of us can get in the auction but not the other. If partner overcalls and I hold a flat 2 count with two small in support I am not finding a bid. It might be a bit academic now anyway. The club committee has made the decision to scrap the one evening F2F session due to low numbers and replace it with an afternoon session (strangely they didn't scrap the online evening session which has had worse attendance for 2-3 years). I have a day job which means I cannot play at the club F2F until they reintroduce an evening session, and since I do not enjoy online bridge (esp after being in front of a computer all day at work), I will probably have to find another bridge club or give the game up. The fundamental issue is since the pandemic and being forced into online bridge, a large chunk of the regulars have decided they like sitting at home playing online and not having to come out in the poor UK weather and walk through a dark town centre at night (and half the membership still feel unsafe regarding COVID despite double jabs and boosters).

The bidding at my club is very aggressive, and I am often the victim of actions that seem absurd to me but end up working or at least don't work badly for them. Problem is it is often very difficult to impossible to punish opponents for unsound bidding, either because neither partner or I can find a penalty double, or the cards lie very favourably and they get a top because it works and no-one else replicated it. Sometimes I can punish them but my perception is that getting duffed up is more frequent. This is one reason I have a defending frequency of 73% for the year to date (according to Pianola), and I am not really a passive bidder.

If I did that semi-regularly, it may look like me bragging (and I have nothing to brag about given my ability at this game). Since you requested, here's one: [hv=pc=n&s=sq93hk82dkq986ct5&w=sk4h97dt742cq9874&n=saj2haj654dj5c632&e=st8765hqt3da3cakj]399|300[/hv] I can't remember what happened after I opened 1♠ with the East cards in third seat, but North ended up in 4♥. Either it got passed round to North who overcalled 2♥, or South overcalled 2♦ then North bid hearts. Easy defence, I cashed a couple of clubs and played a third round, ruffed in dummy. I later made the diamond ace and a heart, one down. Other two tables were in making partscores (one 2♥N, one 2♦S). Here's another, only 87% because it was only played twice including us (we didn't play the last round of the Howell movement, so some boards only got played twice): [hv=pc=n&s=st82hq32dqj84c986&w=saqjhk764dk93ckt3&n=s53ha5dat752caj52&e=sk9764hjt98d6cq74&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1n2c2sp3sppp&p=hqhkhah8h5h9h3h4s4s2sas3sqs5s6s8sjd7sksthjh2h6d2htc6h7c5cqc8c3]399|300[/hv] 2♣ was alerted as Astro (hearts and another), but at the end of the auction, North explained it was DONT (before South had led). I called the director as I would have made a Stayman double if I'd have known that, and the director told me to call him back if we had been damaged (South was told to lead as though he had not heard the correction). As it happens I made ten tricks thanks to an endplay which North could have avoided by ducking the ♣Q, but (very) occasionally I do manage to profit from an opponent's error.

Yes I thought it was very borderline at the time but if I pass and LHO comes in with 3♣ I've got the same decision to make, and knowing my luck I'd be scoring -110 instead of -100.

MPs [hv=pc=n&s=sa984haj2d642ck83&w=s75hkq8754d98cq92&n=sq32h9dqjt75caj54&e=skjt6ht63dak3ct76&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=2hp3hdppp]399|300[/hv] I decided to raise the pre-empt to put South under pressure if they had a decent hand. Sadly we got doubled and went one off for a bottom. One pair stopped in 2♥ and was allowed to make nine tricks, one South overcalled 2NT going two down. Only three and a half tables so the board was only played three times, and funnily enough, if I don't raise we get the best score possible but still get a bottom (bloody MPs), but would anyone else have considered raising on my hand?

It sounds like it would introduce more randomness, which I don't think is a good thing. In games of skill, the pairs who play best should be the ones winning on average, not the ones who manage to ride the wave of randomness.

There is another small chance, declarer holds QT doubleton and the 1♠ was bid on 5 rag. I can see the merit in doubling if that asks for a spade lead. If partner holds the ten from two or three and leads it, we have guided partner to the killing lead. If the layout is such that declarer is always making, it might be a bad score, but it was never going to be more than an average, and sometimes you have to try and generate something your way.

I've heard some play a simple overcall could be as good as 18 HCP, the problem is the higher the upper limit, the larger the range, and the harder it becomes for responder to do the right thing. If a 1 level overcall could be 18 HCP, does this mean responder has to strain a bid on a balanced scattered 8 HCP with no immediate support, just in case?

I tend to have an upper limit of about 16-17 HCP.

Pass. I don't know how good a "constructive" raise can be here but I suspect to make game it would require partner to have the perfect hand, and playing for partner to have the best hand possible only works in magazine bidding challenges, rarely at the table.

There is a very small extra chance if you play the jack first and LHO with the queen covers, or fumbles with their cards before playing low telegraphing where the queen is. It might work against a weak pair.

An interesting hand came up this evening when I was playing with an inexperienced partner. She held this after LHO had opened 1♦, I overcalled 1♥, RHO bid 1♠: ♠A83 ♥A5 ♦A9853 ♣KT7 She didn't know what to do and raised me to 2♥. It worked out well, I had made an aggressive overcall and I made it. When it comes to explaining a structure for responding to a simple overcall, I tend to do something like direct raises are LOTT, unassuming cue bid is either a good raise or a hand looking for game in NT, NT responses are 10-12 (1NT), 13-15 (2NT), 16+ (3NT), new suit is a good suit, 10+ HCP, one round forcing. Does this sound a reasonable guide to give her? I know there are different schools of thought over whether a change of suit should be forcing or merely encouraging, my aim is to come up with something that will work most of the time and is easy for her to understand the logic.

I led my 4th highest heart and soon regretted it: [hv=pc=n&s=sj7ht987dakt8ck95&w=sakt64h532dq4caq2&n=sq85hkq64dj6cj743&e=s932hajd97532ct86]399|300[/hv] It is frustrating to get a 25% board for making a seemingly reasonable lead where no-one else had to lead against a NT contract from my side. Thanks to me giving him a second heart trick he easily made eight tricks by establishing the spade suit. Someone played in 1NT by East and went two off. The other three were in 2♠ making 7, 8 or 9 tricks. This one four board round cost us a good 10%.

The full layout: [hv=pc=n&s=skqj752hqjd93c984&w=sat63hak86dt8ca76&n=s94ht97dkqj72cjt2&e=s8h5432da654ckq53&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1np2c2s3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] I thought about this and struggled to decide between the two most viable options, and eventually decided to lead my top spade, on the basis that whatever lead I choose, if it goes wrong and the other one would have worked, I won't lose the post-mortem. I didn't lose the post-mortem and my lead was wrong. Declarer wins, starts ruffing spades in dummy. I ruff in on the third round (not realising I was ruffing with a natural trump trick) and played my top diamond. Too late, declarer drew trumps in two rounds and because the clubs are 3-3, the diamond loser went away on the ♣3. 4♥+2 was a bottom, everyone else led the diamond. Cards lie perfectly for declarer and for maximum punishment for finding the wrong lead.

Matchpoints against the same decent club pair: [hv=pc=n&n=s94ht97dkqj72cjt2&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1np2c2s3hp4hppp]133|200[/hv] 1NT is 15-17. Do you lead partner's suit or top of your sequence?