CamHenry

Thanks for all the responses! The long-term goal in this partnership is to achieve a reliable 55% in a weak club field, or 50% in a decent club field. She's played one local Swiss pairs, and said that she'd play such things if I need a partner but wouldn't seek them out. I think the approach we'll go for is: - reverses are not necessarily stronger than minimum opening - she should try to notice when a reverse is made, though not to worry about it - jumps are strong We already have the agreement that new suits are forcing (with some exceptions), so at least we're OK there. (I very much like strong minor systems, but my wife does not want to play anything artificial except Stayman, strong 2C opening, and Blackwood. I suspect she'd partner a Portland Club player without too much difficulty).

I play relatively conservative preempts in second seat (one+ of the top 3, no side 4cM, no outside ace). Since I open 1X on dross, this doesn't cramp my style much :)

A hand with hearts that couldn't open. In more detail, I expect it to be: Lower than opening strength Too impure to preempt (e.g. Axxx/KJTxxx/xx/x, or xx/KQJxx/xx/xxxx) (especially since partner's first call was second in, RvW). I have enough to raise here: it will push opponents much more than passing, so my bid is 2♥.

Good afternoon all My wife does not like reverses. She has nothing against holding a strong hand; she just forgets that rebidding 2♠ after opening 1♥ is a reverse, for example. We've tried a number of ways to make this stick, and after our last session she flatly insisted that we're going to play that reverses don't show extra values. There are, as I understand it, two main reasons that a reverse usually does show extras: reducing the risk of getting too high on a semi-balanced 12-count facing a minimum response, and describing strong hands more accurately. There's not a lot we can do about the first of these (half the time her reverses don't show any extras anyway, for example), but what about the second? I'm looking for a simple, mostly natural, treatment that enables better handling of strong 2-suiters. We play our 2-level openings (except 2♣) as natural, strong but non-forcing. What would people suggest?

Which ones are you thinking of? The "can't stand each other at the bridge table, complete with name-calling" is one of the obvious stereotypes. In my marriage I'm by far the stronger player (I notice ahead of time which rebids will be a reverse, and I don't draw superfluous rounds of trumps one time in 3, and so on...), but we try to save lessons for after the session.

When I first read this thread, I'd wondered if the report was going to be "all men with the E hand chose to bid 5♥ here, where all the women doubled". That would at least have shown some gender correlation. The only conclusion we can reach from "all the players with the E hand (all female) chose to double" is something like "None of the women holding that hand was in a coma at the time."

I'm talking about an Acol 2 (2♦) here, not 2♣. 2♣ would indeed be a strange choice of call. As for the disclosure on the strong 2: we play them "Strong, non-forcing"; the given hand doesn't feel like a strong 2 to me, but it probably (technically) meets the agreed standards.

The hand meets the Rule of 25, so it's legal in the EBU to describe it as "strong". I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable describing it just as strong; I'd probably say something like "Strong, but could be based on extreme distribution as well as honours".

At the table, I chose the pragmatic 5♦ opening. We don't have enough agreements for me to ask about the relevant cards (though a specific ace-ask wouldn't have gone too far amiss). LHO doubled for takeout; this was left in. Partner came down with the perfect hand: Jxxx/-/JTxx/Qxxxx, and I rolled in an overtrick when I could ruff out the ♥A.

If you open 1♦: 1♦-2♦-3♦-4♠ ? If you open 1♥, I suspect LHO passes, partner bids 1♠, RHO passes.

Third in hand, unfavourable, you hold: [hv=pc=n&n=shkj832dakq9832ct]133|100[/hv] Two passes to you. Your call? System is Acol with strong but NF 2-openers.

I don't know - xxx is nice, yes, but xx is dangerous as well. If partner's got Qxx and you lead from xx, you pick up the suit when declarer otherwise needs to make a guess. As for the singleton lead, it's not going to cost on many layouts where partner has 4 cards (declarer would get most of them right or right-ish).

2♠ if I don't need a swing, 3♠ if I do. I have sympathy for 1♠, but wouldn't choose it.

Jxx is one of my least favourite trump holdings to lead from. If partner's got Qx, we give up his trump trick; if he's got Kx we gain nothing. It's only really viable if there's a good reason for a passive lead and there's nothing more passive to lead. As for the play at trick 1: if S has the length, he has both outstanding honours since N should cover from J, K, Jx, Kx or KJ. In that case you have to rely on an endplay, and stripping S of exit cards relies on a rather narrow distribution. Good points on both: if N covers trick 1, you're going to have to take the ♦ finesse early for an extra entry. As for the second point: if the ♦10 holds, I still haven't lost any tricks. I need to fall back on guessing ♣, but I'm in the right hand to take a finesse. Since N has shown up with the KJ of spades, I play S for the ♣A, and lead to the J.

#1: I give up the ♥ trick, ruff the ♥ return (unless they feel extra generous), then fail to notice Cyberyeti's line. I probably play a small ♠ towards dummy, planning to insert the nine (again playing for S to hold an honour, but losing the overtrick chance). #2: I double, though I don't like it. I then lead the ♦A. #3: This hand just got a lot better. Is 3♥ forcing? I think I like it even better if it's NF.

I expect S to have led from a singleton, as any other holding makes his lead dangerous at best. He therefore almost certainly doesn't have a full opening hand (given the lack of a TOX or overcall), meaning N should have some honours outside spades as well. I have 5♠ tricks if they're 4-1 with N, two ♥ honours, 3 ♦ tricks, and therefore I just need to establish the ♦, take ♠ finesses, and not lose control/3 tricks first. The risks are the ♦ finesse offside, then losing two ♣ tricks and a ♣ overruff. I cover the lead in case N feels like making an error, then lead dummy's top trump (and run it unless covered). If N does cover, I win in hand, unblock the ♥K, and cross the the ♦A. On the ♥A I pitch a ♣, coming to [hv=pc=n&w=s2ht964dtct3&e=sat4hdqj7ckj]266|100[/hv] I can now lead a trump for the third finesse, draw the last trump, and play the ♦7. Whatever the return, I'm OK: I've established 10 tricks, and if he plays a ♣ he takes the finesse for me. If I'm wrong and spades do split 3-2, or S has an honour, the situation is revealed early on. I can then adjust my line to play for a ♣ ruff in dummy.

I used to play 2♣ as "3+ clubs, in a 4441, 4450, 5431, 5530 or 4432 hand, 4-11 HCP". It worked well until oppo learned they should just double for penalties.

My own favourite clueless comment comes from a low table in a Swiss Pairs. Partner and I had found our level for the day, and were playing against a pair of LOLs. We play an artificial system: strong diamond, multi-way openings, reversed majors; basically anything the EBU would permit. We played six of the seven boards, handing them as many tops as they handed us (it was that kind of day), and then on board seven I held a non-descript balanced 10-count first in at favourable. I opened 1NT, announced as 9-11; everyone passed; partner puts down a non-descript 3-count and I managed two tricks for -250. One of them said to the other "I think we can make slam in spades" (true; it's about 75% and comes off). Her partner agreed, and offered an excuse for her lack of action on a 17-count: "I'm sorry partner, they blinded me with science!"

My wife did this once, early on. We'd bid 4♠ over their 4♥, and it was doubled. I wasn't that worried: I expected to go -2 at equal vul, at MPs. Unfortunately she then raised to 5♠, and when they doubled that (with a quizzical look), she put down the dummy with a comment of "I forgot they could double 5♠ as well". It's not a mistake she's made twice though!

That's a good reason my idea wouldn't work! In that case, I think X then 6♣. I'm a lot less happy about this.

On the first hand, what would 4♣ have meant? We play it as showing a strong hand and a solid (ish) suit, and that seems like a reasonable idea on this hand. The risk of finding 5♣ rather than 3NT is much less of a problem than it would be at MPs. On board 2, I'm reluctant to pass. I think X, provided partner knows my shape may not be ideal, is best - 5♦ is a close second.

... except when declaring grand slams.

If you take all 13 tricks, that's +450 against your vulnerable game: you should not pass out a gambling 3NT at these colours unless you can't make a contract. Here, it looks very much like you've got a contract making. I think sensible agreements are "double shows values" or "double shows majors". LHO will almost certainly pull this one, since even with QJxx/AQxx/Kxx/xx he doesn't know you haven't got 5 fast tricks, and that's all the unplaced values in his hand. You're then fairly well placed.

As an example, we'd consider AKxxxx/AKQ/xx/xx enough for a strong 2, but nowhere near enough for 2♣. Opposite a 4333 yarborough, or even a 2433, you expect to make your contract. We have fairly strict requirements about the suit concentration as well, preferring to open 2-suiters at the 1-level.

I agree - the unethical players are usually the middling-to-poor bracket (truly poor players don't know what extraneous information to convey; better players would usually rather win fairly). There was an old lady I encountered who would, as declarer's RHO, say very intently "you will remember I've bid hearts, won't you partner?" while LHO was selecting a lead. She used to donate enough MPs anyway that no-one really complained.