nielsfoged

MP. E/None You are South and holds one of those 6(8) hands above: (1♣)-1NT(15-18 bal)-(pass)-pass; (2♣)-DBL! Which hand are you must likely to hold? Would you dare to DBL if no specific agreement had been made with your regular partner? /Niels

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=st975hq98642da4c8&s=sak642hakdk76cqj3]133|200|Scoring: IMP 1♠-(2♣)-3♣-(p); 3♦-(p)-4♠-(p); 6♠-a.p.[/hv] West (Expert) leads ♣A asking for count. East plays ♣4=Even. West continues ♠Q and East contributes ♠3. What now? Maybe you would like to confer with Frances Hinden's post on a similar subject: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=22498 (I borrowed the Topic title, but notice the important differences: in that board, the trump lead was in trick 1 and it was the J not the Q of trump). /Niels

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sajt864h4dak5ckj5]133|100|Scoring: IMP Pass-Pass-1♠(5+)-Pass, 2♥(5+)-Pass-?[/hv] This hand was presented as a bidding problem on our local Danish bridgesite, and most (including experts) saw it as an easy 3♠. Obviously, I understand the arguments for that bid, but still I personally went for the direct 3NT. That may not always end the bidding, but 4♠ will typically only be reached if Responder has a 3-card support. In contrast, the more popular 3♠ is forcing, and could lead to 3NT (frequently with 0 or 1 spade, rarely with 2 spades) or 4♠ (frequently with 2- or 3- card support). Where I come from, a vulnerable pass followed by 2♥ over 1♠ will typically show exactly 5 cards and 9-10 hcps (or perhaps 6+ hearts with too many (3+?) spades for a decent 2♦(Multi)/2♥/3♥-opening, planning to support ♠ no matter what next round - if any!). Thus, I assume it will be quite rare for Responder to follow up with a bid of 4 Minor or even 4♥, whether Opener rebids 3♠ or 3NT. Please feel free to comment on: - Openers 2nd bid - Any of the above assumptions - Your expectations of winning 3NT and 4S, respectively, if Responder has exactly 2-5 in the majors, and 9-10 hcps. Maybe someone can run a simulation? /Niels

Notice that the opening of the clubs by the defense is never what causes their disaster, whereas the (mechanical) use of a ♣ honnour in 1st round could be what starts their missery!

who said anyting about legitimate - this is real bridge! B)

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sakj2hakj64d92ck7&s=st8hdq8653cat9864]133|200|Scoring: IMP 1H-p-1NT-p; 3NT-a.p.[/hv] Lead: ♠3 (3rd/5th) won by 8 over 7. What is your plan(s)? Do(es) it/they depend on the skill-level of your opponents? Niels

For once I don't agree completely with you, Mikeh. It seems to be an exceptional good day for a sophisticated LHO to lead a singleton ♠J. At both of the referred tables, the bidding included RKC from Responder (2NT-Opener showing 4 of 5 Aces). Normally, Responder should have (at least) 1 keycard for using RKC. Thus the risk of killing partner's ♠Kx(x) seems almost non-existing. However, I must admit that LHO might reason differently holding the bare ♠QJ: "If I lead another suit than trump, I may unattendly attack a potential entrance on the Table in Trick 1, and thereby make it too difficult/risky for Declarer to play for the restricted choice, since Declarer then will need to draw trumps once (trick 2) to see the honnour from me, and afterwards (Trick 3) must find the entrance on the weaker Table before making the trump-finess. To play on restricted choice may well be fascilitated, if I lead the ♠J". Still, my choice would be to finess the ♠Q against the very best and against all weak opponents, and play for the drop against the rest, even the quite good ones. In the actual game, it would be a finess.

I play a more classical version of Lebensohl, but I think your version has many nice features, not at least due to the direct transfers, which allow you to show invitational as well as GF 5+c suits. As you indicate, your system is somewhat complicated to remember, but IMO it is acceptable. However, you do not mention, how you play, if 2Y shows an unknown major suit (e.g. a defensive 2♦ Multi over 1NT), or if 2Y shows both majors (e.g. a conventional 2♣). This is not easy to handle by gut feeling at the table, and I strongly advise to make a "Lebensohl"-like agreement. My suggestion after 1NT-(2♦=Multi) is: Dbl= either penalty of their 2Ma (typically with both majors), or 5+c in any suit, GF 2Ma=weak, nat 2NT=Leb to 3C ----pass=weak with ♣ ----3♦=weak, nat ----3Ma=4c in other Major + stopper in the bid Ma, GF* ----3NT=No major suit, but in principle(!) with stopper in both, GF 3Mi=5+c, nat, invitational, NF 3Ma=4c in other Major, no stopper in the bid Ma, GF* 3NT=No major suit, in principle(!) without any major stopper, GF *The rule is:"Lebensohl cue-bid as if you knew their major"! After 1NT-(2♦=Multi)-Dbl-(2♥), there are basically two options: pass=2-3♥s Dbl=4(5)♥s After 1NT-(2♦=Multi)-Dbl-(2♥), pass-(pass/2♠): Dbl=penalty 2NT=unknown 5+c suit, and stopper in opp's major, GF! 3New=5+c suit, GF, no stopper in opp's major 3Opps=splinter w. 5+c other Major and slaminterest 3NT=same as 2NT, but NF There is even more to discuss, and obviously other ways to handle this type of interference. However, similar principles can be used against, e.g. 2♣=both majors. Niels

The ♦-lead did not give a count, but LHO next 2 ♦'s (T and K) seemed well considered and looked like an effort to ensure that ♦'s would not block. Also RHO 2nd and 3rd ♦ strongly indicated that he started with an odd number. I suggest you believe the opponents on this particular information: ♦'s seems 4-5 with J9xxx at Openers hand (=RHO), though a tricky LHO may tease you (and partner) by holding KT9xx! By the way ArcLight: don't take 3 rounds of ♥'s that will spoil you chances of finessing twice in ♣'s! To Free: I think playing ♠'s first rather than ♥'s has some, but not a lot of merit. Yes, you will know whether ♠ are 1-4 or 2-3/3-2. However, if ♠'s are 1-4, RHO may have 4-4-4-1 (or perhaps even 4-3-5-1, if you think LHO could have a 4c suit in ♥ afterall). If ♠'s are 2-3, RHO may have 3-4-5-1 (or perhaps 3-3-5-2 or even 3-4-4-2) Only if ♠'s are 3-2, RHO seems to be holding at least two ♣'s, typically 2-4-5-2, but is KQ/KTxx/J9xxx/JT a junior-opening hand? Finally, playing ♠ rather than ♥ in trick 2, quite often will cost you 1 imp (9 tricks in stead of 10) - admittedly not your major worry here, though! /Niels

Hi again Hannie I noticed that you expect the opening opponent to have 11 hcp if balanced, but the core problem is indeed whether RHO is balanced (that is have at least 2 ♣'s) or has the ♣T singleton, and thereby 10 hcps at most. Until now RHO has simply confirmed his age! - maybe it is time to add some statistics and/or a good guess of the shape of both opp's hands? /Niels

Hannie - Be aware that it was RHO who opened 1♦ /Niels

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=saxxxhajxdxckq8xx&s=stxxxhqxxdaqxcaxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP (1♦)-pass-(3♦)-Dbl; (pass)-3NT-a.p.[/hv] EW are national juniors playing 1NT=15-17, 1♦ at least 4 cards, 3♦ weak-jump w/o major. Agree or not with the bidding and the first 5½ tricks, you have to deal with: 1) small ♦ to J and Q 2) ♥ to J and K 3) small ♦ to LHO's T 4) ♦K from LHO to your A 5) ♣A-small-small-T When you now play ♣ toward the table, LHO produces the last small one... :P

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sajthaj732da43c75&w=s63h865dk965cqj63&e=skq72hqt9dt2ct984&s=s9854hk4dqj87cak2]399|300|Scoring: IMP Lead ♣3 to 8[/hv] This was (unfortunately!) the full deal! I ducked and took the following ♣T with the A (6 from LHO). Though the ♥'s were tempting and the ♠'s seemed the most "clever", I decided to attack ♦'s immediately to keep connections open, aiming for at least 3+2+2+2 tricks, or a fall back to 2+3+2+2 tricks without giving away more than the apparent 2 ♣s and either 1♠ + 1♦ or 2♠'s: ♦Q-K-A-2. ♥ to K, ♠ to J and Q, and ♣9 to my K (J from LHO, ♥ discard from table). Now came the slightly scary ♠ finess to T and... ...K, leaving the blocking A on the table. ♣ to Q (♦ off from both hands), and ♦ return to my J. Only chance now was a remaining ♥Qx in LHO, but no - and 1 down! Apart from the general annoyance of going down with 27 hcps, I think my partner's point was that after the successful ♦ finess, it would be better to continue with ♥'s aiming for 4 tricks in that suit and a total of 1+4+2+2, loosing just the 2 ♣s and 1♥ + trick 13. Maybe he was right? Niels

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sajthaj732da43c75&s=s9854hk4dqj87cak2]133|200|Scoring: IMP Lead ♣3 (4th)[/hv] p-1NT(12-14)-p-2♦, p-2♥-p-3NT, all pass If you duck the first ♣, E gets it on the 8, and continues with ♣T. What is your plan? Niels

When the partnership has a major-fit, do you then admit to holding a side-suit singleton, when it is the K or A bare?

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sat92hakjt3dk652c&w=s8753hq742d983ckj&e=skqj4h985d4ct9873&s=s6h6daqjt7caq6542]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] A rather lucky lay of the cards for South in 7♦. Even the inferior plan I chose "at the table" resulted in 13 tricks (sorry opps): ♠A ♠->♦7 ♥->J!! ♥A+♥K, ♦->T, ♣A and now cross-ruff relying on ♣ 4-3/3-4 or as here Kx in West. Just an approx 33% chance, and I have now learned from a Danish national (Michael Askgaard) that there is a much better way, which I believe is also superior to Halo's plan (approx. 45% and 40%, respectively, according to my rather primitive calculations based on a priori probabilities): ♠A ♠->♦7 ♣A ♣->♦2 ♠->♦T ♣->♦5 If ♣K drops out now, draw trumps and claim (unless ♦ 4-0) If ♣K is still out there all by itself: ♥A+♥K Major->♦J (better choose the one were East cannot discard!) Now in the 4 card end position play ♣6 from the hand's ♦AQ+♣Q6 towards ♦K6. This plan also makes very frequently, when West holds just 2♣s together with ♥Q. For the actual lay of cards, where the ♣K drops already at the first ♣ruff, go for a total of 1♠, 2♣, 2♣-ruffs, 5♦ in hand and 3♥ tricks by a finess. Niels

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sat92hakjt3dk653c&s=s6h6daqjt7caq6542]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] #459 Pairs Skandinavia Benelux Club at BBO 22 Dec. Last board of 12: You have reached 7♦ flawlessly, and without interventions, but after the ♠8 lead, it doesn't look so easy anymore. What is your plan as Declarer (South)?

100% correct, mikeh, that is the clue: No matter how indifferent it may look, don't use that dead ♥K in trick 1. The board was played in live bridge (not on the net), and as far as I (South) noticed, the bidding went smooth all the way, so I was not even near to calling the TD. However, you are right mikeh, the 4♥ bid from West was much more succesful than obvious, all white.

You are close, but I am sure you can do a little better :)

[hv=d=n&v=n&e=st7hjt876dj9652c9&s=saq92hk2da74ckt85]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Being my first post at this forum, it better be representative of my major experience with this game: I made a mistake, but at least it was yet a new one! Bidding went: pass-(pass)-1♣-(1♥), 2♣-(3♥)-pass-(pass), 3♠-(pass)-3NT-(4♥), Dbl-all pass Opponents bid naturally, whereas my 1♣ was either natural or 15-19 bal, pd's 2♣ was 6-9 hcps with 5+c ♣ and less than 4c ♠, my pass was 15-16(17) bal, pds 3♠ showed a stopper, and his Dbl was to discourage further bidding. Out came ♥4 covered by 6. How do you plan the defense?