lmilne

Reading Fluffy's thread made me think of this hand which I defended recently. I don't really know what I'm doing in these trump stack hands, so any advice would be great. Hopefully noone saw this on vugraph! [hv=d=s&v=e&n=st962hat53d85ck94&w=sakq7hj8dkjt4cqt7]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding: (Pass)-1NT-(Pass)-2♣-(2♦)-X-all pass. You lead the K♠ (asks for reverse count), 2-3-5. What now?

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sqj84h843dkq6ca32&s=s32hakt2da975c985]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] Bidding: 1♦-1♠-1NT-2NT. West leads the Q♣, which asks for reverse attitude. Apparentally they "signal with honours", but I don't really know what this means (maybe they unblock the jack in response?). You duck and East plays the 6. West continues with the K♣. Various continuations (hidden):

[hv=d=e&s=s6hakt9742da7ct95]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Bidding (you are West): Pass-(1♠)-2♥-(2♠)-3♥-(4♠)-? At what vulnerabilities would you consider bidding 5♥?

Yeah, this looks like a Vice variation (having just read that section in Kelsey's Strip Squeezes). One of those cool hands where dummy has no entry, no squeeze card and a dubious menace. You can get some pretty cool endings sometimes where dummy is close to useless and it seems like you are just cashing your winners, but dummy turns out to be surprisingly useful!

How about if the full hand is: [hv=n=s972hak3daj73ck32&w=s4hqt9dqt4caqj986&e=st853h765d8652c54&s=sakqj6hj842dk9ct7]399|300|[/hv] Now we can squeeze West in clubs and hearts (as opposed to reds or minors). But the line would need to be slightly different. We can still play one more round of trumps, but a fourth round messes things up. If this is the layout, we need to cash 3 rounds of diamonds first, so that the squeeze card (a trump) forces West to discard *before* North instead of after South. We also need our other trump to get back to hand. Cashing two rounds of hearts also doesn't work - we need a split menace in hearts (I think). Winning line is 3 rounds of diamonds immediately, ruff a diamond back to hand, then lead the last trump in this ending: [hv=n=s972hak3daj73ck32&w=s4hqt9dqt4caqj986&e=st853h765d8652c54&s=sakqj6hj842dk9ct7]399|300|[/hv] I'm still trying to work out what the best line is to cater for any possible two-card squeeze against West, perhaps someone could take a look? We don't really know yet which suits West guards alone.

For those who play some sort of system to show this hand after a 2NT auction, how would your auction go? In my regular partnerships it would be 2NT-3S (puppet to 3NT)-3NT-4NT (55+ in minors). After this, opener is supposed to evaluate his hand and bid 5m simple preference with a bad hand for the bidding, or 5M/NT (not exactly sure what these show!) with good hands. I guess the main advantage of this is that the strong balanced hand gets to make the decision, instead of the unbalanced hand having to guess (as here).

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=st65hkdaq653ca987&s=saqj842hat42d9ct4]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding: 1♠-(2♥)-4♥-4NT-5♥-6♠. Comments welcome re: bidding as well. Opening lead is 2♣, plan the play.

I would lead a small spade without much thought.

South 100%. To say that North can do any more is ridiculous. He/she is facing a simple overcall. I would probably open North's hand, but it's a bit thin and pass is pretty normal.

Just because its imps doesn't come remotely close to justifying a 2♠ opening with this hand :) 5♣ looks very normal to me.

Yeah, this looks like a splinter to me. I do like that so-called Garozzo gadget on some hands though - 1C-1H-2S being ~10-13, 5/6 has had a fair amount of success in my partnership. We certainly don't play 1C-1S-3H the same way though.

I was shown the system of 1m-2M being 8-11, 6 card suit a while ago, and instantly preferred it to the normal weak jump shift. It now frees up the 1m-1M-2m-3M sequences as natural, game-forcing instead of the normal invitational meaning. Also, jumping with 2-5 HCP seems kind of horrible on a lot of hands. I can understand the point of bidding 2S on KJTxxx xx xxx xx over 1C, but most hands in that range aren't this good. I'm not generally a big fan of preempting in a new suit after we open the bidding in general, so take that for what it's worth. Over 1m-2M, I like to play the same inquiry responses as over a weak 2 opening, as the ranges and handtypes are quite similar. For me, that means 1m-2H-2S is an artificial inquiry, as is 1m-2S-2NT. After that, we can find strength and shortage. Seems to be reasonably accurate. Hope this helps.

I think this is the best treatment vs bad bids by most players, but vs the very best players, you have to wonder what they are up to... they probably aren't making a terrible bid in a spot where you might think a bid is obviously terrible. In some situations they might be walking the dog in a situation you haven't come across. Don't think this counts though (the 'bad bidder' passed as dealer and then at first chance to overcall, I doubt he will turn up with 8 solid :ph34r:)

I agree with preempting in diamonds. The suit is enough for a 3-level preempt, but obviously the 5-card side suit adds a lot of playing strength. We could be cold for 6 opposite some wondrous passed hands, but I don't think the side suit is enough to upgrade 2 levels of preemption. I would open 4♦, 5 at favourable. Think 6♣ is the best bid on your opponents hand. Tricky though.

I do. My last three cards are the queen of spades, the queen of diamonds and the ten of clubs. Good work! First thing is lead the two rounds of trump - this is obvious. Second thing is harder - you have to avoid the trap of a ) leading back the third round of clubs at any point and b ) discarding your club at any point. If you do either of these, the club menace will be 'isolated', setting up some squeeze possibilities... [hv=d=e&v=e&n=sa6432h42d82c9854&w=sj98h8d9753caj762&e=sq75hak6dkq106ck103&s=sk10hqj109753daj4cq]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] At my table, East drew the two rounds of trumps, then erred by leading the third round of clubs, which I trumped. I cashed the A♦ then ran the trumps to get to this ending... [hv=d=e&v=e&n=sa6432h42d82c9854&w=sj98h8d9753caj762&e=sq75hak6dkq106ck103&s=sk10hqj109753daj4cq]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] ... for a sweet double squeeze - the carefully preserved 2♠ was the 13th trick. To make it even more of a shameless brag, East had opted to double the final contract. +530 :)

Assuming that declarer had seven hearts, I play back a diamond. Declarer has, at best, KJ QJ10xxxx A9x x. When declarer cashes all his hearts, I keep Q - Q 10, and partner keeps ♠10xx. Who guards the clubs?

If you do this, declarer will play a heart back to your King.

I saw this defensive problem last night playing matchpoints. I was South, and thought that this would certainly test many player's abilities. You are dealt this hand as East playing in a fairly weak pairs field, with a less experienced partner than you are used to. [hv=d=s&v=e&s=sq75hak6dkq106ck103]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] You hear the auction start (1♥)-pass-(pass). Your current partner has insisted upon 15-17 1NT in balancing seat over 1M - it might not be the best theoretical agreement, but it certainly works here. You bid 1NT. LHO jumps to 3♥, which is passed out (debatable, but I think I would've passed it out as well). Your partner leads the A♣, and this dummy comes down. [hv=d=s&v=e&n=sa6432h42d82c9854&e=sq75hak6dkq106ck103]266|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] The first trick goes A♣, 4♣, 3♣ (reverse attitude), Q♣. The second trick goes 7♣, 8♣, K♣, 3♥. Declarer now leads the 4♦ to the 3 (reverse count), 8, 10. Plan the defence.

You only need hearts for 5 tricks (+ 6 spades and 2 aces), so 7♠ is much superior. In my partnerships, partner would bid 6♥ over 5NT (if we had the same auction to that point) to show the heart King or both minor Kings. Either way, responder is probably happy. I think we would bid the spade grand slam.

I was assuming people were just trying to exploit their opponent's failure to pay attention. Trying the colour coup against someone with bad eyesight indeed is unethical (both in the bidge and the common sense of the word). Now we have to be judges of the eyesight of the opponents to be ethical? What do you think of the example I gave? It could also catch someone with good hearing who isn't paying very close attention. In most situations, my general thinking is that you should 'let the cards play' i.e. doing anything to unnerve your opponents outside the play of the cards would be unethical. That would obviously allow for calling for the top card from QJT9 or the bottom card depending on whether you wish RHO to cover, but would forbid calling for "the top heart" instead of simply "top" or "<name of card>", with the intention of decieving RHO into thinking the card will hold the trick. With the claiming example (should I play out the hand to fatigue my opponents over a long match - defence is hard work!) I think there is a Law which covers this, simply stating that when you can claim, you must claim. At least, one of my partners has pulled this out of the bag vs tough opponents who had no scruples in not claiming over a long match, simply asking them to claim the first time and calling the director (and time monitor if available) the second time.

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=s942hj92daj984caq&s=sathqt3dkt32ckj42]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Playing against high-level opponents, you bid this collection 1♦-3NT (this isn't a bidding problem). West leads the K♠ and you win the Ace. You lead the 2♦ to the 5, Ace and 6, unblock the top two clubs from dummy, then lead the J♦ back towards hand. East follows to this trick with the 7. Do you finesse or play for for the drop?

A reasonably authoritative source is "Defensive Signals" by Marshall Miles. He has some good suggestions for honor signals when following suit to partner, as well as what to play as second hand (which has rarely been discussed in literature). Firstly, it depends what your lead of an Ace means. You say you lead A from AK, whereas Miles decided that the old-fashioned style of King from AK was better (for various reasons stated in his book). Thus, he would not play the Q from QJx facing the lead of an Ace against a suit contract, as partner doesn't have the King and this could blow a trick. Anyway, lots of situations are covered in the book, as well as lots of other interesting topics (when cards are suit preference, when they are count, some general rules, as well as lots of good defensive problems using the methods he suggests). Give it a read!

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sxxxhakqtxxdtxxxc&s=sakxhxdakj9xxckxx]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] Bid to 7♦ on these cards, and then try out a similar hand: [hv=d=s&v=b&n=sxxxhakqtxxdtxxxc&s=sakxhxdakj9xxckxx]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] Would anyone get to 6♦, let alone 7, playing matchpoints?