Brian Davies
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
One further suggestion: if you are asking members what action they would take, it is often best to show just one hand rather than all four hands. Or two hands – yours and dummy. It is very difficult to be objective when you have seen the full deal.
Other methods will depend upon your system.
If you are using Windows, there is an App located under “Windows Accessories” called “Snipping Tool”. This allows you to take a screen shot of any particular part of your screen. So you can simply locate the hand in the hand viewer and take a screen shot. Alternatively, if the game is a club game you might be able to find the hand in Bridgewebs (or the “Play it again” feature) and take a screen shot of the hand without names.
If you want to edit the screen shot (e.g. hide the names), my version of Windows allows access to another utility “Snip & Sketch”.
I am sure that tablets and Apple machines have similar functionality, but I am not familiar with the mechanics.
This is one for me to learn too – I was the fool who suggested in the chat we should discard a “losing” diamond! 🙂
Law 71 allows for cancelling a concession of tricks through Law 79.C – Error in Score. This was my thinking that the two were comparable. Interesting anyway.
This seemed odd until I thought it through.
In face to face bridge, players frequently ask the director to check on and correct the score at another table. A player, sitting North, makes 4H+1 and enters the +450 score onto the traveller (or into the Bridgemate) then looks at the other scores and sees the same result at every table except one – which has been scored as -450, with the 4H contract scored in the East/West column. The director is called, who will check with the pairs involved before correcting the score.
And Angela’s example is another scoring error, since a trick cannot be lost by normal play.
Hi Bruce, Bernard has a difficult balance to strike and it is difficult to keep everyone interested all of the time. But there is a lot of material on the site at any time. I agree that as this Friday topic has developed, it has become more complex, but Bernard has suggested that each topic will start easy and grow to cover some more difficult ideas. Certainly there is much for newer player to learn in the topic of blockages.
The big seminar at the moment is dealing with ruffing for extra tricks. This is possibly the most basic topic that Bernard has covered in the big seminars and there is a lot of material in that seminar aimed at newer players. The Monday seminars have also covered this ruffing theme.
There is also the new novice bidding Quiz as well as the easier hand of the week and we are told that the new opportunities to play will include games with extra time, aimed at novices.
Overall, I think that Bernard keeps a difficult balance rather well.
I didn’t like any choice and it seemed that South held one, or likely both minors, meaning that a minor lead would be leading into strength. Qxx feels like a very unattractive lead so I elected to lead a spade. If I had watched Bernard’s latest Friday Live presentation, I might have chosen the jack (as mentioned by Brian Powell), but the match was the evening before and I chose to lead the ♠5. On best defence, the contract might go at least four-off after the leading the jack.
The full hand was:
We should still comfortably defeat the contract, but partner chose to play the two at trick one. That seems to be playing me for a four-card suit and declarer for an unlikely spade void – but from East’s perspective declarer might bidding 3NT as a punt, based on a running diamond suit, so I suppose a void is possible.
I would like to say that the defence improved after this start – but it didn’t and 3NT made, meaning that North’s outrageous overcall worked.
Anyway, great learning point on Friday Bernard. I will lead the jack next time!
If we bid every making slam, we will also bid a good few that are failing.
Charles’s auction is reasonable. North might try a 4S cue bid over 4H and this would persuade South to bring out the Blackwood. But it is a close choice.
Bridge players love their toys.
It would be an impossible task to try to document all bridge conventions. I have a book by Ron Klinger: Bridge Conventions, Defences and Countermeasures, which describes a large number of conventions. But it is a bit out of date now and there are many conventions that are not included. The only real answer is to insist that your opponents give full details of any artificial bids – not just the convention name. Ask follow-up questions to clarify if you haven’t understood.
For what it’s worth:
- 2 over 1 – A bidding system based on five-card majors, a strong no trump, two-over-one bids are forcing to game with a 1NT forcing response covering many hand which are not strong enouth to force to game. Played by BBO’s robots.
- Standard American – A bidding system based on five-card majors, a strong no trump, but usually less artificial than 2 over 1.
- Lucas 2s – 2H/S bid showing a weak two-suiter. May be the major + a minor. Some play it as the major + any other suit. This name is usually only found in the UK
- Muiderberg – Similar to Lucas 2s. This name is the more common name internationally.
- Lavinthal signals – Another name for MacKenney signals, where a suit preference is given: a low card asks for the lower ranking side-suit and a high card asks for the higher ranking side suit.
- Italian discards – This is usually intended to mean that an odd card encourages in the suit discarded and an even card discourages. There may be a suit preference inference on the even card with a ow card asks for the lower ranking side-suit and a high card asks for the higher ranking side suit.
- Bergen raises – a method of responding to a one-of-a-major opening, where a jump to 3 of a minor is artificial showing a raise of partner’s suit and some agreed strength.
- Multi 2D – a 2D opening showing multiple hand types. Usually a weak two in a major and one or more strong option (a strong balanced hand, a strong 4441 shape, a strong single-suited minor are possibilities).
- Drury – a way of raising a third (or fourth) seat opening that checks to make sure that it wasn’t very light. A 2C bid shows a maximum passed hand and support.
- Sheba – no idea!!
- Michaels – A two-suited over-call showing both major over a minor, or the other major and one of the minors over a major.
- Lebensohl – (A) a way to counter interference over our 1NT opening, that includes a 2NT relay (b) a way to respond to a take-out double of a weak two that includes a 2NT relay.
- Ghestem – A system of two-suited overcalls that uses a cue bid, 2NT and 3C to show the three sets of passible two-suits. There are multiple versions.
- inverted minors – over a minor-suit opening a raise to three is preemptive and raise to two is stronger (and forcing).
- Asptro – A defence against 1NT. 2C shows hearts and another, 2D shows spades and another. With both majors (5-4) you “anchor” to the four-card major
- Landy – A defence against 1NT. 2C shows 5-4 or longer in the majors.
Hi Bruce, this is far from a stupid query. It is an area where there are differences of opinion, partly depending on which side of the Atlantic you live.
Bernard discussed his methods on Stayman and Transfers over 1NT in his final charity You Tube videos (under the Library menu option). He discussed in detail in videos 34-39.
You need to distinguish between weak hands, invitational hands and game forcing hands. If you play Acol and hold a weak hand with 5-4 in the majors, you should use Stayman and pass a major suit response or bid the five-card suit over a 2D response and opener will pass. if you play this method (definitely recommended after a WEAK no trump), then you need to use a different method with stronger hands.
A transfer to spades, then a 3H bid shows five spades and four hearts and is forcing to game. A transfer to hearts then a 2S bid shows five hearts and four spades and is forcing for one round and will be appropriate for invitational or stronger hands. The awkward hand has five spades and four hearts with invitational values – this isn’t easy, but it is usually best to transfer to spades, then bid 2NT.
Things are different after a 2NT opening. Now you don’t usually want q way to escape on a weak hand. Now it is usual to use Stayman with 5-4 in the majors and a stronger hand because partner will not pass after 2NT-3C-3D-3H/S. (But things are different if you play five-card Stayman over 2NT).
Yes, the double promises 4-4 (or considerable extra strength). I was surprised that partner only bid bid 1S.
The full hand was:
Best defence defeats the contract by two tricks: ♣AK then a third high club (asking for a spade), ruffed with the ♦8. North underleads the ace of spades and a fourth club is ruffed with the ♦10 for the second undertrick. It’s a tough defence, but the clues are there: (1) Partner shows a doubleton club; (2) dummy’s highest trump is the 7; (3) Partner seems to be 4-4 in the majors for the bidding – meaning that declarer is void in hearts and has one spade.
My partner sat South and returned a spade at trick two. We can still defeat the contract if I return a play a second round of clubs, but I foolishly played a second round of spades and declarer was able to wrap up 10 tricks. Not our finest defence. 🙁
