AL78

MPs: [hv=pc=n&w=skhaj86d97653c842&e=sa52hkqt753d2ckq7&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1n2dp2hppp]266|200|1NT = 12-14<br>2D = single suited major[/hv] My partner is limited by his failure to penalty double, and with nine losers, felt that game was unlikely even if he did hold hearts, so went for the pass or correct. Partner put down just about the best hand he could possibly hold, and I make 11 tricks. Didn't see that coming. I wonder if I should have bid 2♠ instead of 2♥, showing a hand with good heart support willing to play in 3♥ at least, but happy to stop in 2♠ if that was partner's suit. If I had done that I don't know whether that would encourage partner to bid 4♥, if not I can't see me bidding it on my own. What do you think?

If it is true, it might just be another consequence of anonymity. People are often nasty to each other online because they know from the safety of their keyboard, they are not going to get their face smashed in. With online bridge, there is no-one to call them out on slow play face to face, and they gain an advantage from long thinking time, so they do it, whether it is right or not is irrelevant. In a physical club, the director can have a polite word if it is a problem.

Interesting you should say that, because I have seen expert players advocating overcalling at the one level on all sorts of rubbish, like Jxxxx.

It might depend on the bidding to an extent, but without any other information, you are pretty much on a guess. I get these problems regularly, there are two possible ways to proceed and each one requires a particular feasible layout, get it wrong and blow a trick or three. Recently my partner led the three of spades against a 1NT contract, dummy came down with ♠J72. I held ♠AQ6. Spades look to be 4-3-3-3 around the table, so if partner has led from the king I should go up with the ace and fire the queen and the small one back. What happened was declarer won my queen with the king which set up dummy's jack. Partner had led from ♠T943. My play in the spade suit resulted in 1NT+2 and a 6% board. The correct answer is to switch to ♦QJT when in with the ace as partner held ♦K865.

I don't play Drury. I wouldn't say opening 1♥ is clear, I've opened at the one level before with the same strength and 5-5 shape, and it didn't go well, I have also passed when I should have opened. It is only obvious when it works :P , it works here because there is a massive double fit.

I can see it now, knocking out the diamond ace at trick 2 or 3 destroys the communication declarer needs to draw trumps and establish discards on the hearts. I should have worked out that leading from the king is unlikely to cost and has a good chance of gaining, as declarer is going to make the queen if he has it, and it takes a very specific layout for declarer to have the queen, me theoretically being able to take a trick with my king after three rounds of the suit, and declarer being unable to establish a discard or two on the hearts.

I can see his point that the two aces increase the defensive potential of the hand, and the lack of a sixth heart reduces the offense. I took a gamble that 4th seat held a big hand and was aiming to make it a bit harder for them. In the event, the reason for the first two passes is because the HCP count is fairly evenly distributed around the table, so East does not hold a big hand. In the past I have tended not to pre-empt when holding the other major, this hand reminded me why. I was surprised my partner didn't raise straight to game with four card support, two quick tricks and a singleton.

MPs: [hv=pc=n&s=s9876hk8643dq4ckt&w=sk4hajt975da96cj2&n=sqh2dkt875caq8765&e=sajt532hqdj32c943&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1h2n3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] We got a complete bottom as 4♠ made. No-one else was in it, the majority were going off in the heart game, stopped in a heart partscore, or let South play in a club partscore. Double dummy says 4♠ goes one off. Looking at it I can't see how. At the table, we made two club tricks and a heart (declarer did a loser on loser play after running the ♥Q and cashing the ace). When I was in with a club at trick two I think I got off lead with a spade, that doesn't set anything up for us but what does give us a fourth defensive trick? If it is a diamond to knock out an entry at an inconvenient moment, how do I find that given it might blow a trick if declarer holds the ♦Q?

Third seat preempts can be fast and loose (i.e. undisciplined), here is an example where it went horribly wrong: [hv=pc=n&s=skt652ht643dak7c6&w=s94hkjdjt9532ck53&n=saj83ha9752dc8742&e=sq7hq8dq864caqjt9&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp2h3c3h4cppp]399|300[/hv] Not a success. We got it three off but we have a cold game in either major which five out of eight pairs found. 31%.

Yes it is, because that is another pair of hands with zero wastage. Swap the clubs and diamonds around and it is significantly less good. I'm not disagreeing with you, there are times I've raised a 1H response to 2H with three, but I am wary when someone uses perfect hands to advocate a particular bid or convention. What matters is how it will perform on a wide selection of deals, not just the perfect hands that hardly come up in my experience.

Carefully chosen, I see what you mean, about the most perfectly matching sub-opening hand possible. I would expect a diamond overcall somewhere if the opponents are holding nine of them including AKQJ.

Probably use FSF and guess what to do if partner bids 2NT. It doesn't matter what methods you play, you can always construct a awkward hand for it. It is like almost every time I play Astro, I get lots of practice at going off in seven card fits when 1NT wold have gone down, yet when I don't play Astro, I then pick up perfect Astro hands.

If it were me, the hand would be good enough to first bid 2♣, and if partner repeats their hearts at the two level, then bid 2♠. I wouldn't necessarily expect 2♠ here to be game forcing in Acol, merely game invitational, forcing to 2NT or three of one of the bid suits. AIUI it is when responder reverses that it becomes game forcing.

With one partner in my student days, playing weak NT, 1♣ - 1♦/♥ - 1♠ could be a intermediate/strong balanced hand up to 19 HCP, and responder should now bid as if opener had opened 1♠.

I nearly forgot this ridiculous hand: [hv=pc=n&s=saq72h53dj764ckq3&w=sk983haj94dak3ca9&n=s654hkq76dt2c8542&e=sjtht82dq985cjt76]399|300[/hv] This was against the strongest pair playing 5 card majors, strong NT (I think, one of the only pairs playing a strong NT). I can't remember the auction but South opened 1♣ I think, my partner doubled, and we ended up in 2♦ just making for -10.4 imps out. Everyone else is opening the South hand a weak NT and getting into a terrible mess, going hundreds down. The winners that evening got +1700 and 15.4 imps for taking NS down in 3♥X. You have to laugh. :lol:

Almost all the X-IMP evenings are single winner events, which makes it really annoying if you are on the wrong side of the slam hands. You are right in that there is a lot of randomness, but the strongest pair in the room somehow manage to overcome this and regularly finish top, or in the top three at least. I'll have to do a card comparison and see what they are doing that my partner and I are not.

I can accept it happening occasionally, it is just odd that it happens as frequently as it does (i.e. it doesn't happen occasionally, it happens frequently), sometimes to the point where we would have to play near perfectly on the other boards just to get a slightly above average result. The only thing partner and I can do is work on where we are dropping tricks on the card play, declaring and defending.

The Christmas party: [hv=pc=n&s=sa5ht84dcaqj97652&w=sjt98hq532dk93c43&n=sq2hakjdqjt875ck8&e=sk7643h976da642ct]399|300[/hv] NS bid to 6♣ making for -1370 added to our aggregate. Four other pairs made a slam, the other six stopped in game. [hv=pc=n&s=sqt2hk7d84caq9752&w=sj93hjt85dakt6cj4&n=sa5ha942dj7532ckt&e=sk8764hq63dq9c863]399|300[/hv] Another -600 on our aggregate score. Only one other pair out of 10 found the game, one EW got +800 when NS ended up in 5DX-3. Why couldn't we have played against that pair? :lol:

A different evening: [hv=pc=n&s=sqhk95dqjt6cak862&w=sk4hq8732d75cq754&n=saj963haj4dak4cj3&e=st8752ht6d9832ct9]399|300[/hv] We were EW this time. NS bid to 6NT making for -7.8 IMPS to us. Two pairs bid the slam, three pairs stopped in 3NT.

Having looked through the X-IMP pairs evenings there are few examples of significant swings out that were caused by opponents bidding games/slams not bid around the room, the swings were our fault (I can't remember what went wrong). I have found one good example of an evening where getting a good score would have been a struggle. Here are two hands from the same X-IMPs evening: [hv=pc=n&s=s982hj42dqt93cqt3&w=sakqjht7d74ca8764&n=s3haq98dj8652ck95&e=st7654hk653dakcj2]399|300[/hv] EW bid to 4S. -5.2 imps for NS. Two other pairs making 4♠, the other two pairs stopped in a spade partscore. [hv=pc=n&s=st9862hkt73d84cqj&w=shaj8dqjt962ck964&n=skj754h954dk73ct8&e=saq3hq62da5ca7532]399|300[/hv] EW bid to 6NT just making for -8.8 imps for NS. The other scores were 5♣+2, 6♣+1, 3NT+3, 3NT+1.

1. Yes, the other EW pairs were dealt the same cards, that is why almost all the EW scores were negative. Together we declared eight times (partner 5, me 3). My partner had slightly above average HCP overall (10.23). 2. I don't think my lack of pre-empting aggression is the problem, though I will look into it and put a few hands up where opps bid game/slam not commonly bid around the room.

Going by my own personal experience, I think sharpening the defence is more important than bidding or declarer play. I typically only declare three or four hands out of 26, and over two years have defended over 70% of hands, so minimising careless mistakes in defence for partner and I will very likely reap the greatest rewards, especially at matchpoints, where blowing a defensive trick can easily net the same bottom as a bidding cock up to a silly contract. It should also be noted that many bidding sequences, competitive or otherwise, can be done using fundamental principles taught to beginners, where there is far less chance of a misunderstanding.

Not so much about a hand, as about the whole evening. Played in the club Christmas evening (bridge plus food) yesterday evening, aggregate scoring. Did well the first two rounds, then the massive bias set in. Went the following eight rounds playing just one contract. Had game after game bid against us, then found no more than half the room had biud it on some of them. Got a cold slam bid against us that less than half the room bid (and one went off in, despite 13 tricks being available). We were on -2140 points hal;f way through and second to last. On the last two rounds, the bias relented and we crawled backl to third place with -1090. At the end of the evening: NS scores: +3730, +3080, +3070, +2160, +2100, +2070, +1630, +930, +800, +190, -360 EW scores: +340, -580, -1090, -1160, -1550, -1650, -1900, -2360, -2710, -2940, -3800 My average HCP count: 8.73 This is one reason why partner and I have sruggled in the cross-imped monthly competition this year, because we seem to get poor hands disproportionately often, and as a result, are frequently at the mercy of the opponents bidding games and slams not commonly bid around the room. Comment from one player "I'm going to avoid sitting in the same seat as you in future, you seem to attract the poor hands." :lol:

I agree. Before learning advanced plays, learn the fundamentals first, starting with suit break probabilities, how to generate tricks and eliminate losers, and things like how to maximise trick taking potential from holdings like KT93 opposite Q42. For an absolute basic start on squeeze play, you get to a position where you have one less winner than the number of cards you hold, you have a couple of high cards that are not quite winners (threats), and you have a run of winners to cash. After cashing those winners, a defender will sometimes have released a guard in a suit where you hold a threat, promoting that threat to a winner, either by mistake (the memory squeeze), or by force (they are trying to guard multiple suits and can't hold onto all key cards). For both squeezes and endplays, you need key cards to be in a particular hand, and you need to be able to visualise the layouts you need for it to work. For a squeze to work, you need to make sure when you run your long suit, you aren't forced to discard a threat before a defender has to discard their cover card. For endplays, you should pay attention to the distribution of the defender's hands as they follow and discard, because it will require you to throw one of them in at a point where whatever they lead, they have to give you a trick. This often requires you to cash side suit winners to strip possible safe exit cards from the hand you want to throw in. I'll stop there as I have probably gone too far now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeeze_play_(bridge) https://www.bridgebum.com/endplay.php

The way I teach beginners is as follows: Direct raises are non-forcing and are competing the part score, and/or trying to shut the opponents out. As already mentioned, bidding to the level of the fit. If you are red against green, exercise caution. Changes of suit are forcing and show a decent suit. Cue bidding the opponents suit ahows a constructive raise, game invitational or better. NT responses are analogous to responding to an opening bid, with the addition of a stop in the opponents suit. Since a 1 level overcall can be up to a king lighter than a 1 level suit opening, responding in NT is about a king more (i.e. 1-level overcall: 9-12 1NT, 13-15 2NT, opposite a two level overcall which will be a near opening hand at worst, shade these by 2-3 HCP). The problem hand is where you have enough in HCP strength to invite or go to game, no immediate support for partner, no good suit to bid, and no stop in the opponents suit. You will have to improvise here, say, use the unassuming cue bid and hope partner can do something useful like bid NT, otherwise you have to use initiative. Some people add things like fit jumps, jump bidding in a new suit showing support, values and a good side suit (five with 2/3 top honors, for example).