nick_s

My wife (who is learning the game) pointed out to me that saying a bid is 'conventional' is the opposite of normal usage. Think about it...

I'm Nick Southwell, 51 years old, living in the NW suburbs of Chicago. I started playing at boarding school in England - I was 12. At 16 I went to the local bridge club, got partnered with a LOL and played my first duplicate game. We won, and I was hooked. At this point I had never heard of a bidding system. I went to the local library and devoured all the bridge books I could find. I went to college at Cambridge and Leeds, and played for the Yorkshire team several times. In 1985 I moved to the US and didn't play at all until earlier this year. I'm pretty comfortable with SAYC now, but have yet to play 2/1 with anyone. Back in the UK, I played acol, several versions of Precision, and Blue Club. I'm teaching my wife to play. That seems to be working out well, but it's still early days yet. I'd really like to find a regular f2f partner that's interested in working seriously on the partnership. Please send me a message if you're interested: nicksouthwell at yahoo.com

At this vulnerability, 3♣ is plenty. My 2nd choice is pass. Preempts in a minor suit are often more effective than preempts in a major suit because the opponents have to choice between three common game contracts rather then just two. Reminding myself of this often helps keep me from getting too aggressive.

jdonn is 100% correct. I must be playing in the wrong regionals :(

For anyone wanting to know more about calculating the odds using vacant spaces, I heartily recommend 'Bridge Odds for Practical Players' by Hiugh Kelsey and Michael Glauert.

Since I resumed playing bridge in the US, I've noticed that Americans are far more aggressive about intervening over a weak NT, than ever used to be the case when I played in the UK 25 years ago. No doubt things have moved on on both sides of the pond. 25 years is a long time - and perhaps my memory is playing tricks too. I think the reason for Americans being more aggressive has to do with playing against a strong no-trump more often. Against a strong no-trump, you can pretty much forget about reaching game, and just bid competitively on good shape and a fair number of points. This approach works very well because partner is just looking for a fit, and very rarely will have any interest in game. Against a weak no-trump, it's not so simple. Surprisingly often you do have a game on, so you have to keep your overcalls a little bit more respectable to prevent partner from getting too excited when holding a half decent hand. Enough rambling... This is a clear pass.

Double at MPs. 4S at IMPs. I've no idea who can make what here. At IMPs, I'm not going to risk a double game swing. At MPs, I'm going with my gut suspicion that neither side can make a contract at the 4 level. I need to double to get that magic +200.

I agree with jdonn. We've made them guess. Let's see if they guessed wrong. It's no disaster to miss a sacrifice and I hate phantoms.

jdonn wrote that 2♠ rates to be better opposite a singleton spade. Interesting comment that. Something I hadn't considered as being desirable before. And this got me thinking about my minor suit holdings. If pard has a stiff spade, then he rates to have a 5-card club suit. I think bidding 2♠ would be more attractive if my doubleton was in clubs rather than diamonds - then I'd have a better chance of making my small trumps separately.

Pass. Any position or vulnerability - unless my 1NT includes a poor 12 count. With the majors and minors reversed I open. Always.

Pass. I read your statement to say that 'Rightie' both made a slow pass and doubled, yet it was LHO that doubled. I'm confused (not that that's anything unusual ;)).

Good question! I like the 6NT punt: it seems as good as anything at this point. Check out the thread 'Robson/Segal advice' in the General Discussion area for a related discussion about 4♦ vs double. I confess I would probably have doubled at the table. I suspect 4♦ would have been a better choice.

I'm returning to bridge after a 25 year hiatus, so I'm unsure about the current consensus on whether you should raise on 3 card support with a ruffing value. Personally, I think you should, so I'm passing. FWIW, I also think it's ok to rebid 1NT with a stiff spade. I'd rather do this than rebid a ropey 5 card club suit for example. I'm much more interested in learning about the way things are done now, than in trying to impose my own views on the world - that usually doesn't work out so well ;). So thanks for the great topic.

Right now, this advice is consistent with what I do at the table. But I'm reading the book at the moment, so I'm withholding further judgment.

I think North needs to bid 3♠ instead of 4♣. This pretty much has to be a 3 card suit. After this, I think South should pass. 4♠ is a lucky make. 4♠ could go down if E has Ax of trumps. After three rounds of hearts, ruffed and overruffed, E wins the ace on the 2nd round of trumps and leads a 4th heart.

I agree with Mike: double over one heart. Since I failed to do that, however, I'm doubling now.

The hand could belong to anyone. I can't keep quiet here. If we have a major fit, this is a 5-loser hand. We could easily be cold for a slam. I would bid 5♦ over 4♦ expecting partner to interpret it as a two suiter. And if partner winds up doubling the opponents, I do have some defense.

I think I would have preferred a response of 3H over the X - assuming your methods permit that. With the sequence given, I think a pass is clear cut.

Cards on the Table. Eric Jannersten. 1.85 (British pounds). 206pp. 1971 Level=Intermediate/Advanced Grade=A I've seen write-ups of a few other Jannersten books here, but not this one. Possibly it was published under a different name in the US. Apparently it was originally published under the name 'Kortlasning' (card reading) in Sweden. It's subtitled: 'The Art of Guessing Right'. This book, more than any other, took my declarer play from intermediate to advanced. You get presented with each deal as declarer, together with the play to the first trick or two. Now you have to make a plan. A few tricks later you get to the point where you can figure out what the opponent have (or must have), and from there you can work out any end-plays. I find it relatively easy to spot a squeeze or a throw-in etc if I know that's what I'm supposed to be looking for. With the problems in this book you usually can't do that. It taught me how to think about the right things at the right time. Of course, YMMV. *** I haven't posted here before, so a little background in case my remarks seem a little odd: I used to play a lot in the UK (Acol, Precision). Then I moved to the US. Then I didn't play at all for 25 years. I'm starting up again and trying to get caught up on all the bidding changes. It seems clear that I need to learn 2/1, so any recommendations would be much appreciated. I've also been reading up on the LOTT - that seems to be de rigeur whether you agree with it or not.

I want to be in a slam unless we're missing 2 aces or missing the AK♥. I'll assume we're using: Serious 3NT, LTTC, Lackwood (as described by Fred G in the BBO library). Hopefully I'll learn something by working through the possibilities. I don't play this with either of my regular partners. :) I'll start with 3NT. Here are the possible continuations: 4♣ 4♦ 4♥: This is LTTC cooperating with my slam interest but saying nothing about a heart control. Presumably pard has the A♦ or a heart control. I'll bid 5♠ (Lackwood). 4♣ 4♦ 4♠: Pass. 4♣ 4♦ 4♠: Pass. We're missing AK♥. 4♦ 4♥ 4♠: 4♥ was LTTC showing a club control. Pard could have bid Blackwood or Lackwood, but didn't. Pass. 4♥: 4♠. We're missing both minor suit aces. If we reach slam should I convert to NT? I think so. If we need to set up hearts, both minors should be double stopped.