jvage

Maybe I post some more hands later, but since they (like the "Your bid" post) are mostly problems I or partner missed I post this success to counterbalance. It is not very difficult, the 2 other declarers who got the same friendly defence also made, but it is still the type of hand that makes bridge fun. After partners first hand weak 3♣ (all vul) you reach the not very good (to say the least!) 4♥: Txx J 9x KJT98xx AQ9 AT876xx AJx - You get the friendly lead of a spade, and when you put in the T RHO covers with the K. You win the A and lead a small diamond towards dummy. After you put in the 9 RHO wins the Q and returns the heart K. Over to you. John

You are third at favourable (IMP) and have: J6 J92 Q2 AKT983 Partner and opps are strong players (Norwegian Premier League). LHO opens a weak 2♥, partner enters with 2♠ and RHO bids 3♥ (not invitational). What do you bid? John

My name is John Våge (hope the Norwegian letters works....). I am 39 years old, working as a civil engineer for our national railways. This has given me the chance to play (and win!) the last 4 European Railway bridge championships :) I started playing bridge relatively late, converting from chess during my last year at university. I consider myself an OK player, playing in our Premier league (top 10 teams, we did well last year but dropped out this year) and qualifying for the last 6 national pairs finals (several placings just below the top 10). I am fortunate to play in the same club as most of our national Open, Junior and Schools players. Together with some other very strong players they provide many good partners and opponents even at the local tournaments. I am also an occasional tournament director and the NPC of the Norwegian Schools team. John

It seems the diamond J also beats it, even if declarer got the club 9. Declarer needs to establish both his fifth heart and 2 clubs, giving you enough time to establish spades. John

Winston: I think you missed the play, partner never played a third spade. He cashed the A and K (after I had encouraged) and switched to a diamond, won in dummy. Now declarer cashed the spade Q, and at this time the only possible entry to dummy is a club-ruff. I started by saying it could be posed as "Who is to blame". We had several chances, but IMO neither action was an egregious error. Partner cashing the second spade was short-sighted, but at the table it is easy to reason "Partner encouraged and may even have a singleton" and then start thinking when it is to late (in this case there was still hope, but it made it more difficult). Edit: A side-issue is that the trick one problem also highlights a pet-peeve of mine. I hate it when people think for ages before either encouraging or discouraging (this is equivalent to some Smith positions more frequently discussed). A good partner knows much more about the position if you start thinking after declarer takes his time and then plays from Dummy. In this case I encouraged on the lead before I had analysed the position completely, to make my play in tempo (declarer had a normal trick one break).

Not much response on this problem, maybe because everyone would have bid better and avoided the problem :) I only got two decisions to make, unsurprisingly I missed on both tests. When declarer played a high spade I ruffed, and that was the end of the defense. Declarer over-ruffed and played the club Q, and whatever we did declarer could ruff his last club and finesse my now doubleton trump K. If I discard (declarer can do no better than to discard one of his clubs) and ruff the second spade declarer is unable to reach dummy after overruffing to take the trumffinesse. We would get 1 club and 1 trumptrick (or 2 trumptricks if he chooses not to overruff). Declarer had: JT AQ98xxx K9 Qx Partner had: AKxx J T852 AJ9x There are several ways to beat 4♥, but we succeded in giving declarer his doubled game :( John

For once I don't agree with Frances (I do agree with the other things she said in the same post....). In "Norwegian expert standard" there are no special toys in this position, 2♣ is natural and nonforcing. Playing 2NT as forcing frees up jumpbids as more descriptive, showing 5-5. In Bridge World standard I have noticed some of the experts sometimes jumping in 3 card minor-suits to solve the problem with strong unbalanced hands, making it close to impossible for partner to support the minor (I don't remember if this applies here or only after say 1♥ - 1♠). This is the "natural" way to solve the problem, but does not look like an improvement to me. On the other hand, if you play any "toys" (like the suggested 2♣) you may not need 2NT as forcing, since you can locate 3-5 or 4-4 heartfits etc. by using your toys. Of course you sometimes risk getting to 3NT with 18 against 6, but often 3NT got some play and it may even be a good game :) Where I do agree is that it depends on the rest of the system. My suggested version is best played with 15-17NT that includes all balanced hands with 5 majors within range. For example playing a weak NT you need some invitational bids (either a 2♣ "toy" or a natural 2NT), for the 15-17 NT hands (at least for 16-17). John

It may depend on style, but unlike most of the previous posters I would blame North 100%. 4♦ is simplest (some would say best) played as a compulsory cuebid. South has already (by only bidding 3♥) limited his hand. 4♣ could be a very strong hand without a diamondcontrol say AKxx, KT9x, QJTx, A. Without A/K of diamonds the 5 level is far from safe, there could be a diamond-ruff or a loser in either major, so with this hand North should pass a 4♥ signoff, while slam is excellent with the actual South hand. Personally I agree with all of South's bids. North's 4♣ was a stretch, but not signing off in 4♥ (showing exactly what he got, a mild slamtry) was a much bigger overbid. A small improvement to his actual choice (but still a big overbid IMO) would be to cuebid 4♠ instead of launching into RKCB. John

Around here (Norway) most experts use 2NT as forcing, and it can be used with many different types of hands. 3NT would typically be 18-19 balanced, but opener is free to decide between 2NT (forcing) and 3NT, depending on honour-location and how much info he is willing to share with opponents. I play a very simple response structure; 1♥ - 1NT 2NT: 3♣ = 5+♣ 3♦ = 5+♦ 3♥ = 3♥ (we occasionally bid a nonforcing 1NT with 3334 even when 1♥ promise 5) 3♠ = 3244 3NT = 55+ in the minors 1♠ - 1NT 2NT: 3♣/♦: 5+ 3♥: 5+♥ 3♠: 2(3) ♠, no lower 5 card-suit 3NT: 4♥ Some (including Helgemo - Helness if I remember correctly) play a 3♣ response as 1 5+ minor (3♦ asking), freeing more room for the other responses (the main advantage is that after 1♠ you don't have to choose between showing 4♥ or 2♠ with 2434 or 2443 as in my suggested version). I used to play this, but now prefer natural responses, both because it is easier to remember (KISS is a good principle for infrequent conventions),and because natural sometimes work better. For example it is easy to locate a 4-4 heart-fit when responder got a 5 card minor (after a 1♠ opening), or with 6+ in the major check if we got a minor fit before deciding between 3NT, 4M or 5m. This method focus more on finding the best game than finding minimum slams, since it does not separate maximum/minimum with responder after the gameforce. However, since responder knows opener got substantial extra values, if he got extras he can often make a slamtry after a fit is found. Another advantage is that a jump in a lower suit (say1♠ - 1NT, 3♣) can be played as promising at least 5-5 (and GF in my style). John

I posted the first-trick problem because that was what was most heavily criticized by other players in the post-mortem that took place in the bar after the tournament :D What happened was that thinking to little about the problem I encouraged (playing small). Partner (possibly also thinking to little, but he got less information than me about the hand) cashed the ♠K (declarer following with the T and J). Partner now switched to the ♦5. This is not a clear card, I think this should be an attitude position (small promising an honour). Declarer won in dummy, while I played the Q and declarer the 9. Now the ♠Q is played from dummy, and you get another problem. Any ideas?

I agree my bidding may not have been optimal :huh: I do think it's correct to double at pairs though. The actual results from the other tables are not surprising. If 4♥ makes undoubled we would get the same zero (you know it will be a bad result, it doesn't have to be a 0). If you get it 1 down undoubled you get about 30% (half the field got a larger plus playing our way, but some had made 9 or 10 in 3♥, the 2 other pairs in 4♥ had gone 1 down undoubled). 200 for 1 down doubled is known to be an excellent score (it would be a lone top). Even if you think the game will make more than half the time it is probably correct to double. Some of the hands posted are not very likely. Since South got relatively few high-cards, I was pretty sure he had 7 hearts for his vulnerable 3♥. And I don't understand why some credits him with both the K and T in diamonds, while some others would like a trump-shift (risking that declarer draws trumps and establish either spades or diamonds). Partners passes are also informative. I would have expected him to bid 4♣ himself with 5 clubs (espescially with a singleton heart). To me the most likely distribution of the unseen hands are 2722 and 4144. Of the relevant highcards partner got A/K of spades and either the ♦K (+ ♣Q or some jacks) or the ♣A.

The article was in the november or december issue last year by Rubens, and yes, I think he used the expression "Mixed strategies" (I am currently at work, can confirm tomorrow). The funny part of the hand was how 6NT-1 scored in what I believed was a strong field. Like those who have answered I would have expected the majority to make. In real life we recieved -2 for 1 down, when 5 declarers went 1 down and 2 went 2 down :huh: The reason this was no hard-luck story was that one of those going 2 off was the pair with whom we were tied for first :) I don't know how the play went at all tables, but at that table declarer had reduced to this position: AT - - QT K8x - - 7 East had discarded to ♠QJ and ♣ A9 (so declarer had 3 spadetricks and his contract, one would have expected a clubdiscard more from this holding), and when declarer misguessed the defense took 3 clubtricks! Inquiery spotted an important reason not to win the first clubround (I can't claim I had seen this when I ducked). A good declarer planning to play me for AJ doubleton would take his red-suits winners before deciding. If I discard spades the suit is running, if I discard a small club he would surely finesse.

I forgot to add the important info that South opened 1NT (15-17 almost standard around here). At our table North just jumped directly to 6NT. Frances's layout is therefore close to impossible (I know this South would never open 1NT with a small singleton).

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sq9543ht7da7643c7&e=s82hk54dqjckt8542]266|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] This is another hand from the weekend. I could have posted it as "Who is to blame", but here it is presented from my side. The bidding: Partner RHO You LHO 1♣....Pass..1NT... 2♥ Pass..Pass..3♣....3♥ Pass..Pass..4♣...Pass Pass..4♥....Double All Pass Partner and both opponents are junior internationals. We play 5 card majors and partner would open 1♣ with both 4-4 or 3-3 in the minors. I bid 1NT because I felt the hand was in between an inverted 2♣ (agreed to be at least invitational opposite a 11/12-14NT) and a weak 3♣, and because 1NT was likely to score well in MP if partner got the normal 12-14NT and passes. I doubled partly because I had the tablefeel from South's slow 3♥ that he was stretching. Feel free to critize my bidding. Partner lead the ♠A. We got a simple agreement after an Ace-lead, in this position suboptimal (reverse count would be ideal :) ). I can play small to encourage (to show a doubleton or just to get partner to cash the K) or high to discourage. How do you plan the defense? John

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sat9hkj9da62ckqt6&w=s54ht873d973cj853&e=sqj732h64dt85ca92&s=sk86haq52dkqj4c74]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] This was the last hand of this weekends County pairs final. Unfortunately very few average players participate in this event, so the field is small (7,5 tables) and strong (about half the players are "BBO stars"). I was East and of course didn't know it at the time, but before this board we were exactly tied for the lead with another pair sitting N/S, and all 7 tables declared 6NT from South. This is definitely not a hard-luck story, but how would you guess we scored when declarer (a BBO star) misguessed clubs after I had ducked the first round, resulting in 1 down? Bonus question: I recently read a Bridge World article about "Mixed strategies". During declarers planning at trick 1 I considered winning the first club (it is not too difficult to see the point of the hand from the East position). Declarer knew I was good enough to play small without hesitation from my actual holding, so he might then play me for AJ doubleton. Is this a position where mixed strategies are relevant, and would it be correct to win the first club? Of course you have to plan this in advance, if you start thinking when a club has been played you have ruined your chances whatever you do. John

As Frances said in her original post, Double shows that North wanted to bid again (5♥). He shows this by doubling instead of taking a solo action, allowing partner to pass with very good defense. This is a common but not universal treatment (something to discuss with your regular partner?). After game-level preempts the preemptor often got something to spare. Instead of being forced to pass, opening 5♥ or masterminding by bidding twice on his own, this is a good way to involve partner. John

Congratulations on your first BBO hands, Frances! Since this is posted in the B/I forum my answer is hidden. To me there seems to be 2 reasonable alternatives for trick 2: John

I was asking because I didn't know the correct answer. At the table I didn't like 3♥ for 2 reasons: 1. The heartsuit is very bad when partner is not known to have any fit. What is partner expected to do with a normal hand without a fit (say Kxxxx, x, Axxx, Axx, even with KQJTx, x, AKxx, Qxx you would like to stop lower)? 2. We have a bid for an invitational hand with hearts (in our system a direct 2♥ followed by rebidding the suit is the only exception to 2/1 GF), while 3♥ directly would be artificial. The meaning of a jump to 3♥ here is undiscussed. Since you have no convenient way to show a maximum 1NT with diamondsupport, wouldn't it be very nice to use this as a strong diamondraise (splinter?) with something like Kx, x, AKxxxx, xxxx? John

With some partners I have recently changed from the traditional style around here (SAYC'ish) to 2/1. I wondered what is the normal way to solve this kind of problems in 2/1. I had: A8 K97632 QJ 975 Without interference the bidding started: 1♠ - 1NT (not 100% forcing) 2♦ - ? What would you bid if the small spade was a small diamond? John

Nice hand, Frances, and very well spotted :) I guess you were commentating. I was playing, and since I remember the layout the problem is a bit easier. You know the distribution in the end-position, East got 4 diamonds and 2 spades, West got a singleton diamond, 3 spades and 2 hearts. In the actual layout, if you play the ♦9 from dummy an interesting position arise. If East raise with the A you must unblock the T, East is endplayed and must give you an entry to dummy (spade A or the free diamond-finesse). In this case you make if West got either 8 or J singleton. If East plays small you let the 9 run, felling the singleton 8. You now cash the spade A for your heart-discard and set up 2 diamond-tricks, also making. It seems as East can succeed by a very anti-intuitive defense. If he covers the 9 with the J (from AJ52) it seems like declarer is in trouble. But declarer can counter even this, he plays a high diamond, which East must duck to deny dummy an entry. Now declarer changes tack and plays his last heart. If West wins he is forced to give declarer a dummy-entry in a major, and the 2 last diamonds can be discarded. I was East, at my table N/S overbid to 6♣. After a diamondlead and ruff (I returned the J, to make it clear that a heart was an unsafe return) we scored 300 (not as great a result as it looks, since our teammates went down a couple in 3NT). One reason I remembered the diamond-layout was that declarer was complaining a little about the bad breaks, and was jokingly told that at least the diamond J was finessable (there is a very social atmosphere in our premier league). John

I will nor argue with the eminent posters, who on average will do much better than us who played the board :P My hand was: AJ - AKxx KT8xxxx Everything was favourable (my LHO had Qx in clubs with a doubleton diamonds, RHO had the spade K). The field played 3, 4 and 5 clubs, mostly making 13 tricks (420 for scoring only 12 tricks in 5♣ was about 65%). When my partner passed 3♥ I chose a conservative pass (I would have raised 4 or 5♣ a level), and 150 for 3 down earned us a fat zero, followed by several 170's and 190's :( John

I'll add a few comments before I give the full hands. No-one has commented on what they would bid if RHO passed (instead of 3♥). That was what happened at most tables, and it changes the problem somewhat. The reason I said "no relevant agreements" was partly to see if "good/bad" would be standard with an expert partner in this position (I did not expect this partner to play that convention), and if not what the panel would expect for a minimum 3♣ bid. Pclayton (and probably some of the other 4♣ bidders) expects partner to bid again with Mike's example hands. The first of these was: Axx - Axx KJxxxxx 5♣ got good play (only needs the spade King with the opponent who has shown the strongest hand), but isn't this very close to a minimum 3♣? Partner has already rebid his clubsuit freely with a passing partner and 2 bidding opponents. John

Here is a problem from my live club (Norway) the other night. Since the level is generally very high, I was surprised to see that most pairs did (almost) as bad as us, so this board may have some general interest. I was playing with a new, but good partner (a "BBO star") against very strong opponents (former winners of the North American Open Pairs). We played a natural system with no agreements relevant to the problem. You'll get to critizice my bidding later, but I'll start by giving the problem from partners side. Partner deals, none vul, MP Q83 T7642 83 A92 1♣ (1♥) Pass (2♥) 3♣ (3♥) ? Do you agree with the first pass, and what do you bid now? What would you do if RHO had passed (as happened at some tables)? John

I like relatively thin takeout doubles also with an unpassed partner if the shape is right, and feel this has been a winning tactic. The original hand (x, KTxx, K9x, KTxxx) is subminimum even for me, but I would probably double if nonvulnerable (after partners pass). With an unpassed partner vulnerability is less important, since the chances for game (with a vulnerable bonus) are higher and compensates some of the risk. Judging when to make light takeout doubles is actually quite complicated, here are some factors to consider: 1. Shape is important, a minimum double must have 4 card in any unbid major. The original hand got a significant drawback since opps got the highest suit, a double would be much more appealing if opponents had opened 1♥ (major suits interchanged). 2. Your honour-evaluation should be adjusted slightly from when you consider opening a minimum hand. Since you know there is opening strength in front of you kings and supported low honours increase in value, unsupported low honours decrease in value and singleton J/Q/K in openers suit are worthless for offensive purposes. The given hand is in this respect a good example of a hand close to a takeout double which is far from an opening. Any ace or low honour with partner will be good and your kings with fillers look good behind an opener. 3. Passing also got dangers. Often the bidding will continue 2♠ (or some artificial raise) and 2 passes. If you now balance you are a level higher and opponents have exchanged the information they need to nail you more often when correct (say partner got a nondescript 4342). 4. Some posters have said light doubles help opponents in their declarer play. While this is sometimes true, there is a counter-argument. Opponents will normally tackle the trumps before they find that your double is minimum (and therefore short in their suit). They may also place you with more strength than you actually have, therebye misplaying other suits or the whole hand. Another advantage is that you sometimes will have pushed them a level higher. PS: Of course I agree that you should disclose your methods! John

As has already been mentioned the answer depends on what is needed for opener to jump to 3♣. Traditionally this could be done with only 5-4 in hearts/clubs and 16 HP (maybe even weaker?). AFAIK Frank Stewart (mentioned in the original post) got a traditional style, which explains why he thinks responders raise should be relatively strong (10-11). When opener is limited it makes sense to use responders raise as constructive. The modern tendency is to require stronger hands for a jump to 3♣. Some use this as gameforcing, some (including Helness - Helgemo AFAIK) use this as GF AND at least 5-5 in hearts/clubs. Since 2♣ then becomes semiforcing some responding hands that were earlier passed should now keep the bidding open (pass shows a misfitting minimum). Playing this style Whereagles 7 count is an OK minimum raise, since partner could have up to about 18hp (maybe even stronger, depending on wether 3NT or other rebids are available with stronger hands). An alternative is to give false preference to 2♥, but that got other downsides. John