[mikl_plkcc]

I was sitting at South. E didn't alert W's 3♥ because she thought it was natural, but W thought it was a transfer. That was because they were an inexperienced partnership which clearly didn't know how to react when a 2♦ opening was interfered.

N Xed the 3NT on the assumption that they didn't have a ♠ fit, holding the following hand:

---

W laid down with 6 ♠, and the contract went +1, resulting a bottom for us. The correct line of defence was to run N's ♥ suit, which would result in -3, but I subsequently misdefenced and resulting in a +1 for the contract. The misdefence was that I didn't realise the partner was giving signal by leading an ♥A against a NT contract, which I didn't realise to drop my ♥Q, and as a result partner switched to ♣ instead.

Other tables' results including 4♥S+2, 4♦xS-2 and 4♠E-1.

I was shocked by partner's X holding no sure entry to run my ♦, thinking that's bad bridge by us, and partner told me that she Xed assuming that I would have a ♠ entry because, according to the explanation, I must have a few more ♠s, which I didn't have as W's hand didn't match the explanation.

1. Was there any damage?
2. If W did hold a ♥ hand, was the X foolish?
3. When the dummy laid down, was a ♥ run by N an obvious line of defence given that their misunderstanding was already shown?
4. Was I to be blamed wholly because I failed to drop my ♥Q under the ♥A led?

Also, a final question was that, I kept making obvious mistakes (including cutting my bridges to dummy, playing cards in an order that allowing them to draw my last trump out causing me losing control of my hand, forgetting to cash a side suit winner resulting in 3NT= with 10 top tricks, etc.) which wouldn't happen as a textbook practice. How can I improve my performance as, here, it's clear that my bridge knowledge isn't missing, but instead I fail to perform to my best of my knowledge.

[Douglas43]

"Also, a final question was that, I kept making obvious mistakes (including cutting my bridges to dummy, playing cards in an order that allowing them to draw my last trump out causing me losing control of my hand, forgetting to cash a side suit winner resulting in 3NT= with 10 top tricks, etc.) which wouldn't happen as a textbook practice. How can I improve my performance as, here, it's clear that my bridge knowledge isn't missing, but instead I fail to perform to my best of my knowledge."


I recommend "Golf is not a game of perfect" to other bridge players on this topic.


We are all different, but these things have helped me:
1. I need a couple of minutes to clear my head before playing.
2. Accept that you are fallible and will make mistakes. Find a way of not blowing the next hand by dwelling on the first mistake. I set myself a realistic target number of errors per session and don't worry as long as I'm within my target.
3. I find it harder to concentrate online, so I have actually started to talk to myself while playing on BBO.

[Douglas43]

"Also, a final question was that, I kept making obvious mistakes (including cutting my bridges to dummy, playing cards in an order that allowing them to draw my last trump out causing me losing control of my hand, forgetting to cash a side suit winner resulting in 3NT= with 10 top tricks, etc.) which wouldn't happen as a textbook practice. How can I improve my performance as, here, it's clear that my bridge knowledge isn't missing, but instead I fail to perform to my best of my knowledge."


I recommend "Golf is not a game of perfect" to other bridge players on this topic.


We are all different, but these things have helped me:
1. I need a couple of minutes to clear my head before playing.
2. Accept that you are fallible and will make mistakes. Find a way of not blowing the next hand by dwelling on the first mistake. I set myself a realistic target number of errors per session and don't worry as long as I'm within my target.
3. I find it harder to concentrate online, so I have actually started to talk to myself while playing on BBO.

[Winstonm]

My advice: don't try to reinvent the game.

The history of bridge is full of brilliant minds so the wise person listens and takes advice. One of the best pieces of advice I read was this from S.J. Simon in Why You Lose At Bridge:

Quote

Always try for the best result possible, rather than the best possible result.

[mycroft]

• Double by non-opening leader to 3NT does not say "this is going down", it says "this is going down if you lead a heart" (and especially, "don't lead your natural diamond"). Did you? (Yes, this is an unusual situation, but Simon also explains why it's the right meaning.)
  
• You're sitting South, but you only show partner's hand. Well done for admitting it straight up - most people just start by "what did North do wrong" and only later reveal that they're questioning partners' decisions, not their own. But it's still not the best way to get better at this game.
  
• Get the director involved. Sure, they don't know their agreement over this auction, and they should; but if you were in fact misinformed, and that caused damage (the Law says you're entitled to "we don't know what 3♥ means, could be hearts, could be spades"; of course you're not going to get that at the table, but determination of damage will be based on that explanation), then the ruling will reflect that. Because of 1. above, I'm not expecting it - the Law also says that damage that is unrelated to the infraction and self-inflicted is not compensated - but players needn't, and shouldn't care about that. Just call the director, explain what happened, and when she comes back with the ruling, say "thank you" and continue. Or, of course, "I don't understand" if that's actually the case.
  
• Without seeing your hand and the play, I can't tell you whether you should have unblocked the ♥Q (except that if you were Qx, it should have been "unblocked" trick 1) or anything else.
  
• What I can tell you is that bridge is a game of mistakes; there are a million to make, and everyone has to make each of them. The difference between an expert and the rest of us is how many of them one makes *more than once*. (also, how many of them they make *in practise*, rather than *at the table*.) If you concentrate not on being right, nor on being brilliant, nor on doing the absolute best thing every action, but on avoiding making mistakes, especially "unthinking" mistakes, your play will improve.

Note that that last is advice I too often fail to take myself. But I feel much less worse about "guessing wrong", even when there was a clue I should have seen, than when I just don't think at all and make mistakes.

On teaching - when I do at-the-table mentoring, that is the one thing I insist on - when I ask "why [action]?" the *only* wrong answer is "I don't know". If you have a reason and it's a bad one, we can talk about that and learn something. If you have a reason and it was a good one, that didn't work on this hand, well, fine - and we can talk about that. But if it was unthinking, there's no teaching opportunity.

Also note - mentoring (including post-mortems with partner at the bar) is the only time "why did you" or "why didn't you" questions are appropriate. The other 90% of the time, the correct and desired answer is "because I'm an idiot". It's what partner wants to hear, and he will keep prodding until he gets that answer. The rest of the sentence - "for choosing to play with you" - is best left unspoken.

[nige1]

Please move to laws forum

[blackshoe]

Agree with Nigel. Unfortunately, I can't do that.

With respect to "1. Was there any damage?" I will say that is not the first question. The first question is "was there an infraction of law or regulation?" If there wasn't there's no damage because the definition of damage in the laws starts with "when, because of an infraction…"

I don't think there's enough information in the OP to determine whether there was an infraction.