el mister

I declared this one last night at the club [bidding is a bit rough and ready, playing acol with a pick-up partner without much discussion]. [hv=pc=n&s=sajhkq6432daqckt8&n=sk5haj95dk764cqj2&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1hp2np3hp4hp4np5cp6hppp]266|200[/hv] A♣ led, ♣ continuation and tragedy - RHO ruffs and the contract is defeated. Clubs are split 6-1. Now, this contract seems OK to me tbh - just done by a terrible split. Cycling home I was musing on what level of player you'd need to be to find the cold contract of 6NT. Even given v precise slam bidding methods, is a killer ♣ split something a v good player will be weighing up as a possibility, such that they would reject the ♥ slam? Or is basically everyone from me upwards playing in 6♥ and that's just the way it goes? If you would find 6NT, be interested to hear your reasoning.

Does the advantage of playing game in an 8 card M fit (relative to 3NT) still hold if both hands are very balanced, ie there are no ruffing values? Say you hold the following as responder ♠KJXX♥AJX♦XXX♣QJX and partner opens a weak NT. You bid Stayman and get 2♠ back - respond with an invitational 3♠ or maybe just bid 4♠ direct, but you're playing game in spades. Is this type of hand one where you should really think carefully about 3NT? Or is it still generally the case that the major suit game is the right spot? Is it something that is particularly scoring dependent maybe? If 3NT should be in the picture, can a Stayman sequence be used to communicate this as responder? ie a way of saying we have an 8 card M fit, about 25 hcp between us, but I'm flat as a pancake here so maybe we should consider 3NT?

2♠ shows 5+ in acol. Does this change the recommendation to bid 3 at all? [i'm clear that I should have done something]

Do we have a bid here over their 2♦. What about over 3? [hv=pc=n&s=sj9ha42dj53cq7542&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1s2dpp2s3dppp]133|200[/hv] We actually have a spade game (pard has 7spds], which most people found one way or the other. Is it supine to pass here, should we be trying hard to make a bid? [simple acol played, no special agreements].

Hand last night had me stuck - playing on BBO with a (sensible) pickup partner. Is there an obvious bid over partner's helpful preempt? [hv=pc=n&s=sak872hj6dakt6c76&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p5cp]133|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=s84ht875432d98c42&n=sqjhak96dq32cqjt7&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1h1s4h4sdp5hdppp]266|200[/hv] Picked up this yarb recently and steamed in to game with it - pard doubled their spade game, which seems a wretched bid to me but let me know what you think, so I felt compelled to take it out. Result was -4 for -12 imps. Cue verbal from pard on my 4♥ bid. Pard was more of a cardplayer than a bidder, so I turn to wiser heads for advice - At these colours should you make the 4♥ bid? [Acol being played with a pickup p]

thks Nigel

Straightforward one that came up with my p the other night. P makes the opening lead face down on the table, and then says he wants to change his mind on his lead. Is he allowed to?

I had this exact sequence tonight as it goes. Rejected the rebid and defended 1NT their way in a tight contract. So thanks for the advice :)

Held the following hand and bid it Acol style 1♣ followed by a 1NT rebid. [hv=pc=n&s=sqjthat2dk76ckq95&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1cdp1s1ndppp]133|200[/hv] Given that pard doesn't want to get involved over 1♣X, is it best just to bow out of this one and let them have it (ie pass instead of 1NT)? Or is it better to still go ahead and describe your hand fully with the 1NT rebid (albeit ♠ stopper a bit thin)? It went off a few as the cards lay, which got me thinking. If pard's got nowt then the 1NT rebid leaves you a bit exposed.

Thanks for the replies. I was sitting north and bid 5♥ - I was concerned that they might save when we had a shot at a vulnerable game. Nigel, what do you mean by After 4♠ South can't really double as you are not in a force so partner is basically always going to pull it. Is it pretty standard to pull this double here? Just trying to understand the thought processes at work. 5♠X was 3 off, with essentially no game making (think a couple of N/S pairs managed to make 3NT)

Judging whether to sit for pard's double in a competitive auction is a difficult part of the game for me. Here's a hand I played last night - how do you rate each player's bids? (Acol was being played if that makes a difference). [hv=pc=n&s=skj97hkqj4dkqc763&w=saq652h7dat82cjt8&n=sha63dj754ckq9542&e=st843ht9852d963ca&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1h1s2c4sdp5hdp5sppdppp]399|300[/hv]

Thanks all. Whilst we're on the subject, what would 1♦ 3♦ mean?

Playing Acol with a pickup partner, who makes a direct overcall of opps suit at the 4 level, over my passed hand. Is there a standard meaning for this bid? Wasnae sure what it meant, maybe both majors and a lot of strength, so thought 4♥ best in the circumstances. [hv=pc=n&s=s6ha964dqt43cqt42&n=sakqj97532h3d7c83&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1d4dd4hd4sdppp]266|200[/hv] As you can see, p held monstrous spades. Is this sort of cue commensurate with his hand? And does it imply a single ♦? Or is it just nonsense?

Yeah, that surprised me too. Here was partner's hand:[hv=s=sxxhajxdajxxxxcjx]133|100|[/hv] Ops helped by leading the Q♦ on opening lead. We took AK♣, a ♣ ruff, A♥, A♦ and the J♦ on trick 13. Thanks for your advice. With the exception of endplays (which I rarely actively think about) I do all of that. Right now I just have to remind myself how to play standard. I've been playing Precision the past two years, and Acol before that. It's hard switching back. You could try the Acol room on BBO - it's probably the best public club on BBO in terms of behaviour. There will be 20-30 tables a night, everyone is courteous, there's hardly ever any juvenile behaviour / bridge and you can settle down and play a good hour's worth without having to deal with dickheads. The standard is probably fairly average overall, but there's still some good players in there who you can quickly identify (self-ratings are pretty accurate in the Acol room) if you want a more serious game. Maybe something to check out at least until you learn the ropes of BBO. The time diff might be a problem, though - I imagine it'll be sparsely populated in the wee hours GMT.

I'll take a stab - we need to win all of the remaining tricks, so our options seem restricted to finessing East for the K♥. We have limited entries in dummy, though, so if ♥s break 3-2 or worse it may be difficult to cross to dummy for the second (and third) finesse. For this reason, should we play East for Q♣, play low and win the J♣ in dummy?

The Clay theory is from a chap called Graham Cairns-Smith, nothing to do with Dawkins. Dawkins did, however, mention it favourably in one of his books, which is perhaps why his name is getting associated with it, such is his influence. The clay theory (briefly, for anyone interested) is a very thought-provoking and creative idea, but still very speculative. The idea that clays and rocks were important in pre-biotic chemistry is not in question. The inorganic metal ions present have the capacity to catalyse all sorts of simple organic reactions, of the type important in creating the building blocks of life. What Cairns-Smith does is go way beyond this, and posits that inorganic clays actually formed the first genes. The crystal structure of clays can be thought of as a crude information storage medium, which (may be) capable of propagation and hereditary transfer of information. CS argues that this was the first primitive gene pool - once organic media was established it 'took over' - his book on this subject is actually called Genetic Takeover. This 'takeover' concept seems to be pretty solid, although the specific case of rocks - RNA is open to question. IIRC he speculated that the information content of the crystals would directly influence the structure, and hence information contained, of RNA. There is no 'DNA' theory of abiogenesis that I'm aware of - RNA has been the main player in pre-biotic chemistry for decades as it is an evolutionary precursor to DNA. The paper referenced in the OP came out last year and is a landmark work, because it provides a very plausible chemical scenario for pre-biotic nucleotide synthesis. Its also very inspirational as a piece of science in general, as it shows what can be achieved if you ask big questions and do not get sidetracked by the trends and modes of the day - something very hard to do in the modern funding environment.

Thanks for the detailed replies - sounds straightforward enough, though I can see how it gets more complicated when you have to weigh your actions in light of mis-descriptions etc.

If pard has a memory lapse and mis-alerts your bid - either wrongly alerting a natural bid, or mis-describing it say, what should you do? Do you correct it then and there, because it might affect the subsequent bidding? Or do you wait until the bidding is concluded and then make a clarification? Or something else - What's best practice?

This is a tough hand for South, especially if spades are 4-1..so let's assume they were and look at it from his perspective...he can pitch 2 discouraging hearts on the 3rd and 4th spades, and then declarer plays A and a heart and he has to make another discard...and then make 2 more while partner runs his spades. It doesn't matter what signals S gives...it isn't about his signalling at all, and Lavinthal, odd-even, udca and so on are all irrelevant. What matters is that he has to know to keep his clubs and throw his diamonds....and all he knows at the critical time is that partner has AKQxxx Kx(x) in the majors...while declarer has some hcp in the minors...I assume dummy is broke. Of course, N can signal the club A by exiting his lowest spade at trick 4...and this is the critical point of the hand...not S's signalling, but North's. S can now reason that declarer has one point in spades, 7 in hearts (when partner wins the K), none in clubs....and cannot have AK diamonds, since that is too many for the weak notrump. Thus S can and should work out that he can throw his diamonds away, in a discouraging fashion, leaving N to work out that S is clinging to ALL his clubs while trhowing away x x J in diamonds....it is easy then to cash the club Ace.....because he, too, will know that declarer has AQJ in hearts, the diamond Ace and the spade J and so partner has the clubs. The same sort of reasoning applies if the spades are splitting....declarer, after cashing the tops, plays his winning spade spots bottom up....S pitches discouraging heart, then discouraging diamond, then more hearts....and partner works out to switch to clubs. As I said, this is not a hand about fancy signalling methods...it is a hand about counting and thinking...with N giving information by the sequence of cards he plays in spades...and both players counting points. In fact, I think this hand is a perfect B/I problem since many B/I players won't realize just how much defence is a partnership game....focussing on S is wrong...this is about both partners helping each other...and thinking. Thks for this detailed reply MikeH, and to others who've posted advice. The layout was exactly as you describe - ♠4-1 and dummy completely broke. I understand the defence you've described, but I think my problem was more basic than that even - ATT I didn't really grok the fact that we needed to absolutely pummel the contract to get a good score. I've had this this lapse in concentration a few times recently with doubled contracts, its like we've set the contract - hooray! Without realising that we need to set it into next week in order to get a good score. Something to remember for next time.

Thks Helene - quite a few other pairs found game in 4♠ (hence our poor score), and everyone is playing Acol, so I wonder how they got there. I guess if opps had played some sort of wriggle sequence N gets a second opportunity to bid.

Everyone playing a weak NT, we (NS) had the following sequence: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sakq642hk4dk74ca7&s=st3ht92dqj52ckqj6]133|200|Scoring: MP P 1NT X P P P[/hv] We set it -3 to get a relatively poor score. I was sitting south - seems like I was wrong to pass here? (what about if the colours were reversed?) What would you bid?

Thks for breaking this down bluecalm. I'm wondering if testing hearts, as I did, was an obvious mistake. At the table, the double gives the game away that a nasty break is indicated, so I guess it was. Say LHO had not doubled, though - is it clear to stay away from any trump drawing line?

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skq7hjt62d6cakjt6&s=sj8haq73da987c543]133|200|Scoring: IMP P 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ P 3♥ P 4♥ X all pass[/hv] So you arrive in 4♥ and hear a double from LHO. A ♦ is led, which you win in hand. I think I then ruffed a ♦ and led a trump back - RHO shows out. I can't recall my line after that, other than it didn't work. Any tips for bringing this one in?

What do you make of this sequence (me south)? [hv=d=e&v=e&n=sak109ha652d9643cj&s=sq85hk984d1087c643]133|200|Scoring: IMP - - P P 1♣ X 3♣ p p X p 3♥ p p 4♣ p p X all pass[/hv] Should I come in over 3♣ with such a pish hand? Anyhow, partner insists (should he?), so I show hearts. What then does his final double mean? Is it a clear penalty? I left it in and we got a good score in the end, so I guess he did well to get the 4♣ bid out of opps.