CamHenry

Even in 4th seat I'm opening 1♥. Give partner the ♦A (to however many) and three trumps, and 6♥ looks good. I've only got 13HCP, so partner's marked with at least 5 (or one of the oppo can bid something). The fact that it's MPs makes 4♥ more attractive, particularly in a weak field, but I still like looking for the better slam: if partner has Axxx/void/Axxx/xxxxx, 7♦ looks good and 7♥ is almost no-play (even 6♥ could go down), while xxxx/xxx/Qxx/xxx is enough for game in either red. I'm not convincing myself here - I just feel 1♥ is better.

I think there's actually an advantage to getting into the auction a lot in 3rd seat. Partner and I play light openings 1/2 NV, including a 9-11 NT. That means the maximum we can hold as a passed hand NV is balanced 8 (or a particularly vile balanced 9, e.g. QJ/QJ/Jxxx/Qxxxx), so opening a 9-15 NT means we won't miss game, we can play pure weak takeouts, and oppo never know if we're playing 7 facing 15 or 2 facing 9 (more-or-less). Sure, we occasionally go for 800 or more on a partscore board, but if oppo have 14 facing 11 you'd be surprised how often we go -100 against -120, or -150 against -400/-600, etc. Caveat is that we play mostly MPs, and frequently in weak-to-middling fields, so I'm not convinced this approach would be as big a winner against expert oppo.

At MPs I think playing for the overtricks is likely to matter. I suspect trumps are breaking OK given the play to trick 1 (RHO should play small from Jxxx or J9xx), so my line is: Win trick 1 ♦A ♦ ruff ♠A ♥K At this stage I know whether trumps are breaking. There's also a chance the ♦K dropped doubleton. If trumps are 3-2, I can lead a high ♦. If LHO follows I ruff with the 8 (assuming the 9's shown up). I then play ♥A pitching a ♣, ♣A, ♣ ruff, draw the last trump and ♦ winners for 13. If LHO shows out on the third round of ♦, without ruffing, I duck this trick to RHO's K (pitching a ♣). If he returns a ♦, I play high, then keep leading ♦ until LHO ruffs in, and I have trump control and ♦ winners for 11 (or 12 if the ♦9 is doubleton). If RHO returns a small ♥/♣, I let it run to dummy. I then have to read LHO's return, but I'm still looking good for 10 tricks. If trumps are 4-1, I find out having ruffed one ♦ and played 2 rounds of trumps, one of ♥, one of ♦. At this stage I run the ♣J, hoping to set up 2 tricks there.

Sure it's rub of the green, and both sets of oppo were perfectly ethical about it: in fact, I'd have preferred it if oppo #1 had said something like "I'm glad my dubious preempt worked", simply because it acknowledges some idea of good bridge. It turned out our bad result on #1 was because partner made a light balancing TOX (shapely 10-count), and LHO had the cards to double my 4♣ bid. I misplayed it because I didn't have the imagination to visualise the RHO hand. At most other tables the contract was 3♦ passed out...

"I had to bid 7NT, partner, I had a 0-count."

Please tell me these are one step per HCP :)

Last week we didn't do too badly, but two hands gave us outright zeros. On each of them, my RHO did something I would not have considered usual on the cards. Hand 1: [hv=pc=n&s=s74hak42dqjt5432c]133|100[/hv] As dealer, none vul, RHO opened this hand. Not an unrealistic idea, you might say - there's a perfectly sound 2♦ rebid, or I can raise partner's ♥ suit. However, the character in question decided that this was a perfect 3♦ opening. Hand 2: [hv=pc=n&s=sa9865hak8765dac7]133|100[/hv] On this hand, none vul, my partner dealt and opened 1♣ (at least 2; fairly simple 5-card-majors system). This hand doubled to show "at least an opening hand", and neither partner nor I expected this when she was silent throughout. Ah well. It was good to get a game in between work and sleep.

Edited to give a full dummy, not a forum hand :-)

I have a horrible suspicion that this particular gentleman would respond with "Eh? What?" and miss the message.

At the club last night, I picked up an uninspiring 4-4-3-2 3-count as dealer. After three passes, RHO opened a (slightly slow, but not very) 1♦; this was passed out. RHO is not a player known for her confident and decisive tempo, even when holding textbook hands, so I didn't think anything of the glitch: indeed, it barely registered. Dummy struck with: [hv=pc=n&n=sa32h65dat654c843]133|100[/hv] I was slightly surprised that he hadn't bid, but was not overly worried at the time. Declarer proceeded to make the obvious 11 tricks, and the score went into the traveller. It was a cold top for us, because everyone else makes the same 11 tricks in 3NT. Next board? Not so. There's a post-mortem to hold first. Declarer kicked matters off by saying "That's a bad board for us. We missed a game!" in tones of mild surprise, as if her 19-count 4333 wasn't likely to produce the goods opposite this dummy. Dummy responded with an apology, and I quote: "I'm sorry partner, I misinterpreted your hesitation." As a player, not a director, who has obviously gained from the infraction, what should I do: - at a club night - in a match played privately - at a congress?

Important considerations when playing Landy: - could it be 5-4 majors (either way around), or is it always 5-5? - if they could be different lengths, how does advancer (overcaller's partner) ask which is better? - what strength could it be? What's the minimum (so advancer can judge penalty risk) and maximum (so advancer knows when to defend)? - what do advances mean? Some number of hearts/spades should almost always be to play; you want to know whether any ♦ or ♣ bids are natural or not. I agree that it's probably the best method to start with (and one of the best to continue with) against any strength of no-trump.

Difficult. A strong 2 typically promises "A hand of power and quality", and I'd normally expect a bit more by way of defensive values than this!

Who bids first? I think 6NT needs the club split, while 6♣ is pretty good especially played by N. It's harder by S on a spade lead, as you then need to guess whether to play for K onside or the club break. My auction may well be 1♦-2♣ 2♥-3♣ 3NT - end At least that one's a guaranteed plus score...

This is Acol, so a 2♦ rebid would be non-forcing and could be on KTxxx/AQ/KJxx/xx. Forcing rebids would be 3♠ (unless playing with a beginner or life novice), 3♦, 4♥ (if it's a splinter - is it?) I like 5♠ if I think partner's (a) going to understand and (b) not holding AQ/KQJx/xx/KQJxx, at which stage 7 anything looks... tricky.

Since I have a good method to show a minor two-suiter and then clarify it after a strong minor opening, I'm going for 1♣. I know I have less of merit in the majors than I might, but I *do* have two quick tricks for defence, and I think that's enough to counterbalance. Diamond spots are better than nothing as well.

I considered this plan, but discarded it when I realised that it relies on playing the ♣K twice: you've won the ♣A at trick 1, you're proposing winning a ♣ at trick 3, and then leading a high ♣ at trick 9 as well.

"My deck goes up to 11!" "Yes, but why don't you just make the T more useful?" ... "These go up to 11."

I'm with Cyberyeti on this one. On the other hand, I quite like weak 1NT with 4-card majors: the advantage there is that you always have either extra strength (e.g. 15+) or extra shape (5-4, or sometimes 4-4-4-1) to open a suit. It seems to me that playing 5-card majors loses a significant advantage of the weak NT.

Another facet of the personality test might be whether you follow my example of "Here's 3+2+1+5 tricks, that's enough, right?". ;)

I expect the ♠K to be onside on the auction! To deal with the ♥ losers, I can either: - throw one on a spade and ruff one - throw one on a spade and one on a ♣ - ruff two - try to ditch all three, somehow, and concede a trump W is either 5=5=2=1 (most likely) or 5=5=1=2. I also assume E has the ♣Q. I'm tempted to win the lead, play ♦A then finesse the J, ♣9 to E. I then run the ♠Q, scoring 3♣, 2♠, ♥A and 5 trumps. Losing positions: W holds ♦Qx; E holds ♠K; E holds ♦QTxx. I can't see anything more sophisticated.

I need multiple finesses onside; the potential source of tricks that needs the least additional luck is ♦. I'm therefore with hanoi5, though the ♥ duplication is the real problem here. Also, what was 5NT? Asking for kings? Why? Did N think that the perfect 19-count opposite (A, 4Ks, ♥QJ) was going to provide enough for 7?

If I need a swing, I'm opening 2♠ - it gets the right lead, and takes up room. If the match is even, or we're leading, I'm passing: there's no point provoking something like 2S-3N-X-XX making 11 tricks.

If your takeout could be "absurdly light", your partner would probably have passed with some values and/or distribution. However, RHO is promising something like 5 spades (because he opened them and rebid NT), 1-2 hearts (because he didn't raise or pass), and therefore 6-7 cards in the minors. LHO probably has 0-2 spades (because he didn't raise), 5+ hearts (to bid 2♥), and around 6 cards in the minors. This looks like partner's 3-4-3-3 or 3-4-4-2, neither of which looks great. Now let's consider HCP - RHO probably has 12+ to open, since he's rebid NT. He should have a bit more, since he's bid after his partner's 2♥ - which is non-forcing from a passed hand, of course. LHO should have some values to bid at the 2-level in a non-forcing situation; give him an absolute minimum of 8 HCP. That leaves partner with a J at most. If you're declaring it's going to be messy, and you'll probably be doubled. You therefore want to defend. As Bill suggests, passing here gets you to defend, and therefore has something to recommend it. What if you double? Your double could be "Extra values, no clear suit" - like the hand you have. It could be "Pure penalties - don't pull this one, partner": but are you sure enough to risk it? My concern with doubling is twofold: one, it tells your opponents where the honours are and makes the declarer play easier. Two, partner may well pull from a failing 2NT into a failing contract your way. If they get carried away and end up in game, anywhere, I'm quite tempted to double. Against 2NT, I'm leading the ♣A - I want to see dummy, and this prepares a safe exit for me if necessary. I think the big thing on this hand will be to kill declarer's entries to his hand, which are likely to be in the minors, as I probably have a double ♥ stop and he therefore can't run dummy's suit.

For me, X here shows values, some diamonds, and a willingness to sit a penalty double. If you give me a little more (e.g. the ♦K) then I've got enough for this. That way, if it comes 2♥-P-P back to me, I know partner has clubs - so I can then compete. Without this agreement, I bid 2♠ and hope partner's not bid on 4=5 majors.

Oops, missed that detail! In which case I think spade A,K,ruff is best unless you play for a defensive error.