AL78

We haven't discussed what to do if opponents bid over the 2♠ enquiry or responses. There is a case in the situation here that partner's pass of 3♠ clearly shows a weak hand with a long minor, so 3NT by me cannot be to play, and it could be used holding support for either minor to say "bid your minor".

The 2♠ bid is used in two situations. Either a takeout into one of the minors or invitational to 3NT. If she is invitational, she passes my 2NT=min response, or bids 3NT over my 3♣. If she is weak with a long minor, she passes or corrects. We play a 2NT response to a 1NT opening as 5-5 in the minors. No we don't play transfers in all four suits. Leaving them in 3♠ would have given us an average plus.

Surely from a logical perspective you alert any bid where the partnership understanding will deviate from what most, if not all, will assume it to be. Thus 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ where 2♥ doesn't show extra strength should be alerted, because it is the standard meaning that it should show extra values. Similarly I alert 1♠ - 3♠ if it is a pre-emptive, rather than a constructive raise, because the former is not standard in the UK and the opponents are entitled to know our agreements.

Whatever, if you never take a view because there is a less than 100% chance it will be right, you will never get very far, in bridge and in life.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt6hk8753da5c7&w=s73h2dq96432c8532&n=sk954hjt6dt8ckj96&e=s82haq94dkj7caqt4&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1np2sp3c3sppdppp]399|300[/hv] 2♠ asks me to bid 2NT with a minimum, or 3♣ with a maximum, and I judged the hand to be closer to maximum. When South comes winging in with 3♠ I feel obligated to double on principle, even though I know partner is trying to take out into a long minor (unfortunately I don't know which one, otherwise I would support it). Unfortunately thanks to the double fit the contract is rock solid. South said "I had a brain freeze" in response to the enquiry from North as to why she didn't bid Landy. At least we finished a respectable score of just over 57% this time.

Another interesting (to me) point has cropped up after I found out another friend of mine played the hand in 3♣ after the auction 2♣ - 2♦, 3♣ - P. They are playing three weak twos and it looks like they have crammed the strong Acol twos and game forcing hands into the 2♣ opening. Her partner claimed if she wanted her to bid again, she should have bid 2NT at her second bid. What do those playing three weak twos typically do with the 2♣ bid, do they open the eight playing trick hands at the one level and keep the 2♣ opening as game forcing?

When playing a 4CM weak NT system, 1X - 1NT is 6-9 HCP, opener with a balanced 15-16 passes, bids 2NT with 17-18 and bids 3NT with 19 (if not opening 2NT on 19-20 HCP). The number of times a game is missed with a maximum 1NT response opposite a balanced 16 is so small it is not worth worrying about. With a 10 count opposint a 1suit opening I will bid a suit at the two level if I can't show a suit at the one level, so 1♦ -(P) - 2♣ is 10+ HCP, at least four clubs.

That is a nice simple auction. I've not heard of the next suit up as an ace ask, does that apply for all trump suits except spades?

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqhakq9d3cakqt3&n=s962h76432dqj854c&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp]266|200[/hv] As South, you pick up a once in a lifetime hand. 6♥ is there, can you devise a route to find it? Only two pairs out of 14 at my club found it.

This is logical. If RHO holds five HCP in hearts, partner has the rest, so they have the DQ, CQJ, and the SA, which means there are likely 13 tricks in either minor.

Is there such a thing as "friendly games"? :D If it is a group of people playing in a private home, then ideally it should be a consensus between the players. If it is a club, then it is down to the local rules/director. My club doesn't forbid psyches but it does record them in case one individual is doing it frequently or their partner is fielding it.

The problem is, people with strong opinions will use Google to find references that support their opinions, and ignore anything that contradicts them, and you can find anything to support an opinion if you look hard and for long enough. One of the things I much appreciate on this forum is the apparent objectivity when it comes to bridge related questions. If I post a hand up where I got a poor result, if it was my fault, people will tell me and suggest what I should have done, but they will also tell me if I'm unreasonably blaming myself. In other words, there appears to be no bias, just objective analysis.

I know what you are saying, and yes, I accept there is luck in matchpoints, especially in a 12 board session where getting fixed on one board can cost over 8%, but the reason I despair is that I don't like to put things down to luck, that feels too much like trying to duck responsibility, and secondly, long term results strongly imply I have regressed significantly over the last few years. The problem is I don't know why, and I don't know what to do about it. When I am getting below 50% over and over and over again, I have to take a look at myself, especially when there are one or two pairs who are in the high 50's-60's regularly, why aren't their results getting hammered by bad luck? It is because I am consistently doing something wrong, and I can't yet find something consistent to work on. I can't find a consistent flaw in my actions on my bad boards. It could be a bit like Rocky Balboa in Rocky III, I may have to retrain myself on how to play a good game of bridge (like Rocky had to be retrained to beat Clubber Lang).

I've just had a look at board 6 again, and I did analyse it wrong. If declarer cashes their last club I only make the heart ace at the end anyway, declarer decided to be flashy and take the marked endplay, hence I was cursing myself after for not jettisoning the heart jack and holding onto one spade as long as possible. I knew partner had the spade king, I was thinking it doesn't matter because declarer will eventually have to lead a heart to my AJ, oops I forgot he can throw me in with that last diamond.

I was North. First board Defensive cock-up by me. When in with the ♥K I must have niscounted declarer's tricks, because I didn't think he would run off so many before partner gets in and I cash my spade winners. I should have just taken my spade tricks then given up. 12.1% Second board I thought partner was unlucky with 25 HCP and a double fit that no game makes (at least double dummy), but a load of others managed to make 3NT and 4♠, and some managed to stop in part scores. 32.1% Third board One of these high level partscore battles. What do I do when opps bid 5♠ over me? I decided not to risk pushing them to a making slam or even taking a phantom, but evidently I should have done, those who bid six were allowed to play there, and several were allowed to play in 5♣ or 5♥, only seven pairs in a spade slam. Partner asked if she should have bid 3♥ instead of 3C, I thought her hand was good enough, what do you think? 41.4% Fourth board I think partner should have opened a weak 2♠ here, then I blast to 4♠ which might shut them out. Three off is a good score at this vulnerability. Surprisingly a few of those allowed to play in hearts failed to make 12 tricks. 29.3% Fifth board Another cock-up by me on the opening lead. Leading from a suit headed by an unsupported ace is horrible, leading a singleton trump is horrible, so that leaves clubs. Leading a low one might mislead partner so I led top of nothing, which completely blows a trick by setting up the club suit for two heart discards. Other pairs are bidding to game going off, so that was worth 16.4%. Sixth board Third defensive cock-up. Like the motorist who failed to see the cyclist directly in front of him, I failed to see the obvious endplay coming up which requires me to hold onto a spade and throw the ♥J. 33.6% Seventh board I didn't have much to do with this one, I showed partner my hand in the bidding. Partner bid too high and went for -200 on a partscore deal. Of course a load of people are allowed to play in 2♠. 32.9% This is over a 12 board session. It is very demoralising continuously getting sub 50% results when years ago I could confidently get over 50% on a club evening and often over 55%. I'm not sure whether it is worth it to keep plugging away as I don't know how to stop my own careless mistakes or to generally get better at reading the cards.

It wouldn't just drive people out of the game, it would kill the game, because it would effectively make it against the rules to be a beginner, then how do people learn the game?

He is a gambler by nature.

With a double black suit fit opposite a distributional hand, I'd have bid 4♠.

I would. I don't like raising pre-empts on 4333 hands with no ruffing potential, and who says they won't find a double when it is right? It wasn't that long ago someone passed a takeout double for penalties against me holding a Yarborough.

On a 4333 hand with 11 losers if partner has nothing in clubs and no ruffing potential? Where are the tricks coming from? If partner can make nine or ten tricks with just the diamond ace as contribution from me, she would have opened Benji 2♣ from my perspective at the time.

Yesterday evening I experienced one of the worst examples of biased hands on BBO (I'm not claiming the hands are generally biased, although it often feels that way). It was the EBU 12 board sessions, but it took until round 5 of 6 until I was able to make an opening bid, and I didn't declare a single hand. It was at least more enjoyable than past similar experiences because partner and I held hands where we could defend with a plan and get the opps down many times, thanks to their terrible bidding. This hand was one of the freakiest I've come across in a while. I was East: [hv=pc=n&s=sk975h976dj7c9753&w=s8hkqj3dk986542ca&n=saq642ha8dqckjt82&e=sjt3ht542dat3cq64&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1d2dp2s3d3sp4s5ddppp]399|300[/hv] 2♦ showed both black suits. How often do you see someone open at the one level, then bid to the five level opposite a silent partner, to a cold contract doubled? Unfortunately partner misclicked and crashed the ♦AK on the same trick, but aside from that, the contract is cold, and 4♠ the other way comes close to making, it is one off I think.

I'd open 1♠. Seven losers and an easy second bid of 2♠ if partner does anything other than support.

I pass and give partner a chance to bid again. Yes bidding hearts or doubling might work beautifully if partner has support, but it will also be dreadful if partner bids his spades again. If you play partner for the perfect hand, you will end up disappointed most of the time. It is more of a question what to do if South raises to 3♣ and it is passed round to you, then it is more tempting to bid 3♥ as we then certainly have at least an eight card fit, and hearts is where it is most likely.

I've been having a discussion with one of my regular partners after enquiring how she and one of her other regular partners got to 5♥ on a competitive hand going six down. I have found out that this other partner insists on doubling over an opening bid as showing an opening strength hand, even when holding a biddable suit. This partner is an aggressive player and likes to overcall on hands which I suspect many on here wouldn't dream of doing, but I was wondering if anyone on here plays such a convention or has come across it? For info, here is the hand. [hv=pc=n&s=saq6h62dakj874cj6&w=s5haq9dq5caq98742&n=sk92hj875dt962ck5&e=sjt8743hkt43d3ct3&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1dd2d2s3dpp3h4d4h5d5hppp]399|300[/hv] I'm not certain of the auction beyond 4♦ so am guessing.

1♠ - 2♦ 2♠ - 3♥ 3NT I don't play 2♠ here as promising six. This is the classic high combined strength misfit, which I suspect will see some blasting to 6NT.