bluecalm

Well, we really want partner to play another high club if declarer isn't ruffing because he will discard a club on a heart we can ruff but this is at the cost of our natural trump trick. So partner really needs to read club count here. I think situations like that are frequent. I also prefer to play "just attitude, low = play two more rounds o clubs, high = don't do it" but here it should clear that cashing a club is vital play if declarer has more than one. In real hand I had 4-3-3-654 and I played the six. Declarer had 92 and partner AKJT. Declarer played a 2♣ to this trick so partner knew I either have 654 o 96. He found the fine play of K♣ which was the only card to defeat the contract. Had declarer played a nine it would be crucial information for partner if I started with 4 or 3 of them as cashing K♣ opposite 3 is the play but cashing it opposite 4 is likely to cost the contract. Let's see, how would various agreements fare if declarer played the 9 to the first trick, the club suit around the table was: partner: AKJT dummy: Q875 me: 6543 decl: 92 Partner doesn't see 6432 so: a)I play highest from 4, possible are: 6432, 643, 642, 632 b)I play 2nd from 4: 432, 6432, 64 c)I play 3rd from 4: 6432, 63, 43 d)I play the lowest from 4: 6432, 62, 42, 32 In case a) partner could deduce the winning play with 75% certainity, it's 66% for b) 66% for c) and 75% for d) As you can see, along with my previous example it all depends on the spots declarer hides. The question is what is the best agreement to maximize information. C'mon guys, it's not simple question and you are treating this problem like it was someone who just learnt bridge asking about what low card mean: "read a book", "signal in tempo", "don't confuse partner", "I don't like clubs so I play high" etc. I mean it is difficult question about best agreements and not what to do in practice playing in pickup partnership.

We don't play that. Anyway the problem is only about how to signal count from xxxx. It sounds very bad to me, partner after seeing the spot will enumerate all possible holding I might have and to do that he needs to know which exact spot I play from various things. I will clarify my question. It's not about "what do you play in pick up partnership having agreed UDCA" it's: "what is the best agreement with partner who notice all spots and enumerates all possible holdings in his head before making a decision". For example if partner has AKJ9 he is missing: T7632. Assuming T drops from declarer to first trick then: a)if we always play the highest spot from 4, he knows we have: 7632 or 763 or 762 or 732 b)if we always play 2nd spot from 4 then we could have: 632, 7632, 76 c)if we always play 3rd from xxxx then the cases are: 63, 73 d)if we always play the lowest spot then: 7632, 72, 62, 32 Notice that in this case c) is the most readable agreement. It might not alwys be the case depending on what spots declarer has and which he hides. I am wondering if someone here did some thinking/analysis of those situations to come up with the best agreement. Ethics, confused partner, lazy partner etc. doesn't matter for this problem. One more example: Now let's imagine declarer has T32 and we have 76, as before the ten drops and our cases are: a)highest from xxxx; cases: 632, 76 b)2nd, cases: 7632, 76, 632 c)3rd, cases: 76, 632 d)lowest: 76, 632 In this case only b) causes ambiguity. If declarer played 3 from his T32 then: a)highest from xxxx: 76 exactly b)2nd: 76 exactly c)3rd: 76 or T762 d)lowest: 76 exactly In this case only c) causes ambiguity.

Yeah, but some agreements might be better than others. My question is what is the best not taking account ethic considerations. Once we make an agreement that won't matter anyway. I usually play 2nd from 4 (unless it's completely clear partner won't confuse xx with xxxx) and highest from 3 but I have my doubts about this.

I am not sure. I think hands which want to describe themselves opposite multi are relatively rare and hands which wants to ask about stuff like strength, suit quality etc are frequent, you also want to right side the contract. I would be happy with 2N ask and 3C puppet.

[hv=pc=n&s=skt32ht7dq32c7632&e=s4hakj3da864cq854&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2sp2np3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] Ignore details on bidding, opponents don't have exact agreements.\ First lead: A♣ What cards do you play here playing udca ? In general, which card do you play from xxxx when partner leads the ace and the smallest one might be ambigious (difficult for partner to decide if we have xx or xxxx). I play udca all my life but nobody ever gave good argument to convince me which is the proper card and it seems people prefer various ways (smallest, 2nd, 3rd).

You should be less arrogant and accept you try for advantage you are not entitled to. Some players who won everything in bridge never psych in that situation and I am pretty sure would autoraise with nice support including going to 6S over their 6H. Just because your peculiar view of bridge is that it's psych situation and you choose partners from your environment who share the view doesn't mean you can withhold the agreement from your opponents. Playing 3S in the auction as long spades, possibly to find cheap defense of their slam is very reasonable natural treatment and the one many opponents would expect without your alerting it. It's your responsibility to make sure they are not misled about what you are really playing and what hands this 3S contains. You should at least tell them that psyche is likely enough that with 4 card support the odds sway in psyche direction instead of huge double fit on the hand. This is again your world, your experience and your habits which might be completely alien to your opponents which in turn you hope to profit from. I for one feel it's ridiculous to psyche here and with 4 card support and say : xxxx x QJTxxxx x I am going in 6S without 2nd thought. This is why I don't alert 3S and if my partner choose to psyche here having full knowledge we might be in 6S for -2300 but lucks out and profit from it it's fair game. You will never be -2300 in case of psych and your opponent don't know that. You try to profit from that ignorance which is mild form of cheating if you were unaware of mechanism and straight up cheating if you continue to do so.

This reminds me of my great bridge moment when after 5 tricks opponent claimed without showing his hand ("I have this and this card, 11 tricks") and I told him he had 12 cards. It turned out I was right :)

Kx Axxxx Axx xxx, xx Axxx Ax Jxxxx (I think that one is minimum/marginal), AQx xxxxx Axx xx. In short: any hand with points which doesn't have convenient bid and in general wants partner to do something with a piece of shape. I think some truly great players, especially older ones are used to penalty(ish) doubles here, if that is the case their pass is understandable. I think this style is slowly dying (and rightfully so) but still you can play that and be better at bridge than I will ever be :) 6♦ is very surprising to me though.

If you are happily doubling that way I think everything is ok. If you are not doubling happily because you adjust for partner possibly having some random punt then it's not ok. I think we agree on that one :)

Are you happy to double them if they compete say to 4S and you hold Kxx of spades ? You should if 3NT is bid to win. You shouldn't if it might be a punt. You know this stuff, they don't, so tell them. If it's so obvious on "everyone's planet" then it won't hurt to explain anyway. You should make clear what range of hands partner's bid contain. If they might think 3NT contains only strong hands and you know there are some punts in there and you act accordingly then you are hiding vital piece of information from them.

Looks like early candidate for wtp thread of the year 2012. 5D of course.

Small heart. a)Partner could take spade with J from KJ, it was safe. b)In all likelyhood declarer has AQxxxx/Axxxxx/AQxxx of diamonds, he showed A♠ and J♣ I think almost all hands with additional K♥ in there would overcall directly over our multi. Btw, what should club signal show ? J♠ or A/K♥ ? Count doesn't make sense once we take the ace.

While I agree with you that in principle opponents shouldn't have the right to know how often bluffs occur they do have a right to know how you interpret calls like 3S. If you are not going to blindly believe in long spades in partner's hand which include going to 6S over their 6H with some defenseless hand and nice support then you have to alert that an tell them what kind of bid that is. If you play that "3m preempt means I won't bid again" then alert that and explain, also you should explain what consequences it has (partner might bid on trash to confuse you). As to the last point, remember that playing a system which makes psyches safe without alerting it is cheating. For example if you play: 1D - 1M 2M - 3D as to play no matter what opener has which allows you bid 1M freely as bluff you should alert 1M otherwise it's just cheating. The principle should be very simple: if you hope to profit from a psych because opponents might not know you could safely psych in this spot then you are hoping for unfair advantage. They don't know your system, your understanding and what you consider "general bridge knowledge". You should make them aware of those factors. Psyches are fair game only if everybody at the table understand all consequences of given bid and no psyche control mechanism is hidden within your agreements (as it was in OP example and as it is most of the time people claim "general bridge knowledge").

What could possibly the point of bidding 2C if we don't raise with this hand ? I mean, if it was 800 at 3level opposite this hand it could easily be 1400 at 2 level opposite some random hand.

Playing small to the jack can never work against good defenders imo (cause RHO knows LHO would play the king from Kxx/Kx so I don't see anything. Awaiting the reveal :)

It's not bad, your side has 22+hcp. You need a bid like that with KJxx QTxx xxx xx or something. You could reverse the whole structure to have all the weak hands in 2D (as some pairs do) but standard agreement is quite playable. In polish club 1/1 is quite constructive, dunno about "dutch doubleton" though.

I don't agree and I hate the term. If partner doesn't trust 100% that you have spades there and you don't alert and explain it's a foul play. What is "general bridge knowledge" to some is completely ridiculous for others. There is not such thing as "general bridge knowledge" when it comes to psyching only things you are used to in your bridge environment.

If 2C opener is majors then: 1C - 1M 2C is wide range but not forcing (11-16hcp). It sucks, you could try to make less painful but it will suck nevertheless. The hope is 2C majors is such a killer that it will give you enough matchpoints to compensate.

Very basic standard system in Poland: 2D = any GF without other bid 2H/2S/2NT/3C = weak (which is 7-9) natural bids. 3D/3H/3S = game forcing 5-5 (but some people play this as weak, so be careful, it's better to play them as GF though) Some things worth considering: 1C - 1M 3C = 5C-4D, 18+pc; this is useful as hands with 5C-4D are difficult to bid and this way: 1C - 1M 2C - 2D 3D is exactly 15-17. This is playable and nice. It has some leaks like for example: 1C - 1S 2C - 2S ???? you have 2-3-2-6 or something here and you have no convnenient forcing bid. It's not too bad problem though (because it's rare) Some people reverse 2D and other bids making 2D the only negative. I have no idea which way is better, the standard way is the one I described.

So if I lead low from even length suit without an honor but high from odd length suit with an honor does it mean I am using encrypted signals ? It seems that the answer is yes according to the definition, at least in some cases where only defenders could know who has remaining honor in the suit. Yet it's completely standard to play such leads and signals (Fantunes play them, people give true count from xxx but false from Hxx all the time etc.).

I wonder if in negative free bids context where you only have 3 fit support bids available (as jump to 3x is needed as strong, especially 3H) which raise selection is the best. For example standard in Poland is to play: 1S - 2D - ??? 2N = limit+ with support 3d = gf with support 3S = pre But maybe it would be better to play: 2N = limit+ 3card support 3d = limit+ 4card support 3s = pre Or maybe: 2N = limit+ 3d = mixed 3S = pre Thoughts on this ?

I have no opinion as I've never thought about this situation (does it ever comes up ?) but imo the most important information you could convey is splinter in spades, so one of the 3NT/4C/4D should be that. I doubt splinter in minor or diamonds+fit will ever help anyway so I don't care about it. 2nd should be to play imo.

Well... it looks like it should die but it somehow doesn't. Sure, sometimes you are in awful spot. You need to learn some new tricks like for example: 1C - 2S - dbl - pass ??? And now you bid 2NT with every 12-14 without 4 hearts, regardless of spade holding, even xx Axx Axxx KQxx :) I don't know about "need" but everybody in Poland plays NFB and I learnt bridge playing them and I think they are superior to "standard" style. These days though many pairs play transfers, especially after intervention at 1level. Most people here play natural with new suit forcing at 3level/non-forcing at 2level after 2level and higher intervention. It's playable style imo but introducing some more tranfers is better. I don't have that much experience without 2C precision opener. It's surely more difficult without it but the hope is 2C majors brings a lot of fruit on itself (which might be true vs unprepared opponents). In Poland it's standard to play: 1D = 0-7any or 8-11minors (or sometimes some strong hand) 1M = 4+, (7)8+pc' I have no clue what so over how the thing with 1M = 5+works so no comments.

Yeah, this is wj (polish club) in version now popular in Poland. One big leak of this system are 15+pc unbalanced hands with clubs. In most common Polish club version it's solved by adding awful 2C precision opener (allowing for 5c-4M) so 1C - 1M - 2C is forcing one round. Many pairs these days in POland plays this 2C = majors opener which confused the hell of opponents usually. Overall this is nice, playable structure with a lot of room for gadgets in middle bidding if you fancy.

Yes right, I was trying to construct a hand when ♠ switch is necessary changing it all the time and I managed to confuse myself.