Quite welcome, TWP, and thank you for the compliment. Regards to your father.

Siegmund, you're quite right about I Fought the Law -- completely results oriented, not helpful at all. (I forgot about that one when I said they were all good.) Incidentally, my problem with Blackwood's Opening Leads is the same: at many stages the advice he's giving seems to be "If, seeing all four hands, it turns out that there is only one lead that will set the contract, make that lead." He probably includes more hands illustrating exceptions than general principles -- fine to point out that they're there, but not so good for teaching.

For anyone interested: the publications that have had the most effect on my thinking about bridge are:

• Watson's The Play of the Hand at Bridge, an ancient but very well-written tome that I reread several times -- when I finally realized I understood not only what was there, but what was left out, I knew I was a player;
• Right through the Pack, which brought home how fabulously complex this game can be;
• the law book, the absorbing of which led to my becoming an ACBL tournament director;
• a collection of essays by Jeff Rubens (compiled as The Useful Space Principle, or something like that), which got me thinking about system design, still the part of bridge I enjoy most;
• Klinger's Modern Losing Trick Count, which helped me start to realize that hand evaluation was a lot more than counting points;
• Woolsey's book on matchpoints, which helped me realize that solid bridge and the correct action in a given situation are often different animals;
• the Bird book on squeezes, followed by Kelsey's on the same subject, which helped me learn that I could be good at more than just bidding and theoretical matters;
• Bridge World, which keeps me thinking about bridge, sometimes quite deeply, after I have otherwise left the game behind, for now anyway.

twp,

You are correct,

atak rocks,

Hitch.

anyone read any of andrew robson's books? i like his column in the times and was tempted to buy one

I think this is by far the best bridge book ever. Sort of like "The Theory of Poker" for bridge, but by someone who can write.

Robson & Segal have written a wonderful book (from 1993) called "Partnership Bidding at Bridge" that deal mainly with contested auctions. I can't say enough great things about it; of particular relevance here, it stresses the importance of letting your partner know when you have a fit, which is why I think bidding 2 on Myrmidon's hand is so necessary.

Best of all, it's free AND downloadable, apparently with the authors' permission. I won't link directly, but I'll link to a site that links it, it's under the "More Stuff" section:

http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/

atakdog mentioned Klinger's Modern LTC - a very very influential book on my thinking, too. A lot of people don't seem to like it but I swear by it.

Watson is indeed very well written - and when I sell at local tournaments, I sell more copies of it per year than the other declarer play textbooks (Root, Kantar, 25 steps) put together.

Robson and Segal, on the other hand, make the David Sklansky and Max Hardy look like Shakespeare. That book - worshipped in Europe but virtually unknown in the US except via Internet word-of-mouth - has some interesting competitive bidding ideas (many I agree with, a few not) but I do believe it's the most incomprehensibly written bridge book I've ever read.

I have seen a book collection of Robson's Times columns, that looked pretty much like anybody else's bridge columns. Haven't seen anything else he has written.

On sixfour's hand...

Clear pass of 3C. Partner still doesn't have 6 points, but he ought to have a mittful of clubs. It's useful to remember, when you and partner both have a long suit, the weaker hand's suit should be trump. On this deal your SK HAK DA are worth tricks if clubs are trump but partner's CQJxxxx or whatever is worth nothing if diamonds are trump.

I wouldn't double 3S, if good opponents bid it. If you *do* find yourself defending 3S, cashing HK before you give partner his diamond ruff will help him get you back in to lead a third diamond, even if he's oblivious to signals.

Down 1 is possible - either the diamond ruff works and all 4 face cards take tricks, or a miracle occurs and diamonds are 3-1-3 around the table... but it's far from 100% that the SK is a winner, not overly likely that partner is going to win a high-card trick, and not likely at all that you can get two diamond ruffs.

I played this hand with my dad (we're playing SAYC). We're W/R, MPs.

A
K Q T 9
A Q 9 6 3
J T 3

My dad deals and opens 1.

How's my line if I'm playing SAYC?

Me: 2
Dad: 2
Me: 4NT
Dad: 5
Me: 5NT
Dad: 6 (shows 1, not necessarily K)
Me: 6

If I'm playing 2/1, after my partner responds 2, a jump to 4 signifies heart support and a bigger than normal (15+) hand right? Also, how does my bidding change (if any) at IMPs?

At any form of scoring, the big issue is that you care which aces and kings your partner has, not just how many.

Playing 2/1, I would bid 1-2-2-3 and expect partner to begin cuebidding: 4 from partner, 4from me, probably a 4 attempted signoff from partner, 4 from me, and now partner tells you whether it's the CK or DK he has. (If his only king is in spades, as you fear, at least you get to stop in five, though there is a risk that's already too high.)

Playing SA, you will run into an issue as to whether 3 is forcing or not. (I feel strongly it should be - but accidents happen with unfamiliar partners.)

The 4NT bid has flaws - potential 2 fast losers in clubs if partner has one ace, and not knowing which king - but if you're playing SA with an unfamiliar or beginner partner it may be the best you can do in practical terms.

That is a great hand for showing the value of better agreements. (BTW, playing standard I don't think you can risk 3H, which is better in theory, because you could get passed there, so there's not a lot more to do than what you did. If you know partner won't pass 3H, you need to bid that, not to help you get to slam but to leave a reasonable way to investigate the grand when partner has a partial fit for diamonds or really good spades.)

But playing 2/1, most play that a jump to 4H would deny slam interest, and you would bid 3H instead, leaving room for slam investigation. Now, with no slam interest and a terrible hand pard would bid 4H, but nearly every hand will find some other bid. Say he control-bids 4C, which is not bad but also not exactly what you want to hear (should show, as most in the US play, first- or second-round control, but could be shortness or high-card). You try 4D, then make another try (possibly Blackwood, but doesn't have to be) if he signs off.

If he bids 4D instead of 4C, that's good and bad -- good because his first control bid shouldn't be shortness when it's in your suit (so it's the king, and you have a ton of tricks), bad because he may or may not have club control (it's more important to show the diamond control, so many players would bypass it for their first control bid). I'd make another try with 4S -- now you're clearly asking for club control, and if he signs off in 5H you're not missing anything.

With even better agreements, partner bids 4H only with an absolutely horrible hand for slam, and control bids only with seriously good stuff; he uses 3NT to show a hand that will cooperate but not drive there himself. (Note 1: this is 3NT "non-serious" slam try; some players [e.g., Meckstroth and Rodwell] reverse it [to the original version] and control bid with the cooperative hands, while bidding 3NT with a serious slam try. Note 2: Even better is to use 3S as the artificial non-serious bid over heart agreement, and then use 3NT as a "replacement" control bid [i.e., showing a spade control] with serious slam interest.) I'd expect to hear a non-serious 3NT bid, you will bid 4D, Partner will probably bid 4S, and now if he passes over your 5H it is right, as there are two club losers. (With the actual hand he wouldn't -- he'd bid either 5S or 6D, and you'll know whether to bid seven.)

Another reason to use methods wherein the 3H bid is absolutely forcing is that it allows better ace-asking -- 4S should really be RKC kickback after heart agreement, but for most players 4NT will be RKC. Here, you know the queen of trump, but that could easily not have been the case.

Finally, there's no reason not to show specific kings in response to a king ask, if you're using kickback (where spades asks, when hearts are trump), and almost no reason if you're using 4NT/5NT blackwood. Another variation that I like is to show either the single king you have, or the single king you don't have (you'll never have three when partner is asking, and with none you bid six of the trump suit) - any partner making a grand slam try will know which it is, but the opponent on opening lead will usually not.

[I love bidding theory. I condensed all of Kantar's 170 page book on Blackwood into one and three-quarter pages, simplifying enough that my partner could remember it without losing any real value, and actually adding a little value in tiny spots -- oh, what fun. Yeah, I know: bridge geek.]

Easy question what does this bidding sequence show for dealer?

1H-Pass-Pass-1S-1NT

A hand that would have jumped to 2NT had partner responded. With a spade stopper, of course.

Stuck leading out of your hand, you will need more luck than you think to cough up 7 tricks with 19HCP opposite 2.

HA FCBL, I WAS RIGHT...

I was opposite 5 points, I made 4NT quite easily. Could of made 6 actually. Alright carry on...

is anyone playing at nabc?

What was partner's hand and what did you mess up?

My hand is

Kxx
AJ98x
KQ
AQx

Partner is

xx
QTx
xx
Kxxxxx

Lost the first spade. Won the second. Ran clubs, and played it safe and pitched hearts. Though in 3NT it might be best to pitch the diamonds, since you probably need the KH onside to make.

Yes.

I would like to see this if you still have it. My most regular partner and I are typing up a condensed (meaning like only 10-15 page, typeset in LaTeX) system agreement. We have extremely simple stuff going on in Blackwood auctions as of now.

Slightly off-topic ... what set of bridge macros do you use for your typesetting? Or do you just type it all out, with abbreviations for \spadesuit etc?

Nothing fancy. Pretty much just type it out. Abbreviations for suits at at bottom (but you know how to do that anyway, it seems). It's just a bunch of lists anyway. It's not a very comprehensive set of agreements, but it's a building block anyway.

More off-topic: does anyone else here play XYZ? We started recently, and I think it's an amazing convention.

\def\C{\ensuremath\clubsuit}
\def\D{\ensuremath{\diamondsuit}}
\def\H{\ensuremath{\heartsuit}}
\def\S{\ensuremath{\spadesuit}}

I don't get it. Partner has a very simple 2H answer over 1H. That should be 5-8 HCP, 3-card support. This is even a *good* 5-HCP hand.

wait, I think that was 2 card heart suit, it was QT though

I do, on a different computer. I'll try to dig them up next week.

I played this hand at a sectional this weekend. I'm in the 4th seat, we're vulnerable, they're not, MPs.

A 5
A 6 3
A 7 5 2
J T 6 3

There are three passes to me.

Am I being to nitty by passing out this hand?

My main reason is the lack of control of the major suits and lack of intermediates in the hand. Three aces (especially both major ones) is nice, and my partner's kings and queens are much better supported with them, but I feel (especially with our vulnerability) that the opponents can steal this contract away. It should also be noted that my partner tends to open fairly lightly from 2nd seat, so I'm pretty sure that he has 10 or fewer HCP and no long (5+) suit in his hand. Is this a bad play?

The archetypical standard rule here is "rule of 15": open if HCP+spades>=15.
By that count, it's an opening. However, I would pass this out too (well, actually I'd open a 12-14 1NT often, but I'd pass if I play SAYC or similar).
Not a nice hand at all, and basically just 3 tricks.