AL78

I don't have that problem with this partner. We play 5 card majors, weak NT, and have other bids to show 19+ HCP balanced hands, so 1♠ - 2♥ - 2NT would be the equivalent of a strong NT hand.

To try and psyche the opponents into a phantom sac?

No 3♥ wouldn't be forcing, it could be a minimum opening hand with heart support, we are not playing 2/1.

Here is the third slam mess up in the same evening. We had the missed cold slam, the slam I went looking for which wasn't there, and ended up going off in game, and now this one, bidding the slam that doesn't make. [hv=pc=n&s=sajthkt832dk93ck5&w=s8hqj65dqj85ct642&n=sk97532ha97d7caq3&e=sq64h4dat642cj987&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1sp2hp4hp4np5hp6hppp]399|300[/hv] 4NT is RKCB. We do play Jacoby 2NT but partner chose not to use it here, probably because of the lack of a fourth spade. I think she only made nine tricks in the end. South can make 6♠ and 6NT, assuming West doesn't lead a diamond, the play requires correctly picking up the ♠Q and running the spades and clubs, squeezing West out of clubs and down to his bare ♦A, then throwing him in with it, forcing him to open up the hearts. Easy when you can see all four hands, not so easy to find at the table. I thought my hand was too good for a minimum raise to 3♥, but my jump to game and the double fit was enough to get partner slamming. This is what happens when slam hands come up very rarely, we make a pigs ear of it when one does finally come up.

I never thought of that at the time, though I have heard of it before. There is no other use for 3NT in that situation in our system.

I've always played a reverse as forcing for one round.

I need DAQ and another ace (I have the king), yes I admit I went too far.

I don't have first round control of hearts or spades.

MPs: [hv=pc=n&s=sq8632hqt2dqt98c8&n=skhk6dk532cakqt94&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1cp1sp2dp3dp4cp4dp5dppp]266|200[/hv] I recall mentioning to my partner in the not too distant past we should play Lebensohl opposite a reverse, so I thought her direct diamond support showed a better than minimum hand, and me with a four loser and source of tricks in clubs went slam investigating. When she bid 4♦ after my cue, I wanted to sign off in 4NT, but was worried she would interpret that as Blackwood (it shouldn't be), so I settled for 5♦. Once I started cue bidding, we have lost the board, because 3NT only makes nine tricks, and 5♦ is one down. There is a way to use something else to ask for key cards when a minor suit has been agreed, something like minorwood? It wouldn't have mattered here, but is it something like bidding the other minor at the four level or bidding hearts when a minor has been agreed asks for key cards?

I meant there is more opportunity to come in playing Multi-Landy than playing standard Landy, because there are more hand shapes that can be shown. I like the look of Multi Landy over Astro because of its ability to immediately show both majors.

Thanks, that looks like the version I have seen and noted down. I can't quite remember all the 2NT followups through logical rules, so need to practice it, which is difficult when it comes up once in a blue moon.

Multi-Landy is just a step up from that, with 2♦ showing one of the majors, and 2♥/♠ showing five of that suit and four of a minor. It allows more opportunity to compete at the cost of not being able to immediately show a major. It is the second round bids I haven't got nailed down yet. I have played Astro for years, because I learnt it a long time ago and almost everyone I have played with knows it. My main problem with it is it seems to be a good way of getting a bottom by going off in a seven card fit when we could have taken 1NT off. Might be better to play that the anchor suit has five.

It is simple to remember and allows you to get into the bidding with any two suited hand of suitable playing strength, if you use 2NT for the minors. I would like to play multi-Landy and have suggested it to a couple of partners, but there is a lot to remember after the initial overcall, and it is hard to practice it because it hardly ever comes up.

Play the ♠K. If West throws the ♥A, cash ♥2. If West throws the ♦A, overtake and cash the ♦2. If West throws the ♣A, play low, then throw East in with the ♣2, who has only a spade left to lead to North. Is it realistic for anyone to identify the possibility of such a situation in real time and play for it?

I think I underbid this one: [hv=pc=n&s=saj6hak85dk74ct94&w=s42hjt7d986cak765&n=skqt5hq964daq52c3&e=s9873h32djt3cqj82&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1dp1hp3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] 12 tricks cold thanks to perfectly matched hands with no wastage. I did briefly consider splintering with 4♣, before I decided that my hand isn't good enough to force to game if partner has a weak responding hand. It would have worked well here, as partner would then immediately see the zero wastage and her HCP are working, and would likely drive to slam.

This evening was one of the more frustrating ones, both for being dealt crap and misbidding the few good hands we did pick up. This hand was weird, I'm, not sure what we could have done about it. [hv=pc=n&s=sa65hkj975dk8ct93&w=sqj4h86daqt2ckq74&n=sk987hat432d953c5&e=st32hqdj764caj862&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1np2cp2dp3cppp]399|300[/hv] They were playing weak NT. Making 10 tricks for a unique contract joint bottom. Half the room is in 3 or 4♥ our way making, some are in 1NT by West, and a couple of EW's found a diamond partscore making9 or 10 tricks. I groaned inside when declarer ruffed the escond round of hearts. I didn't think my hand was good enough for an Astro bid trying to show spades and another. I didn't think my hand was good enough to balance over 3♣, although the thought crossed my mind. What do you think, could I have been more aggressive or shall I put this down to the wrong side of randomness?

It is a fallacy to try and justify or trivialise something on the basis that lots of people do it or by appealing to nature. "what did you expect, bridge players are animals" is committing that fallacy, and if it was applied universally, we would all live in a world where the bullies and thugs dominate, the meek and mild are trampled down, and survival would depend on how aggressive/violent you can be. Not a world I would want to live in, and is why humans developed the concept of morality and justice, to protect the vulnerable, which is one hallmark of a civilised society.

Myself and five others did make 11 tricks. Five others stopped in a partscore (not the same five), and one East played in 3♠ undoubled going four off (which is the same score as making 3♥+2).

MPs [hv=pc=n&s=sqj84ha642dt5ck87&w=s932hq7dk8642cqt2&n=s7hkjt83daj73ca64&e=sakt65h95dq9cj953&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1h1s3hppp]399|300[/hv] I took partner's heart raise as pre-emptive/shapely, and didn't see any point in raising to game. Unfortunately 11 tricks are there (thanks to a very lucky diamond layout requiring running the ten and ducking if covered, else take a double finesse to set up a third diamond for a club discard), and this was worth 36% as most people found it. It is somewhat unusual in that North has a seven loser hand, South has an eight loser hand, so nine tricks should be the limit on the basis of the losing trick count, but 11 are there (because of the diamond layout and the ♥Q drops). Here is what she said to me about it: "If I have an opening hand I will cue bid 2S. If holding 6-12 pts I will now count my losers and bid accordingly. 8 losers = 2H 7 losers = 3H 6 losers = game. Here I would cue bid or bid Jacoby I held an 8 loser hand but upped my bid to 3H with 11 points and holding 4H. You can now count your losers (7) and bid 4H. If I am competing and not vulnerable I bid to the level of the fit." I don't think she quite has this right, as I would take a minimum raise as a nine or ten loser hand, an invitational or weak shapely raise as eight losers, and a game force or bidding straight to game having seven losers or less. Thus my hand was not worth game. What do you think?

I have a sex drive, but I don't go around raping women, so I fail to see the logic of your failure of a director.

Online communication disconnects people from consequences, which allows those whose parents failed to teach morality at a young age, the ability to bully and abuse without consequence. The more someone is allowed to abuse without comeback, the more it is validated, and the more entitled they feel to abuse. There comes a point where they will never change, so the only solution is for an authority to kick them out, which requires an authority with guts, or for the victim to cut ties with the abuser. It is in one way unfortunate that those who are abusive don't regularly get punched in the face repeatedly, because that would ultimately impose a cost on being abusive much greater than any perceived benefit. I've heard it said that the behaviour of the civilised can be much worse that that of savages, because the civilised know they can say what they want without the risk of having their skull caved in.

This is largely a guess, isn't it? Whatever lead you choose, there exist layouts where it is the best lead and where it is the worst. I don't see how it is possible to calculate all the possible layouts with probabilities to come up with an objective decision.

As the auction has gone, 2NT by North, 3♥ by South, 4♥ by North, should make +1, or +2 if you play ♥AK and drop the queen. I've missed 6♣, but I'm not worrying about missing thin slams based on perfectly matching hands after the opponents have opened.

This comes down to partnership discussion. In my university days, my partner and I agreed that 1x - 1y - 1M could be 4-4 and strong balanced (we played weak NT) and is one round forcing. Another more recent partner used to bid the major if it was biddable, which means it has an honor card. With other people I've always rebid 1NT to show the shape and strength (playing weak NT). There are advantages and disadvantages of each method.

That very thing happened to me once in a very similar auction.