se12sam

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=s765hk6532dacaq85&w=sakqt94h87dt96c94&e=s3hajt9dkq3cjt732&s=sj82hq4dj87542ck6]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] This was the full hand. As expected, most of you correctly concluded that ♣K stood out. The reasons I liked this hand were: 1. No one will be in 3NT; most will be in a spade game or a spade partial. 2. If partner has either ace, 4♠ can lose 4 tricks -- ♦A plus 2♣+1♥ or 2♥+♣K -- and can lose more (you can engineer a ruff for partner) 3. South knows that spades break (even if East has a singleton). Anyone who makes 3NT will score well and therefore overtricks are of no concern. 4. It is unlikely but not impossible for partner (North) to hold ♣Q with the ♣A. So you switch to ♣K, hoping to beat the contract. Today is your lucky day! Obviously, declarer should also have concluded that no-one will be in 3NT which only makes if spades break 3-3. If he puts up the ♥A at trick 2, there is no story. 3NT = scores 90% for declarer, 3NT+1 or +2 scores only a couple of %s extra. 3NT -1 is a disaster for declarer -- scores ~5%.

Actually, 8% of the tables in play reached 3NT.

3NTx should have made? Declarer should have played North for the spade queen and taken a finesse at trick 7. When this wins, he can place all cards correctly and play a heart to the King, and set up a long heart.

Type the text first. Then highlight it (i.e. select it) and press the Bold, Underline etc option. The popup will not appear and the chosen text will become Bold, Underline etc. I think this works, but I have not tested it myself.

[hv=d=e&v=b&w=sakqt94h87dt96c94&s=sj82hq4dj87542ck6]266|200|Scoring: MP You are South defending against 3NT after a bidding that went: West - East 1♣ 1♠ - 1NT 3NT Your carding agreements are 4th best and UDCA, and accordingly you lead ♦5. Partner wins with ♦A, and returns ♥5 which you win with the Q. At MPs, what do you play at trick 3? Is there a stand-out choice (over other options)? As per online profiles, opps are Intermediate Partner (North) is stronger but not expert. Recap: Trick 1: D5-6-A-3 Trick 2: H5-9-Q-7[/hv]

Isn't there an Italian 2♦ opening for all 18-20 balanced hands? And I think even Cascade has a 2♦ opening for such hands. Do these work better in the long run? I'm not a fan of 2NT with 18-20 but my reason is somewhat different. I'm not confident of my declarer skills!

Variable NT is probably most destructive when the lower range of variable is the 10-12 NT ("mini-NT"?) I occassionally played against a pair that played Acol 4cM with a 12-14 NT 3/4th of the time and Acol with a 10-12 NT when white vs red. This was in any seat (or at least that's what I recall)

The "centred" cards issue could be IE8 related. I can see normally when viewing from office (IE6) but I recall having the same problem about centred cards when viewing from home (where I have upgraded to IE8)

If South was declarer, he'd ALWAYS score 11 tricks. I think it's a "habit" issue that we like to ruff into dummy. When North is dummy, South's "habit" will stop him from ruffing spades to hand. He simply draw trumps and try to ruff clubs in dummy, and tries the diamond finesses on the way.

1. 4NT -- minors 2. Dbl -- penalty

The time concept is somewhat mind-boggling to unravel. Based on whatever little bit I know (and I confess I know very little): 1. Time is a dimension EXACTLY like space. That's why Einstein called it space-time. 2. Visualise the universe moving on TIME dimension at light speed. That's the mind-boggling bit -- the universe is in motion (on 1 of the 4 space-time dimensions) at the speed of light. 3. We learnt that Einstein's theory states nothing can travel faster than light (but it can travel at the speed of light). Now take any object and impart it velocity along a space dimension. If we know that point #3 is valid, then every body with velocity on a space dimension slows down on the time dimension. So when you drive a car to work, your time slows down compared to that of your partner who chooses to stay at home!! The reason we cannot sense the change is that our controlled velocities are so insignificantly smaller than the speed of light that the time distortion is of an imperceptible amount. If you managed to get into a body that reaches (say) 20% of the speed of light, your movement on the time dimension will slow down (perhaps to 80% of the speed on earth). So if I travel to a distant planet and back @ 20% of light speed and took 4 years to complete the journey (as per the onboard clock), I will find that it's been 5 earth years since I left. And both my clock and that on earth would be correct! At the speed of light (space dimension), your movement along the time dimension reaches a speed of zero. The time dimension still exists, but it is as if you are glued to one place (in time, instead of in space). It is easy to visualise oneself glued to a fixed place (in space). The same principle when extended to time gives you the idea.

I don't have a solution here. But I think the real problem is when the minor is diamonds. After 1♥ - 1♠/1NT; 3♣, you could play 3♦ as a 4th suit GF (+slam-possibility) but if the 3m bid is 3♦, I guess it gets sticky.

In the order of Uday's points: 2. I thought the table is required to provide a suggested defence to non-standard openings that opponents can refer. Does this bid not need one because it is "natural"? In any case, I would have thought most opponents will play "when in doubt, double" as a comprehensive defence :) 3. But by the same logic, opener will go for a number more often.

Whenever I have played in a club, 1. North always enters score. In fact, I have noticed some North's are upset if dummy (say West) tries to enter the contract details etc after a contract has been reached. 2. She/he always turns the Bridgemate over to West or East to approve. 3. Once approved, North (often) places it such that at least one opponent can see when they scroll down the comparisons.

Was there any additional in-built feature in the 2NT bid -- like a 5+club and/or at least 8 minor cards etc? Otherwise it looks silly because it can be doubled often enough. If opps have 9 tricks (and can find them), Zia's side scores -800 instead of -600; and if opps have 10+ tricks, it's a debacle even if they drop a trick or two.

I play 4NT as specific ace asking, so that bid does not help here. I think the downside of opening 1♣ can be that we are outbid, but I'd still open 1♣ and rebid it at a higher level later.

What was partner's actual hand on this deal? Can we see it?

I appreciate the comments about the 2♥ being forcing. With this hand, I would have bid anyway but it is useful to know the right treatment of 2♥ as a force. A random thought -- What if partner has ♣Qx? Is there a "standard" way to make partner the declarer in 3NT? Thanks

I'd pass, regardless of vulnerability. If LHO also passes, there is a chance we will miss game. However, I think opponents will often come to our help e.g. if their action suggests a 4-4 or 5-3 fit in hearts for their side, we get to play in 4♠ doubled with good chances of making.

Here is a NY times article on "the first time Gates had ever played in a bridge club" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/crosswor...dge/07card.html If some of you overseas folks land up in London and have some spare time in the evenings, please do consider a nice session of bridge at this club. (http://www.ycbc.co.uk)

I think the Line 2 chances are better: Even if West has Kxxx of diamonds, you win because you can finesse twice and play the diamond ace to discard your club. Now, you have time to try the spade finesse/drop as well?

Can't think of a decent line. How about winning in hand and leading the ♣Q? East wins, gives West a heart ruff and you win the Diamond return in dummy. Ruff a low club to hand and play 2/3 rounds of trumps ending in dummy and cash ♣K. Hopefully the ♣J and ♣10 have fallen on the second and third rounds to set up the rest of the suit.

In my humble opinion, the only "blame" bid is 3NT. North knows South cannot be balanced. He does not know South's point count (in his opinion, likely 12-14) and does not know the diamond length. I'd bid 3♦ with the North hand. Non-forcing does not mean discouraging.

I'd bid 4♠ here. At MPs, I'd probably bid 3♠. Even if partner is 6-1 in the majors, playing in my suit normally make more tricks than playing partner's suit. And there is no guarantee partner has 6 cards in hearts.

I think the "bidding slowly" was to imply that there is no need to jump bid; and not related to speed of making a bid :)