bhall

Justin's question has another side: If you are serious about improving your game, where do you start? I would say, categorize the types of errors that you make and then try to identify which situations trigger them at the table. Hopefully, you can go on from there to recognize these situations and exercise more caution when they arise or eliminate the conditions that cause them.

I already play an artificial 1♣/1♦ system that does not significantly narrow the HCP range of the 1M openings. It narrows their shapes to unbalanced when 4 cards, possibly balanced when 5, and never 6+.

5♣ for sure. Even if partner holds a strong one-suiter, it needs to be strong enough that your minor high cards are sufficient to make 5♥. Otherwise, he should simply have overcalled 4♥.

Wayne, In your simulations, was each deal run through Deep Finesse or a similar double-dummy routine? I am not sure, but that may tilt the odds in favor of declarer. Does anyone know? In particular, the odds of developing an extra ♣ trick get better when the ♣ holdings in the defenders' hands are known. Also, a longer simulation with exactly 12 HCP would be of some interest. I would guesstimate that only about 154 (+ or - 12) hands fell into the 5332 12-pt category, out of your 1000-hand run.

With all your aces and kings, it is likely that partner's minimums will contain a few quacks. Try playing this hand opposite a selection of 5332 hands holding one ace, one king, two queens, and one jack. I think you will find that game is less than 50% in most cases. However, in some cases it will be virtually cold (e.g., when he holds a small doubleton in ♦). Vulnerable, at IMPs, playing 2/1 (with F1 1N), I would bid 1N and follow with 4♠. At least then partner may get a clue that I'm gambling, and he won't be tempted to try for slam without substantial extras. At MPs against weakish defenders, I would be tempted to do the same.

I hope you were able to congratualte the player who nervelessly played low on the ♦9 off dummy. After a suitable interval of tooth-gnashing, of course.

First, I worry that partner may believe that 4N is an offer to play there. I have already bid 3N, which is the trip-wire in many partnerships for the 4N rebid to be treated as natural. Second, I observe that I hold 8 playing tricks, rather than the 7 I promised with my 3C jump. So 7♣ is a definite possibility. I think I will forego the dubious comforts of RKC and just cue my way to heaven: 5♥-5N-7♣. If partner bids only 6♣ over my ♥ cue, I will make one more try with 6N.

When I was new to duplicate, I once had a partner who asked for a substitute on defense, because I had hesitated in a similar defensive situation. The director, of course, turned him down, but stayed to monitor the subsequent play. I learned from that, and I try hard not to pose ethical dilemmas for partner. However, one can also try too hard to maintain tempo, not giving your bids or plays the consideration that they deserve. The solution I have found is to adopt a relatively slow tempo in general, and not give in to the temptation to make quick, automatic bids or plays. That at least reduces the number of times when I must agonize over a particular action.

Regarding RKCB: The agreement that Justin cited is a common one: last bid suit. With my partners, it is RKCB only after trump agreement or a suit has been jump bid, showing length and strength. I am still waiting for Justin's partner to use RKCB directly over a cue bid. :) 1♣-(1♥)-1♠-(2♥) 3♥-(P)-4N? (Don't forget to show the ♥Q, partner) Regarding quantitative 4N: A practical rule that some of us play is that, when trump is not agreed and 3N would have been an offer to play there, then 4N is a notrump invitation. As in the example above.

I think it's OK for partner to stretch our imagination on occasion with bids like this. I would interpret 1N here as saying: Based on the auction so far, our side should play 1N or 2♣. The hand as given does not qualify. Five solid ♣ and a side K might qualify.

What they said. But beware: You and your partner should agree on which other actions by opener DENY holding 3 bananas. Many play that the simple rebids, such as 1N and two of opener's suit, deny. Almost all play that pass denies. Regarding stronger rebids, such as opener jumping in his own suit, or jumping to 2N, there appears to be substantial disagreement. The other issue to discuss is whether you may raise on 3 bananas with a ruff in the opponent's suit and a top banana :rolleyes: If you are comfortable playing 4-3 fits of this stripe, it is often the best competitive move.

Partner has given me a place to run, so I run: 2♠. Actually, I expect pass will earn -280, while 2♠ will result in -300.

Bad suits, bad hand, bad bid. At IMPs? You guys are animals! I understand that 2♠ might work out, but it is more likely to cause a disaster IMHO.

Well, I got responder's hand about right. I sure hope that partner runs if responder doubles; otherwise, I have created a worse disaster (down 6). 5♣X appears to be only down 2. If I had bid 3N over 3♥, I might feel justified in passing 4♠. But I doubt it.

I suspect that responder has a ♥ void and very, very long ♠. I would have preferred to bid 3N over 3♥, but now I don't know what's right. To avoid the possibility of a huge swing, 4N is the obvious choice, and I would probably try that at the table. I know, I'm chicken, and I will probably "hear it" from my teammates in the post mortem. But the double came nowhere near showing my values, and partner did not double 4♠. So, where is his 3♣ call, if not long, strong ♣ and the ♦A?

It is fairly common to play that the cue bid shows either a strong invitation lacking a 5-card suit or any game force with more than one place to play. The doubler bids his cheapest suit, and if that bid is at the two level (e.g., 1♣-X-P-2♣-P-2♥), responder promises not to pass. But if he raises the doubler to 3♥, it is not forcing. In that case, he will often hold about 10 HCP and 3442 or 4432 shape.

By suit, alternating colors, but with longer suits to the outside and with the two"edge" cards always small (but not necessarily smallest). Very long suits are broken into two pieces, and may occupy both ends, e.g., 7222 may be sorted as 42223. The idea is to give card-clockers as little info as possible when one of my short suits is played. Before I adopted this policy, I often found my shortest suit at the right edge of my hand. Randomizing the small cards on the end often has a similar anti-clocking effect.

To invite slam, responder should have at least second-round control of both majors. He may well have first-round control of one, in which case 6♦ is a good bet to make. It's hard to estimate the relative frequency of (stiff, Kx), (stiff, stiff),(void, Kx), (stiff, Ax), and (void, stiff), all of which should invite. But stiffs are a lot more likely than voids, and we don't want to punish partner for holding Kx rather than Ax. So I would choose a cowardly 5♦.

In 1972, there were many American pairs that would open this hand 1♣. After that start, you can construct auctions ending in 3N, e.g., 1♣-1♦-1♠-3♣-3♥-3N. An old view was that 5-5 blacks were OK to open 1♣ until they were big enough for the "high reverse:" 1♠-2 Red-3♣. Especially with good ♣ and bad ♠. While 2/1 was popular, it was not a near-universal choice among advanced players of that era.

I think that your observations are pretty accurate, regarding the hands that you cite. However, most would upgrade high cards behind the doubler, and most would want a ♠ lead holding AJxx and a random Q. Initially, I was tempted to underbid because of the strong possibility that partner held a wasted ♥ card. So when that became unlikely on the auction, I was tempted again, this time to overbid as a two-way shot, that they would either take the push, or that 4♠ would be a cheap sacrifice. I really had no expectation that we might make. I put this in my list of "bad bids, rewarded."

I agree, my action was much too unilateral. Holding two relatively certain defensive tricks, and knowing that hearts are breaking poorly behind declarer, I should probably have passed. I wish we had been playing mini-splinters, so that I could put partner in the picture. Failing that, I think 3♠ would have been my best choice. However, partner's 1♠ response over the double did not show a fifth ♠ or more-than-minimum values.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sakq9haj543d4caj7&w=sj653hk1087dq96ck6&e=s10642hq6dkj10872c10&s=s8h92da65cq986432]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] This was the complete deal. At our table, after the cue bid, South bid 4♥ and went quietly down one. Biting her tongue. At the other table, our South chose 5♣ after the double, was raised to 6, and made 7. That was 16 IMPs (and the event) to us. I think North at our table chose an approach out of the 1950's, when cue bids showed massive three-suiters, and double was more often converted to penalty. He would not get much sympathy today (especially from his wife). Our South, after the double, considered 4♦ briefly, but saw the trap. Better 5♣ making 6 than 6♣ or 6M (after "correcting" 4M to 5♣), failing.

I would cue 3♠, planning to remove 3N to 4♦. If partner passes that, he must hold a real dog. If, instead of 3N, partner bids 4♣, I will try 5♣. (I hope partner has his crystal ball with him.)

Thanks, Phil. My teammates were Dayou Zhou and Jon Wright at the other table, and Joel Hoersch was my partner (who opened 2♦ on this hand).

You will get one, tomorrow.