AL78

True, and I did think about that, but if I hold KTx or KT9, and partner really has led 4th best, that would put declarer with six clubs, whilst not impossible, unlikely, although I am more familiar with Acol than 2/1 which changes things. In Acol, with six clubs, four spades and 10-12 HCP, responder might decide to respond 2♣ planning to bid the spades next time, or bid 2NT if opener bids diamonds. In any case, if from partner's perspective playing another club does set up a second club trick for declarer, then it almost certainly isn't going down, so partner has to hope that declarer only has one stop. The only other option I can see is hoping declarer has a poor spade suit and we can take three spade tricks plus one in either red suit. I still think that attacking clubs is the only way 2NT is going down if it can go down, so I am always returning a club. I'm inclined to the ten because the only other alternative would be to lead the four, and that might work out bacdly, if declarer plays low partner wins the second round and can't play a third round from Qx into AJ .

♣T, top of internal sequence, hope to establish four club tricks plus a couple outside, hope that declarer finesses into my stiff king. No doubt this is completely wrong, otherwise it wouldn't be posted here.

I'd count Qxx(x) as two and a half losers if it is in a suit partner hasn't shown.

I'd also lead a trump. How else is declarer going to deal with those heart losers if not by ruffing them?

I notice BBO has a practice hands option. Is it possible to use this to practice a new convention or system with a partner, for example specifying hand types to deal where the convention will apply and can be practiced? I'd like to practice Multi-Landy and a modification to Jacoby 2NT with one of my regular partners, maybe also practice dealing with interference over our multi openings.

I would raise to 3♠ if I was playing with the partner who plays pre-emptive jump raises in the majors (0-7 HCP, 4 card support). I don't see the point in jumping to 4♠ with silent opponents, and no singleton or void. That looks like a way of going -1 when the room is in a spade partscore. Slam makes because opener is a stonking maximum and the hands fit really well together. If you remove South's ♥Q, the slam is solid, and if the ♣K is all that is needed for a good slam, maybe North should do something more constructive than simply raise to game. ♠Kxx ♥Qxxx ♦xxx ♣Kxx This is a 2♠ raise and a flat hand, yet slam is on a finesse, despite the useless HQ. I think your partner is trying to project the blame for his own lack of vision. The objective of a post mortem is to learn and fix the mistake, not the blame, which means looking at whether you could have done something different.

My partner picked up Bergen raises from Sally Brock's Book 'Easy Guide to 5 card majors', in which was written the bidding structure I posted earlier.

1♥ - 4♣ 4♦ - 4♠ Is 4♠ key card for hearts or is it a cue bid?

I'm not going to lose sleep over a niggle with an extremely unlikely chance of showing up. Such a situation has never happened in the 22 years I have been playing bridge.

It is a double edged sword. The extra descriptive bid can show how well the hands fit, but it also gives the opponents extra information for the defence, and it allows them to come in more cheaply than directly supporting opener's major at the three level.

Having had a quick look on line as to the definition of Bergen raises, I see what you mean. I don't know where she got her current structure from. It appears Bergen was designed with a forcing NT in mind. I don't play forcing NT, so the way to show an invitational raise is to change suit then support partner at the three level. This does seem to negate one of the advantages of the five card major system when holding an invitational hand, the ability to immediately show support with three cards, we end up with the same auction as the four card major Acol players (1M - 2X - 2Y - 3M).

Why "of course"? Why is that superior to 0341?

I think I'd rather blast 7NT after 3♣ than risk partner passing 5♥ thinking it was a signoff. There can't be a very high percentage of hands partner can have consistent with their bidding where it isn't better than 50-50. The worst I can think of is partner holding xxx in clubs, a bare minimum in HCP, and only having 12 tricks off the top, needing a 2-2 club break or a 3-3 heart break. Even then, there might be additional squeeze chances.

I've had this problem in the past, when partner and I had a minor fit and I wanted to check for aces but using 4NT RCKB risked going past the five level with two key cards missing. Lets say you have a simple auction 1♥ - 2♣, 4♣ - ? and responder just needs to know about aces and kings, can you use 4♦ here as RCKB, or if diamonds had been agreed, use the cheapest non-naturally bid suit as RCKB?

One of my bridge partners plays Bergen raises. Her interpretation is as follows: 1M - 2M: 4-9 HCP 3 card support 1M - 3♣: 10-12 HCP, 3 card support 1M - 3♦: 8-11 HCP, 4 card support 1M - 3M: 0-7 HCP, 4 card support In this sense the 3m responses are effectively invitational hands, showing different levels of trump support. Is that what you meant by invitational, or did you mean something like a jump fit?

You are really going to know to stop in 3♦ with a 13 count opposite an opening bid? The only reason game doesn't make is because partner holds just about the worst minimum opening hand possible.

1♠* - 2♦ 2♥ - 3NT pass This is likely what would happen at my table, this is playing an Acol variant. *I would consider passing with 11 HCP and none of them in either of my suits.

I think one reason it is done is so you can open 1♥ with a weak NT and a five card suit and not risk losing a 5-3 heart fit if responder bids 1♠ and has the values to invite game (I'm just guessing here).

Once she refused to change it you should have called the director, not let her change it. The king was called for and the king should be played. As for saying "Oh I thought the nine was out, ok put the king on the board", that beggers belief, it sounds like she was unlawfully trying to gain an advantage from the misplayed card by dummy.

Not in my neck of the woods. I play a 2♣ opening as showing a game going hand even if partner holds a bust. The hand in question is not strong enough to force to game from the opening bid, but is strong enough to force to game if partner has the values to respond to a 1-suit opening (5+ HCP). The key point being partner has shown values with their 1♥ response. The hand in question most closely resembles an Acol strong two in a minor, and with a couple of my partners I would treat it as that and open a multi 2♦, bidding 3♦ after the 2♥ relay. On this deal I would luck out as partner may well pass with that potentially useless 4 count contributing no more than one trick.

Difficult to say for sure without seeing your hand and the auction in full, it could have been poor judgement by you, or unlucky your partner made a poor opening bid misleading you into thinking you both had more defence. If your partner is going to open very light on very distributional hands, they should consider pulling your penalty double, as they don't have the defensive strength you might expect (yes I know that could backfire, but that is the price of wild bidding). I don't get how your partner will open a distributional 9 count, but not open with some 12-13 HCP hands. There aren't that many 12-13 HCP hands that are not worth opening. An inconsistent partner makes bidding judgement much harder. You can't automatically assume your partner will have 12 HCP with a 1 suit opening bid. Distribution does lower the threshold to about 10 HCP with 5-5 or 6-5. I wouldn't open with a 6-5 9 count,. I would take a chance on being able to make a 2 suited overcall next time, or partner opening the bidding.

You use information from the bidding to judge what the defensive prospects are of your hand and partner's hanmd combined. If partner has bid in a way that suggests they have values and a balanced/semi-balanced hand, and you can see the opponents trump suit is breaking badly (i.e. you hold four or five of them), and the penalty you gain is likely to be better that whatever contract is available your way, that would be a good reason to penalty double. If partner hasn't bid at all, it is harder to judge that a penalty will be profitable, because they could be sat there with a useless hand, in suchj cases you would lean towards a penalty double if you can see the setting tricks in your hand to high probability. It also depends on whether the opponents have freely bid to their contract, or have you pushed them up, the latter is where a penalty double is more likely to work well for you. Another example where you will consider penalty doubling is at MPs, in a part score battle, where the HCP look to be evenly split, and each side has a fit. If you and partner bid to 3♥, and the opponents bid 3♠, and you know game is not on your way, you would consider going for a penalty if the opps are vulnerable, because if their contract makes and everyone else is allowed to play in 3♥ your way, you get a bottom whether you double or not, but if 3♠ is one down and 3♥ makes, doubling converts a bottom into a top. Whether you penalty double or not depends on not just your own hand. It depends on the method of scoring, whether the opponents bid freely or are sacrificing, does it look like a misfit deal, and whether partner has bid, and if so, what have they said about their defensive prospects.

Passing 1♠ is no siller than bidding 2♠ if East has decided there is no game on based on the fact that only about four or five HCP are left for South and West combined. It isn't possible for West to have a maximum hand for making the cheapest bid possible, unless North has opened super light on a very distributional nine count or psyched, so West isn't bidding on over 2♠.

If East holds QJxx(xx) playing a diamond to the ten twice gains a trick, as long as you don't cash a top honor first. The robot decided to play for a 3-3 break by playing the ten first. That seems to me to be an inferior line looking at that suit in isolation, as playing to the ten works if the diamonds break 3-3, and if there is QJ to any number onside. Even playing for a 3-3 break, why not cash one top honor first, which as you say, gains when a stiff honor comes down from West, and if an honor comes down from East, play up to the ten and hope the second honor from East shows, if not play the ten and go for the 3-3 break. Looking at all four hands, it is difficult to put the defensive cards in a better place for declarer (3-3 breaks in all 7-card fits, and squeeze possibilities once a trick is lost), so even an inferior line will bring the contract in.

2♠ here is a strong jump shift forcing to game. That doesn't mean that responder can't pass below game if they made a tactical sub-minimum response. I don't think responder should bid with such a weak hand unless they are prepared to rebid their suit, for that I would want a six card suit.