brianshark

No, I would have bid Michaels. I bid 6♠ now. I just think passing or doubling is aiming for too narrow a target. Their 6♥ may well make and our 6♠ may well make. Wow, I see a consensus for 6♠ so far.

1. 2♣ 2. 4♣ (Would not have doubled previously) 3. Pass Edit: wow I'm very late to the thread, sorry. :)

It's ok to assume that your partner has made a mistaken bid (basically an accidental psyche) if it is bridge logic that guides you to realising his misbid. Bridge logic, in this case, is adding up the points which reveals he is unlikely to have a maximum 14-16 NT and have a small doubleton in spades. Another example would be that if partner opened 1♠ which shows 5+ and you are holding 10 spades in your own hand, you are allowed to know and bid on the assumption that partner has psyched. If however you suspected he didn't have his bid because of hesitation or a history of partner making similar bidding mistakes, that would be illegal.

I settled for 3♦.

2NT. I'm bidding NT now because if pard has the values to be in game, we're at the 4-level, not the 3-level. This hand doesn't seem good enough to invite in hearts.

Agree with settling for 4♥. Also, good luck in trials. Hope to see you there.

3♣/3♦ = 5+ with 4 ♥s 2NT = no idea 3♥ = to play X = penalties

I'm no weak NT expert, but I've heard that one of the biggest advantages of playing a weak NT is the increased frequency of opening 1NT, and opening most 5M332 hands 1NT works well.

In polish, I lead 4th highest from Hxxx(+) and 2nd from: xx, xxx, xxxx(+), Hxx. 3rd from Hhx and top from Hx. I find it's pretty neat. Play whetever you want. There will always be some ambiguities for any lead system. You'll always know the subset of hands within which partner's lead must belong and use other clues to decide which.

Sorry, board 3 you are the 1♥ bidder (hence being on lead against 3♠). I just had the dealer as east instead of west.

I am going to assign almost all of the blame to north. South's 4♦ bid is very descriptive and north has a crap minimum with poor trumps and almost all of his points in partner's short suits. He should have just signed off instead of bidding 4♥.

These are all imps: 1. You sit south, dealer north, NS vul, and you hold ♠AJ6 ♥J3 ♦K862 ♣A987. The auction goes: Pass - 1♥ - Dbl - 2♥ 2♠ - 3♦ - Pass - 3♥ Pass - Pass - Pass Your lead? 2. You sit south, dealer east, All vul, and you hold ♠T ♥K943 ♦AKJ4 ♣AQJT The auction goes: 2♥ - 2NT - Pass - 4♣ (1) Pass - 4♠ (2) - Pass - Pass Pass (1) = Gerber (2) = 2 aces The lead is the heart 7. Dummy: ♠KQ87654 ♥Q6 ♦6 ♣K96 Declarer: ♠T ♥K943 ♦AKJ4 ♣AQJT So it goes heart to the ace, then the 2 of hearts back which is ruffed with the 2 of spades. LHO then returns the spade 3. Your play? 3. You sit south, dealer west, NS vul and you hold: ♠QT6 ♥AT962 ♦AT3 ♣T4 The auction goes: Pass - Pass - 1♣ - 1♥ Dbl (1) - Pass - 3♠ - Pass Pass - Pass (1) = Alerted as "negative(ish)" Your lead? 4. Nobody vul, You hold: ♠7 ♥8763 ♦6 ♣AQJ8532 RHO deals and opens 1♠. Your call? 5. Unfavourable vul, You hold: ♠J ♥JT53 ♦KQJ ♣KT942 RHO deals and opens 1♠. Your call? 6. You sit south, Nobody Vul, you are dealer, you hold: ♠943 ♥AKT98 ♦K54 ♣54 The auction goes: Pass - Pass - Pass - 1♠ Pass - 1NT - Pass - 2♣ Pass - Pass - 2♦ - 3♣ ??? Your call?

4♠+1 in Ireland. I've never seen or heard ot 4♠+5 until I read this thread. Occasionally I'd see a number of tricks column, usually supplementary to the contract column where people tend to write +=- anyway, and it's always 11.

Just put it on the convention card.

I haven't been able to access the cavendish website since it started. the connection keeps timing out. In fact, I don't think I could last year either. Is anyone else having the same problem?

I'm going to assume 2NT is GF with heart support and 3♣ was shortness and 3♦ was some sort of values showing help suit slam try of some sort. I disagree with showing singleton K as shortness because it causes partner to mis-evaulate his hand. He won't think too highly of honour holdings in that suit when in fact the K will be a useful filler for them. West now gets into problems for his next bid. Apart from heart strength, he has no control in diamonds or spades so has no feature to show, which is probably why he signed off in game. Regarding East, if he believes his partner has a small singleton club then his hand must surely grow. I can't think of any honour placement west could have, holding 5+ hearts and a singleton club, that makes slam not worth persuing. West's 3♣ bid I disagree with on principle but East's evaluation was entirely responsible for missing slam.

I'm a passer. I would like to say something but we may end up playing in 2♣ which I won't like. And I don't raise without 3 card support.

The opening is an interesting problem in isolation. I guess it's a decision between: 1♦-...-3♦, 1♦-...-2NT, and 2NT But I don't think any of those openings will get to slam.

Well, partner doesn't know whether his heart ace has any value either. Why don't you tell him by opening diamonds and rebidding hearts at whatever level is necessary, instead of just cutting him out of the hand altogether. If partner is really broke then the opponents are going to find a bid with their 25 odd combined points and length in the black suits anyway. If partner has a few controls and they are in your suits then you could well be making 6 or 7. If partner has stuff in the black suits instead then it could easily be a big misfit deal and the opponents could go for a telephone number against your dodgy game/slam. So concluding that the opponents definitely have a profitable slam is very premature. That's a very narrow view to take. Your not getting information out of partner, your transmitting information to him. 2-suited hands must aim to tell their partner of the 2 suits as quickly as possible because only then can partner judge to bid higher with a double fit and bid lower / double with a misfit. If you simply open a large number of diamonds then partner will be the one making the last guess. Just open 1♦ and rebid hearts as high as you need to. Then partner is in a much better position.

1♦... and seriously, any space consuming bid like 2♣, 5♦ or 6♦ is just plain silly.

No, that's a specific ace ask opening. 6♣ should have it's loser in clubs.

2♣ is actually great when you have game or slam values. You usually find the right game and slam fairly easily. It's when it's only a partscore deal that it costs because we may miss a more effective 1NT or 2M.

You have to show undisclosed support, especially when it's a 4-card suit and you have no defense. Clear 4♠ imo.

Partner was not a fan of his hand, fearful of losing the partscore battle to opponent's major suit, so he passed. This did not work out well as we can make up to 3♣ and they can't make 2♠. I wasn't sure what to do with this hand so I posted here. Most people are making the correct call and opening it. If you open it 3♣ or 1NT then it will be passed out and you will make. I think 1NT made an overtrick. If you open 1♣ then they either play in 2M-1 or you take the push to 3♣=. As for the theoretical discussion: 1NT has a nice pre-emptive effect and is likely to win the partscore battle, but the hand seems a bit strong for a weak NT and a passed partner will not raise a weak NT to game. 3♣ has a better pre-emptive effect but with the disadvantage that it is slightly less likely to make than 1NT with the balanced shape. Also, while this leaves game open as a possibility, I'm trying to figure out what kind of 10/11 count partner will have that will raise to game without a club filler. We will certainly still miss game often when it makes but not as much as we will opening 1NT. 1♣ keeps the auction at it's lowest to maximise the chance that you don't get too high and also that you get to game if it's right. But it allows the opponents to get in the auction and you may end up going minus when the opps have the best partscore. I'm still not sure what's right.

First of all, we should all acknowledge that the 6♣ bid on both auctions should not happen. No hand partner could have would completely justify a direct jump to 6♣. So he's taken some extravagance but we just have to figure out on either hand whether it's worth making more of a gamble after a bid that's known to not be known what it means... if you get what I mean. On the first hand, I deduced that because I was staring at all those aces that it was highly unlikely partner was bidding to make. Therefore he is bidding pre-emptively. And I believe that a hand with 9+ solid clubs is much too good to risk pre-empting because your staring at 9 notrump tricks at the very least. Therefore a broken suit seems more likely and I passed. Parner turned up with TEN ♣s to the AQJ but we struck gold when the suit broke 0-2 offside. I think the auction at the other table was a more sane 5♣-6♣-P though my memory was a little vague... maybe that was the suggested auction in the post-match analysis. On the second hand, there is so much more variables and possibilities. A few people in this thread said that because you just can't be sure what partner holds, it's best to play it safe and I completely agree. Not finding a grand is bad, but finding one that doesn't make is a heck of a lot worse. Maybe I just had the above 6♣ in my head but I decided to play it safe and pass this one as well. LHO doubled with his 2 red aces and led his ♦A. Partner turned up with ♠x ♥- ♦KQTxx ♣QT9xxxx, there was no ruff and I quickly claimed 12 tricks. I think the other table played in 5♣. Later in the session (playing with the partner from hand 2), there was an auction that went (all white with partner opening) 1♠ - (2♦) - P - P 6♥ - All pass Partner has ♠KQJTxxx ♥AKJxx ♦- ♣x, I table ♠T ♥9xxx ♦Kxx ♣Qxxx. Defense cash their 2 aces and pard lost another trick with ♥Qxx offside. At the other table our teammates pushed them to 5♠ but the defence slipped and allowed them to make. buckets of imps out. Maybe that'll learn him. :)