skjaeran

I don't recall seeing such a lead against a slam bid to make. That's what makes this an interesting thread for me. However, I do remember beating a slam after leading low from J-x: declarer played partner for Q-J-x and reacted with irritation when he lost the setting trick to my jack. I've seen that too, twice. One declarer did like your opponent, and went down. The other just snorted and dropped the jack.

I doubt very many have any agreement in this particular position. Some would have meta agreements which will apply. I agree with Nick that clubs is out. You could have an agreement that is asks for the shortest major, but that's not clear enough since opener will normally not have more than a 4-card suit. If I should have an agreement here it would ask for a specific major.

Have you ever in your life seen anyone lead a singleton jack of trumps vs a slam? Do you ever expect this to happen? I've never seen it. I never expect to see it either.

disagree 22 trumps 40% 3-1 trumps & H 3-3 50 % x 35% = 17.5 % 3-1 trumps & hearts 4-2 with 4H in the same hands as the 3 trumps= 50%x20% = 10% 40+17.5+10% = 68% borderline grand slam =70% good grand slam = 80% Of course ur right about ruffing a H if trumps are 3-1 and the long trumps has 4H. It was in my calculation but I forgot to post it. These number are approx. so exact calculation is needed. But I think its under 70% and im sure this doesnt qualify as a good grand (Imps scoring ) edited (if youre not sure they will bid slam at the other table if you are 100% sure they bid a slam on the other side then bidding 7 is good) If you're sure the opponents will reach slam at the other table the break even odds for bidding a grand is 57%. Thus anything over 57% is "good" in that context. And I'd be unhappy to stay out of a 60% grand against a strong team. If you can't count on opps to reach slam, the picture changes of course. The wellknown treshold of 70% for bidding a grand is old - not sure whether this was a rule for the Dallas Aces or the Italian Blue Team. Anyway, it's from an era where slam bidding in general was far less accurate than in todays expert community, thus only bidding a grand with 70+% odds made sense.

Playing GBNT 3♥ would be invitational. :rolleyes:

That's not quite true. You can throw a heart on the ♦K and ruff the 3rd heart in dummy, and will win with 3 clubs and 4 hearts in the same hand too. Which still means that you should not bid the grand under the given conditions. Under normal conditions this is a very good grand however.

You can only do this if you know at trick two that partner will win three ♠ tricks and allow you to make two discards. If not, you can't afford the ♣Q discard. This can be done if partner signals his ♠ length with the card he leads to the 2nd trick, for example the K (the odd card) might show an odd number of spades and the ace an even number. Whether this should be original or present count you have to agree with your partner.

South made a very frisky balancing double. It did the job and got opponents one level higher - thus increasing the odds for a positive score on the board. I'd probably never make this double myself, but I won't kill anyone for making it. North should be aware that south has bid most of norths values already. And except for the ♦AK, which normally is two tricks on defence - thouth not always - he's got very little defence. The ♥Q is of dubious value and the ♠Q will almost always be finessed. So there's absolutely no reason for north to double 3♠ - it's a horrible double at MP and insane at IMPs. If you want partner to be there next time and make another balancing action you really can't punish him like this.

Have you ever tried to sail a ship with captains only? It works better is you have a few sailors too. There were always great captains in Dutch team, enough great sailors too, the problem was quite often.... they worked together like a "team" from H.M.S Bounty.... Robert Captain Bligh was a great sailor, but probably not a great leader. If the Dutch captains have been of the same kind it's probably natural for the team to be suboptimal. :)

I agree that 2♣-Double is more descriptive. Unfortunately I do not know this when I make my first call. Well, neither do I. But it's not a sensational development, is it? :)

How could this auction happen? 3♥ would be a 4-card GF raise to me. Responder should rebid 2NT or 3♣, depending on what bid shows a minimum non-GF hand. That's 3♣ to me. Opener would then rebid 3♠ and responder raise to 4♠, which looks like a decent game.

No, it's not. You don't arrive at a split score either at matchpoints or at IMPs by saying "4♥ making is +620, 4♥ down one is -100, so we'll take the average and call the score +260". Instead, at matchpoints you award the contestant half the matchpoints that +620 would have scored, plus half the matchpoints that -100 would have scored. At IMPs, you compare both +620 and -100 with the score achieved at the other table, and average the two comparisons. Say the score at the other table was NS +170; then North-South at this table receive half of plus 10 IMPs for +620 and half of minus 7 IMPs for -100. This makes them plus 1.5 IMPs, which in some jurisdictions is rounded up to plus 2 IMPs, not the plus 3 IMPs they would have obtained for a score of +260. Good David - there's too many out there that doesn't understand this. It's even more interesting at MP. If all other tables score +170 Codo's approach will give NS a complete top for their +260, whereas the correct approach gives them half a bottom and half a top - which is average.

I agree with Josh that this is very close. I'm not giving my partner just as much leeway for a 5♣ overcall as I do with a 4♠ overcall (or a 4M opening). I'm in the 6♣ camp.

To me there's two possibilities; double - double and 2♣ - double. I think the latter is the most descriptive, thus that's my choice. This sequence should IMO show 6-4 (or possibly a powerhouse 2524) since I'd double 1♠ with 1534 and jump to 3♣ over 1♠ with 5-5. How would you bid a 1633 hand strong enough to take two calls after opening 1♥? That would be X...X or 2♥...X?

Is that really standard these days, for an X of 1♥ in this sequence to show 4 hearts? I've heard of it, but I've never played it or played against it, as far as I know. Is it alertable? I've had the X there mean 4 spades weak/strong (with a direct 1♠ being NF constructive), 3 spades with 4+ diamonds, or both majors. I'm curious as to what the advantage is of having the X there be penalty oriented. Do that many people psyche the 1♥ bid? If they don't, it seems unlikely that responder would have 4♥, so the second cheapest call ought to have more utility. A 1♥ psyche here is not very frequent (although this is a "standard" psyche position), but where I play it's quite normal for responder to bid 1♥ on Txxx or similar. For me a double here has always showed 4c♥ and the strenght to make a bid, say 6+ hcp. 2♥ shows about the same with a 5-card suit. 1♠ and 2♠ has the same meaning as X and 2♥ but shows spades of course. Stronger hands makes a cue in openers suit. I've always been very comfortable with this approach which I consider to be standard, and have never seen a need for finding another approach. There's a lot of weaker players around who mix this position up with responders position after an overcall and explain doubles of 1M here as negative (I can see JTF is in quite another camp).

This is a clear 1♣ opening to me. Over 1♠ I reverse with 2♥, planning to support spades later. Normally I use T-Walsh, so partner's response would be 1♥ and my rebid 1♠, showing 3-card support, planning to reverse in ♥'s next round. This might be thwarted if partner makes a GF with 2♦ or higher or some invitational bid, but I'll then have an easy auction toward slam.

Agree with this. Anders Morath and Mats Nilsland of Sweden both belong to such a list. And I'm sure a couple of french bidding theorists need to be included (I've got no idea who though). Anyway, I think it's impossible to agree on who is the BEST bidding theorist of all time. Surely Culbertson had a great impact on later development, but I don't think he was such a great theroretican - he had some half sound ideas ( :) ), but mainly he was great on publicity and commerce. Surely Roth has been far more of a bidding theoretican. I don't know if he was the best though. That's really hard to tell.

I always do, it's an old habit of mine and keeps me from having to worry about people looking at where I pull my cards. I almost always suit my cards, but they are always in a random order within the suit, which tends to make 'slotting' less reliable. Dan Jacob, a good BC player, good friend and occasional partner never sorts at all. I have tried that, but not consistently enough that my brain will subconsciously adapt to it so I find it too much work. If I were looking to play a lot of serious bridge, I would definitely recommend not sorting at all... my expectation would be that within a few months, at the most, it would become automatic. I know some at that time (mid-70's) junior players in Oslo practised by just looking at their hands for a few seconds without sorting the cards, putting the cards aside and play out the hand by just naming cards.

Happy Birthday Ken! :)

That's illegal - look up Law 74C5.

This is speedball....you do not have the luxury of thinking too much...:) Opp are yelling at you to hurry. :) In that case Trumpace's line is fine.

A double of 1♥ is for penalty in this sequence - 1♠ shows spades and values to bid. Thus I'd double 1♥. I'd definitely open 1♣ with the east hand, but that's not everybodys choice.

This hand isn't a GF for me. With the OP agreements I think 3♦ is clear, and it's what I'd bid with one of my partners. Playing with my main partner I'd bid 3♣, showing a mini-splinter in one of the minors (partner can relay with 3♦). We've put both the Bergen raises together in the 3♦ response to 1♠ (with 3♦ relay). Obviously this isn't perfect, but we find the mini-splinters to be more effective than Bergen raises when holding s singleton and amalgameted the two approaches to be able to play 2NT as GF and 3M as preemtive. 3♥ is a mini-splinter. Over 1♥ we play 2♠ as any mini-splinter (2NT=relay) and 3m=Bergen raises.

I play this as: "I haven't got what you asked for in the spade department. However I've got some nice values here in clubs that might help you out instead." I've got to several nice game contracts this way with several partners. I remember particularly well playing in the swedish Chairmans Cup some years ago where RHO opened a strong 1♣, I overcalled 1♥, partner raised to 2♥, I made a 3♣ game try, partner tried 3♦ and I bid a making game - to the swedish RHO's big surprise. :)

The knowledge that partner must play the ♥A is legal knowledge to you. But the fact that your partner holds this card is UI. :) This means that if you need to put partner on lead to play up to a tenace in your hand or give you a ruff, the knowledge that you can reach partner with the trump ace is UI. You have to try to reach partner somewhere else if there a logical alternative to trying trumps. However, if trumps is lead and you've got to follow suit, or if you're in a position where you "have" to lead a trump, it's legal knowledge for you that partner is going to play the trump ace to this trick. So you are allowed to play low in this position. At the same time I know that all over-ethical players (myself included) would play the king in situations like this unless it was patently obvious from the hand up to this point that partner must hold the ace. Btw, the above is true for the 1997 laws. I haven't checked the 2007 version, but doubt there's any change.