CamHenry

How about two-way bids after a strong (minimum possible threshold for strong) 1♣? e.g.: 1♣ - I have a strong hand 1♥ - I have the A or K of ♥, but not both; I have both or neither in ♦. Opener rebids NT if we can't find a suit with AK in opposite hands, non-jump candidate suits (♠ and ♣ in this example) with exactly one of AK in that suit and neither in ♥, or bids a non-candidate suit if we've found a key suit. Why do we need a key? So we can encrypt subsequent bids! For example: 1♣ - 1♥ 2♥ agrees ♥ as the key suit, and shows hearts if holding the ♥K but denies hearts if holding the ♥A. You might then have the auction: [hv=pc=n&s=skq763hkqjt9dak6c&n=s8542hadqjt9c5432&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c(Strong)p1h(A%20or%20K%2C%20not%20both%3B%20both%20or%20neither%20in%20D)p2h(%21h%20and%20%21hK%2C%20or%20short%20%21h%20and%20%21hA)p2s(%21s%20if%20holding%20%21hA%2C%20short%20%21s%20otherwise)p4c(First-round%20control%20if%20holding%20%21hK%2C%20etc)p4h(First-round%20control%2C%20since%20holding%20the%20%21hA)p6sppp]266|200[/hv]

I notice that my results tend to be much better at MPs than at IMPs. From examining the swing deals, I find that: - I make light penalty doubles of partscores - I don't bid aggressive games very much - My defensive play is quite passive, most of the time I don't know how general this is! I do know that declarer play for overtricks is far more important at MPs; the reliable ability to find a chance for a defensive error makes me quite successful in a weak field.

Another hand type to consider is 4441, with a singleton in responder's suit. I don't know SAYC guidelines on which suit to open, but I tend to open the suit below a red singleton: so either 1♣-1♦-1♥ or 1♦-1♥-1♠ could very easily be a 4441 pattern.

If partner leads out of turn when you have AK, then declarer can force you to lead a different suit (and then, presumably, cash his 12 top tricks elsewhere).

Yes, sadly I didn't make 6NT+1 missing two aces.

He's right, though. I once ended up in 6NT on a similar layout, and I thought 11 tricks were at risk as well. I tried to lose the first ace, but it didn't work: I ended up with a singleton in dummy and none in hand, with just the ace out. I then switched and tried to lose the second ace, but that didn't appear either. Eventually they crashed together at trick 13.

Matt and I have, for a long time, played that a balancing double of 1NT is 11+. This sometimes means we miss out on a huge penalty when 4th seat has a 20-count, but I think it's a net positive especially at MPs.

Or, of course, you can play Prism Signals: http://prismsignals.com/PDFonline.pdf (I used to play these for a while; they're fun but ultimately of occasional benefit only. I remember playing them against an England international in a Swiss event, who promptly went into the tank for longer than usual, emerging with a complete read of our hand shapes).

But... when you collect enough masterpoints you get a free pen! (They usually last about a week before they break, in my experience)

On crashing the ♦AK: I remember playing in a knockout match in which our oppo bid, uncontested, to 7♦. I decided the odds of my singleton ♦A being a trick against any future contract were pretty good, so I (on lead) doubled. They didn't run, and at something like trick 3 declarer led a trump. Partner's king fell under my ace; dummy grumbled something about "You said we had all the keycards!" Declarer's reply? "I added one for extra length, and it looks like you did too!"

The EBU's National Grading Scheme works on a similar method (i.e. predicts the score you should expect, on average, playing MPs with an equal partner in a nationally-average field). It's expressed as a percentage. There is a paper on the mathematics of it somewhere under https://www.ebu.co.uk/ngs.

Possibly more interesting, but also significantly more complex (I think).

This might be an excellent idea for a round in a Director's Revenge event.

Assuming I can avoid a spade ruff, I have 4 trumps, ♦AK, ♠AKQ for 9 tricks; a ♣ ruff in dummy brings me to 10. I win the lead then immediately lose the ♣A; sure RHO may be able to overruff a ♣ with the K but if he does I then have 5 trump tricks. Supposing LHO plays a second diamond at trick 3; I win this one (pitching a ♣) and then ruff a ♦. If this is overruffed, I can safely take two club ruffs in dummy. I think this makes 11 tricks if the ♠ come in, losing just the ♥K and a ♣.

Even a good (not expert) player might be tempted to win the K from Kx...

Since this hand is apparently less interesting than I thought it was, I'll post what happened at the table. I won trick two, and immediately took the spade finesse. My LHO won and played another spade, in an attempt to prevent the club ruff. This picked up the spades for me, and meant I could cash all the diamonds for +1 and a top. If LHO had returned a heart, I ruff in hand, ruff a club, cross to hand with the ♦J and draw trumps and claim the diamonds. I think this line works when diamonds aren't 4-0 and trumps aren't 5-1.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt7h5dj6c98532&n=s98haq7dakqt854cj]133|200[/hv] In a frenzied effort to avoid 5m, and neither hand looking ideal for 3NT, you stumble into 4♠ by S. The auction is not a thing of beauty. LHO cashes the ♣A at trick 1, then switches to a heart. What's the best line here, given that (a) it's matchpoints and (b) the field will probably be in a diamond contract, half of them in partscore?

I'm aggressive enough that I'd probably double (penalties) with the E hand. Depending on opponents' runouts, I suspect we collect 500 from 2♥X, or play a club partscore. I can't see a way we'd bid the game.

I've not read the original, but the "update" is still very clearly written. The modernisation that I could see related to presentation of hand diagrams, etc., and possibly a couple of obsolete colloquialisms.

Pass and lead a spade, as partner may have the diamonds guarded. Of course, under "something more creative", I'm tempted by "pass and lead a diamond :)"

Hmm. Three in Cambridge, one in London (Young Chelsea), one in Aylesbury, one in Devon on holiday. Also the Owl in Amsterdam. All very different clubs: Cambridge BC is serious, quite a good standard, and forgiving of everything including bad manners. North Cambridge is a weaker field, but more serious about the game. University bridge club far less serious, far more variable, and occasionally hilarious: where else do you score 5HXX= for a bottom, when everyone else is in 4SX+3 the same way? Aylesbury is a weak field, friendly club; 5-card majors and a strong NT are a thrilling deviation from Acol. In Devon I played in the afternoon sessions; boards are hand-shuffled (badly) such that NS typically average 12+ HCP each. The strong players grab the NS seats early. Amsterdam was great fun - welcoming, forgiving of my complete lack of Dutch, and people laughed about good and bad results equally easily. The bridge club was easily the best part of a 6-month work trip.

I have heard of players who will discard high-low from hand to tell dummy there's nothing to worry about. Of course, some play reverse attitude in these situations ;)

I agree they're not that difficult! I think it's a bit of a blind spot.

The one time I agreed to play a Smolen-like convention, one of us forgot which way round the 5-3 was, and we played 6♠ on our 3-3 fit. It would have stood better chances without the 6-1 trump split!

Can you get her to play the strong twos non-forcing? :)