Walddk

I assume I'm in the balancing seat, so I'll bid 1NT (10-14) in any form of scoring. It's rarely right to let the opponents play at the 1-level. Roland

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sk83ha1094d74ck1084]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Matchpoints. You are South, East is dealer and passes and so do you. LHO opens 1NT, and your partner asks East about the range. "11-14" is the reply whereupon your partner passes. East does too and now you reopen with a double, all pass. The contract goes 2 down resulting in a very good score for NS. Please answer these questions: 1. Did you get unauthorized information? 2. If yes, did you take advantage of the UI? 3. Is it a clear double without the UI? 4. Is pass a logical alternative at this form of scoring? Roland

What a beautiful language. Almost as pretty as Danish :rolleyes: Happy Birthday! Roland

Agreed. If I had been the TD, I wouldn't have allowed a diamond lead ("worst possible result for the offending side" = 4♥+2). Roland

Let me introduce Bekkasin, used by the majority of Danish top players after 1MA-2NT: 3♣: Any minimum (one exception, see later). 3♦: Extras, no shortage. 3♥: Extras, singleton club. 3♠: Extras, singleton diamond. 3N: Extras, singleton other major. 4x: Void. Either minimum or very strong. Responder assumes minimum. With the strong hand responder will bid again. After 3♣ responder has the option of showing shortage (as above) or asking for shortage (3♦). Responses as above. 4 in the agreed major shows absolute minimum, whereas with no shortage but a good minimum one can cue bid at the 4-level below the trump suit. After 3♦ by opener, responder is obliged to show a shortage as above. With no shortage, responder will bid 4 of the agreed major with minimum or 4 in a suit below the trump suit as a cue bid. Roland

Although I agree with almost everything MikeH says, I am not entirely convinced that the hesitation made it demonstrably safer to bid. What Mike does not mention among his two points is the possibility that advancer might have been thinking of introducing diamonds, or even both minors. If he had diamonds, he discarded the idea after some thought, and that goes for both minors as well (4NT one would assume). Sometimes it's not that obvious to make a decision in tempo. But I do realise, of course, that by hesitating, then passing, you may prevent your partner from bidding. That's how it is at present, and one has to accept that. If one doesn't like the rules as they are, one's got to change them first. Roland

And you would feel sick if the bidding proceeds 4♥, double to you. Roland

Fair enough, so in which category do you place the West hand? It is neither! Not even for a leaping Michaels. Roland

I find this somewhat insulting considering that the person who bid 3♠ is a junior international. He did not play with his regular partner at the time, and as I said, I don't think they had an agreement regarding jumps over a weak 2. Anyway, it's beside the point. The point is: is he allowed to bid 4♠ next, so please answer that question instead. Let me add that on the Danish web site, http://www.netbridge.dk, there is far from a unanimous decision among 38 replies. The tendency goes towards "no, you can't bid, and blame it on partner, because he had nothing to think about". Finally, it could be nice to know how you define 2♠, 3♠ and 4♠ over a weak 2. Or do you also want me to raise that question in the BI forum? Roland

Before banning Drury in the UK they saw too many of this (I am told): Pass Pass 1♠ pass 2♣ and opener passed with a hand like x Qxx Jxxx KJ10xx Agreed, the psyche has now been revealed, but it is still much more difficult for the other side to get into a controlled auction, especially after responder has shown at least 3 spades (unless he psyched too). Roland

West thought he was too weak to overcall 2♠ and 4♠, so he settled for the compromise. East said that he tried to figure out what 3♠ was, hence the hesitation. I am not quite sure what to do with the West hand, by the way. 2♠, 3♠ and 4♠ are all strong to me. "You don't pre-empt over pre-empts". I don't think EW had a clear agreement about this. Roland

Why is that requirement necessary? It seems like it's there to cater to the Drury bid being a psyche, not the opening. It's a 2-way controlled psyche if you like and should therefore not be allowed. Responder can, without fear of getting too high, Drury with most any hand if opener is not allowed to jump to game. Roland

I am not suggesting anything. This was what happened at the table. Here is the full deal (rotated for convenience): [hv=d=s&v=n&n=s83hak6dqj98cakj4&w=skqj1095h10d7cq9532&e=s742h853da1064c876&s=sa6hqj9742dk532c10]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] South opened 2♥, 3♠ by West and 4♥ from North. Now, as MikeH rightly spotted, an agreed hesitation by East before passing. West bid 4♠, doubled by North for 300. The Tournament Director adjusted the score to 4♥+1 for NS, but the committee overruled, and back it was to 4♠X down 2. The committee: 1. Pass is not a logical alternative for West. 2. Bidding 4♠ is not demonstrably better after the hesitation, so it has not become more attractive for West to bid. What do I think? Wrong decision by the committee. Roland

It is a controlled psyche if: 1. Opener is not allowed to jump to game over Dury. 2. Responder is not allowed to bid on over a minimum by opener. Then nothing seriously bad can happen because you never go beyond the 2-level. Psyches that involve no risk are controlled psyches. Roland

The question was how to make all 13 tricks, Andreas. Roland

May I add that Nikos' site is outstanding. I go there a lot and I found many useful things. Worth while spending a few hours on. Great work Nikos! Roland

I do too. As far as I'm concerned you may show all the squeezes you like. My point is just that it's too early for beginners and intermediates to focus on squeezes that occur once in a blue moon and that are more than difficult to handle when they come up. Opener's and responder's rebids, however, come up all the time, so they are obviously much more important to master. I have been teaching bridge virtually every day for 35 years, so I know what's easy and difficult for various levels. Let me make a simple conclusion in this context: Nothing is too simple, but much is too difficult! Roland

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=skqj1095h10d7cq9532]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You are South, non vulnerable against vulnerable. East opens a weak 2♥, and you decide (whether you like it or not) that 3♠ is the proper bid. LHO raises to 4♥, and that comes back to you. Do you bid again? Roland

Christiansen played like that; exited with a diamond to Fantoni's king, and a heart came back. This was the position with 4 cards left: [hv=d=e&v=b&w=sj6h10d9c&e=s95haqdc]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Finesse or rise and exit with ♥Q? It was easy to see with all cards in view, but it didn't make it less spectatucar to watch when declarer rose and exited with ♥Q to South's king. Now the inevitable low spade came back and you are on a guess unless LHO has Q10. You know what was right when you see the full layout: [hv=d=e&v=b&n=sq43h9865dkq64c75&w=saj6h10dj1097cqj1083&e=s952haqj43da82cak&s=sk1087hk72d53c9642]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Søren Christiansen played low from hand, and ♠J became his 9th trick. 1 IMP away after Sementa made 10 tricks at the other table after the same lead (he let it ride). It was a joy to watch when Christiansen's line succeeded, and I think it was a good one. The Danes were 60 odd IMPs behind at the time, but that doesn't and should not prevent you from playing good bridge. I confess, ducking at trick 1 would have made life easy, but I think most expert players will agree that playing ♦A is correct. Roland

Good play Justin, but it's far from over. I assume that you didn't duck at trick 1 because you feared a spade switch that may result in a blocked club suit. So you win ♦A, unblock ♣AK and a lead a diamond to North's queen. Now comes the spade switch to South's king and your ace. Exactly what happened at the table with Søren Christiansen as declarer. So you cash your clubs, and then what? Roland

[hv=d=e&v=b&w=saj6h10dj1097cqj1083&e=s952haqj43da82cak]266|100|Scoring: IMP West: 3NT Lead: D4[/hv] This was perhaps the most exciting hand from the European Champions' Cup Final between Parioli Rome, Italy, and Schaltz, Denmark. It's from the final segment where the Italians were ahead by miles. However, the bridge was absolutely great till the end. As West you have arrived in 3NT after an artificial auction where East has shown 17-19 hcp with 5+ hearts, either balanced or unbalanced. You have told everyone about 6-9 hcp, not 4 spades, no 5-5 or 6-4 shape, and no 7-card suit. Your LHO is Fulvio Fantoni. After some consideration he leads ♦4. Plan the play please. It may not be as easy as it looks. Roland

We have had this discussion a few times before. I seem to belong to the minority when I say: no, I don't think squeezes belong in a forum for beginners and intermediates. As I have also pointed out on several occasions, I would be much happier if a beginner/improver could tell me what opener has shown on this auction: 1♥ - 1♠ 2♦ Shape, point range, inferences, etc. I usually only get half the truth or something completely wrong. Roland

Minimum or extras. If extras, I'd like him to show a shortage right away. If minimum, I'd like him to give me that info first (3♣ any minimum). Then I can always ask for shortage later if I'm strong enough. Roland

Legal yes. Psyches as well as silly bids are part of the game. Should they be allowed? Certainly, until you change the laws. Roland

Silly (I could find other less flattering words). Roland