bill1157

because you might be going for -300 when you have +200 or more coming to you... that thinking is fundamentally unsound (you always run some risk, but bridge is a bidders game: when in doubt bid 1 more etc.) Bill Funny that the one who is bidding uninvited after preempting is saying that to not do so would be fundamentally unsound. South can have 4♠ CRUSHED in his own hand, west has had to guess over 4♥ and might have to bid 4♠ on some pretty light hands. South didn't even have an amazing hand (not that he shouldn't double) and as little as west trading a small heart with his partner for a small diamond makes 4♠ go for 800 on best defense. North bidding in front of his partner over 4♠ is worse than bad, it is unforgivable. If you are playing the traditional weak 2 (6-3-3-2 or 6-3-3-1 shape only) agreed, you should not bid again. Here you have a 2nd 5 card suit and a void. If you are going to bid weak 2's with this type of hand, then no you don't have to (and shouldn't) drop out of the auction after the first bid. Bill

what is Lausanne scoring? Bill

because you might be going for -300 when you have +200 or more coming to you... that thinking is fundamentally unsound (you always run some risk, but bridge is a bidders game: when in doubt bid 1 more etc.) Bill

I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not?

[hv=n=st754ht843da8ca83&w=sk832hkj97dk65c72&e=s9h65dqj43ckjt654&s=saqj6haq2dt972cq9]399|300|[/hv] ok, here is the full hand. my question is: is it right to duck, running the risk of a ruff just in case it holds up, so you can get a ♥ pitch later or something. On a 5 top -200 is a 1,-100 is a 3... Any thoughts?

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=st754ht843da8ca83&s=saqj6haq2dt972cq9]133|200|Scoring: MP W N E S P-P-3♣-P P-X-P-4♠ all P[/hv] opening lead ♣7 defending 3♣ is obviously best and I don't like pds reopening X very much but: question: do you play low from dummy on the first trick? (I know, the club return will probably get ruffed) Also, any votes for sitting for the X? any thoughts would be appreciated. Bill

I like 2♦. Bill

Sorry, I had looked at the hand very quickly and I did miss the strength. I guess the psyche did work on me! Bill

You won't be on lead unless the opponents are nuts and sit this out. Double and then spades. why? is 3nt a ♥raise or something? sounds like to play. and X is takeout? Doesnt sound like we would mesh very well as partners... Bill

seems like North should open: 1st choice 2♥, 2nd choice 3♥,3rd choice 4♥, last choice 1♥. Also, South has overbid the hand at the end. Bill

x is penalty (i.e. clearly wrong). P is ok, but i like 3♥ best here. Doesnt matter vul or not. Bill

pass and lead ♠A Bill

I think South might open 2♦. Bill

Thats a nice problem...i think you could teach an awful lot about bridge with a series of such problems in quiz format. Bill

I recently got a book called "Fall of the cards" by Donald Parson (it is[was] on sale at baronbarclay). This is a collection of play problems that are "short and snappy" and not complex. Anyway, I noticed this hand from a speedball the other night as one that might qualify. I am going to keep an eye out for these types of problems. Also, my bidding is a little wacky, so I am also looking to showcase "imaginitive" bidding. If anyone else has a hand like this to share, I would very much like to see it. Bill

running the !cJ would never be right, even at mp's. Making 3 NT is great, esp since the hand screams for a spade lead (opening leader had !sAKx)

yes, straightforward, but i played quickly and missed the point. It didn't matter, but a little care on hands like this can make a difference.

[hv=d=n&v=n&w=s8hak543dakqt97cj&e=st542hq6d864ck942]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] bidding: 1♥-P-P-3N PPP lead: 3♥ how do you play this one?

this seems like a bad decision (it was actually a split decision so kudos to the dissenters) West is a world class player and so the committee wasn't going to rule against her, but I think a message is being sent out: next time you pull the BIT card, you may be ruled against. The whole bit issue is overdone, if you make a bad bid or get a bad result, you just get the director to change it ( i'll bet -100 match points much better than -300) It is actually a rule to protect the experts from the novice and intermediate players. Bill

MP's takes somewhat more skill, but really there isnt all that much difference (and if you try to make special "match-point" decisions you will probably get a bad board anyway). Getting to a decent game and making it, going plus 800 etc will be good at either form of scoring Bill

I have considered (when playing in individuals, where btw sayc is the standard system) just telling pds at the start: "i play everything natural: no stayman, jacoby anything etc or even blackwood". I think i would do fine if i could pull it off. Failing that, just learn sayc and specifically: responses and continuations to 1NT, capp and 1430, and tell pd you dont play jacoby 2nt. Beyond that, just make sure you agree with pd which bids are forcing, which are weak. the other conventions (drury, flannery etc) just dont come up enough to get real worried about. Bill

partner's X is almost an impossible bid. might work out but probably not. Bill

I didn't follow the psycho-suction thread here, but back to the original thoughts. Since you don't come up against the mini too often, does anyone have some general ideas on defending that a casual partnership could discuss in about 5 seconds (i.e. when the opponents announce in round 3 that they are playing 10-12 nt). For example: partner, lets play direct bids natural, showing 13+, X is card showing. Balancing 8+ 2♣ is landy... The idea being to optimize a simple defense against the mini. Bill

hand 3 it looks like a cue bid (or even 3 ♦) is better than X. For the rest: wtp? you don't need a complicated system to bid these hands, natural is fine (1: X not 2 ♣, 2: 2 ♠ works fine, 3. 3♦ or 3♥ cue bid). I play 10-13 in 1st and second seat with one pd. One time my opponents played x showed equal value, then capp showed either 0-9 hcp or 14+! so i think your efforts to find a good defense to the mini are sorely needed. Bill

i mean running ♦'s Bill