sathyab

Yes, your line will work. But I am curious, why did you choose ♦J from your hand, which will require you to pull one more trump when LHO does not cover, rather than a ♦ to dummy's T ?

Yes, there's more to it than cross ruff. I chose the title somewhat loosely rather than saying 'cross ruff/suit establishment'. BTW, depending on whether or not LHO covers the ♦J, there may be variations which are closer to a pure cross-ruff than suit establishment. At T6, LHO follows with the ♠J.

[hv=pc=n&s=s954ha632dkj975c6&n=s8hk75dat42cajt72&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=4sppdp4np5cp5ddppp]266|200[/hv] Interesting hand from this evening's JEC match. T1: ♠Q, 8, A, 4 T2: ♥J, ? Plan your play.

Having missed Philly, Orlando and Louisville, I decided I'd go to Toronto even though my regular partner is not coming. Does anyone know of anyone still looking for a partner for LM pairs ? I do have a partner and a 4-man team for Spingold, except that partner is playing in GNT which conflicts with LM. And of course, Murphy's Law will apply; if I don't have a partner, he'll still be playing in GNT on the first day of LM. If I have one, he'll be out, looking for one :)

OK, Ok, if you've started with the ♦K from hand at T2, you probably won't change your mind now, but just checking. But no, LHO can't trouble you by winning the first ♦ and playing back a ♣. For, you'd simply win, discard a ♥, finesse the ♥Q and play a ♦ toward the dummy, inserting the 8 if LHO played low. By now, you'd have placed him 4=0=4=5. And continue ♦s. If LHO sticks to his plan and continues ♣s, you win, discarding a ♠. But now you know where the ♠K is. So you finesse that and end up with ten tricks, 2 ♠, 2 ♥, 3 ♦ and 3 ♣. No, the stronger defense is for LHO win the second and third round of ♦ and put you back in your hand with the fourth ♦. Now the title of the article: "Nines and Tens". You play a ♠ to the 8 and when it loses to the King, you claim ten tricks anyway and earn a well-deserved "wdp" from your partner :)

For those who answered ♦K from hand at T2, it goes 4, 6, 7. What now ?

[hv=pc=n&s=saj92haq4dkj532ck&n=sq8hj765dt86caq84&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p2h2np3nppp]266|200[/hv] You try a somewhat unorthodox 2nt overcall and get a 4th best ♣6 for a lead. Weak 2♥ is mainstream, 5-10, 6-bagger almost all the time.

RE: Forget agreement, try to salvage ... From: "Rulings@ACBL.ORG" <Rulings@ACBL.ORG> ... View Contact To: s_bettadapura@yahoo.com Dear Sathya, The way I play, 3C after an invitational 2NT shows a five card club suit and invites opener to bid 3NT with a fit. If that is the case, it might be logical to either pass or bid 3NT with the hand shown below. Since I have only a 10 count and a partner who could not take action over the 1H opener, I suspect that pass is a logical alternative to bidding 3NT. therefore, I do agree with the ruling. Regards, Mike Flader ----- Original Message ----- From: sathya bettadapura [mailto:s_bettadapura@yahoo.com] To: rulings@acbl.org Sent: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Forget agreement, try to salvage This took place in a GNT game a while ago. South held ♠9x ♥KJ8 ♦A9xxx ♣Q8x EW Vulnerable, East opened 1♥, pass, pass and North balanced with 1nt. Over which South bid 2nt meaning it as an invite, a somewhat (state-of-the-match-induced) aggressive call, but forgot that with this partner he was playing "systems ON". North alerted it and bid 3♣, over which South bid 3nt. The director was called to the table before the opening lead and the auction was fully explained, i.e, that South intended 2nt as invite but that North interpreted it differently. East led a 4th best ♥ and 3nt was made. The opponents contended that South's 3nt was influenced by the alert of 2nt. Conventionally, 2nt was either a ♣bust or 4414 hand with values. The director came back later and said that NS should be passing 3♣, which was down one instead of 3nt making. South contended that: even if he never heard partner alert his 2nt bid, i.e, if they were using screens for instance, he'd still try to bid 3nt because 3♣ was never the expected response to a 2nt invite. Any hand that wants to bid a natural 3♣ over a 2nt invite would have balance with 2♣ in the first place, making 3♣ as natural bid virtually impossible. The only explanation for the 3♣ was a system mix-up and so South would try to salvage what he could by hazarding a 3nt bid. Do you agree with the ruling ? P.S. Partner had KQJ 9xxx JTx AKx

I have played 2nt as natural with at least two other partners for quite some time now, which is why I mixed it up in the first place. As you saw on the given hand, opponents knew everything they needed to know after the auction concluded; that I meant is it as a natural invite and that my partner took it as 4144 or club bust and yet they found a ♥ lead. If you have had this sequence, I'd really be curious to see it. Is it on-line somewhere ?

If the bidding had gone (1♠)-p-(p)-1nt-(p)-2nt-(p), now 3♥ makes sense, as you could easily have balanced with a single ♠ stopper and five-card ♥ suit instead of 2♥. Now that partner has expressed interest in game, you want to explore playing in 4♥ ahead of 3nt. As for the argument about no help in ♠, invitational sequences can hardly guarantee stoppers in all suits and rarely result in contracts with 96.45% chance of success. You have to assume partner has some help in ♠s and that your long ♣ suit comes home. To want to play in a safe 3♣ contract instead of an aggressive 3nt when partner expresses interest in game is bizarre at the very least. In all the BBO webcasts I have watched in the last eight or ten years I have never witnessed a situation where someone retreated to 3♣ when partner invited game in Notrump. Neither have seen it in print in the ACBL bulletin or BridgeWorld. Has anyone ever seen such a bidding sequence in real life ?

Oh, sorry for my North American-sentric acronym usage (:- GNT stand for Grand National Teams.

I want to make it clear that I was the one who made a mistake in bidding 2nt here. Our agreement is that we play "systems ON" in all such as NT auctions. 2nt would show a ♣bust or 4144 hand with game going values. To invite in NT we have to go through 2♣ first (which incidentally was what caused the problem for me; with some other partners I play 2nt natural). But regardless, in response to an invite we have never discussed or entertained the possibility of anything other than a pass or accept. So 3♣ is a non-existent bid. As I said before, I would have been woken not by partner's alert, but by the odd-sounding (or odd-looking) 3♣ in response to my invite. But unfortunately there's no way to prove it, as I did hear the alert as we were not using screens. I think the alert procedure is seriously broken as by its very nature it alerts your partner too and he can not use any bridge judgment thereafter at all if he made a mistake. I wish there was some other way.

I just did. I didn't know there was a separate discussion group for such topics. Thanks.

The only 'evidence' I can offer is this: I expect only two actions opposite an invite, pass or accept. It's really weird for someone to bid 1nt first and then suggest playing in 3♣ when partner asked you if you wanted to bid one higher in NT. Without any UI or disagreement, how many NT invitational sequences end up in 3m ? Very few I'd imagine. With screens, I'd have realized from the auction, not from partner's alert that I have screwed up. So I'd try to salvage it by bidding 3nt. As for partner, he'd simply play me for a 4144 with a stiff ♣ and pass 3nt. A 4441 hand that passes over 1♥ and then comes back to life is not totally improbable, whereas an auction that ends in 3m after a Notrump invite is very much against the odds.

This took place in a GNT game earlier in the day. I held ♠9x ♥KJ8 ♦A9xxx ♣Q8x RHO opened 1♥, opponents Red, pass, pass and partner balanced with 1nt. Over which I bid 2nt meaning it as an invite, somewhat (state-of-the-match-induced) aggressive, but forgot that with this partner I was playing "systems ON". He alerted it and bid 3♣, over which I bid 3nt. RHO led a 4th best ♥ and partner made the contract. The opponents contended that my 3nt was influenced by partner's alert. Conventionally, 2nt was either a ♣bust or 4414 hand with values. The director came back later and said that I should be passing 3♣, which was down one instead of 3nt making. My contention is that even if I never heard partner alert my bid, i.e, if we were using screens for instance, I'd still try to bid 3nt because 3♣ could be very wrong as a result of forgetfulness and I'd try to recover from my error. Do you agree with the ruling ? P.S. Partner had KQJ 9xxx JTx AKx

This took place in a GNT game earlier in the day. I held ♠9x ♥KJ8 ♦A9xxx ♣Q8x RHO opened 1♥, opponents Red, pass, pass and partner balanced with 1nt. Over which I bid 2nt meaning it as an invite, somewhat (state-of-the-match-induced) aggressive, but forgot that with this partner I was playing "systems ON". He alerted it and bid 3♣, over which I bid 3nt. RHO led a 4th best ♥ and partner made the contract. The opponents contended that my 3nt was influenced by partner's alert. 2nt was either a ♣bust or 4414 hand with values. The director came back later and said that I should be passing 3♣, which was down one instead of 3nt making. My contention is that even if I never heard partner alert my bid, i.e, if we were using screens for instance, I'd still try to bid 3nt because 3♣ could be very wrong as a result of forgetfulness and I'd try to recover from my error. Do you agree with the ruling ? P.S. Hand-dealt deals, so I don't have the hand record; I'll post it later if I can find it.

[hv=pc=n&s=s76ha83dj84caqt72&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1sp1np4sp5c]133|200[/hv] IMPs New partnership, no agreements such as Namyats.

I doubt if anyone can think along the lines that you suggest. I cited East'rebidding of 2♠ as a way to "work out" that the double of 2♦ was more likely to be penalty even if you didn't have an agreement about it. The one who doubled knew what he meant, he didn't intend it to be interpreted in the light of further bidding. There're other situations in bidding where you have to "work out" the meaning of a bid without prior agreement. Say for instance when determining if a bid is forcing or not, one way to figure that is to examine if the bid could have been made or implied earlier in the bidding thereby making the more circuitous one forcing and the direct one non-forcing.

MP, Both Vul [hv=pc=n&s=skt8h875dqj2cq985&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1c1s1n2dd2sppd]133|200[/hv] Trouble with doubles here. It could be argued that the first double is penalty, else why is East rebidding 2♠ ? But what about the second one ? Is it competitive or penalty ?

Or ♥ Ace and ♠ switch.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj53haj543dak7cq2]133|100[/hv] R/W at MP, LHO deals, passes and opponents are silent the rest of the auction, which proceeds as follows. 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ 2nt 3♣ You could bid 3♥ now (or perhaps 3 artificial ♦s; if you do, is that still considered 4th suit or 5th ?), but that'll get you to 4♥ far too often. It's a new partnership, no discussion of whether 2nt followed by 3nt promises 5♥s, except possibly that a second suit over 3♣ promises a 5-bagger and that a direct 3nt would deny one. Having said that, I might have the same problem in a more established partnership as well. My problem now is that if partner's ♣s are decent such as say KJTxxx or even KJxxxx and ♥s relatively weak, 3nt might easily produce the same number of tricks as 4♥. Or say some other hand like KQxx xxx - AKxxxx, is an excellent 3nt, they might need to lead a ♥ to stop 12 tricks, but 4♥ makes only 10 tricks most of the time. But if his ♣ are weaker, 4♥ gives you time to establish them. Is there way to offer a meaningful choice of games to partner or should you bid/gamble 3nt yourself ?

What about 2nt first ? Partner might take it for minors, but when you bid 3♠ later, wouldn't you be showing this hand ?

[hv=pc=n&s=sq976h4dcq&n=shaq8d95ct]133|200[/hv] Phil had me play this hand at a Teaching Table on BBO. I reached the above six-card ending when East refuses to over-ruff a ♠. Now I continued with more ♦s, but East refused to ruff any of them. So now I played ♣T to dummy's ♣Q and played a ♥ toward my AQ8, inserting the 8 when West couldn't produce a higher spot and end-played East. But if East has as much as the Ten spot my line fails. The line that requires East to have no more than the ♥King is what Phil's talking about. When East refuses to ruff the last ♦, pitch a ♥, ruff a ♥ and now ruff a ♠. If East over-ruffs, he's end-played, if he doesn't over-ruff, ♥A is your 12th trick. If East refuses to get end-played, he will enjoy ruffing a heart at T13 ! So he opens a weak 2H bid and scores the only trick for the defense by ruffing a heart... Phenomenal hand !!!

In your second line, dummy has no more trumps, declarer having ducked one, ruffed one ♠ and two ♣s . Declarer now has Qx Jx - x in the five card ending before throwing a ♣ on the ♦King and you have Tx T8 - K left ? Isn't he always going down now ? You can either ruff and force him and he has a ♠ loser in the end assuming partner has the Jack or just throw the ♣ King and he has a trump and a ♠ loser.