Trinidad

I would say something like 5242, ~9 points (positive, offering a choice of game contracts). (I agree that 3♣ shows a weak club hand ~4216.) Rik

Dbl and Pass. Also after partner bids 3♠. Give him four queens and four spades and 4♠ won't make. With significantly more (not very likely), partner would bid 4♠. Give partner four spades and one queen and he will be declaring 4♠ doubled (if you bid 4♠, of course). He will go -2 in 3♠, for -100, but he will be -3 in 4♠X for -500. Rik

An easy pass. Balanced hand, about two tricks on defense (♥ATxx = 1.5, ♦Q = 0.5) and a little over one on offense. Partner can't have 9 offensive tricks without having two defensive tricks. Or from a different perspective: I am far from a religious follower of the law of total tricks. After all, the law can be off by quite a few tricks. But the law is not completely hopeless either. If it predicts 16 or 17 total tricks, it is unlikely that there will be 20. Rik

I know that I should pass, but I'm very tempted to bid 2♠. No, I have to many hearts. Partner will get us too high with his likely heart shortness. Yes, after all, I have a nice spade suit. No... Yes... If only clubs and diamonds were switched. Then I could at least handle one more response from partner. That settles it. PASS. Rik

Just a question for the 4♣ bidders: How is partner going to decide whether to bid 5♣ when you have 12 HCPs and could have 0? My way to deal with preempts: Assume partner has about 7 points. Then bid to the level that you can make. But that means that a responder needs to be active if he has considerably more than his assumed 7 points. So, IMO, 4♣ is for hands with say 9 or less points. Obviously, this is slightly different since this is a balancing auction. But the difference is small. After all, the fourth seat doesn't know how the points are distributed and he doesn't know of a fit (other than that the preempter doesn't need much from his partner to have a fit). This auction is very different from, say, 1♠-Pass-2♠-Pass; Pass. Since the level is relatively high, balancing vs preempts can be very costly if the deal turns out to be a misfit. This is especially true at IMPs. The traditional "borrow a king from partner" rule for balancing doesn't hold for balancing against preempts. You cannot borrow a king on top of the 7HCPs that you already borrowed. Then you start to get very close to the range of hands that partner cannot have anymore. An additional difference in the balancing auction is that responder is limited. When responder forces to game, his values are precisely known (too little to act in second seat, enough to force to game: about 10-13). Partner will not get us over board. The only risk in bidding 4♦ is that we are already over board. :unsure: There may be two causes for that: 1) We are unlucky. It happens. 2) Partner doesn't know what a balancing bid at IMPs looks like. That can also happen, but not in a long lasting partnership. :) Rik

I commend Fred's exceptional honesty. In the UK, players tend to be more reticent about their notrump ranges. Their card may advertise 12-14, but, in practice, this often means 11-13 not vul but 13-15 vul. Such economy with the truth is widely rationalised and condoned as "Judgement" and "General Bridge knowledge". I don't have a problem with different hand evaluation methods. That's 'bridge'. Everybody who knows anything about bridge knows that 4-3-2-1 is a gross oversimplification. However, I do have a problem with the variation according to position and vulnerability. If this is as significant as 11-13 (fav.) vs 13-15 (unfav.) then it should be disclosed properly. After all, disclosing properly is also 'bridge'. Rik

4♦. wtp Rik

A typical auction was: W N E S - - - 2♣ 3♠ Dbl Pass 3NT All Pass Rik

After yesterday's match, "Someone else" is leading in the pole. And I think that if "Someone else" keeps playing like they have and are a little lucky (which is always needed) they could win it. Rik (living in "Someone else")

LOL. Obviously this hand is too strong for a 1♦ overcall. The appropriate action is to double first and then bid diamonds. :D Rik

I am surprised by some of the answers here. I learnt to play bridge in the Mid West and there are three terms describing defensive methods: Leads: The conventional meaning of the first card played to a trick. Signals: The conventional meaning of the (spot) card played when following suit or discarding. Carding: The combination of defensive methods: Leads & signals. I do agree though, that if you ask the leader for carding agreements that it implies interest in signalling methods whereas if you ask the third hand you would be interested in lead methods. Therefore, it would have been clearer to ask for an explanation of the "leads and signals" rather than for "carding". Rik

Am I the only one wondering what beginning players (less than 1 year of bridge, 3♣ as a cuebid) are doing in an event where screens are used? These people already have trouble holding thirteen cards in their hands. Counting to thirteen is nearly impossible and then you want them to understand the intricacies involved in playing with screens?!? Rik

I have written some posts on this forum in support of the phone ban. But (at least to me) it is obvious that it should be possible to check your phone at zero cost, close to the entrance of the play room. To forbid players to carry their phone and then charging them for following your regulation is ridiculous. Rik

Never at favorable vulnerability. But in the balancing seat, at all white, I could show my two best suits when I am (4441) with 4 spades. Rik

Yes, the rule is that opener has bid two suits without showing extras, and responder has bid one suit at the one-level. And then there is the exception for 1♣-1♦ 1♥-? where people refuse to play 1♠ as FSF because they are stupid (ok I will be flamed for this). No flame from me. It makes perfect sense to play this as FSF, if opener has shown two genuine suits. Typical examples are: Acol (the genuine variation where 4 card majors are often bid before 4 card minors), or a 5 card major system including Walsh. However, when opener only promises a genuine heart suit (and therefore a 4=4=2=3 (or even a 4=4=3=2) distribution would be as likely as a 2=4=3=4 distribution) it does make more sense to play 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠ as "1blup-1♦; 1♥-1♠", thus making 1♠ the third suit. In that case, good hands without direction can always use 2♠ as FSF. Rik

I play them as conventional showing specific hand types that I take out off the 'regular' rebids. That way, the 'normal' rebids are not too much overloaded. Rik

Pass seems obvious to me. First alternative: Also pass. And if you force me to do something else, I would probably not choose 4♣ or 4♦, but 3NT. Rik

The little trick can be extended. I play exactly what you play (side suit, rather than small doubleton) but with the extension that 3♦ shows a maximum with 3433. When you have described a hand so precisely you don't want to be declarer anymore. Responder can place the contract or make a cuebid. An additional advantage of showing the side suit (rather than the small doubleton) is that it can come in to play as the trump suit in a slam. Quite often, you can take 12 (13) tricks in the 4-4 fit and only 11 (12) in the 5-4 fit. Rik

With two cards left? With the hand on lead having the high trump and a high non-trump? How about if I claim with one card left? Am I still being insulting when I claim without explaining how my last card is going to win the trick? Can't we assume a very basic knowledge of bridge when we claim? I think that's safer than assuming a very basic knowledge of English. The problem here is that there were only two tricks left. If declarer claims at trick two or three (e.g. after seeing trumps break), I would normally award the claim without any problem, potentially with six trumps still out. This goes for Speedball games, but also in face to face games when there is time pressure. In this case, declarer is claiming in trick 12! How much time can he possibly save by claiming? He could have played it out in the same time. And just in case an opponent starts to think in trick 12, declarer can still hit the claim button. Rik

agree I agree too. Last week, we had the following auction that was slightly different: (1♦)-2♠-(3♠)-Dbl 2♠ was weak. What does this double mean (given that it doesn't make sense for partner to show that he had a preemptive raise to 3♠)? Rik

Partner could have: ♠Jx ♥ATxxx ♦AJT ♣KJT Wouldn't that be a maximum with a small doubleton spade? I will play him for that hand and bid 4♥. Rik

Agree with Helene, Rik

It could be that this comment was just in self-defense after Justin criticized your earlier post, rather than a serious opinion. But in any case, I would like to mention that being 8 IMPs up with 7 boards to play should not influence your play in any way. Many people do think that as soon as they are a few IMPS ahead, they should immediately tighten up, and nurse those IMPs to the finish line. I can't think of a more likely way to lose a small lead than playing bridge in this way. If you happen to lose 13 IMPs on the last hand (yes, it can happen!), you will regret your deliberate anti-percentage efforts in turning down opportunities to win IMPs on the other 6 hands. I fully agree with you. The difference is that I read the original post a little different from you. You read "You're winning this match by 8 imp's with 7 boards to go" as "8 IMPs up, 7 boards to go. Now this board comes up." Makes perfect sense. I read it as: "You were 8 IMPs up when there were 7 boards to go [, and so far in this last set nothing special has happened]." I read it like that because the OP must have thought that the state of the match was important, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it. That makes some sense too, but I probably just put too much emphasis on the state of the match. So, in short, my opinion was serious, but based on different circumstances. Rik

That's brilliant man. Clearly this logic is the way to go because ways to win imps on a board don't factor in. You got it exactly! At this state of the match (game swing up, a few boards to go), I am only interested in not loosing a lot of IMPs and not interested in winning IMPs. So, no, in this particular situation, they don't factor in. Nice to see that you understood my post the way it was intended! B) Rik

It would not occur to me to bid 4♣ at IMPs with this hand (and certainly not when ahead in a short match). There are three ways to loose a lot of IMPs on this board. 1) We go down (doubled or even undoubled), when nobody can make anything. 2) We miss a game that was bid easily at the other table. 3) We let the opponents get to a good game. A bid of 4♣ combines the first two risks. After a 1♣ opening, you take the third risk. And by opening 5♣ you basically only risk to go down a lot. I will simplify the problem (at the risk of oversimplifying): A bid of 4♣ comes with two ways to loose lots of IMPs, while a bid of 1♣ or 5♣ comes with one way to loose lots of IMPs. To put it very simple (but very clear): 4♣ is twice as bad as the alternatives. Or look at it from the other perspective: You bid 4♣ and at the other table they bid 5♣. You win 300 points (7 IMPs) if you go down doubled. But you loose 450 points (10 IMPs) if 5♣ makes and you don't get to game. (Does partner know to bid game with two aces, two queens and a singleton club?) I don't have much of a preference when it comes too choosing between 1♣ and 5♣, but I actively dislike 4♣ (at IMPS, at this score). Rik