mikl_plkcc

Isn't 1NT-2NT invitational to 3NT there? I have never played any systems where 1NT-2NT is not natural and will never do. Inviting 3NT is so common after 1NT opening that it won't worth giving up the natural bid for this.

We played 7 rounds of 2 boards with 5 tables in total, MP scoring in online play, with all boards played simultaneously, after round 5 we were right at the bottom of the ranking list. We had only 4 boards remaining to rescue our ranking. I start to find way to generate some swings as an attempt to get our ranking up. Board 11, sitting S: [hv=pc=n&s=skqjhkq73d8742ca3&w=s8765h95d53ckjt74&n=sa4hat64dkj6cq982&e=st932hj82daqt9c65&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1np2cp2hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] It was expected that everyone would land in the same contract 4♥. We got lucky that the opponents didn't find the killing ♦ lead, and we scored a top as a result as the only table making 4♥. In reality 4 tables ended up at 4♥ and 1 ended up at 3NT, and the 3NT table ended up 3NT=. Board 12, sitting S: [hv=pc=n&s=sak82haq7dqt965c5&w=st93hkj954dcaq943&n=sqj54h83dak872ck8&e=s76ht62dj43cjt762&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1dp1sp2sp4hp4np5hp5sppp]399|300[/hv] Once partner responded 2♠, I immediately expected the field would sit at 4♠, and I wanted to generate a swing by bidding a borderline slam. As we were not an established partnership, we hadn't even agreed on which variant of Blackwood we were using (this was a standard Blackwood situation), so I tried cuebidding first, but my partner responded 4NT anyway. I was forced to make up a response and ended up at 5♠ just made, losing to an ace and an offside king. Turned out that we were the only table playing in ♠. 3 other tables played in ♦, 2 of them didn't even bother to find a ♠ fit after 1♦ opening (one raised to 4♦ directly, another splintered 4♣), and the remaining table was unable to find a ♠ fit since W opened 1♥. There was one table playing in 3NT as well, the same table who played 3NT in the last board. I was surprised that so many people didn't even bother to find a major suit fit after 1♦ opening even in MP scoring. Board 13, sitting W: [hv=pc=n&s=saj6h2dakq6caq743&w=sqt93hqj9dj52ct86&n=s54hat8654d97cj92&e=sk872hk73dt843ck5&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=2hp3nppp]399|300[/hv] Double-dummy result is +1 but it requires finessing the ♣K once then drop it the second time, which no sane person will do. A normal line of play should result in 9 tricks. However, we got lucky that the opponent attacked the ♥ themselves, giving us a few more tricks in ♥ for us to run our ♠, resulting in another top for us. And the final wild board 14, sitting W: [hv=pc=n&s=s2h86dakq6542ct53&w=sa987543haq42d9c2&n=skqjt6h53djt83ck4&e=shkjt97d7caqj9876&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c1dd1s4hp6hppp]399|300[/hv] After 1♣-(1♦), I Xed to show both majors. N bid 1♠ and my partner bid 4♥. At that moment I knew this was wild and it would be some serious swings. Using the information given, I believed that my partner must have ♠ shortness so I considered no ♠ loser, and partner's opening bid meant he very likely had a cover for my ♣ loser as well, and I made up my courage, picked the 6♥ bid, which my partner made 12 tricks. Among 5 tables, we were the only one who actually bid a slam. 3 other tables ended up at 5♥, and 1 ended up at a disastrous 5♠ by W. Those 3 tables who ended up at 5♥ all had the auction preempted with 3♦ after the opening bid, and the disastrous table had the bidding 1♣ - (1♦) - 1♠ - (3♦) - / - (5♦) - 5♠ - (x) - //, where the ♥ suit was never shown. And finally we ended up at the middle of the ranking list.

"nullo" was a denomination in auction bridge a century ago where the declarer needs to lose the specified number of tricks instead of winning them, which was placed between ♠ and NT and was scored as NT. For example, if 3Nullo was bid, the declarer needed to lose 9 tricks to make the contract, and that was a game contract like 3NT. With nullos, player holding rubbish hands consisting of a lot of 2, 3, and 4s can compete effectively with the opponent trying to bid games and slams. Why is this denomination not carried into the modern form of contract bridge?

I generally play until it is obvious (e.g. only top tricks are left in NT play, or only trumps are left after drawing trumps, or a standard cross-ruff layout is set up).

1. Was the 1NT bid announced "may contain a singleton"? 2. What's the agreement? I believe some pairs choose to play 1NT bid as "15-17, may contain a singleton" in order to deal with these hands, and under such cases this is the correct bid.

1NT - 2♥ 2♠ - 4NT = choose between 4NT, 5♠, 6♠ and 6NT

/ - 2♣ 2♥! (2 controls) - 3♣ 3♠ - 6♠ Sorry, but I can't bid a grand missing either an A or 2 Ks. The fact that 7♠ makes is because a ♦ loser is discarded by a ♥, which can't be bid.

Why is it losing bridge? There are 40 HCPs in total, and with perfectly balanced hands, HCPs are a good indicator of trick taking potential. So it translates to 3 HCPs per trick, 35-37 for 12 tricks and 38-40 for 13 tricks. 37 without a K means 50% chance for the K to be on side only, definitely not a good probability for bidding 7. And although 50% is the theoretical break even point for a small slam, you need to consider if other people will be in game or slam anyway - others may have bid a one in a bad denomination which doesn't make - looking at the travellers there are usually a lot of strange contracts which is impossible if done in a classroom.

So you play an agreement that, after interruption, X rebid after 2♣ opening isn't a takeout double? And how do you bid with 1444 hand with 23+ points?

Can't partner have a "trap pass" hand which want to penalise 2♦ but can't because an X in this position will still be a takeout double? As partner had refused to bid a suit multiple times, but he bid 1NT, I suspect that he would had a hand long in an opponent suit, a little strength (~5 HCP), and have some stoppers in both opponents' suits.

I was sitting at South. E didn't alert W's 3♥ because she thought it was natural, but W thought it was a transfer. That was because they were an inexperienced partnership which clearly didn't know how to react when a 2♦ opening was interfered. N Xed the 3NT on the assumption that they didn't have a ♠ fit, holding the following hand:[hv=pc=n&n=skhakt92dcajt9764&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=2d(18-19%20bal)3d3hp3nppdppp]133|200[/hv] W laid down with 6 ♠, and the contract went +1, resulting a bottom for us. The correct line of defence was to run N's ♥ suit, which would result in -3, but I subsequently misdefenced and resulting in a +1 for the contract. The misdefence was that I didn't realise the partner was giving signal by leading an ♥A against a NT contract, which I didn't realise to drop my ♥Q, and as a result partner switched to ♣ instead. Other tables' results including 4♥S+2, 4♦xS-2 and 4♠E-1. I was shocked by partner's X holding no sure entry to run my ♦, thinking that's bad bridge by us, and partner told me that she Xed assuming that I would have a ♠ entry because, according to the explanation, I must have a few more ♠s, which I didn't have as W's hand didn't match the explanation. 1. Was there any damage? 2. If W did hold a ♥ hand, was the X foolish? 3. When the dummy laid down, was a ♥ run by N an obvious line of defence given that their misunderstanding was already shown? 4. Was I to be blamed wholly because I failed to drop my ♥Q under the ♥A led? Also, a final question was that, I kept making obvious mistakes (including cutting my bridges to dummy, playing cards in an order that allowing them to draw my last trump out causing me losing control of my hand, forgetting to cash a side suit winner resulting in 3NT= with 10 top tricks, etc.) which wouldn't happen as a textbook practice. How can I improve my performance as, here, it's clear that my bridge knowledge isn't missing, but instead I fail to perform to my best of my knowledge.

This is the hand involved: [hv=bbo=y&myhand=M-1748389285-1636031701]399|300[/hv] EW has 25 HCPs, no 8-card fit and 2 stoppers in every suit except ♦ where only 1 stopper is available. Look like a textbook 2-3NT bid?! None makes in double dummy. The par result is 2♦ by the weaker pair on the only trump fit available! This is the full traveller: https://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=79974-1636031701-25321764&username=mikl_plkcc Among all 73 tables, there were only 2 which made a game, and my partner did a great job doubling them holding 5 trumps. The best action by E/W is to double everything N/S bid after the 2♣ opening, but I took the risk in order to hope that my partner would have ♠ to compete, and that they would not be able to double my 2♠ bid for penalty in their system. Otherwise, this hand was doomed by E/W unless their system allowed them to stop at 2♥ or 2NT after opening 2♣.

What's the reason that you think 2♦ by them making would be the best result of us? Remember that at balancing position bids are made lighter than at the direct position.

If they were red I would certainly pass the 1♠ and pocket the penalty. However, given that they were white, if they could get a -1 instead of we making a partscore on a 4-4 fit we would have lost a few IMPs. What my partner held was a single K in ♣, with no other points. I thought he should pass after the XX but he thought he had to bid something there, and he had no stoppers in ♠.

I held: [hv=pc=n&w=sak64h8632dacaj32&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1dd1sppdr1npp2dppdppp]133|200[/hv] I didn't know what 1NT meant in this sequence - I suspect it meant some form of ♠ stopper. I wanted to force partner to bid a 4-card unbid suit but turned out he was 4♦333, and their doubled contract made. He got angry and told me that his 1NT meant he was forced to bid with a rubbish hand (his hand was really rubbish) and he told me I should know his hand was rubbish because they had all the points because they both had bid, but I treated it as a free bid showing willingness to make 1NT because N had XXed. Who's fault here?

I will stop at 3NT is 33 is the max, and bid 6NT if 35 is guaranteed. If the estimated range is between 33 to 35 I will use Gerber. With 34 I bid 6NT if all aces are held, but stop at 4NT if an ace is missing. Similarly, the minimum I will consider 7NT is 38; with 37 I will go to 7NT if QJ is missing, but stay at 6NT if a K is missing.

[hv=pc=n&s=s9652h54d97643c65&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1d(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20!d%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)d(Takeout%20double%20--%203-5%20!c%3B%202-%20!d%3B%203-4%20!h%3B%203-4%20!s%3B%2012%2B%20total%20points)p]133|200[/hv] Will you pass or bid 1♠?

If partner had only 4 ♦, there was a reasonable probability that the opponents weren't void in ♦, which justify my X. If partner communicated that she had much longer ♦, given that we had 11 ♦ in total, I would expect them to have a void in ♦ so their 5♣ would make, and it would be right to compete. I don't know. I only play Blackwood when a trump suit is explicitly agreed, i.e. an 8-card fit is guaranteed by the bidding. Under all other situations, i.e. when we haven't excluded NT to be the final denomination yet, 4NT is invitation to 6NT, where any suit responses are an attempt to find a better contract. I had 10 points and 2 ♣ at that hand, therefore I reopened with a X. I expected to pass any responses if they didn't compete further. I didn't expect her to have 6♥. If she overcalled 2♥ at the beginning, I would advance to 4♥ having 10 ♥s in total, possibly shutting their ♣ communication out that they couldn't bid 5♣.

I open 2♣, planning to rebid 3♠. (in my system, a jump rebid open 2♣ opening means a freak opener)

I treat this sequence as 5-5 in the major, choice of game.

Normally I only have 1, at most 2 misunderstandings playing with a pick-up partner as what I play is very close to Standard American. For the 1NT-2♠ agreement, what I play with my regular partner is transfer to ♣, while 3♣ is transfer to ♦. However, she doesn't play this so our agreement after 1NT-2♠ is "11 points or either minor", where I bid 2NT if minimum, 3♣ if maximum. We didn't go through 2NT-3♠ though where I play as minor suit Stayman with my regular partner. However, the misunderstanding here is that she didn't know that, in Standard American, the sequence 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT is the same as a 2NT opening.

I had my first F2F in my home club today but I don't have a regular partner at this club (I have one in another), so I'm matched with one. There were a lot of freak hands in the 20-board session, including 9-card suit, 7-5-1-0, multiple 2♣ openers, etc. And I had my worst misunderstandings today. My partner didn't have a system card and I brought mine, which is based on Standard American with a few gadgets for 1NT. We agreed to switch to another 1NT system but played everything else as stated. I think we had at least 4 misunderstandings during the whole session: 1. 1♦ by me - (2♣) - 3♦ by partner - .... I eventually doubled their 5♣, holding ♦A, ♥A, ♠KQ which was made by them. Turned out my partner has 6 ♦s where we should have competed to 5 ♦s. 2. 2♣ by me - 2♦ - 2NT - 3♠ - 4♦ - 4♠ Partner didn't realise the sequence should be treated as 2NT opening, where I treated as minors so I interpreted her with both minors and 4 ♠s. Actually she had only 5 ♠s and uninteresting side suits. Luckily I didn't bid 6♠ afterwards. 3. 2♣ by partner - 2♥ (2 controls) - 3NT - 4NT - 5♣ I had no idea what 5♣ meant as I was inviting 6NT. I treated her as 5♣332 and passed. Turned out she misunderstood I was asking for aces. 4. (1♣) - / - (/) - X (2♣) - 2♥ - (2♠) - / (3♣) - 3♥ - (5♣) - / It would be better if we played in ♥, because it turned out she had 8 points and 6 ♥s and I had 4. I thought she had only 4 ♥s when she bid 2 ♥, showing preference as she didn't bid 1♥ at the beginning, and I had no idea how many she had when she bid 3♥. She thought that she didn't have enough points to bid 1♥ and she didn't realise she should bid 2♥ over 1♣. I want to know if anyone has worse misunderstandings when playing with pick up partners.

I will bid 2♠ after 1♣. This lies about the ♣ length but I think it is the least evil thing to do, considering the ♣ are AKQ. If the clubs are weak but the spades are strong, I will open 1♠ playing 4-card majors.

Sorry delete

[hv=pc=n&s=sj843hqdkq7cj7432&n=s2hk87daj9863cat6&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1d1sp2sppp]266|200[/hv] We got a bottom letting their 2♠ made because everyone else played in ♦. We use Standard American so 1♦ suggests 4 ♦s with the exception of 4=4=3=2. Who's fault missing our 9-card fit?