jvage

I chose 2NT, considering this a small stretch, but better than the alternatives. The club-holding and 4333-shape indicates NT, we will often make as many tricks in NT as in spades even if partner got 4 (he will often have only 3, and then there may even be fewer tricks in spades). Our club-holding and the opponents silence makes it more likely that partner is also balanced, he would often double instead of bidding 1NT with 2-3 small clubs and a balanced 11-14. Since West would only pass 1♣ with very minimal values we know where almost all the opponents high cards are placed, making the play easier. With our wellplaced club-honours 3NT will often make if partner got around 13-14 HCP. With that he would always pass 1NT and often pass 2♠ when 3NT makes. If partner is strong and unbalanced we have support for any suit he may bid over 2NT. Finally a double is very unlikely if partner is minimum and 2NT fails. John

Below is the most common response-structure around here (Norway), played by most of our junior internationals together with a 15-17NT. The only thing one would have to agree with a new partner is how to rebid with a 18-19NT and 3-card heart. Some rebid 1♥, making this semi-forcing, while some rebid 2NT, allowing partner to pass 1♥ more freely (with about 4-7HP). After 1♣ - 1♦: 1♥ = 3 hearts or 4 hearts and minimum 1♠/NT = Natural, denies 3+ hearts 2♥ = 4 hearts, 13-14 HP 3♦ = Splinter, invitational+ with 4 hearts 3♥ = Either short in spades or 2425 15-17

If West was an average player my experience is that this lead is most often an attempt to be clever from QJ (never Jx and rarely a singleton J). This West sounds more than good enough to know that with QJ he is likely to win a trick if he does not lead the suit (if both honours are with declarer), since declarer will follow restricted choice. I think it's closer than the two previous posters, but would probably have finessed, playing the leader for a singleton.

I don't think the methods you describe are mainstream, Harald, or perhaps I'm just not a good player B) While I've seen some contributors in "The Bridge World" advocate unlimited overcalls, here in Norway (where both of us play) I am pretty sure even most strong players would double and rebid diamonds with about 17+ and 6+ diamonds. So it would not be standard to use the double in the given sequence to show 16+ and 6+ diamonds as you stated above. With 2362 and about 14-17 it would be normal to bid 1♦ and then rebid 2♦. I would definitely take partners double as takeout with some extras, 3451, 4351, 3352 or 3361 are partners most likely distributions. The reasons for bidding diamonds first instead of doubling include: 1. With around 16HP you got no good rebid if partner bids the 3 card suit, but game may still be possible. You are much better placed if partner bids a major freely over 1♦, and you will often get a chance to show your hand (like in the example). 2. We may play much better in diamonds than in a bad 4-3 fit in a major. 3. Lead-direction. All this said the choice between 2♦ and 2♠ is not clear. Assuming RHO's first double showed both majors spades are known to break badly. I would probably bid 2♦ at IMP's and 2♠ at MP.

Here is a simple illustration of the point I made in the above post. Probably the simplest example is in a suit-contract where you need 2 tricks and no losers (or you may have an alternative source of tricks, but need to decide at trick one) from this unbid side-suit: AQJx x If LHO leads the 2 everyone would play this correctly if the lead was attitude, while it may be a 50/50 choice if the lead is 3/5. The "opposite" problem is less frequent, where partner leads the 2 (could be from both xx2 or QT2), Dummy holds a singleton and you have to decide wether to insert the K from Kxxxx. You will often have some hints from the bidding and Dummy, both to declarers holding, what holding partner is more likely to lead from and if the first (or the second or third) discard declarer will get from the suit will be critical. John

Almost all posters seems to believe 4. best is clearly superior. I don't think this is so clear, and believe there are some arguments in favour of 3/5 leads not mentioned. After all, all the current Bermuda Bowl winners play 3/5 (one pair, Brogeland-Sælensminde do however play 4. best leads in suits not bid by partner against NT), so it can hardly be terrible :P Justin mentions a legitimate problem, that the lead of the 9 from suits like KJ92 will often cost a trick (at least against NT). I think almost all good "3/5 leaders" would normally lead the 2 from this holding, giving false count. From discussions with strong players here in Norway, I think most would lead small even from KJ82, but the 7 would probably be most common from KJ72. But here we are talking about an infrequent exception from the standard leads (and partner will take the 2 as 3/5). The reason I personally dislike attitude leads (including 2/4) is that I find them much easier to play against as declarer. Others may have different experiences, but having played with and against both I prefer 3/5. I think count is generally more helpful for defenders than declarer while attitude often helps declarer more than partner (even more so if you know partners lead-tendencies and use some form of Smith Echo). I could post some examples, but it will be just as easy to find counterexamples, what matters is frequencies. John

This little gem popped up at live clubplay last monday. Norwegian junior international Erik Berg became declarer in 4♠ after my partner in East had bid 2♥ after 1♠ - pass - 1NT (semiforcing). [hv=d=s&v=b&n=sa9hk9874dkt96cj9&w=s82ht5dj873cat752&e=sqj5haqj632da52c4&s=skt7643hdq4ckq863]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] I led the ♥T to the K, A and ruff. Erik played a spade to the A and a spade back to his K. Then came the key move, a club to dummys 9, followed by the ♥9 covered and ruffed. Next came another club, I played low and Erik used the entry to establish a heart by another ruffing finesse. I won the ♣K with the A (if not declarer would get no club-losers) and played a diamond to partners A, Erik refusing to unblock his Q (if he had Dummy would be squeezed and endplayed). There are many variations and the board is quite complicated, but I still haven't seen any succesful defense (a spadelead would probably force declarer to guess diamonds). This was the end-position: _____- _____74 _____KT _____- -______Q -______63 J8_____5 T7_____- _____T _____- _____Q _____Q8 If partner had played a red suit declarer easily establishes his needed tricks, when instead he cashed the last trump he squeezed me in the minors (dummy discarded a heart). The squeeze is non-material, in that declarer got enough tricks, but no communication to get them. If I discarded a club declarers hand was high with the ♦Q as entry. If I discarded a diamond dummy was high, overtaking the ♦Q. What I found interesting was that declarer did not have to guess who had the ♦J. If partner had it he would be squeezed in the red suits when I won the ♣A. In other words, whoever had the ♦J would be squeezed by his own partner <_< John

The discussion about Fred's problem made me think about this classical suit-combination: QJ97 A865 You need 4 tricks, entries no problem, optimal defense (?) and no outside info. You start by leading the Q from Dummy, how do you play if; a: RHO covers with the K and LHO follows small when you win the A and play another one. b: The Q holds, both opponents following small. John

Til lykke med dagen, Roland :)

Given as a problem it should come as no surprise that the ♦A was missing. My guess is 7NT will be laydown about 95% of the time, and I did not expect partner to cue the diamond Ace with his known minimum. I decided that if we really missed the Ace it was more likely with RHO, and it is fun to bid 7NT as your first bid after both opponents have bid :P This board changed the luck for us, on a clublead there were 13 toptricks even if the spades had not broken (partner had 7 hearts). We had a difficult start on the tournament (49 of 52 after 5 rounds, when opponents had bid everything that made), but finished second, only beaten by my 2 regular partners who had paired up. In the bar after play there were some discussions on wether RHO should double with the ♦A. At the moment I did not understand why he did not double (I knew he had the A before the lead, fortunately his partner did not notice his slightly surprised look). In practice a club was led, RHO's argument for not doubling was that partner should never lead a club here anyway. That also makes sense, does anyone have any opinions on this issue? John

This was a funny hand from last weekends Southern Norway International, scored as butler pairs. Opponents are national champions (RHO is also former European Junior Champion) and are known as aggressive bidders. Your partner is also a national champion. You don't play together regularly, but when it comes to style he had preferred a more conservative style than me on the only earlier board where this had been an issue. You are in fourth hand at unfavourable, and all hopes of an uninterupted, long and scientific sequence are soon shattered: LHO Pard RHO You 3♣ 3♥ 5♣ ? AKQJ2 AJ73 83 AK Now what? John

Most posts seems to discuss honest mistakes, but here is something really stupid. I was playing in the Norwegian national pairs final against one of the better pairs (Brogeland - Erichsen) about 5 years ago. I had 9x, -, K9xxxx, T98xx at favourable. The bidding went something like this: (1♠) - 1NT - (2♣) - 2♦ (4♥) - X - (pass) - 5♣ (pass) - pass - (X) - all pass 2♣ showed hearts with secondary spades, the rest was natural. I ducked the opening spade-lead, and while RHO was thinking I concluded that 4♥ (doubled!) was probably making (as it was) and that my dubious bid had resulted in an excellent save, I was destined to make 9 or 10 tricks. So far so good, but since RHO was still thinking I started considering the play in 5♦X, since that would be much more difficult and interesting. RHO finally played a heart, I ruffed and led to the next trick. Partner and both opponents then shouted in unison "It's not your turn to play!" I realized I had "ruffed" with a diamond when playing 5♣X :( That of course cost a trick, and I blew at least one more in pure embarrasment (once more playing the wrong minor, this time drawing clubs (they were 3-1) before diamonds were established), going for 800. There was a funny follow-up to this disaster. Partner reacted in an outstanding way, his only comment was made to calm me down and forget it. So we did fairly well and also ended well within the prizes. Having done such a mistake myself I didn't say anything critical to partner until after the very last board of the day. Then I blurted out: "Why didn't you give me a ruff, wasn't it obvious my lead was a singleton?". Partner leaned back in his chair, smiled and responded: "Of course I knew you had a singleton, but there was no point in giving you a ruff since I didn't expect you to remember which suit was trumps!" :P :P :P John

Mike, you have written this twice in this thread, and as a European I am not sure what you are talking about. When you write "half of Europe behind barbed wire in the 80's" my guess is you equal the classical pictures from the divided Berlin with the entire Eastern Europe, in which case it is a great simplification to say the least. You have mentioned the concentration camps in Europe in the 90's also before. I have no idea what you are talking about. If it is the Soviet "Gulag-camps" they were as far as I know earlier and in Siberia (not a part of Europe). Which European camps in the 90's were even comparable to todays Guantanamo? Norway, France, Holland and Belgium are with the exception of France small countries. Still they were only "run over" once, in WW2. Not "war after war", but once almost 70 years ago. At the time Norway had almost no army. After that we built up a reasonable defence and NATO was created. From a European perspective the main idea behind NATO was to create an alliance to protect smaller countries like Norway from being overrun (at the time the Soviet Union was considered the main threat). There have been more than 2 murders by gun in Norway (I have no stastistics, my guess would be about 5 per year, almost all of these either internal criminal disputes, suicedes or "domestic tragedies"). I mentioned these 2 since they were the only times police were killed, and I believed neither would be avoided with an armed police, while I am sure many have been avoided because they are unarmed. John

There is a huge cultural difference between USA and Western Europe relating to guns and guncontrol. I live in Norway, said to be the WE country with most registered guns compared to population (about 500.000 in a country of 4,5 mill people). Most of these weapons belong either to hunters or members of the Home Guard. What these have in common is an education and training that focus on safe handling and weapons-culture. These weapons are locked away, and hardly anyone think of them as something to use to defend their home and family. There are criminal gangs with guns, but they use the guns mostly in internal disputes. They have been used for bank-robbery etc. but I have not heard of a burglar or rapist armed with a gun. Norwegian police is unarmed (they have locked down weapons in all vehicles, to be used in emergencies), when they tell this to American colleagues the Americans can't stop laughing. Still we have a much lower crime-rate and there have only been 2 cases of shooting of police officers over the last 20 years. About 12 years ago a sick person who had escaped from a mental institution shot 2 officers. He had no violent history, the police didn't know he had a hunting rifle and he started shooting before they had seen him. The second was during the "Nokas-robbery" a couple of years ago. Here the police was heavily armed and had already shot at the robbers. The killer is convicted, his only excuse was that he felt very threatened by the police firing at him..... The American mentality is different and very strange to us. For example are most shooting of American police officers with their own weapons, the officers reaction to this is (similar to those who want teachers to be armed) to often carry one or two extra (concealed) guns. It also shows in multinational military or peacekeeping operations. European soldiers would rarely point a loaded gun at someone unless threatened, Americans are noticeable more agressive in their use of weapons and sometimes seems to be inspired by Dirty Harry. I also found the statistics presented earlier in this thread interesting. Of the 30-40.000 people killed by guns every year in the USA only 600 are ruled justifiable homocide. I happen to know one such case personally. A friend of a friend went over as an exchange student. The first weekend he was at a party, got pissing drunk, and managed to mistakenly go into the neighboors house (the houses looked the same). He went to sleep on the coach, the home-owner called the police, and he was shot and killed. According to the police it was a big guy who had appeared confused and aggressive (but unarmed and not physically assaulting anyone)..... John

There are pros and cons, since the first 2 posters focused on the negative aspects of using 3NT as a solid minor I'll try to be a bit more positive :) One advantage is that you describe a very useful aspect of your hand (a 7 card running minor) in one bid. Partner with a suitable hand can pass when expecting to make or preempt or bid a making game or slam in the minor. If you use 3NT to describe a broken minor (a possibility mentioned by Roland) it is more difficult for partner to evaluate, also because he more often will be unsure which minor you got. At the same time 3NT preempts opponents, who often will have the highest contract. They are forced to start investigating their right strain at the four-level. Some people use 3♠ as the bid showing the solid minor, this avoids the problem of wrongsiding. The drawback is that you then have to give up the very useful natural 3♠ pre-empt, or alternatively change your whole 3-level structure. One reason the "gambling" 3NT got a bad reputation is that most inexperienced players pass to often as partners. I think it helps thinking of it as a 4-level preempt that may be passed in 3NT. In particular if you have tried playing 3NT when partner got a void in your running suit you would not like to try that again :) John

Frances may be correct, but this time partner is me, so it is not so obvious your partner should be thrusted :( Partner actually agreed with my signalling, the point is that from my side I needed to tell partner I don't have 5 clubs (far more likely than having 5 spades), so if partner got only 3 the third round will stand up. Also important is that at my side of the screen 2♥ was explained as 6 cards, making a further trump-promotion impossible even if partners remaining heart was the singleton K (I had no quick entry). Partner reasoned correctly that I would always bid 2♠ with 6043, and often with 5143 or 5044 (see the other thread, in the last case his play is irrelevant). Declarer is unlikely to open a weak 2 with 2533 shape. The spade-underlead also gives declarer a chance to misguess. 4144 is my most likely distributions with the known minor-suit lengths. Partner underled his ♠A, which was very succesful when I had QJxx, x, Axxx, QJxx and declarer had xxx, KQTxx, KQx, xx, the only play to lead to +800 :) Note that if declarer really is 2533 we still get +800 and what should be a good board (but miss the possible 1100). The IMP-scale also favours partners actual play. Assuming opponents at the other table make 450 in 4♠ (as they did) we gain 6 IMP's (8-2) and lose 4 IMP's (12-8) when comparing the 2 critical layouts. John

Frances almost gave partners exact hand (he had A9xx, KQ9, AQTx, Kx). With both hearts and diamonds breaking 3-3 6♦ and 6♥ were both easily making, I bid 6NT and that had almost no play :D I discussed the hand with partner, he agreed with my 4NT, we both felt his 5NT was more agressive with minimum high-cards and no 5-card-suit. Maybe he should have passed 6♦, but me not passing 6♥ was a big mistake. Partner, starting by saying he was very happy with my play in general( ;) ), believed it was my biggest error during the weekend. As is commented by others partner is marked with 4342 pattern and strong hearts. He would have bid 6♥ instead of 5NT with 4 hearts, passed 6♦ with 5 diamonds and bid 6NT with 3343. The clubruff gives the extra trick needed for slam to make (if diamonds are not breaking it gives the extra trick needed to make a squeeze possible). John

Didn't discuss the 2♠ bid with Tor, but I think this may be one of those regional differences. Around here players tend to bid good 5-card majors when possible, also on hands where I have seen players from other nations double. 2♠ was definitely the majority choice in our Premier League judging from the results printout. John

Actually there is, if he pops up (he only got four diamonds, but that is immaterial) and play a heart to the Q and A I am still OK (if no trump I ruff a diamond, take the spade-finesse and lose just a diamond and 2 trumps). I play the T and RHO can for instance return a high diamond (or a club). I play off all the trumps as before and endplay RHO with the remaining high diamond. John

Your points are valid Frances, but the hand you gave is only 18hp (not 19, any of the 3 missing J's would drastically improve slam-chances) and slam (at least 6♥) got good play (hearts 4-2/3-3 and either diamonds 3-3 or a squeeze). Had partner had a fifth (he could even had a sixth in our methods) diamond, slam would be almost laydown....... Concerning the methods, partner would always open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors. John

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sk9h852djt652ct93&w=sa832haj93d4cak65]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] RHO opens a weak 2♥ (normally 6 at this vul). Partner (who is a passed hand) reopens with a double. You decide to pass because of the vul and lead the ♣A. Partner plays an encouraging 2. You switch to a diamond, partner wins the A and gives you a ruff with the lowest diamond, you play a club to partners J and he gives you another diamondruff (declarer following with K, Q and a low one, partner played the lowest outstanding both times). What do you play? John

With none vul you have: KT AJxx Kxx Q9xx The bidding goes (only your side bidding): 1♦ - 1♥ 2NT - 4NT 5NT - 6♦ 6♥ - ? 2NT was 18-19, 4NT quantitative and 5NT "pick a slam". Do you pass or bid 6NT? John

Maybe my comment about the friendly defence was misleading, it seems the contract was making on any defence after the spadelead. Hannie is correct that the percentage play is the ♥T, and this was also what I played. The 9 fell as needed from the left. RHO now switched to a club after a long tank. It would be more interesting if he had played a spade or a diamond (I should probably refuse the free finesse and aim to endplay any opponents by returning the suit he plays), and I ruffed and plyed out all the trumps. I had a count on the spades (LHO had discarded 3, he had 4 originally) and played A and another spade. RHO was endplayed and had to give me 2 diamondtricks (he had KJx, KQx, KQxx, xxx). The endplay would also have worked against LHO in the position given by Inquiry. As I said in the introduction, I felt this is the kind of boards that make bridge interesting :) John

The reason I found this interesting was that I had a discussion with Tor Helness in the bar after the play where he brought up this hand. He was very critical (he is known to voice his opinions clearly!) to his teammates 3♠ on this hand. Since I (and as it later proved almost all our premier league players) also bid 3♠ I was very interested in his opinions. At the time I felt I had a choice, and that my bad result was partly bad luck. My Romanian friend Edmunte (Hi Eddie :) ) got a good analysis here, and Appollo and Whereagles also found what Tor believed was the only good call, a natural 4♣. The point is that partner is known to be short in hearts (he will often be void and have a singleton at most, remember opponents are at unfavourable at IMPs), you definitely prefer to ruff hearts from a short club-holding (the short hearts also indicates some club-length) than from 5 spades. If RHO holds 4 spades (as is quite likely) partner will be shortened. If you bid 4♣ you still have a good chance to get to 4♠ when it is correct, that is when partner got at least 6. Even if partner got as little support as AKxxxx,- , KJxxx, xx 5♣ is still OK (but you would prefer 4♠). This also shows why double is not a good call, partner will almost always bid either 3♠ (could still be only 5 and you would not know if you should raise) or 4♦ (actually indicating that clubs is the right strain, but you would not know for sure). Partners hand was: AK974 - K986 QJ62 He raised 3♠ to 4, and with spades 4-2 (as expected) this was hopeless, while 6♣ was laydown. PS: This hand was from last years PL, not from the last weekend. John

There are 2 factors to consider here. First the ♣Q from East seems like an unnessecary play to show as much HCP as possible (to make it look like she can't have any heart-values). The second factor is that if East really got spade A+K (probably fourth, less likely sixth judging from the lead), club Q+J and the guarded heart Q she would very often bid something over 1♦. Since Frances has already told us that she used reverse psychology as defender I guess she was East and did not have the heart Q, so I play her partner for the Q :blink: In real life this is more difficult, it depends on how good (and how conservative) you judge East. If East is weak I go by the HCP count and play West for the Queen. If East is a conservative average player I play him/her for the missing Queen. If East is an expert (as I know Frances is) and she knows declarer is good enough to pay attention I have a problem, but reverse psychology is the most likely explanation, and I play her partner for the Queen. John