First, the auction (copy and paste the entire link):


https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|kenberg,~Mwest,~Mnorth,~Meast|md|2S6HAK83DKQCAKJ853,,SKJ75HQ52DAJ84C97, |sv|b|rh||ah|Board%204|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|mb|1C|an|Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20!C;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|1S|an|One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20!S;%2011-%20HCP;%206-12%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|2H|an|Opener%20reverse%20--%205+%20!C;%204+%20!H;%203-%20!S;%2021-%20HCP;%2018-22%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|4N|an|Quantitative%20invite%20to%206NT%20--%2011-12%20HCP|mb|P|mb|6N|an|5+%20!C;%204+%20!H;%203-%20!S;%2021%20HCP;%2022%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|

Note that 4NT is a natural invit. I assume that this os because the bots play Leb over a reverse, so that if N wanted to launch rkc in hearts he could first bid 3H to set trump. If he could have set hearts (or clubs)  as trump but didn't, then 4NT is natural.


Should I accept? Well, maybe not. But I have a sixth club and a 20 count, that seems like extras, so I accepted.


Now I have to play it (The software shifts me to the N slot).


T1: 6,K34
T2: A, 2,7,Q

Uh huh. Well, not hopeless. Actually not at all hopeless.  I'll insert a few blanks spades before inserting the play at T3.










K.4,9,6

Clever little bot!
Q from Q6, not from stiff Q.
Play the card you are known to hold, or soon will be known to hold.
I am editing this in mid-March and can no longer recall whether his ploy worked.

Hi,

In Jack's session yesterday I was dealt xx / AQTxx / x / Axxxx.
I'm not big on the rule of n, whatever the number n is for whatever the situation, but all the points are in my two suits and I do have the T, or at least I think I did (I  did not save the hands).

So, rightly or wrongly, I opened 1 :

1 - Pass - 1 - 2
Pass - Pass - 3 - Pass
?

I bid 3 but commented later that I think that this was a mistake. It's true that I barely had an opener and considered passing, but I have already  passed over 2 and now partner wants to hear more from me. By passing 2 I have denied holding three spades, so I think I  should now  just bite the bullet and bid 3 .  We can argue about whether I should have opened the hand but I did open it and my hand has not gotten worse. In fact, with the stiff , it has gotten a little better. I have two spades, partner has asked for a further description, I think that I should just bid 3 .

Neither 4 nor 4 should make, but I think 4 has a better chance.

Note: It seems to me that hands from the lesson sessions are often worthy of further discussion, but that does not much happen. Your thoughts?

Donna had some lesson hands to day. One would have been easier in the old days.

I do not recall vul or form of scoring but I don't think it matters. Suppose you are dealt a 3=3=3=4 hand with an 18 count. Your partner opens 1 and you rho passes. You so what?

In the old days referred to above, you bid 2NT. This showed a balanced hand, not passable. far more often than not, partner will raise to 3NT. Then you can bid 4NT, showing this strength. Or, since you have four clubs, you could bid a natural 4 , after which opener can sign off in 4NT or start cueing to see if a slam might be there. With a 14 count and a bit of shape, 6 might be a fine contract. If the flat 18 seems a little light for this wait for 19 or a good 18, with some tens, say.

Ok, in modern times this plan is out since 1 - 2NT is passable. So now what?

It seems to me that 1 -2 would be fine in preparation  for a 4 NT bid at responder's. Yes, partner will think you have five clubs when you bid 2 but he could rethink that when you rebid 4NT. And even if he does not rethink that, he is not going to pursue a club slam if he started with three cards, and the club slam may be just fine if we have a 4-4 club fit.

So I think this is reasonable. But, as was said at the time, there needs to be agreement.

Mostly my point is that the modern agreement, with 1 - 2NT being passable, leaves a gap where the old style auction could go 1 - 2NT-3NT-4NT for a balanced slam invitation.

Your thoughts?

It has been said that there are three suits in bridge: Hearts, Spades and No Trump.
But lately I have been ending in minor suit contracts playing with the robots. Some but not all have been successful, here are three that ended well. I'll add in some commentary.

Case 1:
https://tinyurl.com/y3x9le72

5 +2 for a good score!, Of course  in 6 Lho might well start with the A and another , setting 6. Moreover, if N plays it, the lead of the stiff   sets 5 .  Minor Suit Stayman earned its keep here. Suppose we were not playing MSS. Then, over the Capp 2 , we could be playing that 2NT shows . N only has five, S would expect 6, so the transfer would be a bit risky. Anyway, the bots play MSS and there we were in 5 played from the right side.


Case 2:
https://tinyurl.com/y5eb5dss
I congratulated my bot partner for her restraint in passing my 4 .  I got an almost inexplicable overtrick, but 4 is the right contract. 


Case 3:
https://tinyurl.com/y4fg3j5q
 5 making, but I would call it lucky. Obviously I will be losing a right off, and losing at least one . Since the don't split, I have to ruff a , and this requires that I not draw all the trump. The J is well-placed so all is well. Note that partner's 3 after my reverse did not show extras. The bots play Leb after a reverse but when the auction begins 1 - 1NT -2M I guess they don't. This makes sense since the 1NT already set a limit on the hand. Moreover, after 1 - 1NT - 2 it is not hard to imagine a hand where N would like to bid 2NT to play.  All in all, I think that after 1m-1NT -2M, it's best to leave 2NT as a natural call.


So the second hand belongs in 4 , it made 5 on a fluke of bot defense, while the third hand makes 5 regardless of defense but requires a bit of luck.


In bridge discussions I think we often skip past minor suit auctions, these seemed interesting, I thought I would put them up.

In the last 24 hours I have encountered three hands where there was a potential for confusion about the meaning of an auction after a 1NT call. In each case I have played it to have different meanings when I have played with different partners, so i believe it is safe to say that there is ambiguity if there has not been discussion. Here are the three auctions, which I give up to the point of ambiguity:

A. This is from the MSC. It is a contested auction, starting on my right with 1 and I overcall 1NT:
1 - 1NT - 2 - 2
Ok Partner could have bid 2 , if that would be a transfer to  . Assuming 2 is natural then I ask: What would 2 have been? Or perhaps 2 shows both spades and diamonds, whereas he would have just transferred if he had spades only? This is unlikely, as surely in this contest format they would have said so. And, btw, what would a double of 2 have meant? Had I opened 1 NT and then Lho bid 2 I expect X to be Stayman (unless 2 showed both majors). And I would expect that to be the case here, if partner had doubled 2 . But now that I see that, on this auction,  we do not seem to be using 2 as a transfer to , I have to wonder whether a double of 2 is still being played as Stayman.

So the general question can be put:
After the contested auction begins  1 - 1NT - 2 , what are the meanings of the various bids by fourth hand?

I am a strong believer in going to a reliable source for answers. Reinventing the wheel gets tiresome, especially if it means inventing a different wheel with each partner. I would be happy to just do it as Mike Lawrence says or do it as Larry Cohen says or whatever, as long as it is written down.


B. This was from yesterday's indy. I opened 1NT, Lho overcalled a DONT 2 , partner doubled, Rho bid 2 . What is 2 ?

This one is easier to find references for. Larry Cohen, a popularizer of DONT (and maybe a co-inventor with Bergen of the convention, I'm not sure), says it shows . Without the double, 2 asks for pass or correct, depending on the DONTer's second suit. With the X, then XX asks for the second suit, and 2 shows hearts.

This worked out miraculously well for us. I had opened 1 NT on a 5=3=2=3 shape, I decided to chance that 2 was intended to ask for a second suit and that Lho's second suit was probably so I bid 2 which pard raised to 4, making 7. I could have been held to 5 if Lho had led the stiff but s/he chose a after which I will make 12 tricks at least.

But the point here is what the 2 call should mean after the X. I say go with Cohen.


C. This is an uncontested auction from yesterday's indy;
1NT - 2    (correction, thanks)
2 - 4 .

Ok, what's 4 ? I have played that it shows a splinter, I have played that it is key card blackwood. Bridge World Standard says "four clubs is a key-card-ask if opener showed a major, otherwise shows four=six in the majors" but splinter is common and I play it that way with some.

Partner indeed intended this as a splinter but I was uncertain of just how to take it. We landed on our feet, through luck rather than any good choices on my part.


I intend the above as a congenial and realistic  presentation of ambiguity. Responses to these and other similar problems  are very welcome.

I have mentioned before that I find Jack's hands provoke some thought.  Hers is one from yesterday. I do not have the hand in front of me so I have to hope I have the details sufficiently right.

The uncontested auction starts on my right and goes 1 - 1 - 1 - 4 and so I am onlead against 4 .  I can expect dummy to have 4 and 4 !+ , and declarer to have 4 and 4+ .

I am holding (I think this is accurate enough)
AQ
xx (maybe 8x)
QTxxx
Axxx
I am not that fond of any choice but I decided to start with the . Maybe I'll get lucky.

Dummy comes down with )again I hope for adequate accuracy)

JTxx
AJxx
void
KQTxx

Well, so much for finding partner holding the K.
Partner follows with the !C3, I am looking at the 2 either in my hand or on the board, we are playing standard so pard has either one club or three.

Worrying that pard might have three clubs I switched to a . Declarer plays the A, pard follows with a that might well be encouraging, declarer drops the Q under the A!.
Declarer now runs a finesse, I win and try anther . Declarer plays the J, partner K, declarer ruffs. Declarer leads another , I win and finally work this out. I ay another , partner ruffs, down 1.

Let's go back to the position after the lead. Suppose pard has three clubs, giving declarer one. Declarer will  have exactly four spades and at most three hearts. It is too late to get a heart even if partner has the K. Declarer can rise with the A and play the KQ throwing the two hearts.  Of course she (I think it was "she") still needs to find ten ricks but assuming she holds the AK I think it can be done. At any rate, if declarer holds a stiff she can cash the KQ whether I do or do not lead another at T2. But if it is partner with the stiff another will set the contract two tricks. I think I should have continued at T2. We beat it one anyway, but why settle for one when you can get it down two?

This was a discussion hand so I mentioned that after my heart switch and declarer's spade lead from dummy, partner could have started a high-low signal with he spade spots. This has nothing to do with udca, you can find it in old Goren books on play: High-low in trumps shows a three card holding in trump and the ability (and desire) to ruff something somewhere. Here it would clearly be for a club ruff.

So there is a lot to be said about this hand. I know before I even lead that partner has three spades. But I don't know about the ruff. I worked it out eventually, but I think I could have worked it out immediately, for down 2. And partner could have given the ruff signal with a trump hi-lo, but it was already too late for down two, I had to continue with a at T2 for down 2.

There were a couple of other hands from yesterdays session where defense was front and center. A good group of hands.

As mentioned, I like Jack's hands. There is often some uncertainty in them, and that makes them interesting. First one pretty clear cut case:
1 - 3 - 4 -H - Pass
5 -Pass- ?

I was the 4 bidder and I was thinking what on earth is this 5 . It's exclusion key card of course. I do no usually play it and I did not recognize it, but Joe and I had agreed that we were playing IAC std and exclusion key card is what it is.  There was some discussion about whether using excl was the best choice, but that's another matter. It was excl and clearly excl.


Now onto another matter. Two hands involved 4th suit forcing, or at least could have.
Uncontested auction:
1 - 1
2 - ?

Responder bid 3NT. How about 2 ? Over 2 , opener, with 1=3=5=4 shape, would of course bid 3 . Opener, with 4=4=2=3 shape, could still bid 3NT. So why bother with 2 if over 3 you are going to bid 3NT anyway? Of course partner might not have 3 and maybe you find a minor fit. Maybe so. But I think the 4th suit auction can have another purpose.
Respmer's spades were AJxx and I think even AJ9x. Probably she can handle 3NT on a spade lead. But suppose instead her spades are Axxx. Then, after a spade lead, she had better have 9 tricks or there is a good chance she will go down.
I envision a hand such as
Axxx
AQxx
Kx
Qxx

 Now, over a 4th suit forcing 2 , opener will bid 3 with xxx and also bid 3 with KJx. With the latter, the hand very possibly will lay better in 4 . Say the opening lead is the K and a stiff hits in dummy. Duck it. They cannot profitably continue spades, in fact you will probably do so even if they don't. You win at T2, ruff a . draw trump, you still have the A guarding that suit, and now you set up tricks in one of the minors. 
I have some things to do right now and must go, but I think it is pretty easy to set up many hands where the message of 4th suit and then 3NT over 3 shouold be: Pard, I can play NT maybe, but if your hearts are good I think we might well be better off playing in the moysian 4 contract. Moyse won a lot of matches playing in 4-3 fits.


Anyway, I think we can get a lot out of these hands by continuing discussion after the closing bell.

Added: Here is the sort of thing I have in mind:

x
KJx
Axxxx
QJxx

Axxx
AQxx
Kx
Kxx

Perhaps the auction should begin 1 - 1 - 2 but I think with 5-4 in the minors opener might well choose 2 . Long ago I read the advice "You are allowed to raise responder on a three card holding but you should not go out of your way to do so". Seems right. So suppose it starts 1D - 1 - 2 - 2 - 3H - 3NT. Opener looks at his strong hearts and might well opt for the Moysian 4 .
Against 3NT on a spade lead it's clear you need to develop the clubs to come to 9 tricks. So you hold up until the third round, you tak the ace, you concede a club, you hope the spades are 4-4 or that the person with three spades also has the club Ace. If so, you make. better than an even chance but it could go wrong. How about 4 ? The plan for ten tricks is A, one ruff, four !h tricks, two !d tricks, two tricks. Could this go wrong? Yes, it might, But it seems to me that it looks pretty good. On a spade lead you duck. You might well make 5 if the clubs split. On a trump lead (likely since the opponents have heard the auction and so know about the stiff spade on the board, you win on the board and duck a spade,You want to be able to ruff with a spade spot. Maybe 4 goes down, but also 3NT might go down, and I think 4 has the better play.

The following came up yesterday, playing with the bots.
Matchpoints, nobody vul, you are the dealer, you hold:

8
AT
9632
AKQJ83

Presumably you open 1 , partner responds 1 , and now? It's a pretty good hand, I would not quarrel with 3 , but I settled for 2 . Now partner bid 2 .

Uncontested:
1 - 1
2 - 2

Now what? I suppose partner can make 2 so I could pass, but it seems possible there are at least 8 tricks in NT. So I tried 2NT. Pard pulls to :

1 - 1
2 - 2
2NT - 3

How pushy do I want to be? Pard presumably has six and at least three . Moreover, I have only two and the opponents have not been in the auction so he probably has few . Maybe this makes 5 ? Or maybe not? I'll try.

1 - 1
2 - 2
2NT - 3
4 .

Partner passed so I am in 4 .

I am confident that Joe agrees with 4 being passable here. My 2 !c and my 2NT were both passable, so 4 is not a forcing slam try, it's an invitation. (Joe and I had a similar situation in one of the lesson hands, hence my confidence he agrees. He might well disagree with my choosing to bid 4 !c, but I doubt he treats it as forcing.)


Now let's look at both hands:



AKT654
876
8
962


8
AT
9632
AKQJ83

Looking at both hands, where do you want to play this? 3NT would be good if they cannot take the first five tricks. If they can run five tricks then you can make +120 in 2NT. But probably +130 in 4 and this is mps. But maybe 5 ? Or maybe not?

Lunch time, I'll give the result later.