lmilne

Axx x - KQTxxxxxx They open 1H on your right. All vul, imps. Your bid?

I must say when I saw this hand I didn't even consider double. We are vulnerable versus not and you are willing to take the chance of +300 or +500? We have a vulnerable game on ice and fair play for a vulnerable slam! I also think that we if we have +800 against 4♥ (giving them little more than 6 heart tricks, so we take every trick in side suits) we are highly likely to have +1430 in spades. I don't know whether it's best to go low with 4♠, invite with 5♥, or keycard, but I sure as hell ain't doubling. I really don't get it.

Not sure if this belongs here or Simple Rulings - tell me what you think. West opens 1♠, North passes, East raises to 3♠ (alerted and explained as weak/preemptive) with ♠Kxxxx ♥xx ♦Qxxx ♣xx. South overcalls 4♥ and West, after a decent pause for thought, doubles (EW have no special agreement on the double but it isn't for takeout). East ripped it to 4♠ which worked better than passing would have. NS call you to the table and suggest that the 4♠ bid might have been suggested by the break in tempo before the double. No dispute on the BIT. Your ruling?

Ruffing and giving up your trump trick by playing ♦Ace, Queen is indeed the correct defence on the hand. Full hand here: NSWBA Declarer has misplayed the hand - all fine up to now except that they needed to ruff the heart with the ♦ 9 or 7 to get out for one down! Any other card is down two. Partner has ♣KQ as well as the beautiful ♣7 so down 2 is routine after ruffing and returning the Ace, Queen of diamonds. Partner didn't get the hand right (cashed the other top club when the Jack was played around) so it was only down one at the table. Thought this was a great example of getting the tricks back that we "lose" by giving up our trump trick!

Swiss Pairs, IMP scoring. You will not agree with all the actions taken up to the decision point. [hv=pc=n&w=sak8654h95daq6c92&n=sqt97hat764dj82c8&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1sp1n(semi-forcing)2d2s3d3s4cp4dppdppp]266|200[/hv] Based on several factors, including the tempo of the auction and partner's known conservative streak, you double the final contract. Expecting declarer to have spade shortage, and not seeing any obvious source of discards for a possible singleton spade (while holding trump control), you lead the ♥9. Declarer wins the ♥King, cashes the ♥Queen, cashes the ♣Ace, and ruffs a club in the dummy. Now comes the ♥Ace, declarer pitching the deuce of spades. Plan the defence.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq2hk754d93cj76&w=sjt854ht8dqt76c82&n=s73haj962dj84caq5&e=s96hq3dak52ckt943]399|300[/hv] South declares 4♥. On a club lead, he plays the Ace and revokes, discarding a small diamond. He draws two rounds of trumps ending in dummy, plays a low club towards his Jack, East playing low (believing that declarer will ruff), scores the Jack, and proceeds to discard the ♣Queen on the third round of spades. The defense make just one trick, a diamond. Law 64A2 gives the defense one trick, clearly inadequate for the damage suffered (declarer will be very stretched to make more than 10 tricks by normal play). The relevant law here is 64C: "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." What does equity mean here? Do we adjust the score to 4♥ making 10, the normal result without the revoke? Or do we punish declarer and assign one down, or something else?

Thanks for the reply. You're right about that, the way I got better at poker was always by discussing hands with top dogs and getting called an idiot! I agree that this is probably the best way to get better. The problem is that it requires playing lots of national tournaments together which is tough for us. Anyway, to sum up, you would suggest: Playing together, then discussing all the carding, as well as discussing tough bidding spots with top players Practising competitive bidding and getting more agreements in that area (perhaps with worksheets or against robots?) Try to improve our judgement by discussing partnership style together as well as looking at things with other experts. Seem about right?

My teammate in the trials (Michael Courtney) had a very similar hand like this where he got the chance to make a Lightner double of a slam with the off-side King to win a big swing: full hand

Has anyone done anything like what I'm talking about - a regimented practice routine? It's remarkable to me that the only famous example of people putting in hard yards practicing bridge is the Aces! Surely there are others?

The hand that prompted this discussion would make a good hand for a bidding challenge. Facing the posted hand was ♠ Axx ♥ AQJxx ♦ x ♣ Axxx. My partner and I bid 1♦-1♥; 2♦-2♠ (art GF); 3♦-3NT; pass. My partner (Andy Hung, an expert who has been on several winning teams with me) was in agreement with several of the posters here that his hand was excellent for slam once partner has shown some gas, but it wasn't entirely clear what my intentions were in this sequence so he passed 3NT. Interesting to consider what a raise to 4NT would be by this supposedly limited hand! I think I'm in agreement with Andy here, the hand isn't good enough for 3♦ (missing the ♦Ace we will just go off way too often when pard bids 3NT) but it's obviously a sensational hand once partner turns up with a good hand. Interested in hearing some other auctions that get closer to bidding the lay-down slam. I found it very interesting how the value of this hand changed once partner pipes up about owning a few of those controls we're missing... BTW opening 1NT is filthy :D

Hi folks - I've been tasked with creating an individual practice schedule for my expert partner, as well as checking in with them each week to see how they're going. We are playing the Bermuda Bowl together this year for Australia, so we want to be in the best possible form going into the event. I'm a professional player, so I get a lot of regular play, but playing together regularly isn't really an option aside from national events. So, he's decided that individual practice/training is the best way for him to keep on top of the game. What sort of things do you think we should put in the weekly training schedule? Reading, Bridge Master, play vs robots, Kit's Korner - others? Has anyone done something like this before? How would you set things up if you were doing this? :)

Thanks for replies to far. Are there many current top pairs who play this "2-3 double" after 1M X XX? Some have suggested Italians. Side note: what is standard for how high the auction is forcing, how high a new suit by responder is forcing, and what to adopt after they pre-empt over the redouble?

At the moment, I'm doing some work on my partnership's doubling notes. I was thinking about two common auctions: (1NT) Dbl (2X) and 1M (Dbl) Rdbl (2X). a) Are there accepted guidelines for what to double with and what to pass with, from both the hand sitting over their trump suit and the hand sitting under it? I'm particularly interested in penalising them profitably when our trumps are 3-3, and avoiding a wrong penalization when our trumps are 4-1. b) Does it matter whether you play penalty doubles or takeout doubles after the first (initiating) action? It is very common to play next double is takeout in the first auction and penalties in the second auction - how does this change things? I'm not great with the search function on these forums so apologies if this topic has been discussed before! Very interested to hear what you have to say.

So far I'm 50/50 with the top players in my country, with two players whose names you would recognize taking opposite sides. Would love to hear your thoughts (and which side you take).

[hv=pc=n&s=skqh53dkqjt542ck5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1hp]133|200[/hv] Two or three? What is the smallest change you would have to make to the hand to change you into the other category?

I always enjoy these threads where relatively undiscussed areas of bidding end up in discussion. Particularly situations like this where people have an assumed "standard" which often ends up not being the case! For me, 1NT is positive and 2♠ is therefore forcing (and unlimited). This applies even more so in my partnerships where we have overcalled hands up to 18-counts or so, so double and rebid is a pretty serious show of strength. As to the hand - 2NT. It just feels right. Easy to construct hands where 4♠ is down and 3NT makes, and with our 10♦ the opposite situation is much harder to imagine. A side benefit is that 2NT should discourage partner from spade slams compared to 3♠. edit: just re-read the post. Pass is IMO misguided. We don't mind playing a 23-point game with opener on lead, a good stopper, and knowing where the points are. This isn't the time to go low.

Lol I just wanted to see what people thought! Don't try to guess my motives, the hand opposite was the strongest hand I've ever seen at the table so no one was going for a number: ♠A ♥- ♦AKQTxx ♣AK98xx Bidding 4♥ might make it marginally harder to get to 7♣, after passing the strong hand can bid 4NT, the posted hand chose to bid 6♣ and obviously the other hand raised. Over a 4♥ overcall, the responding hand could bid 5NT pick a slam and then raise, but not every pair has discussed 5NT in this spot.

This problem seems to divide people. [hv=pc=n&n=s8hakqt73d75cqt52&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=3s]133|200[/hv]

Everyone is discussing what North is allowed to do after South passes, whether it is AI, etc. I know which side of that I stand on - partner has clearly forgotten our agreement, and we can do whatever we feel is best, which might include bidding 4♥ here. But I don't think that is the key point at all. What was the NS agreement? Assuming their agreement was Bergen: If West had known that 3♦ was a Bergen raise, and South had passed, West might well have passed as well. As others have commented, there is no hand where South can logically pass 3♦, and therefore he has forgotten the agreement. West might well play for the opponents having had a screw-up and defend 3♦. He was never allowed that opportunity because of the mis-information. This argument would be a lot easier to make if the West hand wasn't so strong. If West held something like ♠AJxxxx ♥x ♦Ax ♣ KQxx and was bidding over 3♦ on the expectation that 3♦ was natural and EW might have a good black-suit fit, I think the ruling would be clear: 3♦ some number off. On the hand, West may well bid even suspecting the NS have had a miscommunication, as 4♠ doesn't require much to make. I still think he should get the chance to defend 3♦, however. If their agreement was NOT Bergen, but something else e.g. natural: No adjustment - clear-cut, IMO.

No special agreement - definitely not forcing!

[hv=pc=n&s=skq6hk9852da54ct5&w=s984htd9862cj8432&n=sa72h6dkqjt3ckq96&e=sjt53haqj743d7ca7&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d1h1npp(hesitation)2h3nppp]399|300[/hv] The auction speaks for itself, I believe. 3NT makes in comfort. Thoughts?

Those look fantastic - thank you

Hi - I've used Marshall Miles' excellent 1995 "Defensive Signals" in the past, which has an in-depth discussion on leads, signals, midgame inferences, and other defensive agreements like which card to play when splitting honors and when to false-card partner. What other books can people recommend along these lines? Prefer books focussed more on agreements rather than simply attitude signals. My partner and I are experts and are looking to firm up our defensive agreements, so no beginner books please.

Thanks - exactly what I wanted.

I'm sure this has been answered before, but... The auction is over, EW are playing spades, and West has bid spades first. South asks whose lead it is and both East and West agree that it is South's (when it is actually North's). South leads and North points out that perhaps they shouldn't have. Should this simply be treated as a lead out of turn or are there other considerations? If it is simply a lead out of turn, doesn't this open the door to gamesmanship?