jvage

I am a preemptor, but partnership style is also a factor. I once played a tournament with a player who became so upset by my preempts that we both knew it would be our only tournament together. As it happened all 3 preempts he disagreed with were successful and we won the tournament with less margin than we won on these 3 boards :) Since all posters so far are either passers or preemptors it is worth noting that there is a significant difference between the 3 situations where RHO opened (Josh did touch into this aspect). It is much more attractive bidding 3♣ over 1♦ than over 1♥/♠. After a majoropening LHO can safely support with 3+. Over 1♦ there are many difficult responding hands with only one major-suit, while the diamondholding is less important after a majoropening when considering a negative double. Even if LHO manage to double with 43 majors and is lucky to find partner with 44 they are not guaranteed to find their 44 fit.

I remember this hand, it was from the Norwegian Pairs Final and I was a 4♥ bidder. 5♦ seems like the normal bid, but you would prefer a little more high-cards. 4♥ looks like it is making (maybe with overtricks) and 5♦ may make or be a good save. At our table the partner of the 5♦ bidder was very critical to this bid. This seemed at the time like an effort to get the spotlight away from his own very strange and unsuccesful later action. The post-mortem strategy actually worked, but I will not spoil the problem by telling about the other hands. Personally I think the problem for the partner of the given hand was more interesting, but at my table he did not choose any of the 2 logical alternatives :) John

I remember this board, I had the 3037 hand (we were not at the BBO table this round). I tried to pass in tempo, not to put restrictions on partner. When he went into a short tank before passing in the passout seat I knew it would have been correct to bid. Neither player was unhappy with partner, but we both knew it would be a bad board. Since several have commented that they were hoping for a duplicated result from the other table, I can repeat that this was from the pairs final. +250 scored as expected around 20-25% in a relatively strong field (which means that almost half the tables duplicated our result, while the majority scored better). John

I have just returned from the Norwegian Bridge Festival, where we had a similar-sounding case. In Norway TD's always consult among themselves in judgement cases, in this case I was the consulted TD and the table TD was a very good player (he has represented Norway several times). I don't remember the exact hands or the bidding, so please accept the facts as correct. The original issue was a hesitation double taken out to a making 3NT. We agreed that it was correct to adjust to 3♦X, the interesting part was how many tricks that would be taken. 3♦X would make on any other lead than a trump, but a trump-lead would take it 1 down. While a trump-lead was somehow marked we were not convinced the opening leader would always find it. This was also based partly on the fact that the opening leader was not a top expert (unlike the other defender) and that they were the offending side. We agreed on a §12C3 ruling of 50% of 3♦X making and 50% of 1 down (since there was an offending side this translates to expecting a trump-lead around 2 of 3 times). As an aside, in ACBL where 12C3 is not used, we would have adjusted to 100% of 3♦X making. When this ruling was presented at the table, Thomas Charlsen (a very ethical player who has represented Norway on several occasions) refused to be given this adjustment. He said the opponents trump-lead was obvious and argued that his side should score only 100% of 3♦X down 1. The table TD accepted this and amended our original ruling (no discussion about appealing from any sides). John

An interesting thread with good players arguing for very different approaches. I used to play the "suit-above-ask" with one very good partner (he just won Norways most prestiguos team event), but even with very detailed agreements we had some misunderstandings in contested auctions. Currently I play the same as I think our (Norways) European- and World champions use, that 4NT is the keycard-ask, but only if a minor-suit slam-try is accepted, typically with a cue-bid. I have played this for several years and have still not had any misunderstandings and have not missed other methods (but my memory may be selective). The main issue when considering new methods is judging the loss of the normal meaning of the intended bid, in addition to minimizing complications and ambiguity. Of the suggested approaches I am personally most negative to giving up the natural, slam-invitational (in some cases denying one or more specific cue-bid) 4 of a minor. I also like to keep 4NT as natural unless very specific conditions apply (mentioned above). Playing MP this is almost a must, but I think even at IMP's this is preferable. 10 tricks in NT is in some cases safer than 11 in a minor. It also seems like these small swings of 1-3 IMP's are more important to modern top-class pairs than they used to be. As an aside I just discussed the merits of a failing 7NT versus a slightly safer (and most importantly, making) 7♦ with one of the European champions from Pau. While he agreed that the minor-suit-slam was better on that occasion he stressed the importance of these small swings, in that case only 2 IMP's at the grand-slam level. John

Since this is not explicit in the notes I can try to answer this myself. Yes, normally. No, in most sequences you will need to retransfer/rebid the major to show 5. For example after 1♣ - 1♦, 2NT: 3♦ - 3♥ - 3♠ shows 45(+) (system geeks will want to revert the 3♠/NT rebids) 3♥ - 3♠ - 3NT shows 44 I have not discussed with neither Espen L. nor any other partner how minor-suit rebids work, so I am honestly not sure wether say 1♣ - 1♥, 2NT - 3♣, 3♦ (forced) - 3NT could be made with only 44 in ♠/♦ (we always open 1♣ with 44 in the minors) or if it promise 5+ diamonds (I would guess it does). As in regular Walsh, with less than a gameforce responder would normally start by showing 4 spades before a longer minor, but facing a well-fitting 18-19 slam may still be in the picture. John

This is copied and pasted directly from B-L's supplementary sheets from Pau (I just fixed the suit-symbols), it should answer most of your questions. As mentioned earlier they rebid 2NT with (17)18-19 even with 3 card support. As you see they use transfers after the 2NT rebid even after other openings than 1♣ (no original transfer). Note 2: Transfers after 2NT rebid 1m – 1y 2NT • Transfers on 3-level and to both majors on 4-level. No Splinter! o Transfers to 3♦, always accept o Transfers to responders suit accept with 2card o 1♣ - 1♥ - 2NT - 3♦: Opener makes a preference between ♥and ♠, 3♥may be 3 card o 1♣ - 1♠ - 2NT - 3♠: Both minors, in search for the best game, OR may be stronger o Jump to 4y for play 4 in that M, while 3y followed by 4 in that M is slamish (1♣ - 1♥ - 4♦ and 1♦ - 1♠ - 2NT - 4♦ is to play with both Majors) o Jump to 4♣ is Natural slamish 1♥ – 1♠ 2NT • Transfers on 3-level. Minor on 4-level is Splinter with ♠ as trump! o Transfers to 3♦, always accept o Transfers to responders suit accept with 2card o Jump to 4♥ and 4♠ to play, while 3♦/♥, followed by 4♥/♠is slamish John

The Norwegian pair Brogeland-Lindqvist (who won the butler in addition to the European championship in Pau) does, as do the players on Norways Junior and Womens team (the 2 other open pairs don't play T-Walsh). As mentioned by other posters the T-Walsh methods popular in Norway are different from what most posters here use in that a simple acceptance shows 3(4). It seems there is no standard solution to 18-19 hands with 3 cards support, some just accepts the transfer while others (including B-L) rebids 2NT. After the natural 2NT repeated transfers is the most popular method, also used by B-L (I know their system fairly well, since I have played the same methods partnering Lindqvist). John

I was consulted in relation to the appeal. The club lead was non-standard, he was hoping for a misguess from declarer, playing him for a singleton. It seems most (all?) posters agree with the TD that there was no damage from the MI (Misinformation). I agree that the differences in the distributions of the North and South hands with the 2 explanations are rather insignificant, North's most likely distribution in both cases is 3046. It probably rarely makes much difference for the best defense wether North got a singleton or void in hearts. There is however a subtle difference in the indicated honour location. If you accept the Exclusion RKCB explanation North asked for aces and abandoned slam when South showed none. This means opening leaders partner got a non-heart ace, which in turn indicates that North's suits are more solid and that South is more likely to have heart-values. The club-leader may have played for for something like this: KQJ - AKxx AQJTxx xxxxx AQx xxx xx If this is the distribution (no need to complain about South rebidding 2♠, it is just an illustration :D ) declarer may be tempted by the safetyplay of winning the ♣A. From declarers side this is safe if trumps are 3-2, guarding against a singleton lead and the following trump-promotion. If partner finds the heart-shift when winning the trump ace you will have defeated an unbeatable game (at least one that makes on a heart-lead and continuation). While we can probably agree that the club-lead was somewhat speculative, the layout where it may be winning is somewhat indicated by the MI. Is this reasoning too farfetched? John

Thanks to those who replied. The poll-sample is small, but it did give an indication. The 3 posters chose 3 different leads and none changed their lead with a correct explanation. This was the full hand: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sak3h5dak43cajt93&w=st986hkjt74dq2ck6&e=s4haq82djt95cq742&s=sqj752h963d876c85]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The actual lead was a small club (the only lead not suggested by any posters!) and declarer made 10 tricks. A spade or diamond-lead would probably have defeated 4♠, but a heart-lead is clearly the most effective. When the TD was called he polled several good players (including a Bermuda Bowl champion). All of them led hearts (one considered a spade) after both explanations and most considered this lead "clearcut". The reason I started with a small poll was that I was unsure about this conclusion, suspecting that some of the players may have been influenced by knowing the deal, having just played the same set. The then TD ruled that the lead was not affected by the explanation, that the non-offending side was not damaged and that the result stood. Do you agree? John

As most of you will guess this is another ruling issue, but in an attempt to get unbiased opinions I'll start with an opening lead problem. The event is the National Teams Finals (expert players), with none vul you hold in second hand: T986 KJT74 Q2 K6 With your side silent the bidding goes (starting with RHO): P 1♣ 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 4♥ 4♠ All pass Opponents play a relatively standard system, 2♦ was a strong revers, I don't know if 2♠ was forcing (my guess is that it wasn't). Your screenmate (RHO) alerts 4♥ and explains it as "Exclusion Blackwood" and 4♠ as 0 keycards. What is your opening lead and do you consider it clear? Would you consider another lead if 4♥ had been explained as "splinter"? John

Codo has mentioned the important points. Almost everyone prefer playing with screens when they have tried it. It is nothing to worry about, you should look forward to the experience. The playing environment is more quiet, normally making it easier to consentrate (less discussion about hands and much less critizism, including the visual, like raised eyebrows). Like Codo I have also been surprised how often the regulations concerning written explanations are ignored. Here in Norway I have still not been presented a written explanation, having played several championships with screens. When I am acting as NPC in international competions (next time in the World Youth Championships in Beijing) I have unsuccesfully tried to get "my" players to always write down their explanations, so far my only consolation has been that hardly any of the opponents are any better in this respect :) John

I would seldom rebid a 5 card heart-suit, but that is a matter of style and how often partner supports with 3. I think a more serious flaw with your approach is that it often forces responder to check for 4 card spades with invitational+ values. While the effect is almost impossible to simulate this will often help opponents significantly with their lead and defence compared to "standard" bidders who raise to 2/3NT directly. On the other hand you may "hide" a 4-card spade suit with opener, I'm not sure which is most important. John

Last time I saw this discussed I was surprised to see how many that think this does not show extra :) Assuming you don't play good/bad IMO it's best to pass with a minimum and later show your support if partner double/bid (as he normally will with a bit extra for his negative double). Bidding directly shows extra, but you need not have enough for a jump to 3♥ left on your own (around 13 to 15). Bidding 3♥ with a minimum will often get you to 4♥ when you have 9 tricks and result in going down in 3♥ (vulnerable, possibly doubled) when you have less than 9 tricks. The point-ranges are not very different if you play standard methods, but you could be a little better for the "free" 3♥ (around a good 13 to a bad 17). John

I think both Harald and Jan are correct, but they approach from different angles. World Youth Championships are restricted to U21 and U26. Almost all other youth events (not counting University Championships for U28), including European and other Zonal Championships are U20 and U25. John

I think it depends on your starting point. As a relative beginner you normally need to play a lot to improve. While only playing against stonger opponents is best for improving in theory, you also risk losing motivation due to the expected long string of relatively poor results (few beginners get the luxury of a strong enough partner to win in a tough field). Playing at least some of your bridge in weak fields or in more social games is probably good for you. You get to play a lot of boards, and will quickly be motivated by the fact that you beat more and more other players and occasionally get good results. The situation is very different if you after playing a lot has become an expert, maybe with ambitions to improve into a world-class player (to use the BBO definitions). At this level improvement is much harder, and I actually think playing a significant part of your bridge in poor/social games may make you worse. In my own experience you both learn some bad habits and more importantly lose focus (you don't feel the need to concentrate to do well). I know several very strong players who no longer play much at all, to me it seems that a break from bridge surprisingly often does not worsen their play significantly. I mention this since several posters have written that the alternative of no bridge-playing activities is much worse. In general I agree, but on the other hand a break can be good for motivation. When these players return they also seem to focus a lot, generally needing more time (things no longer comes naturally), which actually may be a good thing, since focusing is important for learning and improving. Maybe the best example is Ulf Tundal, who returned to bridge after an almost ten years long break, practically not playing at all (focusing on job and family). Granted he was a very strong player before his break, and he worked very hard particularly on system when he returned a couple of years ago, but last summer he won the Bermuda Bowl :)

Our opponents in a recent team-match used 3NT as showing exactly 54 in the majors. Twice it went 2NT - (P) - 3NT - all pass. On the first board the opener forgot the agreement while responder got the promised 54 majors, but 3NT was a decent contract and made (as would 4♠ on their 5-3 fit). On the second (in the same half!) both had forgotten the agreement (in spite of being reminded a few boards previously) and 3NT once again made :) John

I expected at least some to make the same mistakes I did, but all posters did better than me on both hands! At least that means I should learn something from the responses. One reason I found these problems interesting was that the "law" of total tricks failed miserably. The total number of trumps is identical, on both we got 10 spades and they got 11 (!) hearts. On both there is a double fit, some wastage in the opponents suits and some voids, yet the number of total tricks is very different (18 and 22). On the first hand I dreamt about the minimum that made 5♠ near-laydown (say KQJ, xxx, AQxxx, xx, both 5♥ and 5♠ may make). Yes, partner has doubled, but he doesn't know about my sixth spade, heart-void and double-fit for diamonds. I bid 5♠, which actually had decent play (partner had KJxx, Kx, AQxx, xxx), but both spadehonours were behind and I went 1 off while 5♥ would go 3 down (both opponents are limited, there are few clues about who holds the missing spades). On the second I tried to catch up with a double, to show a (balanced?) maximum for my 4♠. Partner had AQxxx, -, T8xx, KJxx and understandably passed when both 5♥ and 5♠ was making ;)

I missed on both these similar problems that surprisingly came in the same round, hopefully you will do better. It's matchpoints, weak opponents and strong partner (junior international). You have little relevant agreements (I could have opened a weak 2♠ on the first and bid 2NT as gameinvitational+ with spadesupport on the second) apart from a simple 2/1 structure. I was not overly happy about my initial bids on either hand, feel free to comment if you find any of them too bad. 1. You are dealer at unfavourable: T7xxxx - KJ9x KQx P P 1♦ 2♥ (weak) 2♠ 3♥ 3♠ 4♥ 4♠ 5♥ D P ? 2. Third hand, all vul K87xx Qx KQ T8xx 1♠ D 4♠ P P 5♥ ?

There is a perspective I have not seen discussed in previous posts. I have no scientific basis and expect American posters to correct me if this is wrong, but my impression from mainstream media is that in the US one can often escape the death penalty if your lawyers "cut a deal" including a confession, even for very serious offences like serial murders. To me this creates a problem, since it is likely to increase the risk that someone innocent are executed. As a sidenote, I should probably put "innocent" in brackets, since the people involved are often criminals, but they may not be guilty of the more serious crimes they are charged with. The problem is that those who don't confess, even if there is strong evidence and they know this means they will be executed if convicted, is very likely to contain at least some innocent. My main argument against the death penalty is just the finality, unlike on BBO there is no "undo". The alternative is not even letting some guilty person off the hook (they still end up with life or at least a very long prison sentence), but to me even that would be preferable to executing someone innocent. John

I played the same tournament as Harald this weekend, me and partner missed both this and the other slam he has presented where we held the same cards :) The bidding was identical on the other hand (partner also passed 3NT after 3♦ - 3NT - P). I agree with the posters in that thread that 4NT was marginal (possibly influenced by the fact that it would definitely have worked better I felt 4NT was correct at the table). Here the bidding also started the same (1NT - 2♣, 2♦ - 3♦, 3♥), but partner bid 3NT instead of 3♠. I now had an easy 4♦, and think partners 5♦ signoff was too timid. Unlike in Haralds sequence he was now limited by 3NT, so I had shown some real extras with 4♦. John

Sorry for waiting so long before waking the dead :) Of the posters I count 2 heart-, 2 club- and 1 diamondleader (some say they would lead the same without the double, some don't comment on that). This is an interesting spread, even more so when a spade-lead was the only lead to beat 6NT :P Partners actual hand was AKx, x, QTxxx, Jxxx (dummy had Jx, AKQJTxx, Ax, Kx). Personally I think he should have passed, but at least he managed to bid in tempo. In an earlier post I commented that LHO's 3♥ later followed by 6NT indicated a solid or near-solid suit. Noone has commented on the 4♦ and 4♥ bids. It makes sense to use 4♦ as a cue with solid hearts and 4♥ as signoff, but at the table it was explanained as a natural 4♦ followed by a cuebid. Since LHO was not interested in 6♦ it is not so farfetched to imagine that he holds solid hearts and the ♦A and is interested in a grand if partner got the ♦K and the 2 missing aces (laydown if he also got the ♦Q), as was the case. He preferred 6NT to 6♥ to protect partners hoped for ♠K (or AQ). His partner cuebid a known void in his primary suit, would he not have cuebid 4♠ instead if he had a spade-cue? If you think along these lines a spadelead is marked. If partner had not doubled there is another argument for a spadelead. Your red-suits holdings indicate that one or both suits may not be breaking. You may need to establish your spadetrick (if partner got just the K) before declarer sets up his suit. John

I had not heard about this article, and while I can't claim to be in the same league there are some similarities. I will wait a bit before I give partners hand (some will probably not agree with his double), but part of the reason I posted was that partner (who is known for almost never saying anything critical to his partners during play) was critical to my "automatic" heart-lead. On the other hand, the only other player who got a similar problem (he is generally regarded as Norways strongest junior player) also lead a heart, but the bidding had been less revealing at his table (and the double less advisable). When I discussed the hand with him after play (of course in the bar :) ) he argued for a heart-lead, even with the bidding at my table. Would LHO really bid 3♥, suggesting hearts as trumps facing a probable void, with ♥KJTxxx(x)? And if he did, where did he expect his partner who has not shown any extra values to find 12 tricks in NT? Opponents are not worldclass, but playing together they got a top 10 finnish in the National Pairs final (which is quite strong in Norway), posting in this forum I should have mentioned if I considered them very unreliable. John

In Norway, where 3/5 leads against NT are very popular, some lead 4. best and some 5. best from a sixcard-suit. I think 4. best is the most common among experts (according to their CC this is used by all our junior internationals). John

Teams, at unfavourable you hold: Q932 98643 4 543 Your opponents undisturbed bidding, starting with RHO: 1♦ - 1♥ 1♠ - 2♦ 3♣ - 3♥ 3NT - 4♦ 4♥ - 4NT 5♥ - 6NT Partner doubles the final contract (in tempo, this is not a UI-problem). 2♦ was XYZ (artificial GF), 3♣, 3♥, 3NT and 4♦ natural. 4♥ was cue agreeing diamonds, followed by RKCB and 2 of 5 aces without the ♦Q. When you ask about 3♣ LHO says it probably shows 4054 (RHO would normally open 1♣ with 44 minors and would rebid 2NT or 3♦ with 4153). What would you lead, and what would you lead if partner had not doubled? John