Trinidad

Do I read the vulnerability right? We are white vs red? That makes this is a simple problem. Just pass. If RHO has been monkeying you will get 300 or so in. The most you stand to loose is 120 points (3 IMPs) when you can make 4♥. The much more likely scenario in that case is that they will be off in 1NT while they could have made 3♠ (winning 6-8 IMPs) or we could have made 3♥ (winning 2-4 IMPs). Rik

Let me ask an other question first: Suppose that you were not interested in getting any particular lead. Which heart would you then play? Rik

I fully agree with Gerben's two main statements: o Keep it simple o Don't worry too much How do you use these statements to devise a defense against a strong 1♣ opening? To start with, all bids in a suit at the one level are natural. (New suits are forcing 1 round, 2NT is a good raise, other raises are making noise.) Then, bids at the two level have the same meaning as they would have if the opponents had opened a strong no trump. Now you look at the system that that will give you. (That obviously depends on your defense against 1NT.) Is there a handtype that should bid but that you can't bid? (I can, for example, imagine a hand with both minors.) Then you use 1NT for that handtype. This has the advantage that you don't have to prepare a lot. Rik ================================================= My prefered defense vs a strong 1♣: - takes away bidding room while still relatively safe. - (except for one), all bids are non forcing. Responder cannot sit back with a good hand and see what develops. I play DONT at the two level, 1NT shows a minor (equivalent to a Multi 2♦ opening) and 1M is natural

You are fast! I thought I fixed it immediately. Rik

I wil give you a North hand and the dummy. [hv=n=saj92hkqj762dcq65&e=skq754ht954dt8ct2]266|200|[/hv] The auction: West North East South 3NT* All Pass * 3NT shows 16-19 with a semisolid minor. North leads the ♥K, South plays the 3, declarer playing the 8. The ♥K wins the trick. In principle, NS play original fourth best continuations to show distribution. What heart should North play to trick 2 to make South switch to a spade? Rik

This is one way to see it, another way would be, that the 4D bid tells partner, that in a heart contract we have 6 sure diamonds tricks. Which may help him, to count to 12 or 13. With kind regards Marlowe That is obviously true and it is certainly valuable information. There are two reasons why I prefer the semi-solid suit approach. 1) If you require a solid suit, the bid won't come up that often. Partner will only be able to count to 12 or 13 when the bid comes up. And that is pretty rare. 2) Often, it is not necessary to tell partner about the solid suit. After all, I can see the solid suit in my own hand and I can already see myself that there are 6 diamond tricks. Effectively, you are making the bid to tell partner that you have six tricks, while you already knew that yourself when you picked up your cards. As a partnership, the only thing you have done is share information about the number of diamond tricks. This was information that you already had. It is not new information. However, if you require a suit missing one top honor, partner can count on 6 diamond tricks as soon as he has a top honor himself. This is a situation where no one in the partnership knows up front how many diamond tricks there will be. But after the 4♦ bid, partner will have the information about the diamond suit. This is information that the partnership has gained due to the 4♦ bid. This is new information. And it is information that is very hard to get any other way. Finally, as I indicated, if your suit is solid, a splinter to 3♠ will extract very valuable information from partner too. And that is what you want, since you are already in the position to count six diamond tricks yourself. Rik

To me, 4♦ shows the hand in the original post, i.e. a very good, but not solid diamond suit. After this, responder knows to value his diamond top honor, if he has one. I see splinters as well as this 4♦ bid as a method for partner to evaluate the location of his honors. When you think of it that way, it is not useful to bid 4♦ with a solid suit (since partner will be turned off since he won't have a fitting honor) and not useful to splinter with a singleton A or K. If the diamond suit in the original post would be solid, like ♠-♥Kxxx♦AKQJxx♣JTx, I would splinter with 3♠. This would tell my partner to discount any spade honors and upgrade honors outside spades. Since I know he doesn't have any honors in diamonds he will be upgrading honors in clubs and hearts, exactly the honors that are of value to me. Rik

This is IMPs, with vulnerable opponents. I think that 5♦ might make, go down 1 or go down quite a few. To simplify the problem, let's look at the cases where 5♦ makes or goes down 1. At the other table they play 5♦, undoubled and you double here. 5♦ makes and you loose 750-600 = 150. This converts to -4 IMPs. Now, the same situation, but 5♦ goes down 1. In this case you win 200-100 = 100, converting to 3 IMPs. In other words, not counting overtricks or undertricks the pass - Dbl decision is about 50-50. However, it is really unlikely that there will be overtricks. Even if they do have a singleton spade, partner might still have a trick somewhere. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to get more undertricks. (E.g. if partner is short in spades.) In that case you have turned a club part score for your side into a game swing by doubling 5♦. Rik

I am not claiming to be an expert on xyz. (I play a variation of it with my favorite partner with whom I unfortunately play very infrequently.) If you want to have the expert advice on xy-NT and xyz, go to Denmark (or other Scandinavian countries). But I have the right to Freedom of Speech, so here is my opinion on the matter. Xyz gives you two ways to bid 3♦. You can bid 3♦ directly after 1NT, or you can first relay with 2♣-2♦ and then bid 3♦. The difference is in the tempo of the auction (invitational, or sign off) or in the distribution of the cards between the suits. Since it doesn't make sense to play either 3♦ bid as a sign off (just pass 2♣-♦ or bid 2♠ immediately over 1NT), it is clear that the difference between the direct 3♦ bid and the relay 3♦ bid is in the relative length of the spade and diamond suits. Thus, the idea behind both 3♦ bids is: - It is invitational. - Since it can be passed and is a bid at the three level, it shows a -more or less- guaranteed fit. (The more or less is for the 5422 hands that could be treated as balanced. That is unlikely on an auction starting with 1♥-1♠, but it could happen on an action starting with 1♣-1♠.) Then, the rule is that auctions that go through the relay show extra length in responder's major. Thus, relaying and bidding 3♦ shows at least 5♠ and at least 5♦ (and invitational values). ==================================== The situation would be more complicated if the final bid would have been 3♣. In that case one could give the bid a meaning equivalent to the 3♦ situation. I have seen people play this. However, there is no possibility to sign off in clubs over 1NT other than to bid an immediate 3♣. Therefore, it is also possible to use the difference between direct bid and relay first to discriminate between sign offs and invitational hands. This means that the relay followed by 3♣ shows an invitational hand with 4(+)♠ + 6(+)♣. I have seen people play this as well. Rik

Just my two cents: I think it is normal to think as third hand when dummy comes down. I don't like the idea of playing a card face down to trick one and then keep on planning anyway. What if you suddenly see that you should play differently anyway? Should you then be allowed to change the card? That would pass unauthorized information (UI) that you DON'T have a singleton. But if you are not allowed to change your play, it wouldn't be smart to play the card face down since you are risking to play the wrong card if you don't have your defensive plan ready. Thus, the only time that you would actually play a card face down would be when you truely didn't have anything to think about. I can only imagine doing that when I have a singleton. That is pretty clear UI too. So, at trick one, I always think. Whether I have 12 cards in the suit led or just 1. And don't be fooled by opponents who claim that you don't have a bridge reason for your hesitation. Avoiding passing UI by making your plays in the same tempo is an excellent bridge reason. Obviously, this only goes for trick one. In addition, in my opinion declarers should not play fast from dummy to trick one. The only "good" that it will do is catch third hand in an ethical problem every now and then. That should not be the type of good that declarer should be striving for. In some jurisdiction it is actually prescribed for declarer to take about 10 seconds before playing from dummy. Rik

That one is easy: 1♠. The hard one is: What do people bid with: ♠ Kx ♥ xxx ♦ Axxx ♣ AQxx ? This is one of the reasons why in SAYC you will open balanced hands with 4-4 in the minors with 1♦. I know that in The Netherlands these hands are opened 1♣, but that is not SAYC. Rik

My partner and I see the Jacoby 2NT bid as an asking bid: "I have support, what can you tell me about your hand?" Since we like to make our lives as difficult as possible we have a complicated response structure. :) But the agreement on what to do with interference is pretty simple and the same for interference over all these types of bids: We will use PODI, as long as they interfere at the level where PODI will help us to get all the responses in without passing the level that we are forced to. If they interfere higher than that X=PEN, Pass is (obviously) forcing, the rest is natural. Rik P.S. PODI means Pass: Step 1 response (3♣ in the case of Jacoby 2NT) Dbl: Step 2 response (3♦ in the case of Jacoby 2NT) rest: step 3 and higher

I voted no blame. I don't think North should bid 3♠ on 9xx. This means that I don't think that the bad result was due to bidding error by North or South. Nevertheless, I think South should have bid 5♦, rather than 5♣. But this would have led to the same result. Rik

This is misguided. East was not allowed to change his bid. Read Law 21B1. East is only allowed to change his bid if it is likely that he made his original bid based on the misinformation. This condition is not met here. In fact, East couldn't care less what 2♦ meant. He would bid 4♥, no matter what. This is one of the reasons why, technically, North has to call the TD when giving the late alert (see Law 75D1). I wrote 'technically' because in practice I don't know anybody who would call the TD in this case. Other than these two remarks I obviously agree with all previous posters. This TD decision was very wrong. It is very clear that the table result should stand. Rik

This is how I would vote too. Rik

I fully agree with Frances. To me Reverse Drury is not a checkback to see if partner had his bid or not. It is a conventional raise of opener's major. Common sense says that the only passed hands that can envision game opposite a minimum are the hands with a fit. That means that it is useful to devide the responses in bids that show a fit and bids that deny a fit. Bids that show a fit are forcing. Bids that deny a fit are not forcing. If you can't separate the forcing bids from the non forcing bids, you will get a mess when it isn't necessary. Rik

I tried to do the math, assuming the following: West has shown ♠QJx ♥J ♦Qxx and has six other places that could be clubs. East has shown ♠- ♥Kx ♦xxx and has eight other places that could be clubs. Then, if you start distributing the clubs over East and west, the odds that the first club goes to west are 6/(8+6). Now one place is occupied and the odds for the next club to go to west are 5/(8+5), etc. When you work this out you will get: P(n clubs with East)=Combin (6,n)*fact(8)*fact(6)*fact(8)/fact(8+6)/fact(n)/fact(8-n). There fact(x) stands for the factorial of x [x*(x-1)*(x-2)*...*2*1] and Combin (x,y) stands for the combinatorial of x and y, i.e. fact(x)/fact(y)/fact(x-y). The calculation gave: probability distribution of clubs 0.00033 6-0 0.01598 5-1 0.13986 4-2 0.37296 3-3 0.34965 2-4 0.11189 1-5 0.00932 0-6 I was happy to see that the sum of these probabilities was 1 :). Thus, the probability for a 3-3 distribution was 37.3%. The sum of the probabilities for the 2-4, 1-5 and 0-6 distributions was 47.1%. Making the daring assumption that I did all this math correctly, the alternative line (playing for 0-6/1-5 or 2-4) would then be 1.26 times more likely to succeed than the given line (playing for 3-3). Rik

The full deal is probably: [hv=n=sk63hkj52dqt62caj&w=sjt954hdj974cxxxx&e=saqh98763d5cxxxxx&s=s872haqt4dak83cq4]399|300|[/hv] Obviously, it is most likely that LHO has the ♣K, but I have seen stranger things in my life. I don't think that West can have the ♠A, since it makes both West's opening lead and East's play to trick one somewhat strange. So, I will duck a spade to East's ace. East will exit in trump and I will play all the trumps, leaving something like: [hv=n=sk63hkj52dqt62caj&w=sjt954hdj974cxxxx&e=saqh98763d5cxxxxx&s=s872haqt4dak83cq4]399|300|[/hv] Now, I can cash ♦AKQ and ♠K. If East ruffs he will have to play clubs. If East doesn't ruff, I just cash the ♣A and East will get the last trick with his trump. Rik P.S. The same line works if East has more diamonds. The key is that he will have ♠AQ and five hearts.

I was checking Mike Lawrence's Bridgeclues website today. It had the following play problem: [hv=n=sa875hq7daj3ca872&s=skt9432ha8dk7ck64]133|200|[/hv] You are in 6♠ on the lead of the ♥J. You try the Q, but it is covered and you take your ace. You play the ♠K, get the 6 from West while East discards a heart. The question is: what is the best line to still make your contract? Since you are obviously going to need the diamond finesse, let's take a winning finesse straight away in our minds and see what cards are going to be left then: [hv=n=sa87h7daca872&w=sqjhdc&e=shdc&s=st9432h8dck64]399|300|[/hv] Now what are you going to do now? Mike plays the ♦A and discards a club, plays ♣KA, ruffs a club, entering dummy in trump and discarding the heart on the last club. He is playing for clubs to be 3-3. An alternative line would be to take the ♠A, play the ♦A, discard a heart and ruff a heart. Take the ♣K, play a club to the ace and as long as nothing has happened exit with a trump. West will be endplayed if clubs were 0-6, 1-5 or 2-4 (with west having the shorter clubs). (If west ruffs the small club to the ace, you can even be flashy and play the ace anyway :( ) Everything else being equal, odds for clubs splitting 3-3 are 35.5 %, leaving 64.5 % for the other distributions, half of which will have west with the short clubs. That is 32.25%, making the play for 3-3 the better line. But everything else isn't equal. Spades were 3-0 and West is already placed with at least three diamonds to the queen. On top of that, West is known to have the ♥J from the opening lead while East is known to have the ♥K3. Presumably, East also followed to three rounds of diamonds. How does this change the calculation? Greetings, Rik

I would open and consider my hand a minimum hand. When responder shows a three card invitational raise, I pass. However, when responder shows a four card invitational raise, I will raise to game, since now my singleton is worth about 2.5 HCP's. Opposite a three card raise the singleton isn't worth much since it will only serve to loose trump control. But opposite four card support I don't need to worry about trump control. Now my singleton will play nice in a dummy reversal or a cross-ruff. To summarize this in a general rule: After a three card invitation, put emphasis on high cards. After a four card invitation, put emphasis on controls and distribution. Rik

Why would I pass? If partner has a maximum overcall we can make game. I raise to 2♠. The real question would be if I would accept a game invitation by partner, after I have raised to 2♠. I wouldn't, but it's close. The actual problem (raise to 2♠ or pass) is a no brainer. Rik

I would normally bid 3♦, but my first alternative (at MP's!) is to pass, not to bid a lot of hearts. So if I would want to take a view, I would pass, expecting to score +140 :) , +110 :D or +170 :(, with a possibility of +200 :rolleyes: , +500 :lol: or +800 :P . I would expect the field to score -100 (200) :D , +600 :unsure: , +620 :(. It would be a reasonable view to take if you want to go against the field. Rik

SAYC stands for Standard American Yellow Card. As the name says, it is a bidding system that is standard in Northern America. The "Yellow Card" is added since a long time ago, the ACBL (American Contract Bridge League) printed standard convention cards for one particular variation of the Standard American system on yellow paper. The SAYC system is based on five card major openings where 1♦ and 1♣ openings can be bid on three card suits. The 1NT opening is 15-17 or 16-18. A response at the two level (or a "two over one", in short 2/1, such as 1♠-2♣) shows at least about 10/11 points. The 2/1 system ("Two over one") is a more modern variation. The actual name of this system is "Two over one game forcing", or "2/1 GF", but many people will just write "2/1". This "2/1 GF" system is very similar to the SAYC system. There are two big differences. A two over one bid is now game forcing and shows at least about 12/13 points. The second difference is a consequence of the first: Hands with 10/11 points cannot respond at the two level. That means that the 1NT response can be quite strong and has a range of 6-12 points. Therefore, the 1NT response is forcing for one round. Responder can clarify with his next bid whether he had a "standard" 6-9 1NT response or whether he had a 10-12 hand. BTW, the way most 2/1 players play is that a 2/1 is only GF after an opening of 1♥ or 1♠. The sequence 1♦-2♣ would not be GF yet. Rik

1) 3NT. Should we be in 4♥? Tough luck. 2) What is the use of bidding 2♥? If I bid 1♦-1♠; 2♣-3NT, I show 12-14 HCP, exactly 4 spades in a balanced hand and three hearts with a stopper or 2 hearts with an excellent stopper. 3NT promisses 4333, 4324 or 4234 distribution. Note that this bid also promisses at least six cards in the minors. If I bid 2♥, I am showing either: additional strength or multiple places to play. I have neither. As far as my own hand is concerned, it only want to suggest a 4-4 fit in spades or a no trump contract. If partner would have a hand with something like 65 in the minors, you will hear him after 3NT, given that 1♦-1♠; 2♣-3NT promisses 6 cards in the minors (since it denied 5 spades or 4 hearts). Bidding 2♥ on hands like this is ignoring partner. You are trying to figure out what partner has to place the contract but overlook that you have an extremely descriptive bid available that makes it easy for partner to place the contract. Just make the descriptive bid and trust that partner will make the right decision. Rik

(We play 'all' DBL"s for take out) ...If you DBL then partner bids 2S...What now? Why would partner bid 2♠? To me the auction 1♣-1♠-2♣-Dbl; Pass-2♥-Pass-4♥; a.p. makes perfect sense. Rik