AL78

The only think is you don't have hearts stopped. Everything else is consistent.

West sent me the hand and was initially (lightly) complaining about it, she never said anything about the opening bid. It is one or two posters here that have latched on to this. EW haven't come across psyches or how to deal with them, West seems to be of the opinion that psyches are wrong, I keep telling her it is part of the game, they are perfectly legal, they don't come up very often. From what she told me, East never cottened on to the psyche, believing she held exactly five spades and there was a 4-0 break, that may have been why he passed. Normally he is quite an aggressive bidder, so somewhat unusual he didn't bid anything during the auction.

Whatever you think of the auction, I only asked whether East doubling on the first round to show spades is a standard way of exposing the psyche. No need to lay into me, I wasn't even playing that evening, and as I've said, if it were me I would have overcalled on the West hand and the psyche would never have happened.

Her partner prefers to play that a with an opening hand and a suit, to double first, hence she doubled instead of overcalling.

Rule of 19: Add your HCP and the length of your two longest suits. If it comes to 19 or more you can open. I have heard a variant on this called the rule of 21, where you include number of quick tricks, if it comes to 20.5 or more (green vuln), 21 or more (equal vuln), or 21.5 or more (red vuln) you can open. A point knocked off for Qx, Jx stiff K, a point added for AJT. You evidently have come across a poor bridge teacher. Don't tar everyone with the same brush. I've been complemented by students when I have given bridge workshops at my club, I put lessons together almost entirely from my own knowledge and experience, only very occasionally looking up what is standard to teach to beginners where there is some ambiguity.

I'd be surprised at that. Most beginners I know were taught the rule of 19. I know an experienced player at the club that doesn't like people upgrading any balanced 11 count to a weak NT (e.g. one with working honors and several tens and nines). He thinks if they do that their card should say 11-14 1NT.

These differences in styles are something that will be ironed out as we play more frequently. This other partner plays a different style to me, but she is open to playing in line with the way I bid.

I questioned her decision to double rather than overcall 1♠, and she said her partner likes a double first with an opening hand. Personally I only do this if I have the equivalent of a strong opening hand with a 5+ card suit, and AFAIK that is standard.

This hand came up with my friend and her partner. [hv=pc=n&s=s5hajt85dkq8ct864&w=sajt9863hkq2d73ca&n=s2h94dajt54cqj932&e=skq74h763d962ck75&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hd1sp2h3sppp]399|300[/hv] This was worth 21%, all but one were in 4 or 5♠ making 10 or 11 tricks. The 21% was obtained because three pairs went off in 5♠. I've heard that this is a basic situation to psyche, and I recall there is a way for the opponents to expose it. Is it doubling in 4th seat to show a spade suit?

I don't follow. If South ruffs, they can get off lead with a club, I don't see an endplay. If South ruffs, you need the rest, which means picking up the spade and diamond queen. How do you know for certain the diamond finesse is working, which you need to throw both the heart and club losers? You don't know for certain the spade layout, although South holding Qxx is what I'd play for.

My plan would be to try and kill the dangerous looking club suit by attacking hearts and knocking out the ace (maybe a key entry). Trick one signal for a heart switch with the queen, the heart partner switches too will determine whether my plan is likely to work. I'm hoping partner has ♥QJ and four trumps so declarer cannot draw them and leave a trump in dummy as an entry. If partner's lead suggests an absence of heart honors, force dummy with a diamond after getting in with the king, hope that partner has a slow trump winner.

It refers to the best line to take when you need to pick up the queen with an eight or nine card fit. If you have an eight card fit missing the queen, the odds favour taking a finesse. If you have a nine card fit missing the queen, the odds favour playing AK, trying to drop the queen. The "ever" and "never" refers to playing for the finesse instead of the drop. This saying assumes you have no other information about the opposing hands, so if one opponent has made a pre-emptive opening, you might prefer to play their partner for Qxx(x) instead of trying to drop the queen.

I can see some merit in opening the West hand in 3rd seat, but why open the North and South hands? Partucularly South, opening that 1♣ is asking for 4th seat to overcall in a major and make +110. That is what would happen if North was dealer.

Yes that was my thought. I'd play two rounds of diamonds, if they are 3-1 stiff Q play a third round, then play a spade to dummy (heart back to hand if necessary first). It seems to come down to guessing the diamonds, but I can't see much to go on other than to wonder whether the SK lead followed by a heart switch suggests anything about the defender's distributions.

Yes I now accept I was way too timid on hand 2. I should look for reasons to come in, not reasons to pass, and shouldn't keep anticipating the worst. I got lucky with my timidity in that NS were also too passive. Hand 3: We discussed some of the hands after, and I pointed out that based on the overcall, when she played a spade to the ace and a spade back, no honor cards appearing, the odds favour playing the ten, not the queen. Playing the queen works if North holds Jx, playing the ten works if North holds Kx and if South holds KJxx, which is likely. I also pointed out that when she played the ace of clubs and South followed with the jack, finessing North for the queen is certain to fail if they have their bid, because North has already shown one spade, so holds two clubs, thus play for the drop on the second round. On this line it makes. I'm not sure I would have bid 4S on her hand given it is a minimum with a wasted HQ, but it nearly worked out well thanks to the double fit and well placed black suit honor cards. To be fair to my partner she is not pointing out my errors to shift blame or score points, she is interested in why I made a decision that was different to what she would have done in my position. She is keen to learn and improve (so am I), and we have decided to play more frequently to get a better feel for each others bidding style. One of her partners is aggressive, another is more solid and conservative, so she is now going to align her bidding judgement towards what she sees in me as a more conservative style.

Here are a couple hand from the same session which shows what happens when I do err on the aggressive side: [hv=pc=n&s=skj42hkjtd8542cqj&w=sqt987hq7da6ca972&n=s5ha8532dqjt97c53&e=sa63h964dk3ckt864&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1s2s3s4h4sppp]399|300[/hv] 2♠ showed 5-5 in the red suits, and as we hadn't discussed how to deal with this, I made the most practical bid I could think of. Two down, 8.7% (although my partner did misplay it). [hv=pc=n&s=skj84haj642dq2ct8&w=s97htdjt953cak963&n=sh9853dak8764cq42&e=saqt6532hkq7dcj75&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp1sp2c2d3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] 2♣ isn't game forcing, but opposite a 2/1 I felt I was good enough for a jump rebid (5 losers and a long reasonable suit). The 4-0 offside break killed it, and I went one down, 48.55%. Years of getting punished like this for sticking my neck out has meant I tend to err on the side of caution in what I view as marginal situations. If I increase my bidding aggression I will have to improve my card play skill.

I don't like overcalling at the three level vulnerable on iffy suits and partner is marked with little. Looks like I am out of touch with the modern bridge world.

My partner questioned my judgement on a couple of hands earlier this evening. We play 5 card majors, strong NT. Hand 1: [hv=pc=n&s=st87haqjtda3cq764&w=sk53h952dk92cat32&n=shk8764djt765ck95&e=saqj9642h3dq84cj8&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=3sppp]399|300[/hv] South led the ♦A which immediately set up two diamond tricks, and I made 10 tricks, 41.3%. Several people did bid and make 4♠. Partner thought I was too strong to preempt. I am one HCP over, but the offence/defence ratio looks very high, and if I open 1♠, I don't know what to do if the opponents get going in hearts and 3♥ comes round to me, so I decided to bid what I thought was going to be the most likely best place to play if it was our hand, and make life awkward for opponents if it was their hand. What do you think, should I have started with 1♠? Hand 2: [hv=pc=n&s=sk86hak9432dq954c&w=st53h6dj8732ckq82&n=sqj972hqj87d6cj93&e=sa4ht5daktcat7654&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1hp2hppp]399|300[/hv] NS easily made 11 tricks which was a good score for us (68.84%). My partner questioned why I didn't overcall 3♣. I explained that I didn't think the suit was good enough for a vulnerable three level overcall (despite the 15 count and four quick tricks), and it was too risky (e.g. partner raises, they double, one or two off, or we push them into a making game). She gives me these anecdotes about how one of her other partners (who is a gambler) would likely have overcalled and who frequently makes aggressive overcalls (e.g. 2♣ on a 7 count and ♣ATxxxx) which mostly work well. Do you think I was too conservative here? It happens we can make 4♣ thanks to a double fit and no wastage, but I don't know that when it is my turn to bid.

Well it is easier to cheat online. Online activity can bring out the worst in people. I noticed many of the names on the list in that link look like married couples. I know one or two people at my club suspect cheating goes on by those pairs who live together.

That is bizarre, machines can follow a set of logical instructions but that bid isn't logical. From the posts about robot bidding and play I've seen on here, the robots seem to have some major bugs in their programming. If I were responsible for that programming, I'd want to address things like this. If robots are going to bid worse than a beginner I can't see the point of having robots at all, either program them with well tested and robust code or don't bother with them.

I can kind of see why you led a singleton but I think singleton leads are overrated, especially when you have a reasonable alternative (A from AK) and you hold a slow trump winner where ruffing only gains if you can ruff twice. Often when a singleton lead fails it ends up picking up the suit for declarer. You need partner to hold the ace of diamonds and the king of hearts, and you need to underlead your heart ace to put partner back in for a second ruff. It is the sort of defence you try if you are playing IMPS and can see no other way of getting the contract down. Playing a top club is very unlikely to give anything away, and it gives you the opportunity to look at dummy and decide if switching to the singleton diamond is worth a try. It is not clear whether or not the diamonmd switch is best at that stage, if partner holds the king it might be necessary to set it up before declarer can establish clubs and throw any losing diamonds, so the best defence is not totally obvious at the table.

Yes, different countries, different ways of communicating. In the UK, calling someone a f**kwit is only done as a means of insult, I've never heard it done as light banter or normal conversation. In the case you state, it sounds like your partner didn't like the way you bid or played, in which case calling you a f**kwit is out of order.

I don't have a wife, so the question is impossible. My question is not loaded. Very few people call someone a f**kwit out of the blue, so it is not unreasonable to enquire what you think the reason was. I have in no way implied the reason was justified and it was your own fault. If it was an irrational spontaneous outburst then fair enough.

Unfortunately there are some who have never been called out on poor behaviour, and I think that years/decades of getting away with it builds up an entitlement to continue getting away with it. If you call them out at this stage, you just get a load of abuse back. Online interaction gives those with little concept or care of social interaction and boundaries to vent their true personality at others, which they otherwise have to hide behind a thin veneer of forced civility, because they won't get their face smashed in from the safety of a keyboard and anonymity. That is why very heated and abusive arguments exist on forums across the web, because the perpetrators can do it without consequence. It isn't helped by the fact that some people seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences of that speech (i.e. abuse of the term). All you can do is report it, there is a good chance the perpetrator is being abusive to others as well, and enough reports have a chance of getting his account terminated. Either he learns his lesson or self justifies and creates a new account. If the latter you can only hope he mouths off to the wrong person verbally. I would have phrased the question rather more tactfully than that e.g. What was the provocation for the abuse?

This os one of those problem hands where you have the HCP strength to want to come in but don't have a good call. Double will leave you with a problem if partner bids the likely 3♦, and 3♣ overcall on AKxxx is unappealing (would you overcall 1♠ with 2♣ on this?). I'd pass and hope partner can strain a bid in balancing seat. If not and we miss game, hard luck, pre-empts work (and so does aggressive and dodgy bidding sometimes).