CSGibson

3♣ then ♥ then ♥. I'm game forcing, and I'm hoping partner bids 3♦ over 3♣, but even if he doesn't, partner should get the picture when I intruduce hearts at the 4 level.

the game forcing hand with 5+ spades and a 3 card heart fit is a problem hand. Ken and Frances detail some solutions, I have another - simply use 2♠ to show that hand type. An invitational jump shift in spades should be a low priority, you can easily show that hand with other methods. This hand screams for a conventional solution.

I'm not convinced - I might be inclined to bid 5♦ as last train showing a spade control, not as a diamond control if I believed that 5♣ denied a spade control.

I wanted to create a new years thread for the bridge players on the forum, both to state where they are now in their bridge life, and where they hope to move forward to in the future. 2013 was a great year for my bridge growth, personally. In mid-2012 I ended the most successful long-term partnership I ever had, and tried about 5 new ones for various levels and events. Of those 5 partnerships, one was a precision variant, three tried some version of weak NT with different systemic follow-ups, and one was a ham & eggs unsophisticated strong NT system which is the staple of American bridge. I found all of those partnerships to be too much memory work - I had more system forgets this year than I have in the previous 5 years combined, as I would not only be getting used to new systems, but also confusing some of the weak NT system follow-ups. By the end of the year, though I had worked back to a regular partnership (precision), a semi-regular partnership, and a semi-semi-regular partnership (both weak NT), which has turned out to be much easier. As far as actual accomplishments, I represented my district in the open North American Pairs, but fell short of representing in the open Grand National Teams, settling for 2nd, and winning the right to represent District 20 in the flight B GNTs instead. In neither event did we actually bring honor to the district, failing to make it out of the first day in both events. This next year we earned the right to represent our district in the open pairs again, but declined the nomination because we only finished 3rd, where there is no financial assistance to go. On the other hand, there was other significant success at national tournaments for me. I went to the spring and summer nationals this year, and picked up a top 5 finish in a NABC event (4th in the new 10K swiss in St. Louis in my semi-semi-regular partnership), I placed for the first time in a national open pairs event (41st in the Silodors with my semi-regular partner), and won my first seeding points (9-16 in the Spingold, beating the 11th & 22nd seeded teams before getting slaughtered by 6th seeded Gromov, the only national event I played with my regular partnership). The Spingold finish earned me the 50 platinum points I needed to play in the Platinum pairs this spring. A "goal" of mine this year was to remove myself from eligibility to play in flight B events, which was a stretch goal because I started the year with something like 1650 masterpoints, having never earned more than 300 in a year (2000 was the cut-off for flight B eligibility). Well, I got to ~2100 points, but they moved the goalposts on me, having extended flight B to 2500. I'm out of flight B going forward by choice now, its more fun to play in open events. Going forward into the new year I have the following goals: Make it to the final day of every national pairs or swiss event that I enter; make the top 10 of an open national pairs or swiss event; Win the right to represent our district in the open NAPs, and the flight A GNTs (open team having fallen through). Develop the partnerships I have kept, and make sure that my partners know that they are valued. Anyone else?

As it turns out, anything past 5N does not make, partner missing two aces, but having the pointed kings. I did not read 5N as an offer to play, though I think I should - partner "knows" what I have, and could have bid 6 ♣, 6♥ or 6N on her own. 5♥ does not make either, assuming they lead diamonds (both aces are over the kings).

2♣ then 3♣

I'm really excited about learning the upside-down stop card convention!

I'm pretty sure if I bid 4♦ then insist on hearts, that I'm showing a diamond control.

GBH is an incomprehensible acronym to me, an experienced bridge player. What does it stand for in your mind? Oh, and for the rest of you, partner is a very experienced, thoughtful, and talented player. She's better than me, at least (not that she would need all that to hit that benchmark :) ).

Ok, after 5♥ (the action I took at the table), partner tables 5N. You?

I have further thoughts that inform my own choice: While it is possible that partner has 4 HCP of spade wastage, that is a worst case scenerio. As it is, I have a fit for whatever partner's suit is, and my diamonds will provide a source of tricks, as will ruffing spades with my trump holding. Partner may have doubled with some 4-3-3-3 hand with an ace or K of spades, so I'm not expecting the worst case scenerio of a minimum HCP wise with max wastage and bad trick taking ability. I'm not saying slam is clear, because it isn't, but I do think that slam odds favor the more aggressive action - sometimes you were going down in 5 anyway, sometimes you make on misdefence...I'm putting cards in partner's hand where he might make a forcing pass with an ambiguous hand (ie, won't force to slam over our action), and I think we make more than half. Now as to why 5♠ instead of 4N - this is an undiscussed high level auction. I am 100% sure that 5♠ won't be passed, and it gives partner the opportunity to suggest other strains with 5N/6C. On the other hand, I'm only 98% sure that 4N won't be passed. My intuitive feel between the difference between the sequence 4N-5♠ compared to 5♠ directly is that the slower sequence should show more interest in grand, not a difference in shapes, but I can certainly be convinced that 1) that's not standard and 2) its also idiodic. I haven't given it much thought, frankly.

[hv=pc=n&s=s9hakqt8653d74c98&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c(16+%20unbalanced%2C%2017+%20bal)3d3h(natural%20GF)p4cp]133|200[/hv] So you have a precision auction that gets jammed a bit. First of all, do the precision players out there have a tool for this type of hand that they prefer, either in comp or not? 2nd, what do you do now over 4♣ (natural, forcing)? Follow-ups possible.

5♠. In my mind, partner can bid 5N as pick a slam, I'll choose clubs, and he can rechoose diamonds to suggest the reds if that's what he has in mind. Plus, partner may be able to kick it to grand if he had a hand that was going to perpetrate a pass/pull auction.

Yeah, that's why the posters remained in my mind, and not in the thread.

I would like to include a new category: Flamewarrior. I have a couple posters in mind :).

slowness suggests uncertainty about slam prospects. So does last train. Partner could be either minimum or maximum for the slowness, I don't think anything is suggested.

Defensive tricks in this context is usually referring to quick tricks, a popular method of evaluating hands when Eli Culbertson was king in the 30s. An ace is a quick trick. An unsupported K is a 1/2 quick trick. A KQ combination is considered 1 quick trick, and an AQ 1 & 1/2. AK combination is considered 2 quick tricks. I don't believe any other combination is considered a quick trick (AKQ being something I'm not 100% sure of, but I think there is a max of 2 quick tricks per suit). The old standard was 2 & 1/2 quick tricks made an opening hand - which is one of the reasons opening AAK hands is considered fairly standard despite not having the traditional HCP for opening. Personally, I prefer that quick tricks, losing trick count, and other methods should be used as adjustments to your evaluation technique, but that HCP be the primary base of your evaluation in most unextraordinary situations.

I think your description of the first sequence is incorrect - it shows a 2-suiter with at least one 4 card major, may have longer clubs, and just under strength/shape to act initially. I'm ambivalent about the 2nd, I can see reasonable arguments for a stopper ask with 8+ tricks (usually running suit), and for Michaels - I've heard strong arguments for Michaels, allowing 4♣ to be leaping michaels clubs and hearts, and 4♦ to be leaping michaels spades and clubs. The real answer, though is it means whatever you define it as in your partnership. I think the answers I have given, however, are common treatments for advanced+ players who have discussed the situation.

This is all assuming a 2/1/sayc based natural system, like the OP implied. A 1♣-p-1♠-1NT (nat) X Penalty for me (15+ HCP or tricks) B 1♣-p-1♠-2♣ (nat) X Support C 1♦-p-1♠-2♦ (nat) X Support D 1♥-p-1♠-2♥ (nat!) X Support E 1♣-p-1♠-3♣ (nat) X Penalty (I do not play support X's above 2 of the supported suit) F 1♦-p-1♠-3♦ (nat) X Penalty (I do not play support X's above 2 of the supported suit) G 1♣-p-1♠-1NT (2 suiter) X Support H 1♣-p-1♠-2NT (2 suiter) X Extra values, no clear direction.

East needs to realize that his hand is pure gold. Partner, in a forcing situation, bid over 2♥ right away, which should imply both extra club length and unsuitability for defending hearts (ie, shortness there), and he (East) has diamonds controlled in turn. I'm cuing diamonds over 3♣, and when partner returns the cue with 3♥ you cannot keep me from slam. Heck, even without cooperation you can picture the heart void in partner's hand. I probably drive to 7 if I can get a spade Q.

I have a trump control, I'm leading my singleton.

My auction starts (3♣)-P-(P)-3♠; (P)-4♣ After 4♣, I'm just keycarding with the N hand, that's what I want to know/can reasonably find out, after all, and I can't really have a better hand for bidding only 3♠.

N-S may have been screwed by the misunderstanding, but WHERE IS THE UI? A screwjob is not enough for an adjustment, sometimes bad bridge wins. But E didn't know that W was on a different page through the alert procedure, they just fluked into a good result. Let's say that I thought a 2N response to a 1M bid was traditional jacoby, and my partner thought it was a limit raise plus. We'd still just say alert, and alert responses as normal, but no explanation is given. We get to a horrible minor suit slam that makes as a result (one thought 3♣ was shortness, the other all minimums, etc, and the confusion propels us to slam). Why should my opponents get redress? Here, a similar situation exists. I'm pretty sure that these are not regular partners...regular partners tend to know if they are playing Bergen or weak jump shifts...so E-W don't know their alerting style, there is no inference that "my partner never alerts weak jump shifts, so he must think its something else," and its unlikely that their partnership discussion extended to whether either knows if weak jump shifts are alertable. I think the only leg you have to stand on is that maybe one person in the partnership THOUGHT they had UI because they didn't know that weak jump shifts were alertable - but that wasn't established clearly, and its not clear to me that acting on fake UI is an infraction anyway.

I find this analogous to your behavior after a skip bid - you are supposed to study your hand and put on your thinking face, even if the only thing you are thinking about is where you want to eat after the session. Here you should take a second and review the bidding guidelines - even if you aren't thinking of bidding, because sometimes you will want to think of bidding. At the worst case, it would be nice to know what partner's potential bids are, or your responses, so that you can plan auctions. As in all of these potential UI situations, you eliminate UI concerns by acting consistently no matter what your hand type is.

ok. Lefty has presumably 5 or 6 clubs - probably 5 - and I'm guessing honors in every suit - it looks and feels like he's taking a shot. I'm picturing a hand like KJ(x) Qx QTx(x) Txxxx, leaving righty with Qx(x) KJxxx Jx(x) Jxx, possibly - or something along those lines. I don't like the 2H bid with that shape, personally, but he's 3rd seat so maybe. Anyway, I'd ask if they generally make that bid with 5-3-3-2 shape, but I'm inclined to play for 3-3 diamonds, personally, even though that's not the answer when posted on the forums. Win the club in hand, K of diamonds then duck a diamond is my intitial play. I might revise if I think that opponents will show count by rote on the diamond K.