rogerclee

So did I. Just surprised it was worth 10 out of 11. I did understand that usually you give preference with 2-4, but thought the hand was too weak for that action. FYP

Not your best example hand Mike.

Without thinking about it in detail it seems hard for ruffing to gain, so I would just pitch a spade.

1) Double 2) Assuming 4N was hearts + clubs I'm going to bid 6C. If partner has the HA this might make. If partner doesn't then we will have a hard time cashing our slow heart trick anyway since our hands are going to be severed. It's going to be a pretty epic fail if partner has the HA and 2 spades, but I'm prepared to take that risk. 3) First of all I think the redouble is bad, we only have 4 spades and nowhere else to run, so I would just take my medicine. It seems to have worked out well though, I guess you knew your customers. Anyway this is a weird hand. It seems like declarer is 4342 though so I would go with the natural play of pitching a diamond.

Cannot imagine bidding. Even if I played 2D = weak preference (or GF) I would still pass.

I think passing at white against red is really against the odds.

Interesting you are talking about underbids on this auction!

2H 2N P 3S (clubs) P 4C P 4D P 4N P 5N P 6C AP

Is this in the third day of the LMs or something? I think a lot of people in bad fields (which is basically all club/sectional/regional pair games) will try to draw 2 rounds of trumps and then just take fewer tricks.

I really hate overcalling 3m without 6 but I think we are just too good to pass.

I don't agree. I really think there is just a disconnect between what a lot of books present as bidding/declarer/defense problems and the kind of problems real bridge players face at the table. These days if you buy a book on bidding, you will probably actually be buying a book on system. The reason is simple, the demand is high for books promising an easy way to improve your bridge (such as just remember a few rules or conventional bids), and it is very risky/difficult to write about issues of bidding judgment, particularly if you aren't one of the 100 best players in the world, which almost no current bridge author is. If you buy a book on declarer play, often what you are getting are book themes that are exciting to see at first but don't actually come up that often. Declarer play is also more than just technique, a lot of it is card reading/table reading/trying to be tricky and inducing errors, and many bridge problems you face at the table are very difficult to analyze because there is no clear line and many possible ones that seem close. These areas of the game are not very well discussed, for the same reason as above--it's much harder to write an in depth book at analyzing percentages in bridge than it is to just show someone how to make 4S on a KJx opp ATx endplay. Also I want to emphasize that at anything but a world class level, being a good declarer means just almost never making a mistake on an easy hand. This is easier said than done, most people who are considered bridge experts make tremendous (!) numbers of simple technical errors, especially at the table as opposed to when given a problem. In the end, without playing lots of random hands, messing up the easy hands will always be a problem. You could say a similar thing about defense, since in reality becoming a good defender is to a huge extent just being able to count out hands/listen to the bidding and try to figure out early on what the opponents have and to think, in a specific way, what exactly you are playing for every time you play a card. At a lower level it is just the ability to really focus and remember every card that is played and what its significance is in terms of signaling and the overall hand. Becoming a good partnership defender is also important in terms of being able to signal accurately when partner needs it, and non-expert players are often surprised to learn how many bridge problems can be solved by just being careful about your attitude/count/suit preference signals. This is something that takes a lot of time though, and also just involves playing a ton of hands. Again, this is not something you are going to get from reading a bridge book, it's just something you get from going out there and playing/analyzing thousands of hands for yourself. So I guess I would just go with the thread and recommend that even though a familiarity with basic technique is necessary (from bridge books), it's really grinding out the hands that will make you a real player.

It looks intuitive to win in hand and cash 1 high trump. If we cash another trump it's really bad if they are 1-4, which is by far the most likely layout, so I would just try to cash 3 rounds of hearts pitching a diamond and then play a club up regardless of the heart split if I can.

never mind

1) Pass, but I play that partner's range is about 5-8. 2) 2D = either major? Anyway I would pass. 3) Was double negative as in 0-7 or negative as in 4 hearts? I would lead the HK anyway. 4) Pass. 5) Pass.

This was almost verbatim the assessment of the person who found the successful lead and showed me the hand. Now you need to take this analysis to the next level .... Nobody so far has really grasped the issue. Leading the ace of diamonds to see dummy and pick a black suit could work very badly, but it's an interesting idea. CJ obv

Pass, down 3 seems reasonably likely with our stiff club, and Jx of diamonds means that making 5S is not that likely.

How is this relevant? You saw the alert, you said to yourself "wow this is interesting, I can see what my partner wants all his bids to mean!", and then you continued to bid as if nothing was new. Also the host wasn't immediately aware because it appeared to him the way it always does.

Oh please. Why would you even make a stupid comment like this? My understanding is that this happened. 1) One of you self-alerted your bid at least once. 2) As a consequence the other person must have seen the alert. 3) You bid as if this didn't happen, seeing partner's alert. If this didn't happen then I apologize.

The problem is an issue of methods. It would be great on this hand to double and if partner bids 3S, to play that 3N is absolutely to play. That is unfortunately not the case, since partner will pull 3N to 4S basically anytime he has 5 spades (we showed a flexible hand and he must have nothing in diamonds). This would be bad for us, since 5C is in much more danger of going down than 3N. Double gains when partner doesn't bid 3S (either 4S showing some signs of life, even though this may be a tricky auction, or 3H/4H which would be amazing since we can bid keycard). I don't think it's worth the risk though, but I could be wrong. It's not like anyone has a lot of experience with this kind of hand.

Did this really happen? It would be pretty absurd if it did, since TylerE and bid_em_up would be blatantly cheating, and the host would have to be asleep.

Sick hand, guess I would just bid 3N.

I prefer to play a style where this is a 3C opener.

Just as an example, consider these three holdings: AKxx, AKJx, and KQ9x. You are on lead against some number of NT and decide that leading an honor would be wise. If you are playing A asks for count/unblock and K asks for attitude, you would lead the king from the first two holdings (don't want unblock) as well as the third one (systemic lead). As a consequence the lead is ambiguous, and so partner does not know how he should signal with something like JTxx or just the jack, since he doesn't know if you have AK or KQ. If you are playing A asks for attitude and K asks for count/unblock, you would lead the ace from the first two holdings (curious about the queen), and the queen from the third holding (curious about the jack). Now partner knows to discourage holding the jack from the first holding and encourage holding the jack from the third. It's true you could get in trouble when partner has the ten in the last case, but that is less frequent/important. So it is better to play K = power, A/Q = attitude.

One of the sacrifices of playing inverted raises is that you have to bid 1N with normal minor raises, not 3m.

There is no hand that I would pass initially and now decide to bid. If I wanted to bid 3N now, I would have bid something last round. If I wanted to bid 3S now, I would have bid 1S before, though I guess AKxxx x xxxx xxx is a 3S bid now if it's not a 1S overcall before or something like this. If I wanted to bid 4m now, I would have bid 3m last round. Just because your opponents are having a strong auction doesn't mean you should bid. Either they are about to play 4H with more information than they would have otherwise (bad at matchpoints), or you are telling them something about how to play 6H. Also you could just go for a number obviously.