shyams

Yes, all humans occupy South seats and switch over when North is declarer.

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|~~M53265,~~M53267,shyams,~~M53266|st||md|2S57KAH247KADJQC5T%2CS48TJH8D46TC279QK%2CS39QH3TQD2KAC346J%2C|rh||ah|Board%208|sv|o|mb|p|mb|1C|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20!C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|p|mb|1H|an|One%20over%20one%20--%204%2B%20!H%3B%206%2B%20total%20points|mb|p|mb|1N|an|3-5%20!C%3B%202-4%20!D%3B%202-3%20!H%3B%202-3%20!S%3B%2012-14%20HCP%20|mb|p|mb|2S|an|Responder%20reverse%20--%205%2B%20!H%3B%204%2B%20!S%3B%2012%2B%20H|mb|p|mb|2N|an|3-5%20!C%3B%202-4%20!D%3B%202%20!H%3B%202-3%20!S%3B%2012-14%20HCP%3B%20forcing%20to%203N%20|mb|p|mb|3N|an|5%20!H%3B%204-5%20!S%3B%2013-20%20HCP|mb|p|mb|4C|an|5-%20!C%3B%202-4%20!D%3B%202%20!H%3B%202-3%20!S%3B%2012-14%20HCP%3B%20rebiddable%20!C%3B%20two%20stops%20in%20!C%20|mb|p|mb|6C|an|3%2B%20!C%3B%205%20!H%3B%204-5%20!S%3B%2020-%20HCP%3B%2020%2B%20total%20|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|S6| This was a "Robot Rebate 55%" game. I gave up when North hand was revealed. North's 4♣ bid makes absolutely no sense. Worse still, it does not match the explanation by a mile!

Megatron, and the rest of the Decepticons. Waiting for the thaw...

I guess I'll duck. If declarer is ♠x ♥KQJx ♦AQJxx ♣Axx, two finesses in diamonds are needed to make the contract and the ♥10 provides the second entry. Partner could show a ♥ feature by leading ♣10 at trick 3; partner chose ♣8 instead. For lack of anything better, I treat the ♣8 as a feature in ♦ and duck twice in ♥.

How about something like this? Defense: 0. Our usual structure applies when opps are vul, or when they open a non-vul 1C, 1M or 1NT 1. Over their NV pass (0-4 or 11-15): Meaning of our [over]calls are unchanged – except - a. NV vs NV, we expand our 1NT opening range to 5 points (i.e. 12-14 becomes 10-14; 15-17 becomes 13-17) - b. NV vs NV, 2M opening shows 5-6 card suits and intermediate point count (9-14) - c. NV vs NV, 3M openings are pre-empts, can be with 6 card suits The idea is to (i) create some ambiguity in responder’s mind as to whether opener is 0-4 or 11-15 AND (ii) make the FP side stick their neck out if they hold the balance of power. 2. Over their 1D fert opening, a possible suggested defence is: - a. X to show 15+ unbal (at least 2-suited) or 16-17 bal - b. 1M shows 4+ (usually 5+) denies 4-cards in other major but can have longer minor suit. Approx. opening values. - c. 1N shows both majors (at least 4-4) and 11-14 HCP. - d. 2m shows 6 card suits and 11-15 HCP - e. 2M shows 6 card suits and 11-15 HCP All hands b. thru e. have a good ODR (some judgement involved). With distributed values or defensive hands, choose f. - f. Pass shows any 0-10 hand, or a diamond suit or distributed values (11-14) It is possible to refine for NV vs NV 2M as 5 cards and 9-14 HCP 3. In the passout position - i.e. (1D) pass (pass) ?? – the system above applies except: - a. X shows 12+ unbal or 13-14 bal - b. 1M does not deny other Major - c. 1NT is 15-17 balanced - d. 2C is our big opener (even if you play strong club) - e. 2D is both majors (two suiter) - f. 2M shows 6 card suits and 11-15 HCP

This is a hypothetical situation based on a real (innocuous) deal from a few years ago. Face-to-face, no screens. Cross-IMPs. The bidding: [hv=d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1d3s(STOP%20used)d(after%2010%20sec)p5d(see%20below)ppp]133|100[/hv]South gingerly pulls out ONLY the 5♦ card from the bidding box and places it next to 1♦ card. South does not bother to put the Stop card on the table either. West passes without pause, North just waves a pass card (without putting it down) and East smoothly picks up his pass card from the table to "end" the auction. East wins trick 1, and returns the suit without too much thought. A few tricks later, South claims 11 tricks. East: "Plus 1" East (to West): "Guess I could have saved the overtrick" -- Concurrently North (to East): "No overtrick, just made" The next few sentences of dialogue reveals that East thought the contract was 4♦. East calls the Director and claims damage, stating: (a) South did not use the Stop card and (b) East was fooled by the absence of a stack of bidding cards in front of South. East claims South's actions misled him to believe the contract was 4♦. East is a strong player and there's a good chance he'd have found the switch that defeats 5♦; he claims he didn't bother because of the partscore situation (3NT looked a possible contract for NS). How do you rule? PS: When this actually occurred, 5♦ was unbeatable. Although East was irritated after he discovered the contract was 5♦ and not 4♦, his side gained ~1 IMP (many tables were in 3NT making 10 or 11 tricks).

I'd bid 5♦ - to show one key card. After 1♠ 4♦ (dbl); pass, I would probably take the cautious view and bid 4♠.

I bid 4♦. If the bidding continues, (4♥) pass (pass), I will double.

I'd have bid 4♥ at my first turn. Now I pass...

Ruff, draw trumps then play ♣K.

Continuation question, if I may. Let's say that instead of leading the ♥A face down, the OP says "My lead, right?" before putting the card face down. In essence it is a true & innocuous question, and I guess gets used often enough in club sessions. Here it may also have an added benefit of preventing OP's partner from doing what he/she did. Is that allowed?

Conspiracy!!! The European footballing authorities (through UEFA) were the most vocal in alleging corruption by FIFA. Blatter & Co found a way to punish us all!

Can I predict a possible (albeit unlikely) scenario? The draw is very favourable to the winners of Group G. 1. The winner plays Runners-Up from Group H (Belgium, Russia, S Korea, Algeria) in the Round of 16. It could easily be Russia. 2. The winner of (1.) will potentially face France, Nigeria or Switzerland in the Quarter Finals. Any of these teams could lose on their day. I bet USA to win their group and then go on to defeat the runner-up from Group H. It'll be quite something to see USA play France in the QF!

Get well soon, Ben.

I'm finding this discussion very useful (I chose 4♥ more from bravado than forethought). What if the 7-card suit was spades? i.e. JT98632 Q A954 2. What would be your choice of opening? Thanks...

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq53hkq6432dck6&n=sj976hat7dqcaqt92&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1c1h(psyche)]266|200[/hv] After West passes and North opens 1♣, East psyches a 1♥ overcall. Would your partnership be able to reach the cold grand slam after that? We lost 13 IMPs after only bidding to 6♠. Please feel free to comment. Note: Despite holding 12 ♦ cards, opps were silent for the rest of the auction.

So I pushed on the GIB button. I saw a bunch of "1s" and some equal signs. What is this telling me? The colour of the numbers matters as well -- red numbers are undertricks, green ones are overtricks, and green equal sign is "contract makes". The red "1s" indicate that if the card is played, the double dummy outcome is down 1.

Both inquiry and slothy made a useful point about winning the opening lead in South hand and immediately leading the ♦ singleton. That line is significantly superior in that it stops opponents from cashing a spade winner prematurely. The full hand is hidden below The "textbook situation" I alluded to was that North should play the ♥A right away to reduce the chance for opponent to unblock. On the actual layout, the contract was 100% assured once the second club was returned. Even an unblock does not help. Instead, if the layout was ... and declarer plays as shown (click NEXT all the way), East is much more likely to find the right play of chucking the ♥Q under North's ♥A. IMO, playing for one opponent to hold ♥KQx is worse because we don't have any intermediate cards in hearts. It may have been a legitimate option if dummy began with ♥J1085. Edit: The GIB button is a useful feature to show what works and what doesn't. I use it often to find what I did wrong!

I thought the club elimination followed by trump exit wasn't best -- I'm happy to be told it was a superior line. In any case, on this deal it didn't work. .

[hv=lin=pn||st||md|3S3589AH578JD9C45K%2C%2CS2467JH34AD5JKC9A|rh||ah|Board%201|sv|o|mb|1S|mb|p|mb|4S|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|CQ|pc|C4|pc|C6|pc|CA|pc|S2|pc|SK|pc|SA|pc|ST|pc|D9|pc|DA|pc|D5|pc|D7|pc|C2|pc|C9|pc|CT|pc|CK|]400|300|[/hv] I thought I'll share this instructive deal. The bidding was simple, and the play to the first four tricks is shown (Click NEXT to see the play so far). There are layouts where it is impossible to score 10 tricks. So my focus was 10 tricks whenever possible. What is my best line? What assumptions do we have to make? If it helps I couldn't decide if this should be posted in Int/Adv or here. I think adv or better will find it too easy. In our match, both tables scored 4♠-1 for a push. ADV/EXP, please hide your responses using "spoiler" option

Assuming all experts at the table, perhaps West should win and lead ♦Q at trick 4. An expert West is perfectly capable of leading an unsupported honor. And West can see the impending squeeze... I think South is more likely to play us for ♣K and baring it may not help.

You forgot to add the critical role played by our independent media in disseminating far & wide the legitimate outrage of the Ministries of Truth & Peace when the Ukrainians and Russians dared to tamper with the originally foreseen outcomes. We should applaud the media's fervent efforts to expose the brutalities of the Russians in Crimea. We should also applaud the media for their delicate volte face. When it became clear that our political ruling class magnanimously conceded the territory to Russia, the media took over the mantle of educating us all on how Crimea used to be a part of Russia right until Stalin handed it to Ukraine.

I expect declarer to play 4 rounds of clubs followed by 4 rounds of diamonds. In the five card ending, we need to ensure that It's how we go about convincing partner which is tricky. StevenG's post is spot on -- my partner and I would not have discussed detailed agreements for such situations.

Wouldn't it be better to

Trick 1: ♠A. If spades split kindly, I have 12 assured tricks and would be wasting too much mental effort for nothing. Therefore, Trick 2: ♠K -- which reveals the 5-1 split. In theory, a double squeeze can always be executed on this deal. The problem is deciding which suits are controlled by West. The complex technique is beautifully explained in Richard Pavlicek's article on Pure Squeezes (link here). The rest of the play goes... PS: The entire solution is based on the above article. I would never manage to replicate this at the table! PPS: Although this may be technically superior, imagine losing to East's ♣Q at trick 3 and then misreading the situation in the red suits!