AL78

I'd have to ask one of the pair who did arrive in it. :)

Finesses win when you have underbid and missed a game. Finesses lose when you have bid aggressively to a tight game or overbid to a bad game. If you believe your finesses are always losing, look out for elimination and endplays or squeezes instead. Making on a simple finesse is boring, anyone can do that. The expert play is to go down on an attempted strip squeese instead.

Not just a good save, it makes, double dummy at least. A quick glance suggests a bit of cross ruffing and the club ace onside allows a couple of additional club tricks to be established. The one pair in it doubled went off.

I don't play online but you are correct. I have manually checked the stats for the same sessions and I have calculated that we have defended about 54% of the time which sounds more reasonable.

I've done "frustration doubles" before and it nearly always ends up with putting a doubled into game score into the BridgeMate, so I've eased off doing that now. Same thing would have happened here given partner is inexperienced so didn't appreciate my high diamond spot for her to ruff was signalling for a spade return. I think to get it two down we have to find a different defence plan (be ultra passive and let the tricks come to us I think), as giving partner a ruff ultimately helps declarer when partner is ruffing a loser with a winner, and I think we can only get it one down after the way we started. I didn't expect partner to have ATxx in hearts.

Yes, partner needs to play a spade after ruffing the third round of diamonds or else we don't get a spade trick. On the bidding, I did consider bidding spades instead of diamonds but the large difference between the suit lengths discouraged me. It flashed through my mind to bid 3♠ over 3♥ but the vulnerability and discipline took over.

I did overtake the king and played two more. On the third round I played the ♦9 to signal for a spade return, partner didn't oblige. When I had a chance to discard I threw the ♠K, partner still didn't oblige when she was in with the heart ace. Declarer eventually threw a spade loser on a club.

[hv=pc=n&s=s853hat74dkct9764&w=sa976h532dt7ckj52&n=skqj2h9daq98432c3&e=st4hkqj86dj65caq8&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1d2h(opening%20hand)pp3dpp3hppp]399|300[/hv] I was North. We let this through when partner failed to respond to my signals for a spade but two down isn't any better when all but one of the field is allowed to play in 3♦ and one plays in 4♦=. It is very hard to do well when you get opponents doing unique actions against you that work.

[hv=pc=n&s=sat9hkj82dj52ca64&w=s876hdqt876ckt875&n=skqj543ht976dcq32&e=s2haq543dak943cj9&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1c(2%2B)p1sd1n2d2s3d3sppp]399|300[/hv] Potentially a double game swing on this hand but we (I) got it wrong. I was East and doubled because I was playing with an improver and bidding 1NT 2NT to try and show a two suiter might confuse her. I didn't fancy competing to 4♦ and either pushing them into a making game or going for -200 but as it happens bidding on is the winning action. That was worth 1/8 MPs. I should have been less wussy.

I'm not convinced unless you are talking about X-imps.

An interesting suggestion, is there not a danger of walking into a powerful North hand or a horrible misfit and going for a number?

I don't know who Andrew is but I am either doing something fundamentally wrong or going through an extreme example of random clustering. According to Pianola, over the last three months (12 sessions) I have defended on 87% of hands. This compares to 82% over the last 12 months.

An unimportant short duplicate session following the club AGM. The third session in a row I pick up the worst hands at the table (average HCP 9.0). 45.9% in a very variable field not my finest hour. This hand came up against a pair of beginners who said at the start of the round they didn't really know what they were doing (a statement which is nearly always a precursor to being on the receiving end of a hammering): [hv=pc=n&s=sat9hajdajt654ca7&w=sqj764ht852d83c63&n=s832h9764dk9ct954&e=sk5hkq3dq72ckqj82&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dpp2c2nppp]399|300[/hv] I was East. I had to think about what to bid in the passout seat and couldn't see anything better than a simple overcall, maybe a touch heavy in the protective seat but I would like a club lead if LHO declares. Needless to say LHO did declare and partner led a club, but thanks to dummy coming down with the perfect 3 count nine tricks were rattled off with the aid of the diamond finesse. A complete bottom, all but one are in a diamond partscore with one West playing in 2♠ going one off. This was followed by the second board of the round and the second beating: [hv=pc=n&s=st76hk843dacq6543&w=s32hajt2d7432cat9&n=sakq84h76dq86cj72&e=sj95hq95dkjt95ck8&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1sp1nppp]399|300[/hv] Partner lead the two of hearts and that was declarer's seventh trick. -90 was worth 4/14 MPs for us as most of the NS's in the room chose to go between one and four off in 3 or 4♠ instead. One East must have overcalled on my hand as they played in 4♦-2 and one West played in 3♥-2, the two EW pairs we beat. My recent flurry of better scores has now finished and my bridge is back to looking almost as bad as the UK's economy again. My partner is a lovely lady so it was still an enjoyable way to spend the evening despite the bridge.

In an auction like this it is possible you could hold a game invitational hand (e.g. a good 16-17 HCP) but without agreements, it is not clear whether bidding 3♠ is invitational or competing the part score. Some partnerships have the agreement that X is invitational to game and 3♠ is competing the partscore. The theory is it is rare to extract a profitable penalty double at a low level when the opponents have found a fit, and it is useful to distinguish between two different hands that want to go on but the bidding space no longer exists. I don't see it makes a difference whether you have bid and raised a suit immediately or opened in another suit first, the situation is the same as 1♠ - (2♥) - 2♠ - (3♥) - ?.

I didn't know that weak only Multi was allowed at EBU level 4.

I can't think of many situations where I would respond to a one level suit opening with a Yarborough, regardless or shortage in partner's suit.

I think it is borderline. I would lean towards doubling if it was one of the hyper-agressive bidders at my club bidding 2♥ but even then, if partner cannot dredge up a response, are we getting rich by trying to compete the partscore with no guarentee of a fit or are we about to dig a big hole for ourselves?

Yes, but in this situation I think it is unwise. There is a difference between 5-5 and 5-4 shape in terms of offence to defence ratio, especially one holding aces and kings, and when partner holds equal length in both suits (playing in a 4-3 fit with a 5-3 fit on the side is not fun). The issue is you have a partner that is going to take action on the assumption you have a distributional hand, which could easily be a phantom sac or a failure to extract a penalty because they weren't expecting so much defence opposite. The only thing I cans see in favour of overcalling 2NT is that the values are concentrated in the minor suits. In a situation like Landy it is not a problem to be 5-4 in the majors because there exists an intervening bid (2D) to enquire about partner's best suit, that doesn't exist here.

I direct a couple of times a month at my local club and have been doing for many years. Most situations I can deal with, but yesterday at the end of the session a player brought a situation to my attention which, if I had been called to the table, I would have been unsure what to do. East was playing out the hand and played a spade which North followed in tempo. North held a spade doubleton. When declarer later played a second round of spades, North stopped and thought for a long time before playing his now singleton spade. This didn't throw declarer off his line but he was unhappy about this and called North out over it. South responded by saying her partner is entitled to think. North is notorious for slow play. Whilst South is correct here it is also true that a defender is not allowed to tank with a singleton with the intention of deceiving declarer. Had I been called to the table I would have no idea of North's motivation, only North knows that for sure. I might have made a polite recommendation to North that if they need to think about the hand when they have to play a singleton, put the card face down and announce they need to think about the hand, not this trick, then their intention can never be in doubt. There were no other players experienced in directing that I could theoretically have called on for support. What do you think I should have done had I been called?

I would say it does have enough tricks. A weak two will typically make five tricks if weak, six tricks if good. There are seven spades distributed across the other three hands. Give a small doubleton to partner and this hand will generate five spade tricks on a 3-2 break, a standard lower end weak two. If you are not going to open a weak two on a hand like this, you may as well take them off your card.

I would have thought so just looking at the NS cards. My RHO butchered the play by drawing trumps first. I remember being surprised we made two spade tricks in the defence given partner's 4♠ bid, I was expecting declarer to ruff the second round of spades.

A selection of bids suggesting it is not clear cut. My partner held this hand and bid 4♠ which worked out well when North bid on and went down: [hv=pc=n&s=sj6hk64dqt9532ct5&w=sqt2hdj84ckq98743&n=sa83haqj873dk7ca6&e=sk9754ht952da6cj2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1h1s2h4s5hppp]399|300[/hv] 4♠ should get hammered but North chose to bid on and went two down. 4♥ can make but no-one did. One EW pair played in 3♠ going two down. I think we got lucky here.

Yes.

[hv=pc=n&s=skt76432haqj5djc4&w=s5h632dakt63cak93&n=saq8h97dq9cqjt865&e=sj9hkt84d87542c72&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1s2n3c5dppp&p=s6s5sas9cqc2c4ckdad9d2djdkdqd5s4cac5c7s2c3c6d4s3sjs7d3s8h2h9ht]399|300[/hv] The 3♣ bid by North was described as natural. I disapproved of the 2NT bid on a 5-4 shape. Partner's reasoning was she felt she was too strong to pass and wanted to bid something. I thought 2♦ would be better if she had to bid something. I explained that her hand has defence as well as offense and as such I could be lured into a phantom sacrifice. As it happens the opponents are cold for game and North failed to find the heart switch when they were in. Once I got back in the hand looked like one of those BridgeMaster elimination and throw in hands (there was one almost exactly like the hand here) so I drew trumps, ruffed clubs back to hand noting South was out, ruffed my last spade in dummy and played a heart to hand covering North's card cheaply. South wins and is endplayed into giving me the king of hearts or a ruff and discard. One down for a 50% board. Could have been better but two NS pairs only managed nine tricks in the spade game.

At the table I passed. I felt my hand had decreased in value after the overcall and although it is likely we have a minor fit, I didn't think my hand was good enough to bid 3♣. They made 2♠ and we got a bottom. [hv=pc=n&s=sa9742ha98dq72cq2&w=sq63ht63dj9ct9643&n=st85hkq754dt86ck5&e=skjhj2dak543caj87&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1d1sp2sppp]399|300[/hv] I'm glad some here would take the same action, I wondered at the time if this was another example of me being too passive and allowing the opponents to push me around in the auction. The traveller: 3♣E = -110 3♥N -2 -100 2♠S = +110 3♠S -1 -50 2♣E +1 -110 We got the only minus score as EW. We should get it down but after two rounds of diamonds and a diamond ruff (I led the three), either partner missed the club signal and led a heart or I got back on lead and failed to play a fourth round of diamonds for a trump promotion. Getting it one off would have given us one MP so still a bad board. I guess this is a sympton of the enhanced randomness of a mixed standard and small numbers?