Submitted by Vil Gravis on Tue, 20/01/2026 - 16:05
Here is another one that has a 100% answer. It should be easy for anyone who can count but despite the
fact that the giveaway clue of “Precision 1C” should have told us everything, there were a number of
players who would still take a finesse that was certain to lose, and not take a finesse that was certain to
succeed!
Let me show you the full deal as it was at the time it was played some years ago
Dealer W NS Vul
QJ7
AQT93
972
K3
K
KJ7
AKJT6
J986
6542
654
Q54
754
AT983
82
83
AQT2
West is dealer, NS vulnerable; the bidding has been:
South
West
North
East
-
1
1
Pass
1
2
2
Pass
3
Pass
4
Pass
Pass
Pass
West’s 1C was alerted and explained as a PRECISION 1C 16+ high card points, any shape. East’s
pass, after partner’s 1H overcall, has been explained as 0-5. West leads the ACE OF DIAMONDS, East
follows with the three (‘reverse attitude’) and West continues with the king, then another diamond, East
producing the queen. Declarer ruffs.
Submitted by Vil Gravis on Fri, 09/01/2026 - 12:44
This one is an exercise in lateral thinking. It comes from many years ago and may not be replicated
these days, because bidding methods may well be different. Nevertheless it provides many points of
interest.
1.You are playing teams. You are SOUTH, EW vulnerable, dealer West.
The Bidding has been:
South
West
North
East
-
1
Pass
1
Pass
2
Pass
2NT
Pass
3
Pass
3
Pass
3NT
Pass
Pass
Pass
You ask about the bidding, as you should, and are told that the bidding is natural, 2S shows 5+
diamonds and 4 spades, and is game forcing. 2NT shows ‘not much’, and nothing has been ‘discussed’
as far as further bidding goes.
Submitted by Vil Gravis on Mon, 22/12/2025 - 16:02
Is AI the answer to all our bridge problems? I wanted to check out just how brilliant AI would be on this opening lead problem, which I recall writing about many years ago. I recall it quite clearly because the opening lead required thinking about how the play would go. I did wonder whether AI would give the answer that was found at the time.
Submitted by sitemaster on Mon, 22/12/2025 - 16:00
Is AI the answer to all our bridge problems? I wanted to check out just how brilliant AI would be on this opening lead problem, which I recall writing about many years ago. I recall it quite clearly because the opening lead required thinking about how the play would go. I did wonder whether AI would give the answer that was found at the time.
Submitted by Vil Gravis on Fri, 19/12/2025 - 19:38
Second, and final, thoughts:
Board 20 . Dealer W All Vul
9
A74
7542
AKT74
8762
KQT63
AJ
Q3
AKT53
KQT83
J52
QJ4
J9852
96
986
The bidding was just as you might expect. West opened 1H, North overcalled 2C, East bid 2S and West 4S. I had to make the opening lead. That is where I came unstuck because I did not lead partner’s suit!
Submitted by Vil Gravis on Thu, 04/12/2025 - 18:42
I have come to the conclusion that I must give up some of my crazy ideas about defence. I should give up on thinking that defence is about anything more than leading partner’s suit, because of my terrible blunder when I was South in this X-Clubs deal, from 28/11/25
Submitted by Vil Gravis on Sat, 29/11/2025 - 19:52
This deal comes from Tuesday 25/11/25 at X-Clubs and presents us with a number of questions as well as a double dummy answer that I expect none of us would find at the table
Submitted by Vil Gravis on Fri, 28/11/2025 - 07:35
Now we can have a look at real life, not just theory, and see what everyone at X-Clubs did given the monstrous and quite unbelievable deal that the computer threw up.
QJ7
AQT93
972
K3
