junyi_zhu

I don't know how true this is anymore. I see it in all of these textbooks, and must say I really never believed, and don't believe, that a side ace is a flaw for a preempt. I much prefer it to a side QJ(tight) for instance. I also see many experts preempting with side aces despite this "flaw." I think the major goal of preempts is not to find the best sacrafice, it's to create a problem for opps. You preempt, and they have to guess. The more you preempt, the more times they may misguess. It's fine that we find a sacrafice spot at high level due to your preempts; it's also fine that you direct a good lead from your preempts; but your major goal is to create a problem for them: they don't know how to bid with 22 HCP and balanced; they don't know how to bid with weak 5 card, a side suit void and no stopper in your suits and 17 HCP; they may miss a game when both of them hold 12-13 HCP, balanced and nobody is strong enough or has the right shape to bid at 3 level. These are the more valid concerns for opps. In that sense, what you hold isn't that important sometimes, especially when white. The basic idea of destructive bidding is not to find your best spot, but to create problems and at the same you don't get burned severely. That's why so many good players just preempt regardless side suit aces, second side suit, the other major, low quality suits, especially when white. Bridge is never a double dummy game, and over preempts, it's even often hard to find the second best contract. So for the preemptive bidding, the basic idea is just the normal military strategy: "destroy enemies (good contracts) and protect yourself (from being hurt severely)". Still, all the researches above are valuable, because they show some new thinking of how to make marginal decisions in preempts and why 2D preempts is still popular.

yes, actually not only the sp trump part, they also may misguess a two way finesse of CQ or misguess the situation of DKJ finesse. Bidding is a double edge sword, when you bid something, you usually disclose some information. So whenyou believe this hand probably belongs to opps and it's hard to kill their 2 level suit contracts by spades, passing is a logical choice. This is like the argument that sometimes it's wise to pass with 6 hearts and singleton spades, because you hearts often can't kill 4S and 2H might sell partner's SQxx. Still, I believe it's just a swing generating thinking. Normally, you still want to open 2H and still want to double 1S, because you really don't want to miss the chance to create problems for you opps.

I don't agree. You can describe this hand well by starting with a transfer (3C) and then bidding 3H over 3D, or raising a 3H bid, or passing a 3N bid. If partner had the hand you gave him he would bid 4D over 3C and you could easily drive to slam. dude, that's just the solution I provided below. So transfer bids guarantee at least 5 cards. I first thought it shows 6, then I realzied that it should only show 5 or more.

3C is probably an underbid. Here, I have a gadget, direct 3C is gameforcing. With minimum, you can bid 2S which relays to 2NT, then you can bid 3C to show your minimum hand. This is especially useful for sequence like 1C 1S 2H, now you can bid 2S which relays to 2NT, then you can bid 3C to show weak hand with long C, 3H: minimum raise. Of course, you can assign some useful meaning to other three level bids. For your hand, over a game forcing 3C, partner bid 3NT, you still can pull to 4H to finish your shape description. Anyway, 6-4 shape is always hard to describe.

One problem is that you sometimes want to wait for opener to show his shape: for example: you hold SKx HQx DAJxxx Cxxxx, you probably like to bid 2NT, and if opener can bid 3C you'd just bid 3NT, if partner can bid 3D, you want to raise it, if partner bids 3H, you want to raise it as well. In the transfer structure, you have to show your doubleton hearts prematurally. And poor opener doesn't know what to do with: SAQxx HAKxxx DKQx Cx, you diamond fit may get buried. So an improvement is that you want to transfer to any reasonable 5 card minor suits. That probably solves the problem: so you transfer to 3D, and over partner super accept, 4D, you can go for the slam. And if partner can only bid 3D, you can now support 3H. So direct 3D(to 3H) probably shows something like 3-2-4-4 shape or with bad 5 card minor suit. This is clearly a good structure. Especially good over 1H 1N 2S, because responder doesn't have a lot of different hand types to show.

I already voted for 4♠ before reading your post. I stick with 4♠, even tho I can see that it did not work out (I can't change my vote without becoming a result merchant) At the risk of being just that, is is possible that the 4♣ call was misguided? It looks 'obvious' and maybe I am doing too much rationalization of my bad result, without wanting to say that I was wr...wron.....(No, I just can't say it) How about 3♦? Ostensibly a game try, it becomes a slam try should we bid again over a signoff. Now maybe opener is worth 3♥ because he doesn't think that the ♣ controls are wasted. Now responder can bid 4♣, revealing the ♣ control and slam interest (therefore confirming that 3♦ was a cue bid). Now opener is armed with the extra info (unavailable on the splinter auction) that partner has a ♦ control. This is a subtle distinction, but one that I think is valid... whether it is sufficiently valid as to allow me to deflect some of the blame for ending up in 4♠ remains to be seen :) This is in line with an earlier post in which some suggested that your first cue bid in a slam auction should be in a suit in which you hold values as well as a control. The point is that when partner make 4C as a splinter, he doesn't really care whether you hold 3 spades or 4 spades, and he must hold long spades in this case, so your points are all working points and there is just no reason to deny the slam try. 4S would be a very chicken bid. If partner holds weak spades, he can just do some checkback work at low level. 4C is like "partner, do you have wastage in C? if not, I'd like to bid the slam" 4S: "I don't have C wastage, but I still don't want to bid the slam" Give me a break.

yeah, even if 3C is nonforcing, 4C is still right, you only need C KQxxxx to have a reasonable play in 5C.

I bid 5H with confidence and opps may buy insurance with 6D, hehe. Normally, you go down in 5H and 5D also down one, but you still want to bid here because of the psychological effects. Also, once a blue moon, both games can be made.

In my opinion, they are close decisions. You can win more small pots if you double. You can win big pots if you pass. The draw back of x is that opps may have a intellegent guess in spade suit and once a blue moon, you may get redoubled and have no where to play at 2 level. However, if you double, you can sometimes push them to 3 level. Anyway, this hand is more likely opps' hand. So in MP, it's a clearcut double, in IMP, you probably want to hit big pots, especially when you want to create swings, this type of hands are good for swing purpose.

or a textbook 5H psyche if you are desperated for IMPs, hehehe

I like 1H, when white vs red, my 4H is usually much lighter. Of course, you can have some science to play 4C to show a strong 4H or 4S.

I like to play 2NT to show long trumps and shortness somewhere, about 10 HCP. Usually, if I want to commit to 3 level with a club suit over partner's 1M opening, I'd just open it.

If you play reverse drury, you probably only want to open 1M with 4 cards with minimum, so you can pass partner's 1NT response. If you have extra, it's better to start from 1m, otherwise you may get out of bid. Just consider situation like this: SAKxx Hx DAxxx CAxxx, if yo open 1S, over partner's 1NT, you are quite out of bid, if you bid 2D and partner show preferance to 2S, you are likely to play in a 4-2 fit and it's hard to bid over 2S. So if you play 1NT as semiforcing which can contain some 11 HCP hands, it's better to open 1m instead of 1S here. Some also include 1M opening with very strong hands, for example 18-19, this is playable, but it also needs further partnership discussion. Again, if you open 1M with very strong 4 card suit, it's probably always OK if you don't mind playing 2M with SAKJT vs doubleton. Anyway, you need a strong character to play 4M because it has a lot of judgement calls and occationally you may play 4-3 or even 4-3 fit at an unpleasant level, but that's still a lot of fun. Good luck!

2S is fine. I bid 4H now. 2C is rather bad, even worse than 1NT rebid in my opinion. With 5-4-3-1 shape, and minimum, it's usually right to raise partner, because if you bid your 4 card side suit and raise your partner later, he may think you have a better hand. Also, 2S limits your strength and shape so it's the best choice.

This is like in poker, you go all in with AK suited against 22 and is knocked out by 22 eventually. Still, that SJ is a horrible lead in my opinion.

My NT range is 14 to 16. For the first hand, one primary concern for 1NT opening is that if partner holds 4 spades, some shape and around 7 HCP, he would pass 1NT when 4S may have a good play. So it does have some merrit to open 1C even if you play 15-17 1NT. Actually the same is true for 5-3-3-2 or 3-5-3-2 shape and 17 or good 16. Partner sometimes may hold a good support in your major but not enough HCP to act over 1NT opening. So it's probably better to open 1M with 17 instead of 1NT with these hands. For my NT range, I don't really have this problem. Overally, I feel that 14-16 1NT is probably easier to handle than 15-17 1NTs.

Let's go through his reasons: This was apparently the 3rd board of an 8 board match. They would need to gain 15 IMPs in 8 boards to win with 20 VPs, probably 11-12 to win with 19VPs. I don't think world class players starts making inferior plays for swinging at this point? Running the Jack is a 30%-44% play (depending on what RHO does with QTx), while the correct line is 52% (I am not absolutely sure about the percentages, depends also on plan in the second round if the Queen covers). I am not sure in which order they played the boards, but given this was the 3rd, probably 21-24 then 17-20; this is also consistent with the results of this match and his RHO losing focus after this board. In 21, at B-L's table their opponents made 3NT exactly, with 6♥, 6♣cold, and 4♥+2, 6♥= 6♣= normal scores (plus some overcostly sacrifice potential in spades for his side), so they should expect at least to gain 2 IMPs, but potentially a non-vuln slam swing. In board 22, their opponents made 3♣ while B-L could make 3♠, but also go down in 2♠ if the defense finds their heart ruffs -- so only pessimistically a partscore loss. IMHO this makes the claim that the first 2 boards were bad for them almost a lie. On the deal itself, well look for the Traveller It is a borderline slam, and in fact less than half of the field bid to 6♦. Why risk this success with making a clear anti-percentage play? (And in fact, their mexican 2♦ opening had worked nicely for the Italians me thinks.) He claimed the lead of the ♥A was odd. To me, it looks entirely normal (dummy has shown a 2nd suit with MSS after all, I suspect). However, you don't have to trust me, on the traveller you will see that almost everyone led ♥A when 6♦ was declared by South. Further, why should a defender holding ♦x be LESS likely to lead ♥A, than one holding ♦Qx? If anything, I would suspect the opposite. Finally, the questions about the ♥K. I can't see any reason why this induce one to play LHO for a singleton diamond, as declarer claimed. But then, table feel is something highly subjective, and maybe Ben can explain why he thinks this is indeed an indicator for the diamond play. Do you think a defender holding ♦Qx would just sit back and hope for his diamond trick? I don't think so, especially as he knows they have a 9-card fit. (As an aside, even if LHO knows declarer has ♥K, he may still want to know whether his partner knows this, too, as that might affect the interpretation of his signal...) I cannot see follow a single of the reasons he gave for playing this line. Of course, one might still argue that he just made a silly play (we have seen sillier plays on vuegraph for sure -- though by lesser players perhaps), and went zzzzzk when being confronted with the accusation of cheating. Arend I think your reasoning is reasonable. To me, this 6D is just marginal. Not everybody would bid it. And there is no reason to assume that their opps would land in the same contract. And even if they land in the same contract, it's still way too early for a 8 board match to take an abnormal action in board 3. So the defence by north is rather weak I'd say. For me, I'd probably stay at 5D or 4NT because when I do kickback RKC, I'd find that we miss one KC and trump Q.

I said you could equate it to a preempt but I do not like that definition. It does however show alot of trumps and a smattering of high cards, in that sense it is similar to a preempt. I tend to think Frances and I have the exact same definition for the bid since we both seem to expect partner to bid game on this hand type: trumps/controls. You can probably call it a constructive raise with long spades. Something like: SAQxxxx Hxxxx Dxx Cx. Still, playing it to show long spades and invitational has some merrits because if you bid 2S, partner may pass it when he holds 14HCP and 3 spades.

If one always bids 4S with south's hand over 4H, I'd bid 4H against him whenever I have some reasonable 16 HCP and doubleton in hearts or even stiff honor in hearts sometimes. Then he'll find how many times 4H would go down when 4S would cost him 500 or 800. So the bidding sequence is actually very reasonable. There is no such thing that you can't bid 2S over 2H then later, your hand is good enough to bid 4S over 4H when partner doesn't make a single bid.

I think 15+ is probably too high to make a penalty double, so it would give partner a lot of balancing pressure. I feel 14 or good 13 would be enough to double against 12-14 1NT. Against 13-15, one needs good 14 at least. Against 14-16, one needs 15+(some don't play penalty double against 14-16, which I believe is wrong, because many open 13 when playing 14-16 1NT and steal your game) Second issue is the raptor hands. It looks you would push the level too high with raptor hands. Suppose you hold 4H+5C, you would force yourself to play at 3 level in a possible 7 card fit which is just too high for me. I'd just include 5-4-3-1 shape into penalty double hands if they fall into the range of penalty double. I rate 5-4-3-1 as semibalanced hands and it's not clear to act directly at 2 level against weak NT with them. Also, when opps run, I prefer a take out double(no matter it shows one suit or two suits as long as it shows the suit that's bid) to make my life easier. Also, another guideline for penalty double is whether you have a good lead against 1NT. Also, if you hold concerntrated two suiters, it's probably better to bid your suits than to double, for example, SKQJTxx HAKQx Dx CJx

It's marginal. Either pass or 2S would be OK. Also, it really depends on who you are playing against. If your opps are very solid in defence, I'd pass, because against solid defenders, this hand would get way less tricks than it looks like. If playing against intermediate to advanced players, 2S is probably OK. Sometimes even if you get doubled, you can escape from -500 and only go down one, or in MP, you may go down 1 instead of down two. Anyway, 2S would create some actions for sure and sometimes you do need it.

I'd bid 1H here, double is very flawed what can your poor partner do if he holds 4-5 HCP and 4 clubs, something like 3-3-3-4 or 2-3-4-4? He's simply out of bid. And even if he holds 5 clubs, 2C doesn't have to play well and can easily be chopped. It may go like: 1D x xx 2C p p x and -500. I frequently overcall 1H with hands like this and sometimes the heart suit is even weaker: Sxx HATxx Dxx CAKJxx would be enough to overcall 1H. Still, it's upto to partnership understanding. I rank passing better than this flawed double. If one really wants to make offshape double, at least the doubleton should look strong, SAxxx HQxxx Dxxx CAK is probably OK to double.

If it's MP, Perhaps you should double if in your system it doesn't guarantee 4 spades. This hand is probably not strong enough to force to game because C is rather weak, even if partner holds a diamond stopper, you need either good C fit, Axx,AQ or strong H suit to have a reasonable play in 3NT facing a opening hand that has no much extra. Actually you are well place here if you double, you can pass 2H or 2S rebid, raise 3H to 4H, raise 3S to 4S and pull 2NT to 3C to show your hand. For IMP, you can bid 3C and hope to make those shaky 3NTs.

you should cash two clubs before the trump exit because east has at least 5D, 3H, 3S if west doesn't lead D3 from 6 diamonds.

A similar hand was played by one of the blueteam stars. I first saw it when I was a teenager, reading Forquet's Italian blueteam and bridge, unable to go to sleep that night.