AL78

Amazing. Playing with one of my regular partners this problem would not arise, because they would have led their fourth highest diamond (as would everyone else defending the same contract and same declarer).

That is an impressive and beautiful line. How do you work all that out at the table?

I'd go for that as well, though if that was the layout, why did North not lead a diamond?

Ok I see what you meant now, thanks. I have a habit when formulating a defensive plan to miss one piece of logical deduction which then puts me on a sub-optimal line. I didn't think at the time about the fact that partner would be overruffing dummy, and I didn't twig the spades as a threat immediately. The latter dawned on me one trick later but it is too late then, I never get back in.

I didn't lead the DQ because I wanted to cut down on heart ruffs in dummy. Standard strategy when you know declarer has a load of losers in a suit and dummy will be short.

That site is more for entertainment than instruction, the last hand on this page is spectacular, brilliant* defence committed without realising it. http://www.poorbridge.com/?cotm=9 *Brilliant relative to my ability, probably routine for many on here.

That is not easy to find at the table. I likely wouldn't have found it.

Thanks, I didn't see that line, I take it back, my partner wasn't at fault. I guess I'll file this one under getting a poor score with me taking actions that seemed reasonable at the time but worked out badly.

5CM, strong NT, MPs [hv=pc=n&s=sakh7dkj8752ct876&w=s85hakt93d93caj43&n=s6432hqj8652dqckq&e=sqjt97h4dat64c952&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d1hp1sp2cppp&p=ckc2c6c3cqc5c7cas8s4s7skctcjh5c9s5s2s9sac8c4s3d4h7hah2h4hkh6d6d5d9dqdad2sqd7h3s6sjd8h9h8stdjd3hjdtdkht]399|300[/hv] After the overcall I detected a stonking misfit so decided against wading in. I thought if partner had a decent hand she will bid again. She didn't and the opps ended up in a club contract. Looking at the full deal in isolation I'm glad I stayed quiet. We might make 2♦ but we should get them off at least two. On misfits like this the objective is to get a plus score. We almost got it right but failed spectacularly near the end. I decided to start off with clubs to cut ruffs down rather than start with my singleton diamond (although that might have helped partner with hindsight). The clanger was dropped when partner got in with her last spade and the spades in dummy are now set up, with the diamond ace as an entry. She has to make the apparently gutsy play of the ♦K to knock out the ace whilst she holds the master trump, then ruff a spade with it. Dummy's spades are then dead and I make some heart tricks. Unfortunately she decided to draw declarer's last trump then play a heart. Game over, 2♣=, 25%. The rest of the evening didn't go much better (some of it my fault), and the 45% we ended up with was deserved. I'm not sure I've got the play exactly right, but what generally happened is captured.

I think what you are highlighting here is some people confuse ignorance and stupidity or abuse the definitions. The latter is a character flaw, the former is merely a lack of knowledge and can be addressed with education and/or study. We are all ignorant in something, that does not make us bad people, but all too commonly ignorance is thrown around as a weapon to slur someones character.

Hence why I said theoretically. I'd be surprised if any robot or human would put their ace on thin air when it is right because declarer has an off-shape 2NT opening.

It looked initially as if you were going for the double finesse in clubs, but when you got to dummy a second time you tried to drop the jack. Surely it is better odds to play for split honors based on the principle of restricted choice and play to the ten? Once you used your spade jack at trick one, the only clean entry to dummy, the robot could theoretically have gone up with the diamond ace and cut you off from dummy and the diamond winners. You are then probably going down.

It depends on whether it is MPs and if so, did the field bid to 6♥? If not, and if South is capable of finding the correct line to make the slam, EW are stuffed whatever East does at his last turn. 6♠ might be cheaper than 4♥ the other way but that is irrelevant if the field is playing in 5♠ going one less off. Probably the only hope is South misguesses diamonds.

This is an excellent post and I find it very instructive. I have had my fingers burned before competing and pushing the opponents into a making game or slam. I sometimes find it hard to judge when to let them play in 3M rather than bid on and see them land in 4M making.

She definitely has experienced cheating from players at our club, buth at the physical club and online, although as said it means nothing regarding this instance. First occasion: At the physical club before COVID, her partner alerted her to one of her opponents trying a subtle peek-a-boo to get a glimpse of her hand, who then took a very anti-percentage line of play on the basis of her holding a specific honor card which got them a top. Second occasion (not proved but highly likely): BBO auction by opponents: 1♥ - 2♦ - pass. The 2♦ response was based on a long suit and a four count. The 1♥ opener held a 15 count. They get a top because 2♦ makes and no-one else finds it, it is the only contract that makes their way. These opponents were a married couple (and are poor players) so had the capability to look at each others hands. It is easy to get away with this because it is virtually impossible to prove. There have been other suspicious occasions on BBO by a different married couple (suspected by more than one other player). Sadly there exist people who just want to win, don't have the ability to be a winner, can't be bothered to put in the time and effort to become a winner, and lack a moral compass, so take the attitude anything is good if they can get away with it. These past experiences may have made her a bit oversensitive. Whilst I was disputinig her claim, it appeared she didn't really understand the difference between a mis-bid, a psyche, and a mis-explanation. I tried to explain that if the opponents have given an accurate description of their agreements (which he had), then if one of them has a hand inconsistent with that agreement, that is not against the rules.

Good. I asked a delicate question which could easily have antagonised several people, especially one or both of the pair involved, and that is the last thing I want to do.

I agree, unfortunately trying to convince someone their strong assertion is wrong is often futile. I apologise if my original post caused offence. I didn't agree with my friend, but wanted to double check here.

I don't think the senior players are idiots, they just have a strong moral view on psyching (e.g. just because you can, doesn't mean you should). You are otherwise voicing my thoughts, it was a psyche aimed at deflecting a potentially damaging lead and so allowed by the rules. My friend just sounded rather bitter about it, which is understandable (if wrong) as she has been the victim of cheating in the past.

How did you find the hand and identify the players so quickly? I wasn't even playing.

My bridge partner has just told me a situation which cropped up on BBO where she got a bottom because they were diverted from the killing lead by one of the opponents doing what sounded to me like a psyche, but she is adament they were cheating. Her opponents bid up to a slam, and on the way her LHO bid 3♠, which was alerted as 0-1 spades. I'm not sure whether or not her RHO had bid spades naturally in the auction, it is possible. Her partner on lead holding the spade ace decided on the basis of this description not to lead it. It turned out that the person who bid 3♠ and alerted it held two losing spades, and a spade lead was necessary for the defence to take two spade tricks before the losers were thrown on diamonds. She seems to believe this was deliberate mis-information and therefore cheating, whereas I am inclined to believe it was a psyche aimed to divert the killing lead. What are your thoughts? The director was called at the time and questioned the opponents. The one who made the 3♠ bid claimed he got his spades and clubs mixed up, e.g. he/she was looking at the club void and clicked on the wrong black suit. The result was allowed to stand. She asked one or two senior players at the club (who are very experienced directors) who sided with her saying it was out of order, and there seems to be a view that psyches should be illegal.

1♣: 10-20 HCP Either a club suit or could be three and balanced. 1♠: 5+HCP 4+ spades. 2♣: Very likely a six card suit, 10-15 HCP. 2NT: 10-11 (semi)balanced, bid 3NT if you are near maximum. 3♣: Minimum opener with a six, good chance of a seven card suit. 3NT: Punt. We're playing against AL78 and punts usually work against him, even bad ones, or we're a married couple and I can look at your hand and see if it has play.

Yes, Benji Acol, is popular at club level in the UK, although the beginners at my club are taught three weak twos.

Some people at my club would overcall 2♠ on the East hand, then the question is can you play in hearts at all. In any case I am not getting to 4♥. North has a poor hand and South doesn't have heart support. Why would anyone be bidding game? Just because it makes on a particular line of play doesn't mean it is sound to bid it. Bridge is a probabilistic game, and what matters is what works well on average over a large number of hands, not what works on any individual hand.

I don't see why it should make any difference whether the opening is in hearts or spades. They can outbid you in spades, but so what? If they outbid you, you have forced them a level higher which might mean they go down. If you don't bid, they don't have to outbid you and can play at the two level. This is assuming they will bid over you.

A jump bid of opener's suit. It shows a hand with a long solid minor and asks partner to bid 3NT with a stop in opener's suit. It is analogous to opening a gambling 3NT although as here the cue bidder can be much stronger.