Yzerman

he,he ... yeah .. :( 5242 :)

Contract is 6♦, how to play on a heart lead (to King and Ace, heart return) ... (no bidding by opps) ... A10 Kx Jxxxxx Qxx KJ987 Qx AKxx Axx

Okay .. time to fess up what I actually did @ the table .. Would anyone ever consider ducking the club to dummies A7, missing only the K the J and the 8 ? If the C8 is in RHO you can claim as the dummies holding will force either J or K. The disadvantage of this is IF LHO has the K8x or 8xx you have just went down in a contract you would have otherwise made (J8x does not apply as you cant take 3 tricks in clubs). Even if you get the club suit wrong, you still have a few fallback positions on the hand to find a 9th trick (assuming RHO holds Kxxx or longer diamonds). Anyways, after considerable thought I committed the hand to this play and the hand simply fell apart after this play as the remainder of the opponents holdings were NOTHING resembling what you might suspect from the auction.

I had the following hand in a recent tournament. This hand was towards the end of a KO final in which the match was very tight. Basically, for the previous 22 boards my only contribution to the team was simply following suit and playing fundamental bridge, for anything I did or did not do to this point had much effect on the current reslts. Although I am not the type of person to play bridge on the basis of 'state of the match', I realized that this deal could be crucial to the outcome; Unfavorable vul for us (we VUL, they NOT) .... 23 board of 24 board match and u suspect score is tight .... 9843 Q2 AJ1064 A7 AK5 J1097 Q2 Q1094 Auction - North East South West P 1N* 2C* P 2D* P 2H* 3H* X 3N P P P Quick explanation - 1N = 11-14, 2C = capp (one suit), 2D = relay to suit, 2H = suit, 3H = fast stayman ..... RHO had made a lead directing double as it turns out (obviously from OUR heart holding) with the stiff King. After considerable thought, RHO switches to the 4 of clubs. How to play the hand? FYI, 1 - Personally I dont think there is much going on with the hand technically (there is very little to do the hand with respect to technical play), but there are alot of inferences and spot cards to work with. FYI, 2 - After some response I will give actual layout, but I will make additional commentary for discussion. At the table I got the hand wrong, and instanteneously felt an extreme amount of disappointment and guilt for I felt this could have been the swing that might determine the match. I did not let this bother me for the last deal, but I was sulking in my beer the entire evening over this hand. My personal feeling towards this hand, the match and bridge seemed to have suddenly gone from an enthusiastic approach to the game to suddenly HATING the game, for I felt like a failure. Any comments on the emotional overhead towards/regarding bridge in situations like this? MAL

If North hand held the 10 of spades, double dummy I think 6S would be reasonable. Even if the 10 of spades is not in the north hand, you have some chances to score baby heart ruffs (although would require 4/4 clubs and play of hand would require proper timing). Count your tricks; 5 winners in aces and kings (AK hearts, AK clubs and A diamonds) Hence 7 winners from the trump suit will produce 12 tricks. IF the north hand held the 10 of spades the ONLY lead to defeat this contract would be trump lead (which is likely). In the event that a trump is lead, and continued you would still have a remote play for 12 tricks. Is this a decent slam, yes I believe its decent. Would I want to be in this slam? Yes, I believe that the pressure this hand applies to the defense, and the chances afforded to make this make the risk/reward a worth while contract (while the actually risk/reward of bidding 6 is not worth it, the fact you apply pressure to opponents increases your risk/reward). Bidding to 6S puts an EXTREME amount of pressure on the opponents to defend, and even if this contract does not make there is a lot to be said to applying pressure to the defenders to defend accurately under pressure as often as possible.

I have read a few times in this post that the problem hand in many cases is the 9 point hand in response to a hand that opens 1 of a minor while playing weak NT. I would like to add a little commentary and an example of a recent problem hand regarding weak NT vs strong NT argument. I have a real life partner that I play 70% of my F2F bridge with in which we converted to weak NT (11-14) about 4-5 years ago. About 10% of the other time I play, is with partners I play some variety of weak NT/KS style with while the other 20% of time is something else. For 4-5 years we have continually refined our structure (both for the 11-14 balanced and 15-17 balanced) to try and optimize results for the MAJORITY of the deals and problem deals. Fred mentioned earlier in this post the overhead associated with playing weak NT and I tend to agree with him with one exception. The exception in my case is that I play SO much 11-14 NT is that its almost second nature for me to the point where I consider it my "standard" approach to the game. The problem that I have frequently encountered playing 11-14 NT in casual and infrequent partnerships is that there is a LOT of room for disaster in some sequences that require some sound agreements and/or very fine judgement (as is the case w/any system). There are inherently some sequences that are VERY awkward and non-standard with weak NT that leave the partnership in some uncomfortable decision making situations. Having said that, my experience has been once you get past the initial discomfort of weak NT/KS, and can develop some sound agreements that are mutually accepted there is a lot of benefit in playing weak NT. My first and foremost argument for weak NT is as follows; "Just by nature of a 15-17 balanced hand vs 11-14 balanced hand, there is MORE to describe. With hands that you are ALLOWED (non-competitevely) to open 1 of a minor and rebid 1NT, as long as you have sound continuations, you are already one step ahead of your competition that is playing 15-17." The largest gain, in my experience, has been avoiding non-playable 3nt's combined with the ability to find nice minor slams, minor games, 4/3 major fits for game/slam, and occasionally playing a 5-2 major fit. Having said all of this, there remains the prototype problem hand for those that advocate weak NT's. The prototype problem hand is the 9 point hand in response to a 1 minor opening. EVERY partner in which I play weak NT, we must devise special methods to account for this hand (some examples of how to cope with below); 1C-1D Walsh style (1C-1D-1N-2N) 1C-2D, 1D-3C Criss-Cross 1D-2C with good 9 counts to avoid partner passing 1NT etc These are all non-standard and require a LOT of discussion and mutual understanding in order to deal with, once again the overhead/baggage theory comes into play. Now for example! In recent regional team event, we had 6 person team. I played in a rotation of 3 players, my regular partner, a VERY skilled and highly respected player, and myself. The pairings of my regular partner/not regular partner and not regular partner/myself were non-established partnerships. But to try and avoid each person remembering different agreements we all discussed and agreed upon a card that we all played (fyi - the card we agreed to play was a streamlined version of what my regular partner/me play, 11-14 NT). One treatment we agreed to play was Criss-Cross (1C-2D, 1D-3C) invites on minor openings. My regular partner and I have the explicit agreement that the criss-cross invite is defined as follows; "Partner, if your opening is a 15-17 NT I want to play 3NT otherwise if you have the weak minor variant I would prefer to play this in your suit at the prescribed level." As the 3 of us discussed this, we forgot to use this exact phrase as what our definition of criss-cross is. So, playing with the 3rd person, I picked up the following hand; Axx 10xx J9xx Axx Partner opened 1D, I judged red vs white teams that since partner opened 1D we cant afford to miss 3nt if partner has 15-17 balanced so I bid 3C invite in D (intending the bid to mean as I defined above). Partner, expecting a little better hand, because we did NOT discuss the exact nature of criss-cross, bid past 3nt in which this led to disaster result. I felt extremely guilty for the sake of the team and my partner (as well as the personal emotional overhead associated with the feeling that you let 5 others down) by making this marginal call in the face of a new partnership. In any event, I still remain a strong advocate of weak NT but I also realize that its not something to sit down and play in casual/infrequent partnerships and expect magic to happen!

Quick comments and some personal beliefs - For me to sit and comment on "what should the ACBL do to resurrect bridge", or any other bridge organization, would be somewhat hypocritical knowing that I have not been as active in bridge as I 'could' have been. Having said that, I am fortunate enough to have the ACBL's beginner/intermediate coordinator(s) nearby. I have had many opportunities to speak with them regarding what they offer to new players locally, as well as what they offer to the ACBL as a whole. They do a great job of promoting the game as well as teaching the fundamentals of bridge. It is my belief, and the belief of others I have spoke with, that there is quite a disconnect from beginner/intermediate player to the layer of middle-upper tier players. The disconnect, I believe, is the evolution of a beginner/intermediate player into the ranks of dedicated/experience/quality bridge players, albeit I understand that people play bridge for many reasons (alot of which play for the pure social aspect). Below are a few other reasons why people play (other than socially); a - To play in a perputually more challenging environment b - To perpetually learn more about the game c - Possibilities of developing sound partnerships is very limited (most 'good' players already have developed partnerships and limited time/resources to develop new ones) As a matter of presenting an example, there is a local player who has an INCREDIBLE amount of natural ability for bridge. This person is a very active player (at all levels - club, tournament, special events, social gatherings) with the time and resources to dedicate to the game. I cant speak for this persons ultimate desire about the game, but their actions indicate that she has a great desire to compete on higher levels as well as learn more about the game. The avenues for this person to develop sound partnerships as well as an arena to learn/practice in a more competitive environment is EXTREMELY limited. The pool of 'good' players for her to develop partnerships is small, and clique'ish, and there is ABSOLUTELY no venue, class/game/event/social avenue, locally for this person to take advantage of improving herself. Having said all of the above, I state my concern - 1 - Do others believe there is a disconnect in the bridge world for the aspiring and talented intermediate/advanced player? 2 - If others believe this, is there anyone willing to discuss solutions? Regards, MAL

I used to not believe in the value of Multi preempts, however I have changed my mind over the course of time for a variety of reasons, of which those reasons will answer the question of keeping preemptive options open. 1 - The value LOTT preempts are incredibly effective (all levels of pass/correct) 2 - The value of playing hands from either hand is valuable 3 - The added value of 2H/2S preempts create options you would not have otherwise From experience, here is what I believe are the prerequisites to playing multi and achieving favorable results; 1 - DISCUSS IN DEPTH, all auctions and all options with your partner. 2 - Have a consistent and mutually cohesive plan as to the nature of how you preempt. 3 - Have solid agreements as to how to handle interference (this is HUGE, occasionally you are blasted out of auction without disclosure of what suit multi hand holds) Here are some of my personal rules that I like to exercise 1 - As a general rule, a 2D multi preempt is the same preempt as you would normally open 2H or 2S, just because you have gadget to confuse people DONT use 2D without discipline. 2 - A preempt is a preempt. I request of my partner that 3 side controls I prefer NOT be preempt (Ace+singleton, King+void, A+King and K+K although 2 controls I still dont preempt). If you exercise this rule, judging game and slam bidding is much more simplistic. 3 - As another general rule, I try to not preempt when => 50% of my points are NOT in the preempted suit. As mention earlier, a preempt is a preempt 2H means I have hearts not side kings and queens galore. With respect to the question of utilizing the full set of preemptive bids (Pass/Correct options), I believe that is you do NOT utlilize the preemptive options than you are avoiding one of the greatest benefits of playing multi preempts. Hence, my personal preference is to compliment multi preempts with as many preemptive options as possible (applying LOTT rules) and making sure that partner and I are on the same page!!!! MAL

NEAT PROBLEM - I would pass with openers hand. I probably take cheap insurance with responders hand in 5S give the lack of defense (aces), the 9 card fit and 65 shape and who knows 5S might be a maker (u never know). The biggest risk I think bidding 5S runs is that opps might bid 6C, and occasionally (but that would be VERY rare) it will make. It is my belief in the long run, competing to 5S w/the combined hands will win more often than lose (@ MP I would consider pass as an avenue to a + score and IMPs I would bid as 5S is the action least likely to create swing). I commend all the people that pass 5C, I think pass is a great option and when 5C is NOT making you are getting nice score however I just cant resist B)))) MAL

I play perhaps 5-10 times per year at club games. I am a HUGE advocate of the game, and I try as best as I can to support local bridge. I am HUGE into ethics and rules of bridge as well as helping people learn the game (as best I can). BUT (never start sentence with but, but - he,he), I just find 'club' bridge too stressful. A personal reason why I do not participate more often than I do, is that I feel very uncomfortable in the 'bridge club' environment. Below is a list of reasons why I do not feel comfortable; 1 - I am much younger than average of players locally and I feel that I do not fit in (note - this is personal feeling, it is likely not true but nonetheless is how i feel) 2 - When I do play, I play 75% of time w/my tournament partner. We have fairly intensive system, and we are frequently harassed when we alert bids. NOW for the dilemma, after having briefly described the environment. I play the other day in club game with a friend (other than regular partner). And we had one round that absolute torture for me. My friend and I were discussing the failure to alert some bids @ previous table, when our current opponent gives unsolicited comment; "We dont alert bids just to confuse people though" I intrepreted this as an inuendo towards us and was very unhappy with this comment. So now for the actual bridge hands. The first hand, my partner opened Flannery 2D (as I properly alerted), I bid 2H with my 3433 3 count and my LHO then goes into huddle. Reaches for a bid, puts it back, fumbles around in the bidding box and suddenly lightning strike and she find the bid she wanted all along, 3nt. My partner passes and my RHO without any thought at all, bids 4C. So the local 'fad' is that 4C is always Gerber, so I wasnt about to stand for them getting a free shot @ Gerber (he,he) so I bid 4H (white vs red - yes i know i am wrong) and my LHO bids 5C. So the hand that bid 3nt hits the table; Qx xx AQJx AKQJ10 HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, isnt this fishy. I was always taught that over 2 level bids 3nt was meant to play. Isnt that convenient that the other hand pull 3nt to 4C with 4234 w/just a king and jack. So my conclusion was that the fumbling in the bidding box, was unauthorized information however such as to not incite the local social elite I did not call the director (futhermore, they were -200 in 5C, so they get bad result anyway). The 2nd hand, auction proceed 1D by my RHO, pass by me, 1H by LHO, 1N by partner (as unpassed hand - we play sandwich in all position, hence I alert). Now please take into account the comment our opponent said before play of this round start ("We dont alert bids just to confuse people though"). The opps then bid to only 3H. Anyways, to make a long story short, IF the lady had asked about the alert (during bidding or play) she could have used that information to make an extra trick or two (Ax spades in her hand opposite KJ10x and failed to finesse for useful discard). But the lady played the hand without a care in the world as to what the alert was. This round was TORTURE and stressful, between the pre-play comment, the unethical action on 1st board and the poor play on 2nd board I was ready to go home. Now I understand, that its my responsibility NOT to let such things bother me, however it does and I am not afraid to voice my opinion. I believe our local 'teacher' is insufficient, and I think the teacher fail to teach players about ethics and other intangibles. THIS is the type of play and behavior that prevents younger players from playing and enjoying the game. Any comments or similar experience others have had, would be nice B))) thx in advance.

My 2 cents worth .... I personally agree with the notion that experience outweighs knowledge while playing bridge. Knowledge is a GREAT starting point, and obviously one cant be successful until certain knowledge requirements are met, but until one has years of experience and/or thousands (10's of thousands, 100's of thousands ?) of deals under the belt I believe it is difficult to truly understand the game. Knowing suit combinations is ONE thing, but having practical experience with those combinations is another ballgame. Many persons in the series of suit combination discussions have discussed 'table feel', opponents, falsecarding, and randomizing and these are all intangibles that are learned with experience. I believe that is what makes bridge such a GREAT game. There is a rule or law for every play, every bid and every defense. But any given hand, a good (experienced) player will know how and or when to break the rules/laws. With respect to suit combinations, YES its great to have the knowledge of how to play them, but my belief is that its more important to know when to implement that knowledge. I am NOT a teacher or pro or proclaim to be anything of the like, but I have a few friends that are new to bridge and I try as best I can to help them learn. Two things I constantly tell them; 1 - "Bridge is a game to think outside of the box. First learn how to think INSIDE the box, then learn how to think OUTSIDE of the box." 2 - "I will never criticize for any one certain bid or play, most important is that I help you learn how to THINK at the table. Reciting bids or card play to you is not going to accelerate your learning, but helping you learn the bridge thought process will." Applying what i say earlier to the probelm suit combination in this post, my reactionary play is to play intrafinesse (low to J987). When honor or spot appear in 1st play of LHO, I will continue with the 'plan' of intrafinesse when the 10 appear I will reevaluate (who is opp? how fast card was played - he,he - ? auction/bidding? etc - all of those = experience) and then make a decision based upon those factors.

A9876 Q32 You need 5 tricks. 1 - 5 tricks, Not possible 2 - 4 tricks, I think the normal (and percentage) play is small to ace and small to queen. This will win whenever single K in LHO and any Kx or Kxx in RHO (assuming no entry problems). Some friends and myself recently play in regional team game, and we had a similar combination (if not identical) that cause a swing. The result of the swing, was that this combination consume ~ 1 hour of conversation during dinner break. The "common sense" or "logical" thinkers agreed that low to ace and low to queen was correct, however I argued for a different play (however all my f2f partners will tell you I am the master of esoterica). My argument was to play small from dummy, and keep all your options open. You "might" catch RHO sleeping and will play K from Kx, you can still pickup Kxx and Kx in RHO (by playing queen) and you can now pick up Jx (intrafinesse), 10x (intrafinesse), J, and 10 in RHO. I think we decided that small from dummy is technically best cause it preserves many more options (that does NOT mean you WILL get correct though - but at least keep options open). HENCE - If given this problem, i would cross and play low toward Queen, if no King appear I would play low on 1st round then play intrafinesse (pinning honor-x) - STUPID ESOTERIC ME! MAL

How about a few counters to suit combination and/or some frequent positions that may catch people sleeping. My favorite counter is the following suit combination defense (neat story accompanies this defense) - Dummy AJ9x You K10x(x) Although there are many combinations in which a player may play honor under the ace on first play, this is position where King is nice counter. My partner I were watching a young player and his partner play vs Meckwell in early rounds of the Spingold a few years back. A few of us were at a vantage point where we could see dummy (young dude's partner), declarer's (young dude), and Jeff Meckstroth's hands. We could see from declarers hand and the dummy that declarer had 9 tricks in 3NT once he knock ace in his long suit, but for some reason declarer attack a side suit, 7 card fit, with the above combination. Before the young kid's card hit the table, Jeff Meckstroth had the King on the table, at that point there was MONUMENTAL pause in tempo as the young player realized he just jeopardize his contract. I was absolutely amazed at the table presence, knowledge and experience of Jeff Meckstroth to play the King as a reflex, HE DID NOT HAVE TO THINK AT ALL ABOUT THIS. This was a tremendous learning experience for myself, for I understood much better what makes a world class player. Some other combinations or positions that are frequent in which many players are caught sleeping; 1 - In trump suit where you are in front of AQ10(x+) in front or where you are behind xxx(x+) and you hold Kx. Playing the K is fairly standard (obviously depending on a few conditions). Most important is when you are behind xxxx with Kx, unblocking the K in case partner have AJx or Q10x in trumps. 2 - ANOTHER FAVORITE - Declarer is playing suit contract in which auction and/or dummy reveals that declarer has many tricks. Early in hand declarer suspiciously cashes an Ace from an "empty" suit and you hold Kx or Qx. Better not get caught sleeping!!! * I played with partner in tournament few years back, and my partner attempt cash of ace on hand @ trick 2, my LHO (who is many time NABC champ), says aloud to table as the she played the King in this suit, "you are not playing against a novice, but nice try anyway". NOW THAT IS A BRIDGE PLAYER!

The "book" says; 4 winners - Low to Q, then low to 10 (when Q holds) - picks up any Kx, Jx, 9x, KJx, K9x, KJ9, 9, J, or K onside and stiff 9 or J offisde and loses only to stiff King offside. 5 winners - Low to 10 then low to Q (assuming 10 holds) - picks up KJx onside.

Here is one that come up 2 times in same day. hand AQ108x ..... dummy xxx Suit is trumps, both time IMPs, entries to dummy not a problem ... a - 1st time - for 4 winners b - 2nd time - for 5 winners