[jillybean]

First the bidding

---

10-13 nt

[DavidKok]

1NT, 14-16 (maybe bad 17?).

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2025-July-11, 09:31, said:

1NT, 14-16 (maybe bad 17?).

That's how we play it

[mikeh]

Wtp? Over 1N responder can check back for a spade fit.

Yes, occasionally a 4-3 spade fit plays better than notrump, usually because of our doubleton heart.

But worrying about that sort of thing is overthinking in a big way. It’s masterminding….the assumption that, despite knowing very little about the hand, we can take charge.

Would we have opened 1N, playing a strong notrump? Yes. Does rebidding 1 N here show a hand that would have opened a strong notrump? Yes.

So…to return to where I came in…wtp?

As players gain knowledge about options that good players use, all too often they decide to over think hands.

[WasWinM]

 mikeh, on 2025-July-11, 10:25, said:

Wtp? Over 1N responder can check back for a spade fit.

Yes, occasionally a 4-3 spade fit plays better than notrump, usually because of our doubleton heart.

But worrying about that sort of thing is overthinking in a big way. It’s masterminding….the assumption that, despite knowing very little about the hand, we can take charge.

Would we have opened 1N, playing a strong notrump? Yes. Does rebidding 1 N here show a hand that would have opened a strong notrump? Yes.

So…to return to where I came in…wtp?

As players gain knowledge about options that good players use, all too often they decide to over think hands.

When I first kibitzed top players I was shocked how ordinary they played, doing little or nothing I wasn’t capable of doing myself.

[jillybean]

You'll be pleased to hear, or maybe you won't care - it's not me doing the masterminding on this hand.
I'll post the rest soon

---

One common, popular approach playing mini nt is a rebid of 1nt promises Tx (others say Jx) in the worthless doubleton, otherwise I will raise you with 3 cards. I understand how a heart lead is indicated here, making 1nt less appealing but the alternative, raising on 3, imo, is worse.
We could have escaped to 3nt if I had remembered that we were playing spiral.

However, I was reminded, all this junk goes away when I start playing t-walsh and U♦, heaven knows what new challenges and forgets I'll face. [/sarcasm]

[mikeh]

WasWinM, on 2025-July-11, 10:36, said:

When I first kibitzed top players I was shocked how ordinary they played, doing little or nothing I wasn’t capable of doing myself.

I’ve several friends who’ve won NABC pair events, and in my experience they never have any brilliancies to report…just solid bridge with smatterings of being lucky when they erred and lots of stories about getting gifts. Obviously one needs some luck to win a big pairs event, but one also, and critically, needs to be able to consistently take advantage of errors by the opps. Try kibitzing a non expert table….I’ve done it when non expert friends are playing…the game resembles a tennis match with errors flying both ways, often resulting in a ‘normal’ result with nobody aware of the several mistakes made. Make such a mistake against a top pair, in form, and you get a bad result.

Bridge has always been a game of mistakes and that is as true at the WC level as it is at the club level. The biggest changes over the past fifty years are the increase in the number of players at the expert level….who make few unforced errors….and the, imo, associated increase in very aggressive bidding at that same level….if one lets expert opps have clear sailing in the bidding, they’ll kill you since they won’t screw up. So fifty years ago the feeling was that the way to win was to make few mistakes. Now it’s to induce mistakes by the opps, achieved by depriving them of bidding space and time,