AL78

I've tried the BM hands before, I'll go through them again. I couldn't do most of the Expert and World Class hands, they were too deep for me and some involved techniques I am, not familiar with. The only disadvantage of BM is that you are supposed to play the hands like IMPS where you have to find the best line to make the contract, not worrying about overtricks. It is sometimes not clear to me whether it is best at MPs to take a safe line which guarentees the contract, or take a risk which will result in an extra trick or two if it works, but goes down if it doesn't. An example would be declaring 3NT, you have an easy nine tricks, do you take a finesse for an overtrick if you go down when the finesse loses? You are right that I need to slow down and think more at trick one. Trouble is I'm impatient by nature and occasionally we come under time pressure if the opposition have been slow.

I understand, but this partner is not open to taking on new conventions or modifying existing ones*. With a different partner we did agree to try a modified Jacoby that may have been linked from a post in this forum, but we ultimately went back to the standard version. The problem is Jacoby comes up so infrequently that we don't get anywhere near enough practice with it to commit the modified version to memory. How do you practice a convention that only comes up a few times a year at most? *She plays Lebensohl opposite TOX of weak twos, but won't play it after interference over our 1NT opening. Not a big deal given the situation where it would be useful comes up once in a blue moon as well.

I admit it was much better than expected when I saw it after the play. I was expecting some semi-balanced rubbish with four card support failing to provide any help in the defence, which is why I lacked the courage to double. I was expecting opener to have a singleton or maybe even a void spade (as it happened dummy had the shortage) and was concerned about conceeding 4♣X= on some fantastic NS layout (which wouldn't be the first time). I was expecting North to have a stronger hand than that to go to the four level on their own vulnerable. Partner doesn't do fit jumps.

This version of Bergen is one she picked up from a book, going through 3♣ is 8-10 HCP with 3 card support, going through 3♦ is 7-11 HCP with 4 card support, leaving a jump raise as pre-emnptive. I don't think this is the standard definition of Bergen.

Another evening, another lousy 45% score. It seems my declarer play was lacking. https://tinyurl.com/yhxerncv Partner misclicked so we ended up in 4♥ instead of 4♠, double dummy I can make 4♥ but am likely not going too. Once the 5-1 trump split was revealed I was in a terrible mess and just scrambled for as many tricks as I could see. I'm sure there is a way of escaping for less than three off though. https://tinyurl.com/yfdxlptl Not convinced I played this right at the time (it didn't feel like it). Double dummy says I should be held to nine tricks, but others made more. 27.8% for that effort. https://tinyurl.com/yzfx5ags Again there is a way to make this and I didn't find it. All but two of the other tables got a club lead into the AQ which makes it easy. I ended up ruffing a club and hoping I could throw one on a diamond which works if they are 3-3 or 4-2 and the one with two had only two spades (not happening). I had entry problems back to hand. https://tinyurl.com/yf5ry4w8 A dumb line of trying to ruff clubs which can't work except on a very unlikely layout. Should have made 12 tricks, only made 11. The boards where I declared (five of them) were collectively worth a very poor 31%. Must do better. I had no clue how to bid on this hand: https://tinyurl.com/yfvgmtnk We missed the game that almost everyone else bid. I didn't visualise game with 7-8 losers opposite a partner that could only dredge up a simple raise, and I had lied about my spade length. This is a hand for the double-shows-any-opening-hand players. As a bonus, here is a ridiculous hand: https://tinyurl.com/yj2gvcok How often do you make game in the opponents contract in defence? Wasn't even a top, someone was allowed to make 3NT our way. There were several other bad scores that I can't see how I could have done anything better.

So that's where I've been going wrong. :lol:

Sorry, I failed to notice that taking the spade finesse early can't risk the contract because the defence won't have a setting trick. That is what comes of posting late in the evening after a bridge session.

N S P 2♣ 2♦ 3NT 6NT or N S P 2♣ 2NT 6NT depending on whether you always relay with 2♦ or whether you make a positive response with an AK or better. The question is, assuming you play in 6NT and it is matchpoints, do you take the spade finesse for a 13th trick if a spade wasn't led at trick one?

Could it be 6-5 in the majors, looking for game in the best fit?

I'm probably missing something major, but given West overcalled, he is likely to have all three aces and certainly at least two of them. Playing for that layout, upon winning the heart queen which gives declarer a seventh trick, doesn't playing through West in spades and diamonds guarentee the contract? If West flies up with either ace, that immediately establishes two tricks in the suit. If West ducks the spade, come back to hand in clubs and lead a diamond. I think West is powerless given declarer has a second heart stop. How did declarer play it?

I agree that is a nice instructive hand showing how to infer the layout and plan the play accordingly. What makes it easy to do the former is the fact that one opponent opened the bidding, your side ended up in game on a combined 24 count, and the partner of the opening bidder showed up with the ♣K at trick one. The meaning of the absence of a heart switch is something I might miss myself if I was tired, but it comes down to what a competant defender would most likely play if they held a heart honor sequence. "So where does that leave us? We’ve lost two tricks already." At that stage, you've lost three tricks, ♣K, ♣ruff, and ♠A, doesn't affect the rest of the analysis though.

Why does 5♦ show anything other than 1st round diamond control (if you cue 1st followed by 2nd round controls)? The cue bid hasn't taken the partnership past game (5♣ did that) or past the last bail out spot of 5♥.

And here: http://www.acblunit390.org/Simon/tartan2.htm

The version I played was EBU level 4 legal: 2♥: 5-5 weak hearts and a minor or Acol 2 in hearts or 20-21 balanced. 2♠: 5-5 weak spades and another or Acol 2 in spades. Responses: 2♥ - 2♠ asks for the hand type. 2NT = strong bal, 3m = weak 5-5, 3♥ = Acol 2 in hearts. 2♠ - 2NT asks for the hand type. New suit = weak 5-5, 3♠ = Acol 2 in spades.

Can't believe that 2♣ overcall, but what do I know?

I would pass. This is about the most minimal responding hand possible, 4333 shape and 11 losers makes it unappealing to support partner in clubs if I am not forced to bid. Pass and let partner bid again, which they will if they are good for their reverse. The question is what to do if the opponents compete to 3♠ over whatever partner or you bid next.

I agree, I considered the problem when responder has club support and 5 or 6♣ might be the optimal contract. With the bidding systems I play with people locally, this sort of hand where opener cannot show a suit which responder has support for is a problem and there is the risk of ending up in a horrible NT contract with a club game or even slam excellent. There are probably ways of tweaking the system to alleviate this kind of problem.

This is going to depend on your system. I'm only familiar with Acol and 5CM that isn't 2/1 forcing, but in Acol land and I think many who play 5CM, 2♠ could only be five (otherwise what do you do with 5S+4C and a minimum?), and 3♦ would show a minimum 2/1 (9-10 HCP) and a long suit. This is a problem hand because opener is too weak to show the second suit which partner might have a fit with and where 5 or 6♣ might be the best place to play. I guess if you are playing 2/1 GF responder can bid 1NT first which gives opener room to show the club suit. I would guess a lot of people would play 2NT by responder on the second round as invitational with a heart stop. If responder wants to force to game, they have to find a game forcing bid, such as bidding a new suit at the three level, FSF here. I don't claim this is optimal but if I were playing with a pickup partner at my club, I would assume this bidding structure.

With my partners, no. This is the classic two suited hand where partner is stacked in the other two suits. You are probably in a poor game that will be tough to bring in, but that is misfits for you.

"Losing the plot" means bringing together the information in my mind piece by piece, then at some point running out of storage space in my mind so adding another piece of information involves forgetting an earlier one, so it is like trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle whilst accidentally losing pieces on the floor. I ultimately resign myself to guessing because I have to do something and I can't sit there thinking all evening, and I guess wrong.

I think teaching beginners a quantitative hand valuation method like HCP and points for shortage is a good start, but that is all it is, a start. Once they have got used to that, they should be taught what influences trick taking potential between a pair of hands. Double fits have high trick taking potential, misfits don't. High cards work best in long suits. High cards are good if they are in a suit partner has bid, less so in an opponent's suit. In a suit contract, a void opposite four rag is good, a void opposite KQxxx isn't. Get them to play constructed hands so they can appreciate why some hands are easy to play and others are horrible. Once they have understood the principles of how hands fit together and trick taking potential, they should be taught how to infer the presence or absence of these principles during the auction, based on what partner's bids are telling them about their hand and how that hand likely fits with their own. If you can understand the fundamental theory, a point counting system is basically a simplified quantitative approximation to those fundamental principles. With experience one learns how to apply these principles to investigate and place the final contract.

This is how my thinking would go: 1. Declarer is limited by the initial pass, but has enough for a 2/1 response, giving them 9-11 HCP and probably balanced or semi-balanced. 2. Partner also passed first time, so they have less than 12 HCP. There are 18 HCP between declarer and myself, which gives 22 HCP for partner and declarer, since neither of them could open, they must have exactly 11 HCP each. 3. If both unseen hands hold 11 HCP and couldn't find an opening bid, they are balanced or a bad 5422 shape. 4. Declarer holds a doubleton spade. With three they would be playing in spades, with one they would be unbalanced and likely opened light in their long suit. Therefore partner holds four spades. 5. The club lead looks strange, it is clearly from shortage, a doubleton or top of nothing given the six is the highest of the spot cards held by the hidden hands. Normally my partners lead the unbids suit against a NT contract, but this lead looks like an attempt to be safe holding a broken heart holding not wishing to lead into a tenace. Partner wants me to push a heart through declarer. The clubs are most likely split 2-2 in the unseen hands (declarer with a singleton club and 11 HCP might have opened light). 6. I estimate based on the above declarer is 2452 shape and partner is 4342 shape. Plan: I think partner and declarer hold broken honor holdings in both red suits. It looks like our tricks are coming form there but care is required. If declarer holds a doubleton club and two spades to an honor, they have a communication problem when trying to set up winners in both black suits so I duck the opening lead, if declarer continues with clubs, win the second one, then it depends on declarer's heart holding. Do I play low or push the ten through, it depends on where the nine and the eight are. I think playing the ten is more likely to set up a slow extra trick in declarer's hand so I play low (4th best), hoping partner has one of the eight or nine, and will only have one of those if they only hold three hearts. The problem is if the layout is as I estimated, partner might be endplayed on winning the heart. Am I even remotely close?

That sounds like good advice. Look at all the boards, not just the disasters. I don't feel comfortable with attributing blame to partner. If I post a bad hand with a "look what partner did here!" attitude, I could end up looking very stupid when it turns out I was at fault, so preferable to assume I could have done something better until proved otherwise. I still think there are many things I am doing wrong given the last few years of mediocre to poor results, too long to attribute to randomness. I'll take MikeH's advice and practice analysing hands properly, and if one looks like I messed up, ask for advice on here how I could have avoided the mistake at the table.

MikeH responds with a fantastic post which is a wake-up call for me. Prior to a few years ago, I used to be reasonably competitive at the club, in that I could mostly get above average and had a fair chance at coming in the top three, but over the last five years or so I have regressed, and now it seems I have to bust a gut to get to 50%. This has destroyed pretty much all confidence in myself, so I am inclined after a session where I feel we should have done better to point the finger at myself. This is backed up by the fact that when the partner I was playing with here plays with other people, she tends to do much better, which adds evidence to the theory that it is me dragging my partnerships down (to use an analogy, if you can't get on with everyone you interact with, it is not them, it's you, to high probability). I am also aware of my frustrating lack of ability to acquire all inferences when defending and put them all together to come up with the play that is most likely to be best. I either miss one crucial piece of information and/or I end up with two possible lines, A and B, which require play C or D, and if I get it wrong I blow the defence. Hence I think getting hold of one or more recommended books by responders here (thanks for the suggestions) would be a good idea, I feel I am missing something at the table every session. I need to stop the self deprecation and accept that occasionally my partner could have done better, we got stitched up, got the wrong pair at the wrong time, or had a difficult decision/guess to make and got it wrong. To answer MikeH's questions: "On the second one, you did make a mistake. Why did you lead the heart 10? I understand a heart, but what were you thinking when you led the 10? I’m not beating up on you. You need to think about why you led the 10...what were you thinking might happen?" I was undecided between the ten or a small one, and was trying to figure out the layouts where each one would be right or wrong, and then from that figure out the probability that either lead would be right. I kind of lost the plot trying to do that so just decided to hit and hope with the ten. Had I remembered what happened the last time I played top of nothing with a high spot card I would likely have led a low one, but yes, by doing what I did, I directed my partner toward a losing play. "On the third one, what do you think you did wrong?" I seem to recall somewhere on here that if playing 5CM with a short club, and partner opens a club, don't take it as lead directing and it is not necessarily good to lead a club. At the time, I couldn't see anything better, and even playing a short club, the majority of the time partner opens 1C it is a genuine suit, so I thought it was at least as good as any other lead. "I’m not going to discuss the fourth hand other than to repeat the basic question....what the heck do you think you did wrong?" I don't think I did anything wrong on the fourth hand. We have only four defensive tricks and we took them. We got a poor score because there were only two other pairs, and one of them overbid to 4S. All the EW's took four tricks in the defence. MikeH is correct that I (we) occasionally get away with errors. There was one board from that evening where I was playing in 3C and I did something wrong (can't remember what), RHO had got in, I had to knock out the DQ to get home, but on best defence I am forced in trumps before I can do it, and I should go down. Instead of forcing me in trumps, RHO cashed the DQ setting up my hand before forcing me, so I just made. On the other hand this one (https://tinyurl.com/yfl5mysw) was a train wreck, I think I should make 5H but got a spade ruff against me because I didn't expect them to be 6-1. There was this 25% board that I didn't previously include. I don't think we could have done better on this, unless you think I should have strained a bid over the Michaels or partner should have done something over 3H? https://tinyurl.com/yhurzcwk

Another evening where I didn't know how to defend. This was my effort on the first board: https://tinyurl.com/yzd4hqgu What do you lead from the East hand here? I just led a diamond and hoped partner had a useful card, she didn't. Let them make eight tricks when we should get them off. How do you defend at MPs with a hand like East where there appears to be no good lead and you are getting in most of the time during the defence? https://tinyurl.com/ydzl5h8a This one I managed to set up heart tricks for declarer by getting too active. https://tinyurl.com/ygr3sffk Leading a suit partner has bid in the absence of anything looking better turns out to be an awful lead. Sets up a club for declarer to throw the losing heart. I think the following two 25% scores were unavoidable: https://tinyurl.com/yz5ol65d https://tinyurl.com/yhajbujz 50% overall, but only 44% on defence. I'm struggling much of the time to come up with a plan at the table which has the best chance of either working well, or working least badly. There is a lot of if-then-else but can't seem to put it all together to defend solidly. Can any of you experts give me some inspiration please.