AL78

You can afford two more losers, and it looks like there is a safety play in spades and clubs to minimise the chance of more than one loser when either suit breaks badly. Some of the Bridgemaster deals operate along this theme and I confess I don't know the optimal play in the black suits. Is it small to the king, small back to the nine? It looks like there is potentially an elimination and throw in to force the defence to open up the clubs.

Seing both EW hands, why wouldn't declarer take a heart ruff before trying to draw trumps. They are down if the defender with the spade ace also held three diamonds and no more than two spades and leads a diamond for a ruff, but declarer is down whatever they do on that layout. It looks like declarer was playing for a defender with itchy fingers to try cashing an ace when in with the spade ace. That is the only chance I can see of a 12th tricks apart from a heart ruff in dummy.

There is that as well, but even if they aren't playing a two suited overcall, I don't know many people who would overcall a strong NT with KTxxx, although there are one or two at my club who are insane enough to do it.

It wasn't actually my idea, it was suggested to me over 20 years ago by my student housemate/bridge partner. I personally don't think it is a good idea.

I have just gone through it on a solver and it looks like the club lead was optimal and it doesn't matter if declarer does run the clubs and throws the diamond loser, on a diamond lead to me and the ♥T pushed through, declarer can ultimately throw a heart loser on the clubs so we are held to two heart tricks, as opposed to three heart tricks on best defence given how declarer played the hand. You are right, the mistake on the actual play was cashing the heart ace. Presumably partner was playing me for a doubleton heart. If she exits passively with a diamond she has everything sat over declarer, so must make another four tricks on top of the two tricks cashed. How does partner know to play me for ♥T9x and wait for her tricks instead of being active and gambling on me holding Tx? I guess when she has seen three clubs and one diamond in declarer's hand, declarer is more likely to hold 6-3 in the majors overcalling a strong NT missing the ♠AQJ than 5-4.

Takeout.

I forgot about this board which I think we were duffed up on, but wondered whether I could have done anything better in the East seat. [hv=pc=n&s=skt7653hkj7d3cq94&w=saqhaq82dkj74cj63&n=s94h654d9852cakt7&e=sj82ht93daqt6c852&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1npp2sppp&p=c3c7c2c9cqc6ctc5c4cjckc8casjd3d7hthjhqh4hah5h3h7h8h6h9]399|300[/hv] Needless to say we didn't get the defence right. A diamond lead takes it off but after a club lead declarer plays out the clubs throwing the diamond loser whilst I ruff in with a natural trump trick (not sure if it makes any difference if I don't ruff). We took three spades and two hearts in the end. At the other table playing a weak NT they ended up in 3NT which is unbeatable thanks to the 4-3 club split and all major suit finesses working. Is there anything I can do after 2♠ is passed round to me, or shall I put this one down to bad luck with a small contribution from less than perfect defence?

I suck at teams as well as pairs. It has been said that I am too passive and that is why I defend a disproportionate frequency on average. Here is what happens when I bid aggressively, in these cases reinforcing my pattner's pre-empt. [hv=pc=n&s=sq53ha6432dj643ca&w=sjt4ht95dckqt9765&n=sak97hkqjdqt952c2&e=s862h87dak87cj843&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=3cd5cdppp]399|300[/hv] Four off, -800. Teammates went one off in 5♦X when they forgot to draw the last trump, 14 imps out. [hv=pc=n&s=s984haq94dkj3cqt7&w=saqjt63h73d2c9843&n=sht862dat86cakj65&e=sk752hkj5dq9754c2&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1c2s3c4sppdppp]399|300[/hv] I should have probably taken more notice of the vulnerability and bid only 3♠, I did think for a few seconds at the time, and it seemed timid with a 10 card fit and ruffing potential in clubs. I was punished for my aggressiveness with a -500 against opponents only bidding 3♠ going one off undoubled, that was another 9 imps out. For a bonus, here is what happens when I take a conservative view. [hv=pc=n&s=s8654hj5d8754ckj7&w=sk97hkq73dqjtc643&n=st2ha86da92cqt985&e=saqj3ht942dk63ca2&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1cp1h2c2h2s3hppp]399|300[/hv] I asked what the 2♣ bid meant, and got the answer "I don't know". I have suggested to partner to ditch the opening 1♣ on two cards with this East shape, but she doesn't want to make the change. When she bids 3♥, I have got quite a good hand in terms of HCP but it sounds like the ♠K is over me and game sounds less than 50%, so I passed. Wrong, 10 tricks come in when partner holds the king because she played the hearts from the top and dropped the doubleton jack. Flat board at least.

There is an argument that we could do away with alerting completely, everyone has fully completed system cards, and the opponents can ask if they need to know the meaning of a bid.

Yes I know, that is one major problem I have, not taking in all the inferences, and the one or two I overlook are the ones that would point me in the right direction instead of guessing or trying to be passive when it is wrong.

I was reluctant to go beyond 3NT, hence why I didn't bid 4♣. It wouldn't be the first time we've been in 5minor for a bad score because most others are scoring better in 3NT.

I still think I could have thought it through a bit more. I'm not sure whether or not this partner knows about hi-low leading to ask for a ruff, so I probably shouldn't have read anything into the low diamond lead.

MPs, 5CM, strong NT. [hv=pc=n&s=skqt3hkj7542dqcq4&w=sht9dk8432cakt952&n=s8762haq83d965c87&e=saj954h6dajt7cj63&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1s2h3c3hdppp]399|300[/hv] I intended my double as takeout to show heart shortage, something in the minors and not wanting to go past 3NT if partner held a double stop. This should go off, but I failed to twig during the defence that partner had a spade void. The defence started with ♣AK, then she led a low diamond to my ace. ♠A and another takes it down immediately, but thinking declarer had ♦KQ doubleton and noting partner had led a low diamond, not a high one, I led a diamond back and that was the end of the defence, the only other trick my ♠A. I should have probably guessed anyway partner had a void since otherwise why didn't she switch to a spade at trick three? That was a complete bottom, no surprise there. No-one found a minor slam (it's not a good slam), a couple were in 4♥ one off, one other made 3♥, but we should really be in a minor game, not defending, although getting them down would have given us nearly 75% on the board which would have been better than zero. One day I'll learn to slow down and think things through a bit more rigorously.

It is the first round of a running competition, 2nd Friday of the month over the year with the best six results counting, so I guess a single winner per round is better than a two winner movement (I really don't know)?

A valid point, East's hand is better than his bidding has implied. In that case West bids 5NT and East bids 7♥.

Yes I'm aware of that. My partner had much better hands (average HCP 10.92) and declared seven times. As a partnership we did well when defending.

I was put off trying the spades because if I played ace and jack and the nine didn't show up, I have a difficult decision to make. Do I switch to playing on diamonds, or do I try for the 3-3 spade split, knowing that if it is not 3-3, I have just given the defence three spade tricks and they have knocked out my heart honors, so I am almost certainly going down. The fewer entries to my hand wasn't appealing either. I thought if I play on diamonds and hit a 5-1 break, I might be able to recover if I can hit a favourable spade layout.

I'm not familiar with 2/1 so as a wild guess, and arguably being biased by seeing both hands: [hv=d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1dp2cp2np3hp4hp4sp5dp5np7h]133|100[/hv]

I like the sound of that but wouldn't like to see it applied universally. I am irritated by trundlebunnies who are experienced enough to know better but novices naturally take more time to decide what to bid because they have not built up a mental encyclopedia of the system and hand pattern matching. I suspect you would lose those who are incapable of doing anything quickly, which might be a significant proportion of players, and once people drop out, their partners often follow. How about having a subset of sessions as fast bridge, not speedball level but faster than average, say, five or six minutes a round, then people have a choice. I reckon there are players out there who would enjoy a full session finishing in little more than two hours, maybe those like me who work in front of a computer all day and would prefer not to be in front of it all evening as well. It is probably easier to limit the length of a round than limit the length of time to bid, what happens if someone goes over 30 seconds?

This was X-imps with a Howell movement. It was West who got the raw deal, average HCP 7.54 which is about the lowest mean HCP I have seen in a full session. At least at MPs, if you cop the poorer hands on average and are defending a lot, you can compensate for opponents bidding to a game or slam not found by the field by tight defence on another board taking one more trick than the room. On the evening in question, our big swing in was opponents going off in 6NT which could have made by taking a double finesse with Tx opposite AJx to set up a 12th trick (the honors were split). Our big swing out was opponents bidding 3NT on a combined 18 count making which wasn't found elsewhere, they had no heart stop but the hearts were 4-3, all we can do is cash them then they have nine on top. The rest of the boards were mostly small (< 5 imps) scores in and out, which we got more on the right side of resulting in a modest plus score overall.

I thought about this for a good minute before playing to trick one. It reminds me of some of those BridgeMaster hands where there is a best line which works whenever it is possible to make the contract, but I don't have the talent to quickly see it. I missed the potential in clubs and focused on the diamonds and spades. I looked at ♠A, run the jack, and tried to work out what I needed for that to work, coming to the conclusion I'd need to set up a spade losing the lead no more than two times, which needs the spades 3-3 or 4-2 with one defender holding KQ or 9x, or 5-1 with a stiff honor. I couldn't work out the odds of this layout so turned to the diamond suit. Ducking a diamond or playing ace, king and another, win the return and knock out the last diamond if they are not 3-3, I set up a third diamond trick before they knock out my heart honors or the hand with four diamonds has short hearts. I went for the simpler play on the diamonds playing the ace and the king, which is probably the wrong line, I think I should duck the second trick to avoid screwing myself if they are 5-1 which might give me chance to play on spades or clubs. There might be a way to combaine chances but I wasn't seeing it. As it happens on the layout there were two simple right answers. Both diamonds and spades were 3-3 so I set up two tricks losing the lead only once and finished with 10 tricks. A couple of heroes made 12 tricks when it was played the other way around and they got a low club lead from QJxxx. I likely took a sub-optimal line, and unlike on BridgeMaster, didn't get punished for it, but looking at it later, couldn't see a clear way of combining chances in spades, hearts and clubs without compromising safety by setting up tricks for the defence, hence why I posted it on here.

[hv=pc=n&s=st8742haq8da3ct92&n=sajhk5dk8765cak74]133|200[/hv] Cross-IMP scoring. You are in 3NT, opposition silent. ♥J led: Eight top tricks, diamonds and spades look good for a ninth trick, but what is the safest line to maximise the chance of establishing a trick on one of the long suits?

That might be true but being right doesn't mean you have to reply in an antagonistic way. It is no good being right if you come across as an arsehole and end up alienating people instead of educating them, unless you get off on knocking people down, hence the somewhat hostile reply.

I played in a X-imps session yesterday evening (not on BBO) and again was sat in the wrong place as far as picking up decent hands was concerned. 24 boards, declared twice, mean HCP 8.54 (why am I bothering to work through the BridgeMaster hands?). It got me thinking that if the deals are biased toward one orientation, it is harder to do well in a one winner movement if you are on the wrong side of the bias? My thinking is that whilst those following me will get the same poor hands on average, there will be other partnerships who primarily sat the other way and picked up the good hands with games and slams on, which gives them more opportunity to get big swings in (by bidding and making the thinner games and slams, or those contracts which require good technique less likely to be found by the less experienced players). Fortunately our defence was decent and we finished fifth out of 15 with +18. Two of the strongest pairs ran away with it with +88 and +81.6, thrid place was a mere +37.2 by comparison (we were 0.44 imps away from fourth).

That clearly shows how bad the situation is in the UK. It is partly lack of action this time last year that has put the UK amongst the worst affected globally by this pandemic. Our wonderful prime minister is showing he hasn't learnt a damned thing by fannying about wondering whether to implement a full lockdown again in the face of this new strain and soaring cases. Just do it if the data suggests that is the best thing to do, delaying isn't going to do anything productive.