[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-07, 03:07, said:

On board 13, why do I need to switch to ♦10? The auction started with 1♦-(2♠)-X and partner showed a 4-4 ♥ fit, so I thought we needed to cash the ♥AK by playing the ♥A then small.

Comment 1: You are playing IMPs. Your biggest concern is setting the contract.

Comment 2: Your partner opened the bidding.

Between your hand and dummy, you are looking at 23 HCPs.

Partner can't have any points in Clubs.
You hold the Queen of Spades.
Dummy holds the King od Spades.
RHO made a vulnerable jump overcall and almost certainly holds the Ace.

Is there any way that partner has an opening hand without the AQ of Diamonds?

And IF partner holds the AQ of Diamonds, why do you want to end play them rather than punching through the Diamond?

As to why you're leading the 10, if we are in buzzard world and partner doesn't have the Diamond queen, we want them to know that we don't have it.

[mw64ahw]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-07, 06:09, said:

Hand 24: I expect most tables will open 1♠ or 3♠, not 2♠.

On our table, it went
(3♠) - X - (/) - 4♦
(/) - 4♥ - //

Yes I didn't count correctly and just saw that 3 Wests were in 2♠. Id have opened 1♠
After 1♠ it goes
X Power - 2♣ invitational
3♥ 5♥ max - 3♠
3N

[mikl_plkcc]

I nearly got a good score tonight but ruined it by forgetting to read partner's signal on trick 1 at the last round in board 22. It resulted them making a vulnerable 1NT which shouldn't make.

https://www.bridgewe...ub=youngchelsea

The bidding was 1♣-1♠-1NT by them and I was overwhelmed in how to make them play their ♣ into my hidden 6-card suit so I can run it, and I started playing ♠ afterwards, not realising my partner had played a small ♥ to encourage. It turned out that their ♥ suit was totally unstopped.

That board was -6.43 IMPs and it turned a positive into a negative.

And the best board was 13, which I nearly ruined it.

The bidding went
(1♣) - 1♠ - (/) - /
(1NT) - 2♥ - (/) - 2♠
(X) - / - (/) to me

I was scared, so I bid my 6-card suit, 3♦, hoping to improve the contract. The strong hand doubled again, and my partner pull it back to 3♠. We ended up barely making the doubled game.

[smerriman]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-13, 16:24, said:

.. partner ..

Nice choice, gordontd himself.

[shyams]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-13, 16:24, said:

And the best board was 13, which I nearly ruined it.

The bidding went
(1♣) - 1♠ - (/) - /
(1NT) - 2♥ - (/) - 2♠
(X) - / - (/) to me

I was scared, so I bid my 6-card suit, 3♦, hoping to improve the contract. The strong hand doubled again, and my partner pull it back to 3♠. We ended up barely making the doubled game.

Maybe you ought to contemplate on why you thought a 3♦ bid was merited with ♠T94 ♥93 ♦AJ9732 ♣J4.
Like (a) What was opener's strength in this sequence? Regardless of their 1NT opening range, the 1NT rebid in the passout position should be a min of 18-19 HCP.
Or (b) At red vulnerability, why is partner bidding 2♥ over this sequence given that partner certainly can infer that opener has 18-19?
Then (c.) With the inferences available from (a) and (b) above, why would you twist from a 3-card support for partner to a new suit 1 level higher?

[mikl_plkcc]

 shyams, on 2025-June-13, 20:38, said:

Maybe you ought to contemplate on why you thought a 3♦ bid was merited with ♠T94 ♥93 ♦AJ9732 ♣J4.
Like (a) What was opener's strength in this sequence? Regardless of their 1NT opening range, the 1NT rebid in the passout position should be a min of 18-19 HCP.
Or (b) At red vulnerability, why is partner bidding 2♥ over this sequence given that partner certainly can infer that opener has 18-19?
Then (c.) With the inferences available from (a) and (b) above, why would you twist from a 3-card support for partner to a new suit 1 level higher?

Because the opponents have advertised a bad break (most probably 5-0) by doubling, and my partner hasn't denied 2 or 3 diamonds yet (5=4=2=2 or 5=4=3=1 are all possible), so I hope we can be left to play in 3♦ undoubled if they don't have 4 strong or 5 diamonds in one hand.

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-14, 10:25, said:

Because the opponents have advertised a bad break (most probably 5-0) by doubling

You need to stop confusing your weird theories with what normal people play

Also, in what world does someone

1. Open 1 club
2. Balance with 1NT after your partner's Spade overcall

and then show up with a 5 card spade suit?

[mikl_plkcc]

 hrothgar, on 2025-June-14, 10:49, said:

You need to stop confusing your weird theories with what normal people play

Also, in what world does someone

1. Open 1 club
2. Balance with 1NT after your partner's Spade overcall

and then show up with a 5 card spade suit?

And in what world does someone ever double a partscore into game without a holding that will guarantee a set?

Anyway the bidding was not sensible and I had no idea what to do.

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-14, 11:49, said:

And in what world does someone ever double a partscore into game without a holding that will guarantee a set?

this happens all the time (even at IMPs)

> Anyway the bidding was not sensible and I had no idea what to do.

Partner has shown a two suiter with Spades and Hearts
Their hand is good enough that they were willing to introduce the second suit after RHO balanced with 1NT
For some reason, partner's wasn't willing to bid 2♣ after the 1!C opening

You have a pretty good idea of their hand...

Bidding 3♦ is asking for trouble

[smerriman]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-14, 11:49, said:

And in what world does someone ever double a partscore into game without a holding that will guarantee a set?

Seriously? Despite being told numerous times in the past your rules are silly, you still believe everyone in the real world adheres to them so much that the only option is that North opened 1♣ with a balanced 18-19 count with 5 spades? And that you'd get away with playing 3♦ undoubled if you run to a suit that partner can't have support for?

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

[mikl_plkcc]

 hrothgar, on 2025-June-14, 12:19, said:

this happens all the time (even at IMPs)

> Anyway the bidding was not sensible and I had no idea what to do.

Partner has shown a two suiter with Spades and Hearts
Their hand is good enough that they were willing to introduce the second suit after RHO balanced with 1NT
For some reason, partner's wasn't willing to bid 2♣ after the 1!C opening

You have a pretty good idea of their hand...

Bidding 3♦ is asking for trouble

As partner didn't bid 2♣ over 1♣ I thought that he couldn't be 5-5, so I expected him to be 5-4 in the majors. Partner also couldn't have 4 ♦ at the same time (otherwise he would have doubled 1♣), so partner could have anywhere between 0 to 3 ♦s. If I picked up 2 or 3 and ended up playing undoubled I would be much better off than going off in 2♠x, and even if partner had 1, I could still hope that they broke evenly so none of the opponents had the trump holding to double me.

[DavidKok]

Although the tone of some of the commenters here is harsh, their advice is good. I'm impressed they haven't given up yet, seeing as you learn nothing and will defiantly argue the point.

You cannot improve if you do not change. If you repeat what you already believe, you will not get past your current level of bridge. This is true for everyone, but is especially important when you're wrong as often as you are.

This deal is instructive: you cite the possibility of a diamond fit and of getting out undoubled as reasons to bid 3♦. In truth the odds of a diamond fit are slim - while partner may have anywhere from 0-4 diamonds (excluding 5=4=4=0 due to lack of a double is an inaccuracy, in my opinion - however, it is very unlikely anyway given the lack of a club raise) the distribution is not at all uniform given the suit length disparity in your own minor suits. What's more, the idea that you can run from 2♠X to 3♦ undoubled is a pipe dream. Predictably you got doubled and caught yourself a poor score. Oh well, mistakes happen, though usually not as many in a single bid as were presented here. There's multiple other flaws in the arguments presented so far, but I'll do myself a favour and keep it brief.

The bad part, however, isn't in the bridge discussion. Instead it is that you now concoct some argument for why you should not have been doubled. Instead of saying "This went way worse than I had hoped, and in hindsight passing would likely have worked out better. Could I have known this, and what do I look for to avoid this mistake in the future?" you did the opposite and tried explaining on this forum why the beginner mistake of bidding 3♦ was actually fine. This is a terrible mindset. Bridge is a complicated game, and if you are unwilling or unable to learn I think you'd be best off admitting that it's too complicated for you and taking a break.

[shyams]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-15, 03:56, said:

As partner didn't bid 2♣ over 1♣ I thought that he couldn't be 5-5, so I expected him to be 5-4 in the majors. Partner also couldn't have 4 ♦ at the same time (otherwise he would have doubled 1♣), so partner could have anywhere between 0 to 3 ♦s. If I picked up 2 or 3 and ended up playing undoubled I would be much better off than going off in 2♠x, and even if partner had 1, I could still hope that they broke evenly so none of the opponents had the trump holding to double me.

Could it be that, after seeing your bidding & play in the first few board, your partner thought you will panic and forget your agreements? That you will take 2♣ as natural? I view such (hypothetical) concerns faced by your partner to be more likely than your detailed post-facto justification of your 3♦ bid.

Let's also not discount that 3♦ makes you declarer, thereby lowering the tricks scored by your side by 2 vs par. Whereas a spade contract makes gordontd the declared; I'd say he will often find the best line of play. Maybe partner was reluctant to bid Michaels because you will then be declarer.

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-15, 03:56, said:

even if partner had 1, I could still hope that they broke evenly so none of the opponents had the trump holding to double me.

You really need to learn about doubles
You really really REALLY need to learn about doubles...

In particular, you need to learn about people's willingness to double poor declarers who have foundered into a nonsensical contracts...