Glossary of contract bridge terms

These terms are used in contract bridge, using duplicate or rubber scoring. Some of them are also used in Whist, Bid whist, the obsolete game Auction bridge, and other trick-taking games. This glossary supplements the Glossary of card game terms.

In the following entries, boldface links are external to the glossary and plain links reference other glossary entries.

0–9

0314, 3014, or 3014 RKCB

A mnemonic for the original (Roman) response structure to the Roman Key Card Blackwood convention. It represents "3 or 0" and "1 or 4", meaning that the lowest step response (5♣) to the 4NT key card asking bid shows responder has three or zero keycards and the next step (5♦) shows one or four.

1430, or 1430 RKCB

A mnemonic for a variant response structure to the Roman Key Card Blackwood convention. It represents "1 or 4" and "3 or 0", meaning that the lowest step response (5♣) to the 4NT key card asking bid shows responder has one or four keycards and the next step (5♦) shows three or zero.

2-under Preempts

A 2 or 3-level conventional opening bid made two steps below the opener's suit: for example, 2♦ to show a weak two bid in spades or 3♣ to show a three-level preempt in hearts. If 2♣ is a strong, artificial force, 2♥ is natural.

A

Rubber Bridge Scoring

Above the line

In rubber bridge, the location on the scorepad above the main horizontal line where extra points are entered; extra points are those awarded for holding honor cards in trumps, for bonuses for scoring game, small slam, grand slam or winning a rubber, for overtricks on the declaring side and for undertricks on the defending side and for fulfilling doubled or redoubled contracts. Points awarded for contract odd tricks bid and made are entered below the line. See Bridge scoring.

ACBL

American Contract Bridge League

Acol

An approach-forcing, natural bidding system, based on a weak NT and 4 card majors, popular in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

Active

An approach to defending a hand that emphasizes quickly setting up winners and taking tricks. Contrast passive.

An approach to competitive bidding that emphasizes frequent interference with opponents' bidding sequences.

Adjusted score

In duplicate bridge, a score that penalizes a pair or team that has committed an irregularity, and/or compensates a pair or team that has been damaged by an irregularity. The penalty and the compensation need not be commensurate.

Advance cue bid

The cue bid of a first round control that occurs before a partnership has agreed on a strain.

Advance sacrifice

A sacrifice bid made before the opponents have had an opportunity to determine their optimum contract. For example: 1♦ - (1♠) - Dbl - (5♠).

Advancer

Overcaller's partner, especially one who bids following the overcall.

Adverse vulnerability

Vulnerable vs. non-vulnerable. Also called "unfavorable vulnerability."

Aggregate scoring

Deciding the outcome of a contest by totaling the raw points gained or lost on each deal. Also called "total point scoring."

Agree

For a partnership to come to a decision, explicitly, conventionally or by implication, on the denomination in which to play a hand.

Agreement

An understanding between partners as to the meaning of a particular call or defensive play. There are two types of call agreements: (1) when the call is natural, the agreement is said to be a treatment, and (2) when the call is artificial, the agreement is said to be a convention.

Air, on

| ♥ K Q 5 4 |
♥ A 7 6 2 | W    N↑ S↓    E | ♥ J 10 9 3
| ♥ 8 |

To win a trick with a high card while capturing only small cards - normally said of a defensive play. In the example at right, when South leads the ♥8, West must take the ♥A on air, or risk making no heart tricks. Nevertheless, best defense on a given hand may call either for ducking the winner or for playing it on air.

Alcatraz coup

Declarer's intentional and unethical attempt to locate a finessable card by revoking. If the play is unintentional, it is nevertheless subject to score adjustment.

Alert

A method of informing the opponents that partner's bid carries a meaning that they might not expect; alerts are regulated by sponsoring organizations such as the ACBL and the EBU, and by individual clubs or organisers of events. Any method of alerting may be authorised including saying "Alert", displaying an Alert card from a bidding box or 'knocking' on the table.

Announcement

An explanatory statement made by the partner of the player who has just made a call that is based on a partnership understanding. The purpose of an announcement is similar to that of an Alert. It is made following calls whose meanings are not unusual, but which different partnerships treat differently. In the ACBL, common announcements include "Transfer" for a direct transfer bid, the point range for an opening bid of one notrump, and "Forcing" or "Semi-forcing" for a 1NT response to a major suit opening bid. The sponsoring organization specifies which calls should be announced.

Antipositional

A call is antipositional if it tends to make the "wrong" partner the declarer. If West opens the bidding, it may be best for South to declare a North-South contract, so that West will have to play from his high cards on opening lead. This positioning may protect South's tenaces. In that case, a call that will make North declarer is antipositional. See wrongside.

Appeal

In tournaments, to appeal is to request that a committee review a ruling made by a director.

Approach-forcing

A principle, first used in the Culbertson system, that has survived in modern bidding. The original idea was to abandon the indiscriminate notrump bids that characterized auction bridge in favor of a slower exchange of information via suit bidding.

Arrow

A marker, usually a large card with an arrow on it, that shows which direction is treated as North at a table in a duplicate event.

Arrow switch

The action of changing the North direction during an event, typically for the last round of a Mitchell movement, so that the pairs who were North-South become East-West and vice versa. This allows a single winning pair to be determined.

Artificial

A call that is not natural which by agreement carries a coded meaning not necessarily related to the call's (or to the prior call's) denomination.

A bidding system that contains many such calls.

Asking bid

A bid that, by prior agreement, requests information about a feature of partner's hand: for example, number of controls, suit length, or control of a particular suit.

Attacking lead

A lead that instigates an active defense; often, the lead of an honor from a sequence, or a forcing defense.

Attitude

A defender's desire, or lack thereof, for his side to continue playing a suit. By means of signals, defender encourages or discourages the continuation of the suit.

Autobridge, a device for learning bridge

Auction

See bidding.

Auction bridge, an earlier form of bridge, replaced by Contract bridge owing to changes in scoring methods.

Autobridge

A mechanical game device consisting of a set of printed deal sheets and a viewing template used to learn bridge by oneself. (see image).

Automatic squeeze

A squeeze position that succeeds against either opponent. Contrast with positional squeeze.

Average

In matchpoint scoring, one-half the matchpoints available on a given deal.

An average score is sometimes awarded to both pairs when for some reason they cannot complete the board. If neither pair is at fault or both pairs are at fault, the director may decide to award average to each side. Law 12.C.2 of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge states that if one pair is at fault, it receives an average-minus (at most, 40% of the available matchpoints on the board). A pair not at all at fault receives average-plus: 60% of the available matchpoints on the board, or, if greater, the average of the matchpoints the pair earned on other boards played during the session. The assigned scores need not sum to the total available matchpoints.

Also see IMP pairs, where "average" refers to the datum used in scoring.

Avoidance play

A play designed to keep a particular defender off lead, often to prevent the lead of a suit through a tenace position in either declarer's hand or dummy.

B

Back in

To make a partnership's first bid, having previously passed. For example, in 1♥ - (P) - 1NT - (P); 2♣ - (Dbl), the doubler has backed into the bidding.

Backward finesse

A combination of two finesses in a suit such that the first finesse is "backward" (that is, the reverse of the normal direction).

Balance

To keep the bidding open when it is about to be passed out at a low level. For example, if the bidding goes 1♥ - (P) - P - (1NT), the 1NT bid is a balancing action. The balancing bid is often made with a hand of substandard strength in order to prevent the opponents from securing a low-level contract.

Balanced distribution

Narrowly, balanced distribution of a hand or suit is 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2 or 5-3-3-2. Equivalently, there are no voids, no singletons, and at most one doubleton.

Balanced is commonly used in a broad sense that includes semi-balanced. Broadly, balanced distribution permits no void, singleton, or 7-card suit.

Balanced hand

A 13-card hand with balanced distribution in the narrow or wide sense just above. On the first round of bidding, natural notrump bids generally denote balanced hands.

BAM

Board-a-match, one method of scoring a duplicate bridge session or tournament.

Bar

To prevent a player from making a bid, either by a penalty caused by an irregularity, or because partnership agreement requires a pass in a given situation. In either case, the player is said to be "barred."

Barometer scoring

In a duplicate event, the posting of contestants' running scores after each round. Knowledge of the current standings often adds excitement to the contest, and can affect the strategies adopted by those in a position to win the event.

Bath coup

A holdup by declarer, to prevent an opponent from continuing a suit. In the classic position, declarer holds ♠AJ2 and West leads ♠K from ♠KQ1098. By playing the 2 on West's K, South makes it impossible for West to continue spades without giving South a free finesse.

Beer Card

The ♦7.

Below the line

In rubber bridge, the location on the scorepad below the main horizontal line where points awarded for a successful contract, i.e. tricks bid for and taken exclusive of bonus points, are recorded. These are the points counted towards game. See Above the line and Bridge scoring.

Bermuda Bowl

The cup awarded to the winner of the international team championship, the most prestigious award in bridge. Also, the championship contest itself.

Bid

A specification of both level and denomination or strain, such as three notrump or four hearts. While any legal bid constitutes a potential contract, some bids carry special coded meanings when used by the partnership as a conventional bid and as such are not normally intended as a potential contract.

Bid out of turn

A bid erroneously made when it was another player's turn to bid. Subject to penalty.

Biddable suit

A suit that a partnership regards as long and strong enough to be bid. Partnerships often employ different standards of length and strength for suits named in opening bids, in responses, in rebids and in overcalls.

Bidding

The first stage of a deal, when players jointly determine the final contract. Having examined their own cards, they make a series of calls in rotation, which is called the auction or the bidding.

Bidding box

A box, placed on the table, that contains cards with calls printed on them. By selecting and displaying a card, a player can make a call without speaking. Silent bidding removes one source of unauthorized information from the game.

Bidding space

The number of steps available in an auction (see Useful space principle), or the number of steps consumed by a bid. The sequence 1♣ - 1♦ consumes only one step, whereas 1♦ - 2♣ consumes four steps. Because alternative bids are skipped, it often happens that the more steps a bid takes up, the more specific meaning it carries.

Bidding system

The complete set of agreements and understandings assigned to calls and sequences of calls used by a partnership, including a full description of the meaning of each treatment and convention.

Blackwood convention

Popular bidding convention in contract bridge, used to determine number of partner's aces/kings to evaluate for slam bids.

Blank

(Adjective) Unprotected by other, usually lower cards in the same suit: "I held the blank king of spades."

(Verb) To discard in such a way as to leave a card unprotected: "She blanked the king of spades."

Blitz

(Slang) A win by the widest possible margin.

Blocked

(Adjective) If a suit is divided between partners in such a way that the hand with the shorter holding has only high cards, the suit cannot be run without an entry to the longer holding in another suit; it is then said to be blocked. If North holds ♦AK and South holds ♦QJ10, South cannot cash a third diamond trick without an entry in another suit. The diamonds are blocked until North is able to unblock by playing the ace and king.

Board

One particular allocation of 52 cards to the four players including the bidding, the play of the cards and the scoring based on those cards. Also called deal or hand.

A device that keeps each player's cards separate for duplicate bridge.

The dummy's hand. For example, "You're on the board", means "The lead is in the dummy."

Board-a-match

A form of scoring for teams, analogous to matchpoint scoring for pairs. A team earns 1 point if its pairs score higher than the opposing pairs (with the same cards at the other table), 1/2 for equal scores, and 0 for lower scores. Board-a-match scoring is now less common than IMP scoring, or IMPs victory points in a Swiss tournament.

Body

Intermediate cards such as the 9, 8 and 7, that contribute to a suit's trick-taking potential.

Bonus

In bridge scoring, beyond points for bid tricks taken, which are awarded for making a contract, the additional points awarded for making a doubled contract, or for making doubled or redoubled overtricks. There are different bonus amounts at the partscore, game, small slam, and grand slam levels. The size of most bonuses depends on the vulnerability. Bonus amounts are different in rubber bridge and duplicate bridge. See Bridge scoring.

Book

(Noun) The basic six tricks that must be taken by the declaring side. The first six "book" tricks are always assumed and are not taken into account in bidding or scoring. Thus, a contract at the 1-level commits declarer to take at least 7 (that is, 6 + 1) tricks, and provides trick points only for the trick above book. The term apparently originated from the whist practice of arranging the first six tricks into a stack called a "book."

(Noun) The number of tricks that the defensive side must take so as to hold declarer to his contract. If the contract is 4♠, defenders' book is 3.

(Verb, usually passive) Slang. As declarer, to have lost the maximum number of tricks without being set. At 4♠, declarer is "booked" when he has lost three tricks.

Bottom

At matchpoint scoring, the lowest possible score on a board. Also, zero.

Bracket

A group of entries in a tournament that will eventually have one winner. The grouping is often done on the basis of masterpoints.

Break

(Noun) The distribution of cards in a suit between two (often unseen) hands: "I got a 4-1 spade break." An even break occurs when the cards are distributed evenly or nearly so, such as 3-3 or 4-2. A bad break, connoting a distribution that is difficult to handle, suggests an unexpectedly uneven distribution, such as 5-1 or 6-0. See distribution.

(Verb) To be divided between two hands. "The spades broke 3-2."

(Verb) To lead a particular suit for the first time during a particular deal.

(Verb) Slang. To play for and find a particular distribution, usually the most favorable. "I broke the spades."

Bridge maxims

A compilation of short "laws", "rules" and rules-of-thumb advice; often, not always, valid.

Bridge World, The (TBW)

A monthly magazine based in New York City, the oldest continuously published periodical concerning contract bridge, and the game's most prestigious technical journal.

Broken sequence

A sequence of honor cards, one or more of which is missing, for example AQJ.

Bullet

(slang) An ace.

Business double

A penalty double. Contrast with various competitive and informatory doubles such as takeout double and negative double.

Bust

(Slang) A very weak hand. Sometimes paired with the name of a long suit: for example, "club bust" to denote a hand with long clubs and very little high card strength. See also Yarborough.

Busy

A card that is needed for some purpose is said to be busy. For example, cards that a defender is trying to preserve while declarer executes a squeeze are "busy." Contrast with idle.

Butler

A method of overall scoring in duplicate bridge where every result is subtracted from a datum (average or median) score and converted to IMPs using a table defined by the WBF.

Bye

A round of an event during which a team or pair is not scheduled to play.

A location, such as a chair or stand, where boards are kept when not in use during an event.

C

Caddy

A non-playing person designated to move boards between tables during a tournament, collect score slips, etc.

Calcutta

1) See Cross-IMP scoring

2) A tournament in which bettors bid on participating pairs or teams. The proceeds from the auction are distributed partly as prizes to the top finishers, partly to the bettors who successfully bid on them. A pair or team can typically buy an interest in itself.

Call

Any bid, pass, double, or redouble in the bidding stage.

Canapé

An approach to bidding in which a player bids his shorter suit prior to his longer suit. A feature of the Blue Team Club and the Roman Club.

Captain

In teams competition one person, called captain in the rules, must represent a team in stipulated official settings and to make stipulated official decisions for a team. A playing captain (pc) is eligible to participate as a player at the table; a non-playing captain (npc) may not. World championship teams are limited to six players, thus to six or seven members depending on the kind of captain. Other team officials such as a coach are not team members and not covered in the rules of bridge.

The partner who makes the decision for a partnership in certain bidding situations, such as ace-asking sequences.

Card reading

The act of determining the distribution of cards in unseen hands, and the location of high cards therein, by analyzing the bidding, play and other clues.

Carding

The defensive signaling used by a partnership.

Carryover

In a complex event, some participants begin a later stage with scores that depend on performance in an earlier stage. Simple accumulation of scores from stage to stage is full carryover but the term is commonly used only when carryover is less than full.

Some team events have a later knockout stage with carryover equal to some fraction of any margin of victory from an early-stage match between the same teams.

Many tournaments for teams, pairs, or individuals have stages that progressively reduce the field, such as by cutting the bottom half at the end of each day. Sometimes the qualifiers continue with a fraction of their qualifying margins as carryover, which effectively gives weight less than one to points scored in the earlier, larger, lower-quality field. Sometimes there is no carryover; comfortable and borderline qualification are equivalent in the next stage.

Cash

To take a trick with a card that is currently the highest in the suit, thought likely to succeed, or to take all available winners in a suit.

Cavendish variation

A version of Chicago, with dealer's side not vulnerable on the second and third hands, as in the standard version.

CBF

Canadian Bridge Federation.

Change of suit

A bid in a new suit, as 1♠ in the sequence 1♦ - 1♥; 1♠.

Chicago

A variant of rubber bridge in which a rubber consists of four deals with vulnerability predetermined for each deal.

Chicane

A hand without any trumps.

CHO

Centre-hand opponent (slang), a derogatory or facetious term for one's partner, or partners generally. Compare LHO and RHO, left- and right-hand opponents.

Chunky

A suit with enough honor strength to play well unaided by partner's cards (but not solid) is chunky. Normally said of four-card suits. AQJ10 is a chunky suit; AQ96 is not chunky.

Claim

A statement by declarer about how the remaining unplayed tricks will be won or lost. Normally the claiming player exposes his hand and describes the sequence of play for the remaining tricks (but such plays as finesses, unless already proven, are disallowed). A claim is best made only when the play of the rest of the hand is obvious. Claims are often inadvisable: apart from the possibility of a mistaken analysis, it can take longer to explain the line of play than to play it. See also concession.

Clear a suit

Knock out an opponent's high-card control of a suit, or unblock one's own high cards.

Closed hand

Declarer's hand (as distinct from the dummy, which is faced or open).

Closed room

In a team match, a room where two of the pairs compete, and in which spectators are not allowed.

Coffeehousing

Making improper remarks to mislead the opponents, or asking improper questions designed to suggest a defensive play.

Cold

A contract that a player cannot fail to make, even against the best defense, is cold.

Combination

See suit combination.

finesse: See double finesse in finesse.

Combination play

A line of play that offers more than one chance to take additional tricks: for example, playing to drop an honor in a longer suit and then finessing for an honor in a shorter suit.

Come-on

A defensive signal that encourages partner to continue a suit, usually by means of the rank of the card used to follow suit.

Comic notrump

A notrump overcall that shows a weak hand with a long suit, to which the overcaller can escape if doubled. Also known as Gardener 1NT.

Communication

The placement of the lead in one or the other of the two partnership hands, so as to make a subsequent lead from the more advantageous hand, specifically the ability to place the lead in such hand.

The means of conveying a message to partner via the bidding and by the card played to a trick. The only legal means of communication is through the calls and plays themselves, rather than through mannerisms such as tone of voice and hesitations. Often generalized as communications in both senses.

Comparative scoring

The method of scoring used in matchpoint or Board-a-Match events. The metric used is not the number of points earned on a particular deal, as it is when using quantitative scoring, but the number of pairs that have been out-scored.

Competitive auction

A bidding sequence which involves both partnerships. Also, competitive bidding.

Concession

A statement by a player as to the number of remaining tricks that he must lose. See also claim.

Condone

To act after an opponent's irregularity without arranging for the penalty specified in the Laws to be applied.

Congratulatory jack

The unnecessary play (by follow-suit or by discard) of a jack following partner's exceptionally successful action. More often used by the defense, but possible as a play from dummy.

Constructive

Bidding that is aimed at reaching a side's optimum contract, as distinct from calls intended to interfere with the opponents' bidding.

Constructive raise: by partnership agreement, a single raise of a major suit opening that shows more strength than usual.

Contract

The statement of the pair who has won the bidding, that they will take at least the given number of tricks. The contract consists of two components: the level, stating the number of tricks to be taken (in addition to the book tricks), and the denomination, denoting the trump suit (or its absence in a notrump bid). The last bid in the bidding phase denotes the final contract.

Short for Contract bridge in contrast to Auction bridge (auction) and other card games in the family.

Control

A feature of a hand which prevents the defenders from taking sufficient immediate tricks in a specific suit so as to set the contract or make the setting of the contract unavoidable. Aces are termed "first-round" controls and kings are termed "second-round" controls. In trump contracts, voids are also considered first-round controls and singletons second-round controls. See also stopper.

(Said of trump contracts) Declarer's ability to manage the trump suit successfully. To lose control usually means being forced to shorten one's trumps so much that the opponents can subsequently control the play of the hand. See Forcing defense.

Control-bid

A bid that shows control of a particular suit. Often a cue bid, but not all cue bids are control-bids.

Convenient club

See Short club.

Convention

An agreement between partners on an artificial meaning of a call or sequence of calls, which is not necessarily related to the length and strength of bid suits or of willingness to play in notrump. Many bidding conventions are artificial; see, for example, Slam-seeking conventions.

An agreement that a particular defensive play has a special meaning. Compare with Treatment.

Convention card

A form filled out by a partnership that shows the bidding and play conventions they are using. Normally used during tournaments.

Convert

To change the effect of a call. For example, passing partner's overcall of 2♦ when playing Michaels cue bids converts the overcall from a request to bid a major suit to a contract of 2♦. There are many other applications: for example, to pass partner's takeout double is to convert it to a penalty double.

Correct

In the bidding, to choose (usually) partner's first bid suit; in that case, a correction is equivalent to a preference.

COS

Acronym for Choice of Slams. An artificial or natural bid made to ask partner to select a strain from several choices where the slam might be played.

Count

(Noun) The number of cards held in a suit or suits, usually said of an opponent's hand.

(Verb) To determine, by inference or by follow-suit, the number of cards held in a suit by an opponent.

(Noun) In squeeze play, the number of tricks that declarer must lose before the squeeze can function. See rectify the count.

Count signal

A defensive card play that shows whether the player has an even or odd number of cards in a suit.

Coup

Any extremely skillful play.

Any of several specific play techniques, such as the Scissors coup, Trump coup or Devil's coup.

Coup en passant

The lead of a side suit through an opponent who holds a higher trump so as to score a lower trump in the third hand.

Coup without a name

See Scissors coup. "Coup without a name" is an earlier term for the coup, conferred by Ely Culbertson.

Cover card

A card (honor or extra trump) which is known to compensate one of partner's losers; for example, a king in trumps covers partner's trump loser.

Crack

(Slang) To make a penalty double.

CRASH

An acronym for Color, RAnk and SHape, a convention used to show a 2-suited hand, as an overcall of opponents' strong 1 ♣ or 2♣ opening. The two suits share the same color (red or black), rank (majors or minors) or shape (rounded or pointed). The type of pairing is shown by the number of steps above the opening bid that are taken up by the overcall.

The play of two winners by a pair on a single trick: for example, the ace and king of trumps. This usually involves a declarer's use of a deceptive play to cause a defender to follow suit with one high card (for example, the K from Kx) when the other defender holds the singleton ace.

Crocodile coup

On defense, second hand's play of a higher card than apparently necessary, so as to obtain the lead. The play is intended to prevent fourth hand from being forced into the lead to make a return favorable to declarer. The name suggests a crocodile opening its maw to swallow up partner's winning card.

Cross

To enter the opposite hand. Normally used of dummy or declarer's hand: "He crossed to dummy in diamonds."

Crossruff

A playing technique in trump contracts, where extra tricks are gained by ruffing in both hands alternately.

Cross-IMP scoring

A form of IMP scoring in pairs tournaments, where each pair's score is determined as an (averaged) sum of differences to all other scores (rather than to a single datum score). Also known as X-Imps or Calcutta.

Cuebid (also, cue bid or cue-bid)

A bid of the opponents' suit in a competitive auction. Usually a conventional, forcing bid that shows strength or an unusual hand, or a particular distribution.

A bid that shows a control in a suit (usually with an ace or king, sometimes with a void), but does not indicate length or strength in the suit otherwise. See control bid. Partnership agreements indicate when in an uncontested auction a bid is considered a cue bid. Usually used in exploring for a slam contract (see Bridge conventions (slam seeking)), or for showing stoppers needed for a notrump game.

Culbertson system

The earliest dominant bidding system, developed by Ely and Josephine Culbertson. Its principal features were an approach-forcing bidding style, four-card majors, strong two-bids and the use of an honor trick table to evaluate hand strength.

The curse of Scotland

The ♦9. The origin of the term is uncertain.

Cutthroat bridge

A form of three-handed bridge.

D

Danger hand

(Usually in reference to the defenders.) An opponent who, if he obtains the lead, can damage declarer's prospects.

Datum

The mean or median of raw scores on a deal. The datum is used as a basis for calculating IMPs for the participating teams or pairs. The datum may be trimmed by removing extreme scores at either end of the distribution, a procedure whose effect on a mean or on a median depends on the degree of skewness in the raw scores.

Dead

(Usually in reference to the dummy.) A hand that has no card of entry.

Deal

1) One particular allocation of 52 cards to the four players including the bidding, the play of the cards and the scoring based on those cards. Also called board or hand.

2) (Verb) To allocate the 52 cards to the four players or hands, 13 each.

Dealer

The player who makes the first call in the auction. In some versions of the game, this player also deals the cards. In rubber bridge, the first dealer is usually decided by a cut for the highest card. In duplicate bridge, cards are dealt only at the outset of the session and the deal is preserved during the session by the use of boards. The "dealer" who will make the first call is identified by a mark on the physical board, commonly the word "dealer".

Deck

The 52 cards used in bridge.

Declaration

The contract in which a hand is played.

Declarative-Interrogative

See D-I.

Declarer

Of the partnership that makes the final bid in the auction, declarer is the partner who first names the denomination or strain of the final bid, thus the strain of the contract. During the play, declarer sits across from the dummy and calls for cards from the dummy's hand, or "plays the dummy."

Declaring side

The side that wins the auction.

Deep finesse

A finesse against two or more cards.

Defeat

(Said of the contract). To prevent declarer from taking the number of tricks called for by his contract. Also, set.

Defenders

The pair that tries to defeat the contract.

Defense

Declarer's opponents or their line of play.

Defensive bidding

1) A bid or sequence of bids designed to hinder the opponents' bidding, including sacrifices.

2) All bidding by the partnership which does not open, which necessarily begins with a double or overcall (intervention).

Delayed

Postponed, as the jump preference in the auction 1♥ - 1♠; 2♦ - 3♥. Many bids have a different meaning depending on whether or not they are made at the first opportunity.

Denomination (also 'strain')

Component of a bid that denotes the proposed trump suit or notrump. Thus, there are five denominations - notrump, spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs. The Laws of Contract Bridge and of Duplicate Bridge refer to the term denomination exclusively but the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge states that "the modern term is strain"; strain is generally used in bridge literature.

DEPO

Acronym for Double Even, Pass Odd. Conventional method for bidding over interference with Blackwood.

Deschapelles coup

On defense, the lead of an unsupported honor in order to create an entry to partner's hand.

Develop

To establish tricks in a suit, usually by forcing out the opponents' stoppers.

Devil's coup

In the endgame, the play of a side suit through a defender to create an overruff and a subsequent trump finesse.

D-I

(Abbreviation of Declarative-Interrogative.) 4NT as a general slam try that asks partner to show features. D-I is incorporated in several bidding systems, including Neapolitan, Blue Team Club and Kaplan-Sheinwold. 4NT D-I is distinguished from Blackwood by means of the bidding context.

Direction

A player's position at the bridge table (North, East, South or West).

Direct position

Usually said of a bid that is made immediately following RHO's bid. Contrast with balance.

Director

Referee (in duplicate bridge). The director enforces the rules, assigns penalties for violations, and oversees the progress of the game. The director may also be responsible for the final scoring. At a tournament there may be several directors, reporting to a Head Director. In ACBL-sponsored events, a director's ruling as to bridge fact may be appealed; a ruling as to discipline, so as to maintain an orderly event, may not.

Discard

1) (Verb) To play a card that is neither of the suit led, nor trump, and that therefore cannot win the trick.

2) (Noun) The card so played.

Discouraging card

A carding signal that discourages partner from leading a particular suit. Contrast with come-on.

Discovery play

A play, either by declarer or by the defense, intended to obtain information about the location of other cards.

Distribution

1) (Suit distribution) Of one suit on a deal, the numbers of cards or lengths in the four hands. Sometimes the length of a suit in one or two hands is known or presumed and its "distribution" covers only three or two hands, as "opposing distribution" said of the other pair from the perspective of one pair or player.

2) (Hand distribution, also shape or pattern) Of one 13-card hand on a deal, the numbers of cards or lengths in the four suits. Sometimes the length of one or two suits is known or presumed and "distribution" covers only three or two suits, as "distribution in the minors" said of one hand whose major-suit distribution is known.

General. The degree to which four suits in one hand, one suit in four hands, or all of the hands and suits are dealt in long and short holdings. Long and short holdings constitute "lots of distribution" and three-card holdings in particular constitute "no distribution".

Specific. Either way, four whole numbers that sum to 13 are commonly used to denote a distribution briefly, such as 4333 or 4-3-3-3 for a hand comprising one four-card suit and three three-card suits; or for a suit with one four-card holding and three three-card holdings in the four hands. Also 22 or 2-2 for the opposing distribution of spades when one pair holds nine of them; or for one hand's distribution in the minors when it holds nine in the Majors.

Fully specified. Conventionally neither 4333 nor 4-3-3-3 indicates which is the four-card suit in a hand while 4=3=3=3 means four spades, represented first, and three each in hearts, diamonds, and clubs. Thus 4=6=2=1 means 4 spades, 6 hearts, 2 diamonds, and 1 club.

Distribution point

A measure of one hand's strength due to the length or shortness of suits. See Hand evaluation.

DONT

Acronym for Disturb Opponents Notrump. A conventional defense to notrump opening bids.

DOPE

Acronym for Double Odd, Pass Even. A conventional method for bidding over interference with Blackwood.

DOPI

A proxi-acronym for Double, O (the letter O standing for zero or none), Pass and I (the letter I standing for the numeral 1 or one). A conventional method for bidding over interference with Blackwood. Pronounced "dopey."

Double

1) a call that increases penalties if the opponents fail to make their contract, but consequently also increases the bonuses if they make it. A player can double only a contract bid by the opposition. Referred to as penalty double

2) a call having various alternative conventional meanings depending upon the bidding context. See informatory double, takeout double, negative double, lead-directing double, responsive double and support double.

Double dummy

(Adjective or adverb.) Said of a play or line of play that seems to be made with knowledge of all four hands, as if there were at least two dummies visible. Compare with single dummy.

When said of the defenders jointly, "double dummy defense" suggests that that pair knows all four hands and agrees on both goals and tactics such as falsecards, as if the cards were visible and they discussed those points.

Double dummy problem

A bridge problem presented for entertainment, in which the solver is presented with all four hands and is asked to determine the course of play that will achieve or defeat a particular contract.

Double finesse

A finesse for two missing cards.

Double into game

To double a part score such that, if the contract is fulfilled, the total of the doubled trick scores will exceed 100 points.

Double knockout

A team event that requires two losses for elimination.

Double negative

An agreement regarding a second negative bid by a player who has already made one. Normally used regarding sequences that follow strong, forcing opening bids.

Double raise

A raise of two levels, such as 1♠ - 3♠.

Double squeeze

A squeeze in which each opponent must guard a different suit, and both opponents must guard a third suit.

Doubleton

A holding of exactly two cards in a suit.

Down

1) A contract that is defeated is said to be down.

2) (Followed by a number) The number of tricks by which a contract fails: for example, "Down two."

Down the line

To bid the higher of two adjacent suits before the lower. For example, of two five-card majors, the spade suit is normally bid before the heart suit. Contrast with Up the line.

Draw

To extract, usually trumps. To remove the opponents' trump cards is to "draw trumps."

Drive out

To force a stopper from an opponent's hand, usually by repeatedly leading the suit.

Drop

1) (Verb) To fall under a higher card: "The ♠Q dropped under the ♠K."

2) (Noun) That occurrence itself: "He played for the drop instead of finessing."

Duck

A play technique in which a player does not immediately play a card that might take a trick, but plays a small card instead.

Dummy

1) The partner of the declarer. Dummy's cards are placed face up on the table and played by the declarer. Dummy has few rights and may not participate in choices concerning the play of the hand.

2) The dummy's hand as exposed on the table.

Dummy play

The play of the hand by declarer. The apparent contradiction is due to the fact that declarer plays both declarer's cards and the dummy's.

Dummy reversal

A playing technique in trump contracts that gains extra tricks by ruffing in the hand that began with the longer trumps.

Dump

To lose a match deliberately, usually so as to assist another team or pair in the event. A subject of considerable controversy in the 1990s and beyond.

Duplicate bridge

A form of bridge where every deal is played at several tables, by several pairs, and their scores on each deal are subsequently compared. A minimum of two tables (four pairs) are required for a duplicate bridge event. Each entry might be a pair, or a team consisting of two or more pairs; the type of scoring varies accordingly. The hands of each deal are kept in metal or plastic containers called boards that are passed between tables.

Duplication of values

The possession of values in a single suit, in both partners' hands. Usually said of high card values in one hand paired with a singleton or void in partner's hand. Such a holding is normally undesirable: ♠KJ9 facing a void is much less useful than ♠KJ9 facing ♠Q4.

E

Eastern Scientific

A bidding style that developed in the Eastern United States, particularly the New York region. It is characterized by five-card majors with a forcing one notrump response and limit raises, strong notrump with Jacoby transfers, and strong (but not game forcing) two-over-one responses.

EBL

European Bridge League, the official organising body of bridge in Europe.

EBU

English Bridge Union, the official organising body of bridge in England.

Echo

The play of first the higher, then the lower of two cards of the same suit on separate tricks to encourage or, by prior agreement, to discourage (see upside-down signals) partner's continuation of a suit; or to signal possession of (normally) an even number of cards in the suit at the time the higher card is played.

EHAA

Acronym for Every Hand An Adventure, a bidding style that emphasizes very weak notrump opening bids (often 10-12 HCP), four-card majors, and undisciplined weak-two bids.

Eight ever, nine never

A Bridge maxim that advises players when to finesse for a missing queen. With eight cards in the suit, always ("ever") finesse; but with nine cards, never finesse, rather play for the queen to drop under the play of the ace and king. Experienced players often ignore this advice in favor of considerations such as the danger hand, combination play, and the known or inferred distribution of other suits.

EKB

Acronym for Exclusion Keycard Blackwood, a variant of the Roman Keycard Blackwood, which shows a void in the bid suit and asks partner to exclude the named suit ace if held.

Elimination

The removal, by playing a suit or suits, of safe exit cards from defenders' hands, normally in preparation for an endplay. The classic (but not the only) example is to leave an endplayed defender with the choice of conceding a ruff and discard or giving declarer a free finesse.

Elope

To win a trick by ruffing with a trump lower in rank than an opponent's trump. The Coup en passant is an example of an elopement.

Encrypted

An agreement that the meaning of bids or card signals may change as more information about a deal becomes available. For example, when declarer shows out of a suit, the defenders can tell whether the rank of West's lowest remaining card in the suit is even or odd (and declarer probably does not have that information). The defenders might have agreed that if West's lowest remaining card is even, normal attitude signals will be in effect, but if it is odd, upside-down signals will be used. In such a case, the defenders' agreement is encrypted.

Ending

The layout of the cards when just a few tricks remain to be played. In a "four-card ending", each player has four cards left. Such positions can be of special interest because squeezes and other endplays tend to occur near the end of the play.

Endplay

A play which forces a particular opponent to win a trick, so that that opponent must then make a favorable lead. That player is said to be "endplayed". Normally, the player who is endplayed is a defender. Although the word implies that the play occurs toward the end of a hand, it often occurs earlier, and in exceptional cases the opening leader can be said to be "endplayed at Trick One."

Enter

1) To win a trick in the opposite hand, thereby giving it the right to lead to the next trick.

2) To make the first call for a partnership after the opponents have bid.

3) To join a bridge competition.

Entry

1) A card that allows a particular hand to win a trick that partner or an opponent has led to. Entries are vital to communication.

2) A seating assignment in a bridge competition. Entries designate the participants' initial table number, direction at that table, and (if applicable) section.

Entry-shifting squeeze

A squeeze in which the declarer decides whether to overtake the squeeze card or to let it hold the trick, depending on the play of the intervening opponent.

Entry squeeze

A squeeze that puts pressure on a holding that interferes with declarer's entries.

Equal level conversion

An agreement concerning rebids after take-out doubles. Traditionally, the bid of a new suit by the player who has made a take-out double is considered forcing. Under the equal level conversion agreement, the bid of a new suit by the doubler is not forcing if it is at the same level as advancer's bid. So, equal level conversion means that in the sequence 1♠ - (Dbl) - P - (2♦); P - (2♥), 2♥ is considered non-forcing.

Equals

Cards in one hand that are adjacent in rank and thus have equal trick-taking power.

Escape suit

A long suit to which a bidder can escape if necessary or desirable. The bidder of a comic notrump might run to his long suit if doubled.

Establish

To make winners of the remaining cards in a suit by playing or forcing out higher cards.

Even

1) A split with the same number of cards in each hand. A 2-2 split is an even split.

2) Of the number of cards in a suit found in a hand: two cards, four cards, and so on.

Event

A duplicate bridge contest.

Exclusion bid

A bid, such as 2♦ in the Roman Club system, that shows length in all suits except the one named.

Exclusion Blackwood

An agreement that responder to a Blackwood bid will show the number of aces held outside a particular suit.

Exit card

A card that is used to put a different hand on lead, normally to avoid making a self-destructive lead in another suit.

Expert

Someone who plays bridge better than others in their usual level of play.

Exposed card

A card whose suit and rank become known through an irregularity. An exposed card may be subject to penalty.

Extra values

Values (in the form of High card points, shortage or cover cards), which are in addition to the values that a player has promised so far in the bidding.

F

Face

1) (Noun) The front of a card; the side that displays its suit and rank.

2) (Verb) To turn a card so that its face is visible to other players.

Face card

A king, queen, or jack. (Compare with honor.)

Factoring

The adjustment of matchpoint scores to correct for dissimilar conditions. For example, a game played with a Mitchell movement might have an extra N-S pair, causing a bye round for N-S. The top is therefore lower for N-S pairs than for E-W pairs, and the N-S scores are multiplied by a fraction (or "factor") to make them commensurate with the E-W scores.

Fall

To be captured by a higher card. See drop.

False preference

A return to partner's first-bid suit despite a longer holding in the second suit. Usually intended to give partner an opportunity for another bid.

False sacrifice

See Phantom sacrifice.

Falsecard

A card played with the intention of deceiving an opponent as to one's true holding. Also, the act of making such a play.

Fast arrival

A style of bidding under which the fewer bids used to reach a contract (usually said of game contracts), the weaker the bidder's hand. Fast arrival holds that 1♠ - 2♦; 2♠ - 4♠ is weaker than 1♠ - 2♦; 2♠ - 3♣; 3NT - 4♠. Compare with slow arrival.

Fast rubber

A rubber completed in two games. See slow rubber.

Feature

An honor or shortness in a suit. Conventional bids such as splinter bids or D-I are intended to show or elicit features.

Fert

(Slang) Short for "fertilizer", a very weak opening bid. A systemic Treatment in strong pass systems.

Field

All the players in a bridge event, as in "with the field" to refer to an action that most players will take, and "against the field" for an unusual action.

Field a psych

Deciding correctly that partner has psyched in the absence of a call that reveals the psych. Sometimes used when that decision is made on the basis of unauthorized information or an undisclosed partnership understanding.

Fillers

Mid-rank cards that strengthen a suit. See body.

Final contract

The last bid made on a hand.

Finesse

A technique that attempts to gain a trick or tricks by taking advantage of a favorable lie of the opponents' cards.

Fit

1) A long suit (usually 8 cards or more) in two combined hands, that might be used as trumps.

2) Two hands that are productive together (i.e., that have at least one fitting suit and few wasted values). Compare with Misfit.

See also Moysian fit and Golden fit.

Fit-bid

A bid in a suit that shows length and strength in the bid suit plus a fit for partner's suit. Jump shifts in competition are often defined as fit-bids. Compare with Fragment bid and Mixed (definition 2).

Five-card majors

An agreement that an opening bid in spades or hearts promises at least five cards in the suit. The alternative agreement is four-card majors.

Fix

1) (Noun) An undeservedly poor result, usually caused by an opponent's error or eccentric play that happens to turn out well.

2) (Verb) To be the victim of a fix: "We were fixed on Board 8."

Flannery

A conventional opening bid of two diamonds (some prefer two hearts instead) to show 11-15 HCP with 5 hearts and 4 spades.

Flat

1) Flat hand: A hand that lacks distributional features such as a singleton, a void, or a very long suit. Often, 4-3-3-3 distribution.

2) Flat board: A deal in duplicate bridge that results in scores across the field that are identical, or nearly so.

Float

1) To be followed by two or three passes. For example, West's spade bid "floated around" to South in 1♠ - (P) - P.

2) To fail to cover the card led, usually by two consecutive hands. "South floated the ♠Q to East."

Flower movement

An adaptation of the Howell movement in which the players, rather than the boards, progress regularly from table to table. Also known as "Endless Howell."

Follow suit

To play a card of the same suit as the one that was first led to the trick. Failure to follow suit when one can do so constitutes a revoke.

Force to

To bid with the intention of causing the bidding to proceed to a particular level. For example: "In this auction, 2♣ forced to game", or "My reverse forced to the three-level."

Forcing bid

A bid that, by partnership understanding, requires the bidder's partner to make another bid. A forcing bid is not necessarily a strong bid. It is legal to pass partner's forcing bid, and players occasionally do so if they believe it advantageous on a given hand, but it is damaging to partnership confidence.

See also Game force, Grand slam force and One round force.

Forcing defense

The lead and subsequent continuation of a suit that the defenders believe declarer will have to ruff in the long trump hand. The strategy is to shorten declarer's trump holding so as to leave the defenders in control of the hand. See Tap.

Forcing notrump

An agreement that a 1NT response to a 1♥ or 1♠ opening is a forcing bid.

Forcing pass

1) A pass in a competitive auction that requires partner either to make another bid or to double or redouble the opponents' current call. Experienced partnerships often have agreements about the meaning of bidding immediately in contrast to making a forcing pass and then bidding over partner's double (pass and pull).

2) An initial pass when playing a strong pass system.

Fork

A tenace.

Fouled board

A board whose cards are not distributed as they were when first played, due to returning the cards to their slots erroneously.

Four-card majors

An agreement that an opening bid of 1♥ or 1♠ promises at least four cards in the suit bid. The usual alternative is five-card majors. The four-card major agreement was standard during the first four decades of contract bridge, but has since given way to five-card majors in "standard" systems such as 2/1 game forcing and Standard American. It is used in the Blue Team Club and EHAA.

Four-deal bridge

See Chicago.

Fourth

1) A player needed to complete a table, usually said of rubber bridge.

2) Of four-card suit length: for example, Q987 is referred to as "queen-fourth."

Fourth hand

The fourth player with an opportunity to bid, or to play to a trick.

Fourth suit forcing

1) The initial use of a bid of the fourth suit as forcing to some level.

2) An agreement that the partnership's bid of the fourth suit, in addition to its forcing nature, is possibly artificial.

Fragment

A holding of three or even two cards in a suit, thus not long enough to suggest as a trump suit. A partnership may treat the bid of a fragment as a means of implying shortness in another suit (see fragment bid). A fragment may also be bid after the single raise of a major as a help suit game try.

Fragment bid

A second-round jump bid (usually a double jump) that by agreement shows a fit with partner's last-bid suit and shortness in another suit. Under this agreement, in 1♣ - 1♥; 3♠ the bid of 3♠ is a fragment bid, showing a fit for hearts and a singleton or void in diamonds. The suit of the fragment bid is often three cards long. Compare with splinter bid.

Freak

(Also, "freak hand.") A hand with a very long suit or suits. Most would regard a hand with two six card suits as a freak.

Free bid

A bid that is made when a pass would still allow partner to make a bid. Normally used of a bid that is made after partner has opened the bidding and RHO has overcalled. Compare with Negative free bid.

Free finesse

A position in which a player leads up to an opponent's tenace, solving that opponent's possible guess. The term is normally used when the player is forced to make that lead.

| ♥ Q 8 |
♥ J 5 | W    N↑ S↓    E | ♥ K 3
| ♥ A 10 |

Frozen

A frozen suit is one that neither side can play without damage to its own holding in the suit. Declarer can sometimes duck the defense's lead to freeze the suit. See example at right.

G

Gambling 3NT

An opening bid of 3NT. The bidder hopes to make the contract by means of a long minor suit rather than by a preponderance of high cards.

Game

A contract, bid and made, worth 100 points or more. The undoubled game contracts are 3NT (40 for the first trick + 30 each for the second and third); 4♥ and 4♠ in the majors (4 tricks × 30 points per trick); 5♣ and 5♦ in the minors (5 tricks × 20 points per trick). Game can also be made via a doubled or redoubled contract: e.g., 2♠ doubled is worth 2 × (2 tricks × 30 points per trick) = 120 points. The pair bidding and making the game is awarded a bonus. See Bridge scoring.

Game force

A bid that asks partner not to pass before the partnership's bidding has reached game (or the opponents have been doubled at a level high enough to compensate). Some treatments relax the requirement: for example, the agreement that in the sequence 1M - 2m, the 2m response is a game force unless the suit is rebid. So, in 1♠ - 2♦; 2♥ - 3♦, 3♦ would cancel the game-forcing message of the 2♦ bid.

See also Forcing bid, Grand slam force and One round force.

Game try

A bid, often in a side suit, which invites the partner to bid a game if he has extra values in the context of the prior bidding. A help-suit game try is made in the suit where one hopes that partner holds cover cards. A short-suit game try is made in the suit where one hopes that the partnership has no duplication of values.

Golden fit

A combined partnership holding of at least eight cards in a suit. In the UK, simply known as a fit.

See also Moysian fit

Good

Said of a card or cards that have been established.

Goren system

A system of bidding, dominant in the United States from the 1940s through the 1960s, based on the Culbertson system. The principal difference between the two systems was in hand evaluation: Culbertson used honor tricks to assess a hand's strength whereas Goren used High card points.

Goulash

A style of dealing, usually in rubber and Chicago games, where the cards are not thoroughly shuffled between deals and are dealt in groups. It results in "wild" card distributions.

Grand coup

A trump coup in which the cards ruffed in the long trump hand are already winners.

Grand slam

A contract to win all thirteen tricks. Bidding and making a grand slam scores significant bonus points.

Grand slam force (GSF)

A method of determining whether the partnership holds the top trump honors when the bid of a grand slam is a possibility. In its original form, the GSF was initiated with a bid of 5NT, asking partner to bid a grand slam with two of the top three honors in the trump suit. Depending on the prior bidding, other bids are often used in place of 5NT, and there is a variety of schemes for responding to the GSF. See Josephine.

See also Forcing bid, Game force and One round force.

Grosvenor gambit

A play that creates no direct advantage and might lose. Its principal features are that an opponent will not suspect that such an inept play has been made, and that once the opponent realizes what has occurred, he will be frustrated and angry (and therefore less effective) during subsequent hands. The ploy was first described in a satiric story by Frederick B. Turner in the June 1973 issue of The Bridge World.

Guard

A holding that prevents an opponent from taking a trick or tricks. See stopper, guard squeeze.

H

Hand

1) The 13 cards held by one player on a deal.

2) A deal or board.

3) Ordinally, a player counting in rotation from dealer or first hand. For example, "Third hand bid 1♠."

Hand pattern

See distribution.

Hand record

A document that lists the cards in each hand of every board played in a duplicate bridge session. Often, hand records also list contracts each partnership can make with double dummy declarer play and double dummy defense.

Help-suit game try

The bid of a side suit after a single raise, used to help partner evaluate game prospects when opener's hand is roughly a trick stronger than a minimum opening. For example, after 1♥ - 2♥, opener might rebid 3♣ with a side club suit or a strong club fragment. The bid tells partner where high cards will be most helpful, and requests partner to take positive action, such a direct jump to game, with strength in that suit. Otherwise, the bid requests partner to sign off (in this example, by bidding 3♥). See short-suit game try and game try.

Hesitation

A brief pause before a bid or play, considered somewhat shorter than a Huddle.

High-low signal

See Echo.

High card

1) An honor card.

2) The highest-ranking card in a suit at any point during the play.

High card points (HCP)

A method for evaluating a hand's strength, where every honor card is assigned a numeric value. See Hand evaluation.

Hold

1) To keep declarer to a particular number of tricks, usually the number required to make the contract.

2) To have in one's hand a particular card or set of cards.

3) (Of a card) To win a trick although a higher card is outstanding.

Hold up

1) (Verb) To defer taking a winning card until an advantageous point in the hand, usually in reference to tricks that the opponents have led to. There are various purposes for holding up a winner, but it is frequently done to force the opponents to use their entries too soon.

2) (Noun) The act of holding up a winner.

Holding

1) The cards in a player's hand at a particular point in the play (often, at the start of the play).

2) The cards in a specific suit in a player's hand.

Honor or honour (card)

An ace, king, queen, jack or ten.

Honor or honour bonus

At rubber bridge and Chicago, a scoring bonus. The bonus is 100 points for one hand holding four of the five trump suit honors. The bonus is 150 points for all five trump suit honors, or all four aces in a notrump contract.

Honor or honour tricks (also known as quick tricks)

A method of hand evaluation used in the Culbertson system, which assigns point values to honors and combinations of honors. AK is two honor tricks, AQ is 1½ honor tricks, A or KQ is 1 honor trick, and Kx is ½ honor trick.

Hook

(Slang) Finesse (noun or verb).

House player

An employee of a bridge club who is available as a fourth.

Howell movement

A pairs tournament movement where each pair typically plays against all or most of the other pairs, and there is a single set of winners. Most of the pairs will move to a different position at the end of each round.

Huddle

1) (Noun) A pause prior to a bid or play of longer than usual duration.

2) (Verb) To take that lengthy pause.

HUM

Acronym for Highly Unusual Methods.

I

Idle

(Said of a card) Available as a discard; not required for purposes such as guarding the opponents' suit or interfering with their communications.

IMP

Acronym for International Match Point.

Impropriety

A breach of ethical conduct or etiquette; an action that violates the Proprieties.

IMPs

The form of duplicate bridge that uses International Match Points (IMPs) as a scoring method, as distinct from a game scored at Matchpoints (MPs).

In back of

| ♠Q54 |
Irrelevant | W    N↑ S↓    E | ♠K76
| ♠A98 |

A card or holding that is to the left of, or behind, or over another. To say that the ♠A is in back of the ♠K is to say that the ace is to the left of the king, or behind it, or over it; so, the ♠A is in a position to directly capture the ♠K.

Individual

A form of duplicate bridge, scored at matchpoints, in which each player is paired with a different partner on each round.

Informatory double

A double that is intended to convey information rather than to exact a penalty from the opponents. Such doubles include the takeout double, the negative double, the support double, the responsive double and the lead-directing double, although the latter is intended to convey information and to penalize.

In front of

| ♠Q54 |
♠K76 | W    N↑ S↓    E | Irrelevant
| ♠A98 |

A card or holding that is to the right of or under another. To say that the ♠A is in front of the ♠K is to say that the ace is to the right of the king, or under it, and normally cannot capture the ♠K if it is guarded.

Insufficient bid

A bid that is not higher than the immediately preceding bid, and therefore illegal.

Insult

(Slang) The bonus for making a doubled or redoubled contract is sometimes referred to as the "insult" or as being "for the insult".

Insurance bid

A bid, usually a sacrifice bid, intended to keep the opponents from playing their (presumably optimum) contract. The bidder hopes that insurance premium – the penalty due to the sacrifice bid – will be less than the damage from allowing the opponents to make their contract.

Interference

A call, such as an overcall or an initial preempt, that is intended to make it more difficult for the opponents to bid to their best contract.

Intermediate

1) Nines, eights and sevens are sometimes termed "intermediate cards." See body.

2) A jump overcall that by agreement may be made with a hand of opening bid strength and a long suit is termed an "intermediate jump overcall."

3) An opening two-bid that by agreement may be made with values just short of those required for a game-forcing opening bid is termed an "intermediate two-bid."

International Match Point (IMP)

1) (Noun) A method of scoring in a team match that compares a result on a board to that obtained at the other table and that converts the difference to IMPs using a table defined by WBF. The IMP scale's effect is to reduce the influence of very large differences, thus making it less likely that the outcome of an entire match will depend on one board only.

2) (Verb) To perform the IMP score conversion.

Intra-finesse

A technique that involves successive finesses against both opponents.

Inverted minors

A treatment that uses the single raise of a minor suit as strong, and a double raise as preemptive.

Invitation

A bid which invites the partner to bid on to game or slam if he has extra values. It is a non-forcing bid by definition. Compare semi-forcing bid.

IPBM

International Popular Bridge Monthly, a British bridge magazine.

Iron Duke, Not through the

A hackneyed phrase that describes the play of a high card by a player whose high card holding is led through; or, that player's statement.

Irregularity

A breach of procedure, as described in the Laws and Proprieties, in bidding or play. If one is available, a director should be called to the table to make a ruling.

Isolate

(Said of a menace card) To isolate a menace in squeeze play is to arrange that only one opponent can guard one of declarer's threat suits. The play is conceptually similar to transferring a control.

J

Jacoby transfers, or simply "transfers"

A convention initiated by responder following partner's notrump opening bid that requests opener rebid in the suit ranked just above that bid by responder, i.e. a response in diamonds requests a rebid in hearts and a response in hearts requests a rebid in spades; other responses may carry other meanings; designed to make the stronger hand declarer.

Jacoby 2NT

By agreement, a forcing raise of a major suit opening bid, used in conjunction with limit jump raises. Opener is requested to rebid in a suit where he holds a singleton so that responder can better evaluate the fit.

Jam the bidding

(Slang) To preempt.

Jettison

The discard of an honor, often by a defender, and usually to unblock a suit.

Josephine

An alternative term, popular in Europe, for the grand slam force. The convention was developed by Ely Culbertson, and popularized in a late 1930s Bridge World article by Josephine Culbertson.

Journalist leads

Opening lead convention, mainly against notrump contracts, designed to show both what the leader has, and to request specific partner actions in return.

Jump bid

A bid made at a level higher than the lowest level at which that suit could be legally bid.

Jump overcall

An overcall made at higher than the minimally legal level: for example, 1♥ - (2♠). In the 1930s, jump overcalls were treated as strong bids. They are now more frequently treated as weak, preemptive bids.

Jump preference

A preference to partner's first-bid suit, made at a level higher than the minimally legal level. In the following sequence, 3♥ is a jump preference: 1♥ - 1♠; 2♦ - 3♥. For many years, the jump preference was treated as invitational except in support of opener's minor, when it was treated as forcing. As of 2001, however, most experts treat all three-level jump preferences as invitational following opener's one-level new suit rebid: e.g., 1♣ - 1♦; 1♠ - 3♣

Jump raise

A raise of partner's suit one level higher than the minimum legal raise. For example, 1♥ - 3♥ or 1♦ - 1♥; 3♥

Jump rebid

A rebid of one's original suit, one level higher than necessary, usually showing a six-card suit: for example, 1♦ - 1♥; 3♦. The range of strength shown by a jump rebid is a matter of partnership agreement: some treat it as a one-round force, others (particularly if playing Kaplan-Sheinwold and the rebid suit is a minor) play it as only a little weaker than a game-forcing opening bid.

Jump shift

A jump bid of a new suit.

1) As a rebid by opener (e.g. 1♥ – 1♠; 3♣) or responder (e.g. 1♥ – 1♠; 1NT – 3♣), it indicates extra strength

2) As direct response (e.g. 1♥ – 2♠): usually, a very strong hand. However, another treatment (weak jump-shifts, requiring prior partnership agreement) uses the bid preemptively to show a weak hand and a long suit.

K

Kaplan-Sheinwold (K-S)

A bidding system that uses five card majors and the weak notrump.

Key-card Blackwood

An "ace-asking" convention that counts five keycards, four aces plus the king of the apparent trump suit. Commonly there is a follow-up to ask about the queen of trumps, effectively sixth keycard.

Kibitzer

A spectator.

Kickback

An ace asking convention initiated by the first step above four of the agreed trump suit. See Useful space principle.

Kiss of death

At pairs, plus or minus 200. A score of minus 200, down two undoubled and vulnerable, or down one doubled and vulnerable, is a likely bottom against a part score by the opponents. A score of plus 200 from making five-odd of a major after stopping in a partial, is a likely bottom against the game contracts bid by other pairs holding the same cards.

Knockout

A type of team-of-four tournament in which the winning teams from each round advance to the next. The losing team is removed from play (but see repechage). In a double knockout a team is removed from play only after losing two matches.

Knockout squeeze

A type of squeeze that operates in part against the defender's trump holding, when the defender threatens to win a plain suit trick and then lead a trump, thus reducing declarer's ruffing tricks. It is usual to call this play a knockout squeeze when the squeezed defender is second to play to the trick, and to call it a backwash squeeze when the squeezed defender is fourth to play.

Kock-Werner Redouble

A rescue mechanism employed when partner's bid is doubled for penalties. Invented by Rudolf Kock and Einar Werner from Sweden. See also SOS Redouble.

L

Last Train

A conventional bid that is one step above the current bid and one step below game in a trump suit. It is a mild slam try and conveys no information about the suit bid. After 1♥ - 3♥; 4♣, 4♦ is Last Train, invites slam, and does not necessarily show a diamond control.

Late play

A board that is played after the remainder of the event has finished, usually because of slow play or an irregularity.

Law of Total Tricks (LTT, "The Law")

A guideline stating that the total number of cards held by both sides in their longest trump fits equals the total number of tricks available to both sides in their best trump contracts. See Hand evaluation.

The Law is sometimes interpreted to mean that one side can profitably contract for a number of tricks equal to its own combined trump length; for example, compete to 3♠ with a nine-card spade fit.

Laws of Contract Bridge and Laws of Duplicate Bridge

The definitions, procedures and remedies that define how rubber bridge and duplicate bridge are played. The Laws include the Proprieties, which discuss the game's customs and etiquette — often far more important than procedural matters. The Laws apply worldwide. Individual sponsoring organizations, such as the ACBL and the EBL, establish their own regulations for play, which may amplify the Laws but may not conflict with them.

One important difference between the laws of rubber bridge (contract) and duplicate bridge is that rubber players are expected to deal with irregularities themselves while duplicate players are expected to call the director.

Laydown

A contract that can be made on any rational line of play.

Lead

1) The first card played to a trick, which dictates the suit that others must play if able to do so (see follow suit).

2) The hand that is entitled to lead to the next trick is said to be "on lead" or to "have the lead."

3) See opening lead.

Lead-directing double

A double by the partner of the prospective opening leader that requests the lead of a particular suit. Experienced partnerships usually agree on a set of suit priorities, such as opening leader's bid suit, doubler's bid suit, dummy's first bid suit, or a suit that dummy has just bid conventionally.

Lead out of turn

Playing a card when it was another player's turn to lead. Subject to penalty.

Lead through strength

A maxim that advises a defender to lead a suit in which LHO has high card strength, forcing declarer to play high or low before third hand plays. The corollary is that a defender is advised to lead up to weakness in the fourth hand.

Leap

To make a jump bid.

Leave in

To pass, often used of passing when partner's double was followed by a pass.

Lebensohl (Leb)

Responder's bid of 2NT as a puppet to 3♣ in preparation for a sign-off. Normally used after an overcall of partner's 1NT opening, or after a double of partner's weak two bid. Also used after opponents weak two bid and partner's balancing take-out double.

Leg

(Slang) game. Normally used in reference to rubber bridge. "A leg up" means being vulnerable vs. non-vulnerable opponents. "Cut off their leg" means becoming vulnerable vs. opponents who are already vulnerable.

Length

The number of cards held in a suit.

Level

1) The number of tricks that (when added to the book of six tricks) a bid or contract states will be taken. For example, a bid at the four level contracts to take (6 + 4) = 10 tricks.

2) The property of a contract that states whether it is at the part-score, game or slam level.

Lever

Slang expression for double

LHO

Left-hand opponent

Light

(Adv.) To enter the auction with relatively low values (for example, to "open light" or "overcall light"). To do so can be either a matter of tactics or of general style.

Lightner double

A penalty double, usually of a slam contract, that requests partner to choose an unusual suit for the opening lead. This criterion tends to regard as typical (and thus to exclude) a trump lead, the lead of defenders' bid suit, and the lead of an unbid suit.

Limit

In the bidding, to define a hand's strength with some degree of precision.

Limit jump raise

An invitational jump raise of a major suit, such as 1♥ - 3♥. Limit jump raises usually guarantee at least an 8-card fit in partner's major suit and around 10-11 HCP or the distributional equivalent.

Limit raise

Any call which invites partner to bid game in a suit partner has bid, previously. A limit raise promises trump support and hand strength about a king less than a minimum strength game force.

Line

1) (with "the"): A line on a bridge scorepad that separates points for tricks that count toward game (see Below the line) from those that do not (see Above the line).

2) On a given hand, the play strategy that is adopted by declarer or by the defenders.

3) Bidding: See Up the line and Down the line.

Lock

1) (Noun) A contract that is certain to succeed.

2) (Verb) To force a particular hand onto lead such that it cannot relinquish the lead unscathed.

LOL

Little Old Lady (pronounced El-Oh-El). A facetious reference to a seemingly weak player.

Long cards

Cards of the same suit, remaining in one hand, after all the other cards in that suit have been played from the other hands.

Long hand

In a partnership, the hand with the longer trumps.

Long suit

1) In a hand, the suit with the greatest number of cards. Seldom used of a suit with fewer than five cards.

2) Any suit of unusual length.

Loser

A card which apparently cannot take a trick.

Loser on loser

A card play tactic that attempts to create an advantage by playing two losers, often of different suits, on the same trick. Loser-on-loser play has many applications, including the creation of a ruffing position for declarer, the avoidance of overruffs by the defense, and interference with the opponents' communications.

Losing trick count

A method of hand evaluation based on counting losers.

Love

No score.

Low

(Adjective) A card that is not expected to take a trick.

Low-high signal

On defense, to play a higher card, having already played a lower one, so as to convey information to partner. Compare with echo.

M

MacGuffin

A defensive card that, if retained, is a liability on one line of play, but that, if played, will be missed on another line of play.

Major penalty card

A card that is exposed by a defender prematurely and through intentional play; or, an honor card that is exposed prematurely even if accidentally. A major penalty card remains face up on the table to be played at the first legal opportunity, including as a discard. Compare with minor penalty card.

Major suit

The heart suit and the spade suit are major suits. Declarer scores 30 points for each trick taken in an undoubled contract with a major suit as trump. Because game requires at least 100 points for tricks bid and made, both 4♥ and 4♠ (or 2♥ doubled and 2♠ doubled) constitute game contracts. Compare with minor suits.

Major tenace

The highest and the third highest remaining cards in a suit, held in the same hand. For example, the ♠AQ before spades have been played. Tenaces define the structure of finesses. See minor tenace.

Make

(Verb) To take at least as many tricks as a contract calls for. Frequently used in the past tense of the verb, i.e. Made.

Mama-papa

(Adjective) An unsophisticated game, approach to bidding, or line of play.

Marionette Bid

(Noun) A type of relay bid in which the cheapest response is expected nearly all the time, thus similar but not identical to a puppet bid. Name derives from "a puppet with strings."

Marked

To be known to hold a particular card: "He was marked with the ♥Q."

Marked finesse

A finesse for a card that is marked with a particular opponent.

Master

The highest card of a suit that is yet to be played.

Masterpoints

Units awarded for successful performance in a bridge tournament.

Match

A series of hands played by two teams in knockout events. One pair from each team sits North-South at one table and the other pair sits East-West at the other table.

Matchpoints

A type of scoring in duplicate bridge. A pair's score on a given board is one matchpoint for every pair they outscored and one-half matchpoint for every pair they tied. (Outside the US these awards are often doubled, so as to avoid the award of fractional matchpoints.) See comparative scoring.

Matrix

The layout of the cards that play pivotal roles in certain endplays, most typically squeezes.

Maxims of bridge

A brief expression of a general principle - most have some validity but none are true in all circumstances.

Maximal overcall double

By prior agreement, a game-invitational double of an overcall that leaves no room for a bid, when a bid would invite game. For example, after 1♠ - (2♥) - 2♠ - (3♥) there is no room below 3♠ for a game invitation (and a bid of 3♠ itself would be taken as merely competitive), so a double is used as a game invitation.

McKenney

See Suit preference signal.

Menace

A card that requires an opponent to retain a higher card in the same suit, as a guard. The term is typically used of squeeze play.

Merrimac coup

The deliberate sacrifice of a high card to remove a vital entry to an opponent’s hand, usually the dummy. Named for a ship sunk during the Spanish-American War, to block the entrance to a harbor. Sometimes confused with, and spelled as, the Merrimack, the American Civil War ship that fought the Monitor. See Deschapelles coup.

Michaels cue bid

By prior agreement, an immediate cue bid of an opening bid, such as 1♦ - (2♦), for two-suited takeout. The cue bid of a minor suit shows length in both major suits. The cue bid of a major suit shows length in the other major suit and in an unspecified minor suit.

MiniBridge

A simplified form of contract bridge designed to expose newcomers to declarer and defensive playing techniques without the burden of learning a detailed bridge bidding system.

Minor penalty card

A card below the rank of an honor card that is exposed by a defender prematurely but accidentally, via mishap. A minor penalty card remains face up on the table until played. The minor penalty card must be played before any other card below honor rank in the same suit; however, an honor in the same suit may be played before the minor penalty card is played. Compare with major penalty card.

Minor suit

The club suit and the diamond suit are minor suits. Declarer scores 20 points for each trick taken in an undoubled contract with a minor suit as trump. Because game requires at least 100 points for tricks bid and made, both 5♣ and 5♦ (or 3♣ doubled and 3♦ doubled) constitute game contracts. Compare with major suits.

Minor tenace

The second-highest and the fourth-highest (or lower) remaining cards in a suit, held in the same hand. For example, the ♠KJ before spades have been played. See major tenace.

Mirror

Identical hand distributions: "North and South had mirror distributions."

Misbid

A bid that fails to describe the hand properly. Often a misdescription of a hand's shape, as distinct from an overbid or underbid.

Misfit

Two partnership hands, neither of which can support the other's long suit. For example, a red Two-suiter opposite a black Two-suiter constitutes a misfit.

Mitchell movement

A pairs tournament movement in which the pairs sitting in one direction (usually North-South) stay in the same seats throughout, but after each round the pairs sitting in the other direction (usually East-West) move to the next higher numbered table, and the boards are moved to the next lower numbered table. Unless an arrow switch is performed, the effect is to create two events, a "North-South" contest and an "East-West" contest, with separate winners.

Mixed

1) Of an event: contested by pairs or teams in which every pair comprises one male and one female player.

2) In the auction: A mixed raise is, by agreement, a jump cue bid of opener's suit in support of partner's overcall. It tends to show four card support for partner's suit and the strength of a good single raise. In 1♦ - (1♥) - 1♠ - (3♦), 3♦ is a mixed raise.

Morton's fork coup

A play that forces the defense to choose between taking a high card that will establish extra winners for declarer, and ducking the trick, after which the high card cannot be cashed.

Movement

In a tournament, the scheme for the progression of players and boards from table to table, arranged so that a pair does not play the same boards twice, or meet the same opponents twice etc. The most common movements for pairs tournaments are Howell and Mitchell.

Moysian fit

A 4-3 trump fit. Named after Alphonse "Sonny" Moyse Jr., long-time editor of The Bridge World, who wrote and published a variety of articles that promoted the virtues of such fits, and bidding styles designed to locate them.

MUD

An acronym of "Middle, Up, Down", describing a style of opening lead from 3 low cards.

Multi

An ambiguous opening bid of 2♦ that promises one of several different types of hand.

N

Natural

A call which indicates either: (1) a willingness to play the contract named, (2) a suit bid suggesting length or strength in that suit, (3) a notrump bid that suggests a balanced hand, (4) a double that suggests the ability to defeat the opponent's contract, (5) a redouble to suggest that the contract can be made in the face of a double by opponents, or (6) a pass that suggests weakness, satisfaction with the last bid made or no desire to make a further call. Compare with Artificial.

NBB

Nederlandse Bridge Bond (Dutch Bridge League).

Negative double

A conventional call used by responder in a competitive auction to denote possession of at least one unbid suit.

Negative free bid

Responder's suit bid following an opening bid and an overcall. Nonforcing by prior agreement.

Negative inference

An inference based on something that did not happen. For example, if a defender does not overruff, declarer might conclude that he could not overruff. Or if declarer does not ruff a loser in dummy, a defender might conclude that declarer does not have a loser in that suit.

Negative response

A bid that shows insufficient values for a stronger response. For example, a 2♦ response to a forcing 2♣ opening bid is often negative, as is a 1♦ response to a Precision 1♣.

Negative slam double

In a competitive auction, the double of a voluntarily bid slam to show no defensive tricks, and therefore to suggest a sacrifice.

Neuberg formula

In duplicate pairs tournaments, a method of fairly adjusting match point scores when not all boards have been played the same number of times. It gives equal weight to each board by calculating the expected number of match points that would have been earned if the board had been played the full number of times.

New minor forcing

By agreement, after 1m - 1M; 1NT, a bid of two of the unbid minor as artificial and forcing, often requesting three card support for responder's bid major or four cards in the unbid major. Sometimes called PLOB.

New suit

A suit that has not yet been bid.

No bid

An alternative to "pass". Used in the United Kingdom, where "pass" might be mis-heard as "hearts." Regarded as improper in the US.

Non-forcing bid

A bid which partner may pass. See also forcing bid, invitation, sign-off.

Non-vulnerable

See not vulnerable

Nonadverse suit

A suit which has not yet been bid by either opponent.

None vulnerable

In rubber bridge, the state of the score in which neither pair has made a game. In duplicate bridge, the vulnerability condition under which neither pair is designated as vulnerable for the board in play. Also, "neither side vulnerable."

North-South

One of the partnerships designated on duplicate boards.

Not vulnerable

The state of vulnerability in which both bonuses and penalties are smaller. Therefore, less is at stake for a non-vulnerable pair investigating game or slam, or that is contesting the part score, than for a vulnerable pair. Also, "non-vulnerable."

Notrump (No Trump)

A contract, or a bid that names a contract without a trump suit. Notrump is the highest-ranking strain. WikiProject Contract bridge deprecates the two-word "No Trump".

Notrump distribution (No Trump distribution or NT distribution)

Balanced distribution. WikiProject Contract bridge deprecates the two-word "No Trump".

NPC

Non-Playing captain.

Nuisance bid

An interference bid whose principal aim is not to preempt or to compete for the contract, but nevertheless to upset the smooth flow of the opponents' bidding sequence.

Number

(With "go for") A very large penalty: "He went for a number." Often, "telephone number", alluding to the size of that number if regarded as a quantity.

O

Obligatory

1) Of a finesse: A duck, made in the hope that a high card will fall. For example, declarer holds ♥K432 opposite dummy's ♥Q765. The ♥2 is led to the ♥Q, which wins. Declarer now leads dummy's ♥5 and RHO follows with the ♥J. Declarer ducks, hoping that LHO must now play the ♥A. The play is obligatory because given the first heart trick, no other play can yield three tricks.

2) Of a falsecard: A falsecard that, like an obligatory finesse, cannot lose and might gain. An example is the play of the card that one is known to hold (for example, the play of a queen after it has been successfully finessed).

Odd

Specifying a level. To make 4♥ is to make four-odd.

Odd-even discards

A defensive carding scheme under which the play of an odd-numbered card is encouraging and that of an even-numbered card is discouraging. The rank of the card may be used to show suit preference.

Odd tricks

The number of tricks above six (the book) that are taken by declarer.

Off

1) (Slang) Down, or set. "We're off two" means "We have made two fewer tricks than our contract."

2) (Slang) offside.

Off shape

Having a distribution that does not quite conform to that suggested by a bid, such as an opening bid of 1NT with 2=2=6=3 shape, or a weak-two bid with a seven card suit.

Off the top

Said of some number of tricks that can be lost or won without gaining or losing the lead. "There were eleven tricks off the top in spades", to mean that declarer could take eleven tricks without interruption; or, "We're down off the top", to mean that the defenders can take at least four immediate tricks against 4♥.

Offside

Unfavorably located, from the point of view of the player taking a finesse. If East holds the ♣K and North the ♣AQ, from South's point of view the ♣K is offside. Cf. onside.

Olympiad

A world bridge championship held every four years under the auspices of the World Bridge Federation.

On

1) Makeable. A contract that can be made is said to be on.

2) Onside.

3) (Suffix) In rubber bridge, preceded by a number that indicates progress toward game. If one has 40 points Below the line, one has 40-on.

One club system

A bidding system that uses a bid of 1♣ as artificial and forcing, but not necessarily strong.

One over one

To an opening one-bid, any one-level response in a suit; that is, one of a higher suit in response to opening one of a lower suit. Contrast two over one.

One round force

A bid that requests partner to ensure that the bidding continue for at least one more round. If partner's RHO bids, partner may pass, but is otherwise expected to bid.

See also Forcing bid, Game force and Grand slam force.

One-suiter

A hand with only one long suit, normally refers to a hand with a six card or longer suit.

Onside

Favorably located, from the point of view of the player taking a finesse. If West holds the ♣K and North the ♣AQ, then from South's point of view the ♣K is onside. Cf. Offside.

Open

1) In the auction: To start the bidding by making the first call other than Pass.

2) Of a room used at a team event: allowing spectators. Normally at least one of two rooms is closed to spectators.

3) Of an event: not restricting entries in some way that is implicit. So participation in an open event is unrestricted in at least one respect:

a) not by invitation only (invitational event)

b) not by qualification in a preceding event or qualifier

c) not by representation of geographic zones, nations, cities, clubs, etc; nor by requirement that pair or team members share geographic residence, club membership, etc (national event, etc)

d) not by age, sex, or playing record (seniors, Masters, etc).

Open is generally ambiguous but it does have the last sense (d) in the names of WBF world championship events, where the relevant Categories are Youth (with subcategories), Seniors, Women, and Open. For the WBF, transnational means open in sense (c).

Opener

The player who makes the opening bid.

Opener's rebid

Opener's second bid.

Opening bid

The first bid in the auction.

Opening lead

The first card led by defenders. The dummy is not faced until after the opening lead, which makes the choice of opening lead more difficult than other leads. The opening lead can determine the outcome of the deal.

Opening leader

The declarer's LHO, who always makes the opening lead.

Opponent

A member of the other partnership or team.

Optimum contract

In unopposed bidding, the contract that cannot be improved upon by further bidding, nor could have been improved upon by taking a different line in earlier bidding. The contract is regarded as optimum because it offers the maximum score while minimizing the risk of failure.

Our hand

(Informal) A hand on which "our" side can take more tricks than their side.

Out-of-the-blue cue bid

See Advance cue bid.

Over

See In back of.

Overbid

1) (Noun) A bid that overstates a hand's strength.

2) (Verb) To bid voluntarily to a contract that the partnership cannot make.

3) (Verb) To bid too high, irrespective of the result.

Overboard

(Slang) Having overbid.

Overcall

The first bid made by one of opener's opponents unless they intervene first by a double.

Overcaller

The player making an overcall. Compare with advancer.

Overruff

To ruff with a higher trump following a prior ruff on the same trick.

Overtake

To play a card higher than the winning card played by partner, unnecessary to win the trick but necessary to gain the lead.

Overtrick

A trick taken by declarer beyond the number of tricks required by the contract.

P

Pack

Deck of cards.

Pair

Two players playing bridge together as partners. Partnership.

Pairs

A form of duplicate bridge in which each pair competes separately, as distinct from team and individual events. Pairs events are normally scored by matchpoints.

Palooka

(Slang) Someone who plays bridge worse than others in their usual level of play

Panama

A defence to a Strong Club whereby two-level bids show the suit bid or the other 3 suits.

Par

The product of the best bidding and play (of a given deal) by both sides.

Par contest

A competition that uses composed deals, designed to test each pair's bidding and its card play. After the bidding, pairs are instructed to play (or defend) a specified contract. Results are compared not with other tables but with the predetermined par result.

Par contract

That contract which results from optimal bidding by both sides, and which neither side could improve by further bidding.

Pard

(Slang) Partner.

Part-score

1) A trick score less than 100, obtained by making a contract.

2) The contract that results in that trick score.

3) In rubber bridge, a total of fewer than 100 points below the line.

Partial

A part-score.

Partial elimination

An endplay in which declarer is unable to remove all possible safe defensive exit cards, and must hope that the remaining cards are so distributed that the defense cannot get off lead safely.

Partner

The other member of the partnership.

Partnership

1) See pair.

2) Two partners who play together for an extended period.

3) The complete set of agreements entered into by a pair.

Partnership bidding

Sequences in which the opponents do not compete.

Partnership desk

A service, provided by some tournaments, that locates a partner for a player who does not yet have one.

Partnership understanding

An agreement between partners, reached prior to the beginning of play, concerning the meaning of a call or of carding.

Pass

1) A call indicating that the player does not wish to change the contract named by the preceding bid, double or redouble. To pass transfers the right to make the next call to passer's LHO, unless it is the third consecutive pass, which ends the bidding (but see Passed out).

2) To play, from third hand, a lower card than the one led to the trick. If declarer leads the ♥J, LHO plays a small heart, and declarer plays the ♥2 from dummy's ♥AQ2, declarer has passed the ♥J.

Pass and pull

To make a forcing pass and on the next round remove partner's double by bidding.

Passed hand

A player who passed instead of opening the bidding. The inference is that a passed hand does not hold the values required to open the bidding (unless playing a strong pass bidding system).

Passed out

1) A deal is passed out if the auction begins with four consecutive passes. There is no contract, no play of the hand, and (at rubber bridge) no score. The players proceed to the next deal.

2) A bid, double, or redouble (an action) is passed out if it is followed by three passes, which end the auction. The last action identifies the contract and the play follows.

Passive defense

An approach to defending a hand that emphasizes waiting for tricks that declarer must eventually lose, getting off lead safely, and avoiding plays that will set up tricks for declarer. Often indicated when neither declarer nor dummy has a running side suit or when the declaring side may have over-reached in the bidding. Contrast with Active.

Pass-or-correct

A bid made in response to partner's ambiguous call. For example, South opens with 1♠ and West bids 2♠, by prior agreement showing hearts and a minor. North passes and East bids 3♣, expecting West to pass if he holds clubs and to correct to diamonds otherwise.

Pass out

1) To make the third of three consecutive passes following a bid, double or redouble.

2) To make the fourth of four consecutive passes. Thus, a bid cannot have been made and the table progresses to the next deal.

3) (Adjective) The seat where a pass would end the auction.

Pattern

See distribution.

Pearson points

High card points plus number of spades held. See Hand evaluation.

Penalty

1) A score awarded to the defense when declarer's contract goes down. The size of the penalty depends on the number of tricks that declarer was set, the vulnerability, and whether the contract was doubled, or redoubled. See Score.

2) A remedy assigned by a director to redress damage done by an infraction. The penalty for a minor, procedural infraction might be some number of tricks, matchpoints or IMPs, or disallowing a particular bid or play. A more serious violation of the game's Proprieties may be imposed by barring the offender from an event, a portion of an event, or from organized bridge.

Penalty card

A card, incorrectly exposed by the defense, whose subsequent proper play is governed by certain rules. See major penalty card and minor penalty card.

Penalty double

A call that doubles penalties if opponents fail to make their currently bid contract. Rewards are also doubled, should the contract succeed.

Penalty pass

The pass of an informatory double, to convert it to a penalty double.

Percentage play

A play that is chosen because the mathematics of suit distribution suggests that it is more likely to succeed than an alternative line. Usually said of play in a single suit rather than the hand as a whole.

Personal score

A record of the board number, opposing pair number, contract, declarer, tricks taken, and raw score kept by each player for the boards played by the partnership in a single session. The personal score often appears on the back of the convention card.

Peter

(Slang; chiefly British) See Echo. The term is said to derive from Blue Peter, a nautical signal.

Phantom pair

In a pairs movement, if there is an odd number of pairs, then in each round one pair will have to sit out. The missing pair that they would have played is known as the phantom pair.

Phantom sacrifice

A sacrifice bid against a contract that the opponents would not have made. Also, False sacrifice.

Pianola

(Slang) A hand that is so easy it plays itself. "Pianola" is a trademarked brand of player piano (a piano that plays automatically).

Pick up

1) (Verb) To run a suit without losing a trick in it.

2) (Adjective) Said of a partner who completes a pair, or of a pair that completes a team, just prior to the start of an event.

3) (Adjective) A pick-up slip is one on which the result of a deal is recorded for the purpose of comparative scoring.

Pin

The lead of a high card from one hand to capture a singleton of lower rank in an opponent's hand.

Pip

1) A spot card.

2) A suit symbol (♠, ♥, ♦, ♣) on a card.

Pitch

To discard.

Pivot

1) (Adjective) Of the suit that both defenders must guard in a double squeeze.

2) (Verb) In party bridge, to change partners while remaining at the same table.

3a) (Verb) In duplicate bridge, to play one round in a given direction, and the next round in the opposite direction at the same table

3b) (Noun) In duplicate bridge, a pivot table is a table where each pair will perform a pivot. This can only happen in a Howell movement, or another similar movement, where players move between East-West and North-South during the course of the game.

Plafond

A French, whist-like card game whose scoring foreshadowed that used in contract bridge.

Plain suit

A suit that is not trump; a side suit.

Play

1) (Noun) The stage of a deal when players attempt to take tricks. The declarer tries to take at least as many tricks as the contract calls for, and the defenders try to prevent that outcome.

2) (Verb) To contribute a card to a trick, either by displaying its face (as in duplicate bridge) or by placing it face up on the table (as in rubber bridge).

Play for

To assume that the opponents have a particular distribution or holding, and to plan and conduct the play on that basis.

Playable

1) (Of a contract) A rational, if not necessarily optimal, choice of strain and level.

2) (Of an agreement) Leading to an acceptable result, if not in the best fashion.

Playing tricks

Cards, such as long cards, that will take tricks (usually, for declarer), and that therefore contribute to a hand's strength.

PLOB

Acronym for Petty Little Odious Bid, another name for New Minor Forcing. The name derives from a diatribe by Alphonse Moyse Jr., in The Bridge World's Master Solver's Club, which described the convention as an "odious, meaningless, petty little bid."

Pocket

One of four slots in a duplicate board that hold the cards between plays.

PODI

Acronym for Pass=0, Double=1. Method for countering interference over Blackwood

Point

1) A scoring unit: e.g., a trick taken by declarer in a minor suit contract scores 20 points.

2) A metric used in hand evaluation, to quantify its strength in high cards and distribution.

3) A metric, such as masterpoints, used in rating players.

Point-a-board

Another name for board-a-match.

Point count

A method of hand evaluation which assigns a numeric value to a hand's high cards and distributional features, used as a guideline in bidding.

Pointed suit

Spades or diamonds. The term refers to the shape at the tops of the suit symbols. Contrast with rounded suit.

Portland Club

A bridge club in London which published the first version of the Laws of contract bridge. The club remains part of the ongoing process of revising the laws, along with the ACBL and the EBL, because of the vesting of the copyright.

Position

(Noun) Seat at the table: North, South, East, West; or first, second, third, fourth.

Positional squeeze

A squeeze that can succeed against only a specific opponent, because at least one threat must lie over its guard. Compare with automatic squeeze.

Positive response

A bid that announces the possession of at least minimum values. Often said of a response to a forcing opening bid. Compare with negative response.

Post mortem

(Slang) A discussion of a hand, and the nature of the result, after the play has concluded.

Powerhouse

An unusually strong hand.

Prealert

An alert which must be made at the beginning of the round before play begins on the first board. Different national governing organizations may establish different requirements for prealerts. Examples of methods for which the ACBL requires a prealert include the following:

An agreement to lead the small card from "xx" on opening lead

An agreement (canapé) to bid the shorter of two suits before the longer suit with a two-suited hand

An agreement to use any bidding convention that entitles the opponents to consult a written defense during the auction

Precision

A bidding system that combines the features of Kaplan-Sheinwold with a strong, artificial 1♣ opening bid.

Preempt or Preemptive Bid (or Raise)

1) A bid (or raise) predicated on length of a suit rather than overall strength, primary function of which is to interfere with the opponents' bidding by taking away bidding space they need to exchange information.

2) (Noun) A bid that has a preemptive effect, regardless of its intent.

Preference

A call that returns the bidding to partner's first-bid suit; for example, in 1♥ - 1♠; 2♦ - 2♥, 2♥ is a preference. A simple, non-jump preference shows neither strength nor support for the suit; it is simply a return to partner's presumably longer suit.

Prepared bid

A bid, often a slight violation of a partnership agreement, that is chosen to avoid a later bidding problem. Playing five-card majors, for example, the decision to open a strong four-card spade suit in preference to a weak five-card heart suit.

Prepared club

See Short club.

Present count

A carding agreement under which a count signal shows the number of cards currently held. In a count-giving situation, a defender might first play the ♥3 from ♥753, and the ♥7 as his second play. Also, "current count."

Principle of restricted choice

A guideline to the play of the hand, concerning the probability of the location of key cards in the unseen hands.

Progression

The movement of players and deals between rounds in an event.

Progressive squeeze

A squeeze in three suits that, when it matures, results in a new squeezed position in two suits.

Promote

1) In the play, to cause a card to become a winner.

2) In the bidding, to assign a higher value to a card, or to the hand as a whole, as a result of earlier calls made by partner or by the opponents.

Proprieties

A section of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge that describes, in general terms, proper conduct as to the exchange of information concerning a hand, as to attitude and etiquette, as to partnership agreements, and as to spectators' conduct.

Protect

See balance.

Protest

See appeal.

Pseudo squeeze

A position that, to a defender, appears to be a true squeezed position, but is not. Declarer hopes that the defender will misplay as a result. The literature often gives as an example a position in which declarer has a void in dummy's apparent suit of entry.

Psych, psyche, psychic, or psychic bid

A call that grossly misstates high card strength or distribution, made so as to deceive the opponents. The Laws specify that psychic bids themselves are legal. It is, however, a violation to infer and fail to disclose that partner has psyched, when the inference is based on partnership agreement or experience. Sponsoring organizations regulate the use of certain psychic bids.

Psychic control

A bid that, by partnership agreement, announces that the player's previous bid was a psychic.

Pull

1) To remove the opponents' trumps.

2) To remove partner's double.

Pump

To force out an opponent's trump, usually by means of a forcing defense.

Puppet

A transfer bid that requests partner to make a minimum bid in a particular suit.

Push

1) (Verb) To force the opponents to make any subsequent call at a level higher than they have as yet.

2) (Noun) A tied board in a pairs or team duplicate event.

Q

Quack

A contraction of queen and jack. Used in situations where it does not matter whether the queen or the jack is held or played, as well as to emphasize that it does not matter. The term generalizes to other equals, such as jack and ten.[citation needed] See Principle of restricted choice.

Qualifying

(Adjective) A session or sessions preliminary to the final of an event.

Quantitative

1) Of a bid: A call based, usually, on high card points, rather than a feature such as fit or shortness. A raise from 1NT to 3NT based on a 4-3-3-3 hand with 10 HCP is a quantitative raise.

2) Of scoring: The method of scoring used in rubber bridge or in IMP events. The metric used is the number of points earned on each deal, perhaps adjusted by the IMP scale and victory points. In contrast, comparative scoring is based on the number of pairs that have been out-scored.

Queen-ask

In Key Card Blackwood, the cheapest bid over the response to 4NT, to ask responder for the trump queen.

Quick tricks

see honor tricks

Quitted trick

A trick whose cards have all been turned face down (duplicate bridge) and gathered in front of the trick's winner (rubber bridge). In rubber bridge, a player may inspect a quitted trick if his side has not yet led to the next trick. In duplicate bridge, a player may inspect a quitted trick only if told to do so by a director.

Quotient

Points won divided by the sum of points won and points lost, occasionally used to break a tie.

R

Rainbow

A movement used in individual events.

Raise

A bid of partner's suit at a higher level. A raise shows a fit for partner's suit. 1?–2? is a single raise; 1?–3? is a double raise.

Rank

1) The position of an individual card relative to others: Aces have the highest rank, followed by K, Q, J, 10, ... 2.

2) The order of denominations in the bidding. Notrump is highest-ranked denomination, followed by spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs. A higher-ranked suit may be bid at the same level as a lower-ranked suit; the reverse is not true.

Rebid

1) Second and subsequent bids by the same player.

2) A bid by the same player in a suit he has already bid.

Rebiddable suit

A suit with sufficient length and strength, according to partnership agreements, to be rebid in certain defined circumstances.

Recap

(Abbreviation of "recapitulation") A summary of results in a bridge tournament.

Recorder

A member of a bridge organization whose responsibility it is to maintain a record of reports of possible violations of the Proprieties.

Rectify the count

To lose some number of tricks in preparation for a squeeze. Losing the tricks "tightens up" the end position, removing idle cards from the defenders' hands before they can be used as safe discards in the squeezed position.

Red

(Slang) Vulnerable. From the color of the paint on a duplicate board. Also: "Red vs. red" to mean both teams vulnerable, and "red vs. white" to mean vulnerable vs. not.

Redeal

In rubber bridge, the prescribed remedy for a faulty deal. In duplicate bridge, redeals are not used except in special cases and under a director's supervision.

Redouble

A call that doubles the penalties and bonuses that apply to a previous double. Used conventionally, a redouble may also convey additional information.

Re-entry

A card that enables a hand to gain the lead on a later trick, after that hand has already gained the lead with a different entry card.

Refuse

(Verb). Of a trick, to duck.

Reject

To fail to comply with a bid that has made a request, such as an invitation or a transfer.

Relay bid

An artificial bid that requests partner to further describe his hand. The relay is usually the lowest available bid, so as to leave as much room for description as possible.

Relay system

A bidding system that consists of many relay sequences.

Remove

To bid on over an undesired contract, especially a doubled contract.

Renege

Informal term for Revoke; associated with other games such as whist.

Reopen

See balance.

Repechage

A form of knockout event in which losing teams enter a secondary event, with the possibility of re-entering the primary event if they have a high finish in the secondary.

Rescue

To remove from a contract that partner has bid and which, often, has been doubled.

Responder

Opening bidder's partner.

Response

A bid by responder immediately following an opening bid and RHO's call.

Responsive double

A double that follows LHO's opening bid, partner's takeout double and RHO's raise of opener's suit, to show moderate values and no clear opinion as to the best strain.

Result merchant

(Slang) One who evaluates bids and plays according to their outcome, rather than to their intrinsic merit. Also, "Result player."

Retain the lead

Maintain the right to lead to the next trick by leading and winning the current trick.

Return

To lead back, usually the suit that partner led.

Reverse

A bidding sequence in which a single player, on consecutive calls, bids two different suits, and bids the two suits in the reverse order to that expected by the basic bidding system. The specific definition of a reverse therefore depends on the bidding system (see main article). The reverse is designed to show additional strength without the need to make a jump bid. Because the reverse takes up bidding space, the reverse bidder is usually expected to hold a stronger than average hand, usually more than 16 HCP.

Revoke

Failure to follow suit as required when a player is able to do so.

Rewind

(Slang) To redouble.

RHO

Right-hand opponent.

Rise with

To play a high card in the hope of taking a trick: "Rise with the ace." Also, "go up with"

RKCB

Roman Key Card Blackwood, a slam bidding convention.

Roman

Descriptive of bids and carding agreements used or originated in the Roman system:

1) Roman 2♣ and 2♦: Three-suiters.

2) Roman Blackwood, Gerber and Roman Key Card Blackwood (RKCB): Step responses to the ace-asking bid that entail mild ambiguity.

3) Roman jump overcall: Two-suiter.

4) Roman asking bid: A request that partner bid his number of controls wholesale, via step responses.

5) Roman discards: odd-even discards.

6) Roman leads: Rusinow leads.

RONF

Acronym for Raise Only Non-Force. A treatment used for responding to preempts, usually weak two bids. All bids except the single raise are forcing.

Rosenblum Cup

The award for winning the world knockout team championship that is held in even numbered years other than leap years. (The Bermuda Bowl is contested in odd numbered years and the World Team Olympiad in leap years.)

Rotation

The progression of the bidding and play in a clockwise direction around the table.

Roth-Stone

A bidding system popular during the 1960s in the US. It features sound opening bids, five-card majors and negative doubles. It is the principal foundation for 2/1 Game Forcing.

Round

1) In the bidding, a sequence of four consecutive calls.

2) In duplicate bridge, a set of boards leading to another round (e.g., the semi-final round), or a set of boards that two pairs play against one another.

3) Of a control, the round on which the control can stop the opponents from winning a trick. An ace, for example, is a first round control; the king is a second round control.

Rounded suit

Hearts or clubs. The term refers to the shape at the tops of the suit symbols. Contrast with pointed suit.

Round-robin

An event format in which each team eventually opposes each other team.

Rubber

In rubber bridge, the set of successive deals that ends when one of the pairs wins two games.

Rubber bonus

A bonus awarded to the pair winning the rubber: 500 points if the losers are vulnerable, 700 if they are not.

Rubber bridge

The original form of contract bridge, a contest with four players in two opposing pairs (as distinct from duplicate bridge, which requires a minimum of eight players).

Rubens advances

Transfer advances of overcalls. See Useful Space Principle.

Ruff

To play a trump on a trick when a plain suit was led.

Ruff and discard

The lead of a suit in which both opponents are void, so that one opponent can ruff while the other discards (or sluffs). A ruff and discard is usually damaging to the side that leads to the trick. Also, ruff and sluff or ruff and slough.

Ruff out

To establish a suit by ruffing one or more of its low cards.

Rule of Eight

A way to decide whether to overcall an opponent's 1NT opening. Length in long suits, the losing trick count and HCP are combined.

Rule of Eighteen

The Rule of Eighteen is a World Bridge Federation regulation which states that an opening bid is acceptable if the sum of the number of cards in the two longest suits plus the number of HCP is at least 18.

Rule of Eleven

A calculation that can be used when it is assumed that opening leader has led the fourth highest card in a suit. By subtracting the pips on the card led from 11, the result is the number of cards in the other three hands that are higher than the one led. Third hand, for example, can then make inferences about declarer's holding in the suit by examining his own and dummy's holdings; likewise, declarer can make inferences about right-hand-opponent's holding in the suit. (The rule can be modified to subtract from 12 if the lead is thought to be third best, and from 10 if the lead is thought to be fifth best.)

Rule of Fifteen

Guideline for opening light in fourth seat: open if your high card points plus your number of spades is 15 or more. Also known as the Cansino Count.

Rule of Five

When the bidding has reached the 5-level in a competitive auction, tend to defend rather than bid on. In other words, in competitive auctions, 5-level contracts belong to the enemy. See also Law of Total Tricks

Rule of Four

Avoid giving support for partner's 5-card suit if a superior 4-4 fit might be available.

Rule of Seven

When declarer's only high card in the suit lead by the opponents is the ace, count the number of cards in that suit held by declarer and dummy, subtract from seven and duck that many times.

Rule of Three

On a competitive part score deal, with the points roughly equal between your side and theirs, once the bidding has reached the 3-level, tend to defend rather than bid on (unless your side has 9 trumps.)See also Law of Total Tricks

Rule of Twenty

A widely used guideline of the Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC) bidding system which states that a hand may open bidding "normally" (that is, by bidding one of a suit) if the sum obtained by adding the combined length of its longest two suits to its high card points is twenty or more, but that weaker hands must either open with a preempive bid or pass. See also Zar points evaluation method.

Rule of Two

When missing two non-touching honors, it is normally superior to finesse first for their lower honor. In the following two example hands, three tricks or the maximum possible are needed.

♠ AQ10

♠ 765

♥ KJ1053

♥ 87642

In the first hand, finesse the ♠10, not the ♠Q. Similarly in the second, lead the ♥2 and when West follows with the ♥9, it is best to finesse the ♥10. When one of the missing honors is the 10 the rule will not apply, as one does not normally finesse for a 10 on the first round.

Rule of Two and Three

A bidding guide suggested by Ely Culbertson, which counsels preemptors to be within two tricks of their contract if vulnerable, and within three if not. Few players now follow the Rule of Two and Three.

Ruling

A finding and decision by a tournament director or appeals committee.

Run

To play the winners in a suit.

Rusinow leads

An agreement to lead the second highest of touching honors.

S

Sac

(Slang) Sacrifice. Also, "sack."

Sacrifice

To deliberately bid over an opponent's bid, hoping that the cost of a penalty will be smaller than the value of opponent's presumed successful contract.

Safety level

A level at which the partnership can normally assume, on the basis of the previous bidding, that its contract will succeed. It is the point below which the partnership prefers to explore even higher contracts. Also, "security level."

Safety play

A play that maximizes the chances for fulfilling the contract (or for achieving a certain score) by avoiding a play which might result in a higher score. Contrast with percentage play: the latter is the best play in a suit, while a safety play is the best line for the contract.

Sandbag

(Slang) To bid weakly or pass with good values, in the hope that the opponents will get overboard.

Sandwich

An overcall made after an opening bid and response by the opponents. The overcall is "sandwiched" between two hands that have each shown strength.

Save

(Slang) Sacrifice.

SAYC

Standard American Yellow Card, a particular bidding system or the completed ACBL convention card that represents it.

Scientific

A style of bidding that attempts to narrowly limit the strength of a partnership's hands, so as to make its bidding more accurate.

Scissors coup

A loser-on-loser play meant to break the opponents' communications. Formerly known as 'Coup without a name'.

Score

1) The numeric result of a deal, session or event.

2) (Verb) Of a card, to win a trick: "The ♠Q scored."

Score slip

A pick-up slip or traveller.

Scramble

1) To bid to a safer contract.

2) To score small trumps by ruffing, rather than as long cards. Often used of the play of a contract based on a Moysian fit.

Screen

A device which divides the table diagonally, visually separating partners from each other. Used in higher-level competition to reduce the possibility of unauthorized information.

Screenmates

Opponents who sit on the same side of the screen.

Seat

Position relative to the dealer: for example, dealer's LHO is said to be in second seat.

Second guesser

See result merchant.

Second hand

The player to the left of the player who has led to a trick.

Second hand low

A precept that advises second hand to play a low card on RHO's lead.

Section

A group of contestants in an event.

Seed

A ranking assigned to a contestant of relatively high rank.

See-saw squeeze

See Entry-shifting squeeze.

Semi-balanced hand

A hand with 5-4-2-2 or 6-3-2-2 distribution.

Semi-forcing bid

A bid which is conditionally forcing: one which requests partner to rebid unless his hand is minimal or sub-minimal for his previous bidding. Compare invitation.

Sequence

1) The auction, or calls made in the auction.

2) Two or more cards adjacent in rank.

Session

A period of play during which those entered in an event play designated boards against designated opponents.

Set

1) To defeat a contract.

2) The number of tricks by which a contract is defeated ("a two-trick set").

Set game

In rubber bridge, an agreement that partners will not change at the end of each rubber.

Set up

Establish.

Shaded

(Of a call) A call that is not quite warranted by the strength of the hand making it.

Shape

The distribution of suits in a hand.

Shift

1) (Verb) To lead a suit other than the one already played.

2) (Noun) In the bidding, a change of suit, usually said of a jump bid (see jump shift).

Shoot

To try for an unusually good result by adopting an abnormal line of play, typically at matchpoint scoring. Declarer hopes that the cards are distributed in such a way that a superior line of play will fail.

Short club

The natural opening bid of 1♣ when the suit contains only three cards. Usually employed by players using the five-card majors treatment for openings bids when holding a hand with opening values but lacking a 5-card major. When the hand contains two clubs and three diamonds, an opening diamond bid is preferred. Also, "short diamond."

Short-suit game try

By agreement, a bid of a short side suit after a single raise, hoping to reach game. For example, after 1♥ - 2♥, opener might rebid 3♣ with a singleton or void in clubs. The bid tells partner where high cards will be least useful, indicating duplication of values. It requests partner to take positive action with high-card strength outside that suit. Otherwise, the bid requests partner to sign off (in this example, by bidding 3♥). See help-suit game try and game try.

Short-suit points

In hand evaluation, points counted for singletons and voids.

Show out

Fail to follow suit.

Shuffle

To mix the cards. Shuffling seldom results in random distributions: in the long run, the cards so mixed rarely match the mathematical expectancies.

Side

Partnership.

Side game

A secondary event played simultaneously with the main event.

Side suit

A suit that is not trump; plain suit. A side suit may nevertheless have significant length: see Two-suiter.

Signals

The conventional meanings assigned to plays made by the defenders in order to exchange information. Also, carding.

Signoff bid

1) A bid that requests that partner pass.

2) A call that denies extra values, one that normally results in a pass by partner. Compare non-forcing bid, forcing bid.

Sign off

To make a signoff bid.

Simple squeeze

A squeeze against one opponent, in two suits, with the count (meaning 3).

Single dummy

The normal manner of play, with certain knowledge only of one's own cards and dummy's, and without verbal communication between partners. Compare with double dummy.

Singleton

A holding of exactly one card in a suit.

Sit-out

A round in a movement during which a pair is idle.

Skip

An irregular feature of a Mitchell movement: typically a move by the East-West pairs of 2 tables up instead of the usual 1, to avoid them playing the same boards twice.

Skip-bid warning

A warning to LHO that one is about to make a jump bid that could cause a revealing hesitation or huddle; used only when bidding screens are not in place. The warning is made in one of two ways: (1) When bidding boxes are in use, the red Stop card is placed on the table followed by a bid card; LHO is expected to wait 10 seconds before taking action; (2) When bidding boxes are not in use, the jump bidder announces "I am about to make a skip bid, please wait." and then bids. LHO waits 10 seconds.

Slam

A bid of six-odd (a small slam) or seven-odd (a grand slam).

Slam try

A bid that invites partner to bid a slam.

Slot

(Slang) The location of a card that is onside. "In the slot" means "Finessable."

Slough

See discard. Pronounced, and often spelled, "sluff."

Slow

Cards that require establishment before they can be cashed.

Slow arrival

A style of bidding that uses a jump to a contract (to which the previous bidding has already forced the partnership) to show a specific holding. Compare with Fast arrival.

Slow rubber

A rubber completed in three games. See fast rubber.

Sluff

See discard. Neo-orthography for slough, as used in ruff and sluff.

Small slam

A contract for six odd tricks.

Smolen

After opener has denied a four-card major in a Stayman sequence, responder's jump to 3M to show four cards in the bid major and five cards in the other major.

Smother play

An endplay that captures an opponent's guarded trump by means of an overruff, when that card cannot be finessed in the normal fashion.

Soft values

Lower honors, as distinct from aces and kings.

Solid

A suit strong enough to run without interruption, or (in the bidding) that requires no fit with partner.

Sort

To arrange one's cards by suit, and by rank within suit.

SOS redouble

A conventional redouble that asks partner for rescue from a doubled contract. Its name comes from the Morse code distress signal, SOS.

Sound

A hand that is relatively strong for a call that is contemplated or that has been made.

Splinter bid

An unusual jump bid that by agreement shows a fit for partner's last-bid suit and a singleton or void in the bid suit. For example, a partnership could treat 4♣ in response to an opening bid of 1♠ as a splinter bid, showing a good hand with spade support and a singleton or void club. Compare with Fragment bid.

Split

1) (Noun) The distribution in the opponents' hands of the cards in a suit.

2) (Verb) To play one of two touching honors when the lead comes through them.

Split menace

A menace in squeeze play which depends on values in both declarer's hand and dummy.

Sponsor

1) The organization that puts on a tournament.

2) One who hires partners or teammates to compete in an event.

Spot card

A card that ranks below the 10.

Spread

(Slang) Laydown.

SPS

An acronym for Suit Preference Signal, a card played by a defender to show interest or an entry in a side suit.

Squeeze

A playing technique that forces the defender(s) to discard a vital card, usually an apparent stopper.

Squeeze card

A card whose lead forces one or both defenders to discard their guard in a suit.

Stack

A distribution of cards in defenders' hands that might make the play difficult for declarer. The defenders' trumps, for example, could be said to be stacked if they divide 5-0.

Standard American or Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC)

A bidding system thought to conform to agreements that an unfamiliar partnership in America would use.

Stationary

Not called to change seats during the movement being used.

Stayman convention

A conventional bid of 2♣ that calls for a 1NT opening bidder to bid a four-card major, if one is held, and (usually) 2♦ otherwise. Many continuations have been devised.

Steal

To gain an advantage, usually through deception. The theft may be material (e.g., a trick or a contract) or non-material (e.g., a tempo). Despite the term steal, deception is entirely legal if it does not involve unauthorized information or concealment of information to which the opponents are entitled.

Step

In the bidding, the space between one bid and the next highest. See Useful Space Principle.

Step bid

A bid that conveys information on the basis of the number of steps it uses.

Stepping-stone squeeze

A squeeze that forces a defender either to be thrown in to act as a stepping-stone to a stranded dummy, or to allow declarer to establish a suit.

Stiff

(Adjective and noun) A singleton.

Stop

An instruction given to opponents when you make a jump (also known as skip) bid. The opponent is expected to wait around 10 seconds before calling, so as to avoid communicating information to partner as to how easy his call is to make. See skip-bid warning.

Stopper

A high card (normally, an honor) whose primary function is to prevent the opponents from running a suit in a notrump contract. (See also control).

Strain

See denomination.

Strip

1) To remove safe cards of exit from an opponent's hand.

2) To prepare for a ruff-and-sluff by removing all cards of a suit (or suits) in a partnership's hands.

Strip-squeeze

A squeeze without the count in which one threat is against a safe exit card.

Striped-tail ape double

A double of a laydown contract made in hope of dissuading the opponents from successfully bidding to a higher, more rewarding contract. The doubler must be prepared to run (like the cowardly ape) to an escape suit if the opponents redouble.

Strong club system

A set of conventions that uses an opening bid of 1♣ as an artificial, forcing opening that promises a strong hand.

Strong notrump

An opening notrump that shows a balanced hand and 15-17 or 16-18 HCP. Compare with weak notrump. A partnership's choice between the use of a strong notrump or a weak notrump has extensive implications for its entire bidding system.

Strong pass system

A bidding system that mandates a pass by first (or second) hand to show what other systems would regard as an opening bid. A corollary is that if the next hand also passes, third (or fourth) hand must bid to keep the deal from being passed out.

Strong two-bid

An agreement to use an opening bid of two of a suit so as to indicate a strong hand and a strong holding in the bid suit.

Stub

(Slang) Part-score.

Sucker double

(Slang) An ill-advised penalty double, such as one based on HCP when the bidding warns of freak distributions.

Suit

A ranked division of the deck of cards into (in descending rank order) spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs. The suit ranking has a profound effect on the bidding and scoring, but none at all on the play. (See also denomination, major suit, and minor suit).

Suit preference signal

A defensive carding method that signals a preference, or the lack thereof, for a suit other than the suit used for the signal.

Superaccept

A strongly encouraging response to a transfer, such as a jump completion (e.g., 1NT - 2♥; 3♠). Many partnerships use a conventional superacceptance such as 1NT - 2♦; 2♠, one step above responder's major, to save room for game or slam exploration, and in conformance with the Useful Space Principle.

Support

A fit with partner's suit.

Support double

A double of an overcall that shows a fit for partner's suit, usually distinguished from a direct raise by the length of the suit in responder's hand.

Sure trick

A trick that in the absence of some irregularity a player must win, such as the ace of trumps. Extended by George Coffin to refer to guaranteed lines of play.

Surrogate signals

A count or preference signal made in a different suit, usually the suit which declarer is running, to inform partner in beforehand about a critical decision he will have to make later during the play of the hand.

Swindle

A deceptive bid or play.

SWINE

Acronym for Sebesfi Woods 1NT Escape.

Swing

A difference in scores between two tables on a board in a team match.

Swish

(Slang) Three consecutive passes, ending the auction. "3♠ - swish" means 3♠ passed out.

Swiss teams

A team event in which teams play other teams with a similar record of wins and losses. It typically consists of a series of relatively short (6 to 8 board) matches.

Switch

To lead a different suit.

System

see bidding system.

T

Table

1) (Noun) A grouping of four players at a bridge tournament.

2) (Verb) To put down one's cards face up.

3) See dummy (2).

Table card

A large printed card placed on a table in a bridge tournament. The card contains instructions for the players, including players' designations and board numbers. Also, "Guide card."

Table presence

Awareness of opponents' behavior and mannerisms, leading to inferences regarding their holdings and problems on a deal. It is improper to take action on inferences made on the basis of partner's behavior. Also, "Table feel."

Table talk

1) Improper communication between partners, effected by words, gestures, or facial expressions.

2) Extraneous discussion during the play, discouraged as a distraction or possible source of unauthorized information.

Takeout double

A conventional call used in a competitive auction to indicate support for the unbid suits in a hand of opening strength, and to request that partner bid. The classic, ideal pattern is 4-4-4-1, with the shortness in the suit doubled. There are many informatory doubles that anticipate a bid from partner, but "takeout double" typically refers to the double immediately over opening bidder.

Tank

(Slang) Huddle.

Tap

(Verb and noun) Slang. To adopt a line of defense that is intended to force declarer to ruff in the long hand. Also, the line of defense itself: "To get the tap going." See Forcing defense.

Team

1) (Adjective) (also Teams or Team(s)-of-four) A form of duplicate bridge played by eight people at two tables. The North–South pair at one table and East–West pair at the other table are teammates. Every deal is played at both tables ("duplicate") and scored by comparing the two raw scores — usually on the IMP or board-a-match scale. Matches are commonly played in sets of 6 to 20 deals, with scoring required and player substitutions permitted between sets.

2) (Noun) A group of four or more players who compete together in a teams event. For each deal, four team members are active at two tables. Player substitution occurs between matches or, in many longer matches, between sets of 6 to 20 deals. Most teams events permit four to six players on a team.

Teammate

A member of the same team. Commonly said of any teammate other than one's partner.

Teams

(Adjective) See team (1)

Tempo

1) The number of tricks needed to execute a line of play. Early in the play, the way in which a player uses a tempo in his choice of lead often determines the outcome of the deal.

2) The speed at which a player executes a call or play. Some players attempt to intimidate less experienced opponents by playing their cards very quickly. A break in tempo often indicates that a player has an unexpected problem in play.

Temporizing bid

Waiting bid.

Tenace

A broken sequence of (often) honor cards, such as ♠ A Q or ♦ K J. Declarer may lead toward his or dummy's tenace, preparing to finesse for a missing card. A defender may lead through declarer's or dummy's tenace to help his partner score cards behind the tenace.

Their hand

(Slang) A hand on which the opponents have the preponderance of strength.

Thin

(Slang) 1) A bid or contract based on less strength than normally recommended.

2) (Of a hand) Lacking body.

Third-and-fifth

An opening lead convention that calls for the lead of the third-best card in a suit of up to four card length, and the fifth-best in a longer suit.

Third from even, low from odd

An opening lead convention that calls for the lead of the third-best card from a suit with an even number of cards, and the lowest card from a suit with an odd number of cards.

Third hand

The player who makes the third call, or who is the third to play to a trick.

Third hand high

A precept that advises the third hand to play a high card on partner's lead.

Threat

In squeeze play, a menace.

Three suiter

A hand with length in three suits, thus shortness in the fourth. Distributions such as 4-4-4-1, 5-4-4-0 and 5-4-3-1 are often termed "three-suiters."

Throw

To discard.

Throw-in

See Endplay.

Tight

(Slang) An honor card or honor sequence unaccompanied by low cards: "He had the ♥KQ tight."

Timing

A player's agenda for tasks in the play of the hand: for example, ruff losers and then draw trumps; or, draw trumps and then run the side suit.

Top

Playing matchpoints, the highest score achieved on a board.

Top of nothing

The lead of a high spot card from a suit that contains no honor card.

Top trick

A card that can take a trick on a given hand. See Winner.

Total tricks

The sum of the number of tricks that each partnership can take, with its longest combined suit as trump. See Law of Total tricks.

Touching

Adjacent. Both cards and suits may be touching. In the holding ♣KQ5, the king and queen are touching. In deciding whether to respond Up the line, a player notes that hearts and spades are touching suits.

Tournament

An organized duplicate bridge competition.

Trance

(Slang) Huddle.

Transfer

1) (Noun) A bid that conventionally shows length in a different suit.

2) (Noun) A bid that requests partner to make a bid in a particular suit, usually the suit immediately above that of the transfer.

3) (Verb) See transfer a control.

Transferable values

Cards, such as aces and kings, that are valuable either in declarer's hands or in defenders'.

Transfer a control

In squeeze play, to shift the responsibility of controlling, or guarding, a menace from one opponent to the other. This is usually accomplished by playing through one opponent in a way that forces him to cover the lead, leaving the other opponent with the remaining control. The purpose is to arrange that one opponent has to guard more menaces than he can successfully manage.

Transnational

1) A pair or team whose members differ in "nationality". Typically they are members of different national bridge federations, thus registered players.

2) An event (tournament) that permits transnational pairs or teams to enter. A transnational event is open in sense (c).

Trap pass

See Sandbag.

Traveler

A slip of paper that is folded into a board in a pairs contest. The traveler records the results at tables where the board has already been played.

Tray

See Board.

Treatment

A natural bid that: (1) either shows a willingness to play in the denomination named, or promises or requests values in that denomination, and (2) by partnership agreement gives or requests additional information on which action could be based. If the treatment is an unusual one, it requires announcement to the opponents even though it is natural. For example, a partnership that plays Flannery usually agrees that a 1♠ response to a 1♥ opening bid shows five spades. So the 1♠ response to 1♥, while natural, is a treatment because by agreement it shows at least a five card suit. Contrast with convention, a bid that gives or requests information not necessarily related to the denomination named.

Trial bid

See game try.

Trial

A (usually, high-level) tournament whose winners proceed to a subsequent event of even greater import.

Trick

A set of 4 cards played by each player in turn, during the play of a hand.

Trick score

The score earned by contracting for and taking tricks. Trick scores count toward making a game.

Triple squeeze

A squeeze that is so-named because it consists of three simple squeezes against the same opponent. A Progressive squeeze is regarded as a triple squeeze (because it is initiated by one), but not all triple squeezes are progressive.

Tripleton

A holding of three cards in a suit.

Trump

1) (Noun) A card in the trump suit whose trick-taking power is greater than any plain suit card.

2) (Verb) To play a trump after a plain suit has been led; see Ruff.

Trump control

The ability, from a combination of the holding in trumps with play technique, to prevent the opponents from taking too many tricks in a plain suit.

Trump echo

An echo in the trump suit, long used to alert partner to the possibility of a defensive ruff, and in the early 21st century to give partner the count.

Trump promotion

The advancement of a trump to the status of a winner by creating a position in which an opponent must suffer an uppercut, or an immediate adverse overruff, or choose to ruff with a higher trump that makes a later winner of an opponent's trump by force of cards.

Trump squeeze

A squeeze that forces an opponent to weaken his holding in one of the threat suits enough that the suit can later be ruffed out.

Trump suit

(Often, simply "trumps.") By way of the auction, declarer and declarer's partner select the trump suit on the basis of their combined length and strength in the suit: the greater length to ruff more losers in the plain suits, and the greater strength to better control the play of the trump suit itself. Information about trump suits generally in other card games can be found here.

Two-club system

A bidding system that uses an opening bid of 2♣ as an artificial game force.

Two-over-one

To an opening one-bid, any response two of a new suit that is forced to the two-level by suit rank. That is, two of a lower suit in response to the opening bid one of a higher suit. Contrast one over one.

Two suiter

A hand containing two long suits, usually each containing 4 or more cards, with at least 10 cards between the two suits.

Two-way checkback

An inquiry made after opener redbids 1NT. 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦ which says nothing about responders strain. It is just a forcing bid to show an invitational hand. On the other hand, a rebid of 2♦ after a 1NT rebid is an artificial game force.

Two-way Drury

An inquiry about the third (or sometimes fourth) position opener's strength in a major suit. 2♣ shows 3-card support, while an inquiry made with 2♦ shows four cards in opener's suit.

Two-way finesse

A Finesse that could be taken successfully against either opponent.

Two-way Stayman

Over an opening bid of 1NT, the use of 2♣ as non-forcing Stayman and 2♦ as a forcing major suit inquiry.

U

Unauthorized information

Information obtained from partner that one is not permitted to act on: for example, the manner in which partner plays a particular card, or the tone of voice when making a bid.

Unbalanced distribution

1) Broadly, any distribution of a hand or suit other than 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2 or 5-3-3-2.

2) Unbalanced is commonly used in a narrow sense that excludes semi-balanced, 5-4-2-2 and 6-3-2-2. Narrowly, unbalanced distribution implies a void, singleton, or 7-card suit.

Unbalanced hand

A 13-card hand with unbalanced distribution in the broad or narrow sense just above.

Unbid suit

A suit that has neither been bid nor indirectly shown.

Unblock

To play a card whose rank interferes with the use of cards in the opposite hand. Opposite dummy's KQJ, declarer's singleton ace blocks the suit, and so is played to unblock. There are other situations that require unblocking, such as the Vienna coup.

Under

See In front of.

Underbid

1) (Verb) To bid less aggressively, or to a lower contract, than most would with the same cards.

2) (Noun) A bid that most would regard as weaker than warranted by the strength of the hand.

Underlead

To lead a low card when holding the top card or cards in a suit. The underlead is standard in defense of notrump contracts (so as to preserve communications between defenders' hands), but unusual against suit contracts.

Underruff

To play a trump lower than one already played on the lead of a plain suit. Usually this is undesirable but is sometimes necessary to adjust the number of trumps held while preparing a trump coup, or while preparing to defend certain squeezed positions.

Undertrick

A trick that declarer does not win, causing the contract to go down. Multiple undertricks occur: for example, two undertricks could result in 4♥ down two.

Unfinished rubber

A rubber that the players agree not to finish. In rubber bridge scoring, a 300 point bonus is given to a vulnerable side, and a 100 point bonus to a side with a part score - note this differs from the 50 points for a part score in duplicate bridge.

Unguard

To discard lower cards that help prevent a higher card from being captured by an opponent.

Unlimited bid

See wide-ranging bid.

UPH

Unpassed hand.

Unplayable

1) (Of a contract) Unable to be played so as to bring about a favorable outcome.

2) (Of an agreement) Inevitably bringing about undesirable bidding sequences or contracts.

Unusual notrump

An artificial jump overcall in notrump that shows a Two-suiter, usually bid to suggest a sacrifice. As originally played, 1M - (2NT) showed a hand weak in high cards with, probably, 5-5 in the minor suits.

Unusual over unusual

A conventional method of conveying information after the opponents have deployed the unusual notrump convention or a Michaels Cue Bid, also called Unusual vs. Unusual.

UOU

Acronym for Unusual over unusual

Up the line

To bid the lower of two adjacent suits before the higher. For example, of two four card majors, the heart suit is normally bid before the spade suit in response to an opening bid of 1♣ or 1♦.

Uppercut

To ruff in the expectation of being overruffed, when the overruff will cause a trump in partner's hand to become a winner.

Upside-down signals

An agreement that when following suit to partner's lead, a low card encourages a continuation and a high card discourages. This is "upside-down", or the reverse of traditional practice.

Useful space principle

A guide to developing bidding conventions and treatments that directs developers' attention to the allocation of bidding space.

V

VCB

Variable Cue Bidding. Agreements used in the Ultimate Club to request and show controls.

Variable notrump

The use of a weak notrump when not vulnerable and a strong notrump when vulnerable.

Victory points (VP)

A conversion scale used in team contests and based on total IMP differences, so as to reduce the effect of very large swings.

Vienna coup

The unblock of a winner opposite a threat prior to reaching a position that effects a squeeze.

View

An assumption about how the cards lie on a particular deal: "Sorry, partner, I took a view."

Void

No cards in a given suit.

Voidwood

See Exclusion Blackwood.

Vugraph

A method of electronically displaying tournament bridge deals to spectators.

Vulnerability

A scoring condition assigned to each pair in advance of a deal. In duplicate bridge, vulnerability is indicated on boards; in rubber bridge, it is determined by the number of trick points previously earned. Vulnerability affects both the size of bonuses for making contracts and penalties for failing to make them.

Vulnerable

1) (Duplicate bridge) A designation, shown on each board, that indicates whether larger bonuses and penalties apply to one, both or neither pair on that deal.

2) (Rubber bridge) Having won one game.

W

Waiting bid

A bid that enables the bidder to obtain more information before making a commitment. For example, some players use 2♦ over a 2♣ forcing opening bid as a waiting bid rather than as a negative response.

Waive

To condone an irregularity. In duplicate bridge, a waiver is an improper action.

Wash

(Slang) Push.

Wasted values

Duplicated values.

WBF

World Bridge Federation.

Weak jump overcall

A jump overcall used to preempt the bidding.

Weak jump shift

A jump shift used to preempt the bidding.

Weak notrump

A 1NT opening bid on a balanced hand with, usually, 12-14 HCP. The bid has mild preemptive value; compare with strong notrump. To show a strong notrump, the weak notrump user opens with a suit and rebids in notrump.

Weak two bid

An opening bid of two of a suit to indicate a relatively weak hand with a long suit.

Whist

A predecessor of contract bridge.

Wholesale

A count or total that obscures cards' identities. A bid of 5♥ in response to Blackwood shows two aces wholesale, without announcing which aces they are.

Wide open

(Said of a suit) Without a stopper.

Wide-ranging bid

A bid made within a wide range of strengths and shapes, the opposite of a limit bid. An example from Acol is an opening bid of one of a suit which may be made with anything from 10 HCP (plus some shape) to 22 HCP (with a shape unsuitable for a 2 bid, such as 4-4-4-1). Such bids are limited only by the failure of the bidder to make a stronger or weaker bid; thus an Acol opening bid of one of a suit is limited by the fact that the opener failed to pass, to make a 2 level opening bid, or to make a pre-emptive opening bid.

Winkle

A squeeze without the count that forces the defender to choose between a throw-in and an unblock, each of which is a losing option.

Winner

A card that can take a trick on a given hand.

Wire

(Slang) Improper knowledge of a deal, prior to playing it.

World Bridge Federation

The international governing body for organized bridge.

WBU

Welsh Bridge Union.

Wolff signoff

After a jump rebid of 2NT by opener, responder's bid of 3♣ as a puppet to 3♦, after which responder can sign off with a weak hand.

Work count

The assignment of the numbers 4, 3, 2 and 1 as points to represent aces, kings, queens and jacks in the process of hand evaluation. Named for Milton Work.

Working card

A card that is useful to a partnership, given the mesh of the cards in the two hands.

Wrongside

(Verb) To place the contract in the less favorable hand for the partnership. See Antipositional.

X

x

(lowercase) Any small card, of no trick-taking significance.

X

(uppercase) Double, in print or manuscript representation of the auction (alternative to 'Dbl') or the final contract. Used in bidding boxes, private scores, and occasionally elsewhere.

XX

(uppercase) Redouble, in print or manuscript representation of the auction (alternative to 'Rdbl' and the like) or the final contract;. Used in bidding boxes, private scores, and occasionally elsewhere.

X-IMPs

See Cross-IMPs

XYZ

A convention used in an uncontested auction where 3 suits are bid at the one level. Thereafter a 2♣ is a Puppet to 2♦, showing a weak ♦ or an invitational hand. A 2♦ bid is game forcing. A 3♣ shows a weak hand.

x-y Notrump

A convention to be used after a sequence like 1x - 1y - 1NT. Thereafter a 2♣ is a Puppet to 2♦, showing a weak ♦ or an invitational hand. A 2♦ bid is game forcing. Also called XYCheckback.

x-y-z Notrump

A convention to be used after a sequence like 1x - 1y - (1z) - 1NT, or 1x - (1z) - 1y - 1NT, where z is an opponent's bid. Thereafter a 2♣ is a Puppet to 2♦, showing a weak ♦ or an invitational hand. A 2♦ bid is game forcing. Also called XYZCheckback.

Y

Yarborough

Originally, a hand with no card higher than a nine. The British Earl of Yarborough, during the 19th century, would offer a wager of 1,000 pounds to 1 against picking up such a hand at whist. (The actual odds against such a hand are approximately 1,827 to 1.) In common usage, its meaning may refer to any exceptionally weak hand.

Z

z

see zoom

Zar points

An evaluation method to determine if a hand should be opened. It asks to open whenever you have 26 or more Zars, determined by adding the number of cards in the 2 longest suits, plus high card points, plus number of controls (A=2, K=1), plus the difference between the longest and the shortest suit. An additional point is added for the ♠ suit if it has 4+ cards. The unsupported honors are diminished 1 point in value. 52 Zar points should produce a NT or major suit game.

Zero

The lowest score obtained on a deal in a pairs game. Also, bottom.

Zia play

A specific type of falsecard which creates a losing option to declarer.

zoom (z)

In a relay system, the facility to joining into the next level of answers without needing to hear a new relay from partner. Usually, after servant has the highest possible answer for the level s/he is answering, s/he can jump into the next level assuming the captain made a virtual new relay, saving bidding space.

Further reading

Baron, Randall, Editor (1993). The Bridge Player's Dictionary. Louisville, KY: Devyn Press, Inc. ISBN 0-939460-50-5. 277 pages.

Culbertson, Ely, Editor (1935). The Encyclopedia of Bridge. New York: The Bridge World, Inc. 477 pages.

The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge - various editions.

Reese, Terence (1965). Bridge Conventions, Finesses and Coupd. New York: Cornerstone Library Publications. 192 pages.

Reese, Terence; Dormer, Albert (1959). Bridge Player's Dictionary. New York: Sterling Publishing Company. OCLC 3190513. 252 pages.

Reese, Terence; Dormer, Albert (1981). The Bridge Player's Alphabetical Handbook. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-11599-3. 223 pages.

Russell, Fisher (1933). Dictionary of Contract Bridge: the Webster of Contract. Clinton, MA: Colonial Press Inc. 32 pages.

External links

The Bridge World glossary

Bridge Guys glossary

BridgeHands Encyclopedia of Bridge Terms

List of play techniques (bridge)

Techniques by declarer

trumping or ruffing and crossruffing

establishing a long suit

finessing

holding up and ducking

blocking and unblocking

managing entries

maintaining tempo

drawing trumps

not drawing trumps

Advanced techniques by declarer

card reading, also known as counting the hand

dummy reversal

endplay

coups

squeezes

suit combinations play

safety play

applying the principle of restricted choice

applying the theory of vacant places

applying percentages and probabilities

Techniques by defenders

making the opening lead

signaling

unblocking (bridge)

overtaking

holding up.

Bidding

Hand evaluation

In contract bridge, various bidding systems have been devised to enable partners to describe their hands to each other so that they may reach the optimum contract. Key to this process is that players evaluate and re-evaluate the trick-taking potential of their hands as the auction proceeds and additional information about partner's hand (and the opponent's hands) becomes available. Several methods have been devised to evaluate the various features of hands, including their strength, shape or distribution, controls, fit with partner and the quality of a suit or of the whole hand.

The methods range from basic to complex. Regardless of which are used, all require the partners to have the same understandings and agreements about their application and meaning in their bidding system.

Basic point-count system

Most bidding systems use a basic point-count system for hand evaluation using a combination of high card points and distributional points, as follows.

High card points

Main article: Honor point count

Called the Milton Work Point Count in the Twenties when first publicized and then the Goren Point Count when popularized in the late Forties. and now known simply as the high card point (HCP) count, this basic evaluation method assigns values to the top four honour cards as follows:

ace = 4 HCP

king = 3 HCP

queen = 2 HCP

jack = 1 HCP

Evaluating a hand on this basis takes due account of the fact that there are 10 HCP in each suit and therefore 40 in the complete deck of cards. An average hand contains one quarter of the total, i.e. 10 HCP. The method has the dual benefits of simplicity and practicality, especially in notrump contracts. Most bidding systems are based upon the premise that a better than average hand is required to open the bidding; 12 HCP is generally considered the minimum for most opening bids.

Limitations

The combined HCP count between two hands is generally considered to be a good indication, all else being equal, of the number of tricks likely to be made by the partnership. The rule of thumb for games and slams in notrump is as follows:

25 HCP are necessary for game, i.e. 3 NT

33 HCP are necessary for a small slam, i.e. 6 NT

37 HCP are necessary for a grand slam, i.e. 7 NT

A simple justification for 37 HCP being suitable for a grand slam is that it is the lowest number that guarantees the partnership holding all the aces. Similarly 33 HCP is the lowest number that guarantees at least three aces.

Although mostly effective for evaluating the combined trick-taking potential of two balanced hands played in notrump, even in this area of applicability the HCP is not infallible. Jeff Rubens gives the following example:

♠
A Q J 2

W             E

♠
K 10 3

♥
A Q
♥
K J 9 4

♦
K Q 3 2
♦
A J

♣
A 4 3
♣
8 7 6 5

♠
A Q J

W             E

♠
K 10 3

♥
A Q 3 2
♥
K J 9 4

♦
K Q
♦
A J

♣
A 4 3 2
♣
8 7 6 5

Both East hands are exactly the same, and both West hands have the same shape, the same HCP count, and the same high cards. The only difference between the West hands is that two low red cards and one low black card have been swapped (between the heart suit and the diamond suit, and between the spade suit and the club suit, respectively).

With a total of 34 HCP in the combined hands, based on the above mentioned HCP-requirement for slam, most partnerships would end in a small slam (12 tricks) contract. Yet, the leftmost layout produces 13 tricks in notrump, whilst the rightmost layout on a diamond lead would fail to produce more than 10 tricks in notrump. In this case, the difference in trick-taking potential is due to duplication in the high card values: in the rightmost layout the combined 20 HCP in spades and diamonds results in only five tricks. Because such duplication can often not be detected during bidding, the high card point method of hand evaluation, when used alone, provides only a preliminary estimate of the trick-taking potential of the combined hands and must be supplemented by other means for improved accuracy, particularly for unbalanced hands.

Accordingly, expert players utilise the high card point count as a starting point in the evaluation of their hands, and make adjustments based on:

refinements to the HCP valuation for certain holdings,

the use of additional point values for hand shape or distribution (known as distribution points), and

bidding techniques to determine the specifics of any control cards held by partner.

Collectively, these more effectively evaluate the combined holdings of a partnership.

Refinements

For aces and tens

The 4–3–2–1 high card point evaluation has been found to statistically undervalue aces and tens and alternatives have been devised to increase a hand's HCP value.

To adjust for aces, Goren recommended deducting one HCP for an aceless hand and adding one for holding four aces. Some adjust for tens by adding 1/2 HCP for each. Alternatively, some treat aces and tens as a group and add one HCP if the hand contains three or more aces and tens;Richard Pavlicek advocates adding one HCP if holding four or more aces and tens.

For unguarded honours

Goren and others recommend deducting one HCP for a singleton king, queen, or jack.

Distributional points

In order to improve the accuracy of the bidding process, the high card point count is supplemented by the evaluation of unbalanced or shapely hands using additional simple arithmetic methods. Two approaches are common – evaluation of suit length and evaluation of suit shortness.

Suit length points

At its simplest it is considered that long suits have a value beyond the HCP held: this can be turned into numbers on the following scale:

5-card suit = 1 point

6 card suit = 2 points

7 card suit = 3 points ... etc.

A hand comprising a 5-card suit and a 6-card suit gains points for both, i.e., 1 + 2 making 3 points in total. Other combinations are dealt with in a similar way. These distribution points (sometimes called length points) are added to the HCP to give the total point value of the hand. Confusion can arise because the term "points" can be used to mean either HCP, or HCP plus length points. This method, of valuing both honour cards and long suits, is suitable for use at the opening bid stage before a trump suit has been agreed. In the USA this method of combining HCP and long-card points is known as the point-count system.

Suit shortness points

Once a trump suit has been agreed, or at least a partial fit has been uncovered, it is argued by many that ruffing potential as represented by short suits becomes more significant than long suits. Accordingly, in a method devised by William Anderson of Toronto and popularized by Charles Goren, distribution points are added for shortage rather than length.

When the supporting hand holds three trumps, shortness is valued as follows:

void = 3 points

singleton = 2 points

doubleton = 1 point

When the supporting hand holds four or more trumps, thereby having more spare trumps for ruffing, shortness is valued as follows:

void = 5 points

singleton = 3 points

doubleton = 1 point

Shortage points (also known as support points or dummy points) are added to HCP to give total points.

Summary

When intending to make a bid in a suit and there is no agreed upon trump suit, add high card points and length points to get the total point value of one's hand. With an agreed trump suit, add high card points and shortness points instead. When making a bid in notrump with intent to play, value high-card points only.

Supplementary methods

The basic point-count system does not solve all evaluation problems and in certain circumstances is supplemented by refinements to the HCP count or by additional methods.

Control count

The control count is a supplementary method that is mainly used in combination with HCP count to determine the trick-taking potential of fitting hands, in particular to investigate slam potential. The use of control count addresses the fact that for suit contracts, aces and kings tend to be undervalued in the standard 4–3–2–1 HCP scale; aces and kings allow declarer better control over the hands and can prevent the opponents from retaining or gaining the lead.

The control count is the sum of the controls where aces are valued as two controls, kings as one control and queens and jacks as zero. This control count can be used as "tie-breakers" for hands evaluated as marginal by their HCP count. Hands with the same shape and the same HCP can have markedly different slam potential depending on the control count.

♠
K J 6 3 2

W             E

♠
A Q 9 8 5

♥
A 2
♥
K 5 3

♦
7 5 4 3
♦
A 6

♣
A 5
♣
K 4 3

♠
K J 6 3 2

W             E

♠
A Q 9 8 5

♥
A 2
♥
K Q 3

♦
7 5 4 3
♦
Q 6

♣
A 5
♣
K 4 3

In the above examples, both West hands are the same, and both East hands have the same shape and HCP (16). Yet, the layout on the left represents a solid slam (12 tricks) in spades, whilst the layout on the right will fail to produce 12 tricks. The difference between the East hands becomes apparent when conducting a control count: in the left layout East has two aces and two kings for a total of six controls, whilst in the right layout has one ace and two kings for a total of four controls.

HCP
Expected
Controls

5
1

7–8
2

10
3

12–13
4

15
5

17–18
6

20
7

The interpretation of the significance of the control count is based upon a publication by George Rosenkranz in the December 1974 issue of The Bridge World. Rosenkranz defined "the expected number of controls in balanced hands" at specific HCP counts as 'control-neutral' in a table similar to the consolidation shown on the left; having more controls is deemed 'control-rich' and having less is 'control-weak'.

The table can be used as tie-breaker for estimating the slam-going potential of hands like the above two East hands. Whilst the leftmost East hand counts 16 HCP, in terms of controls (6) it is equivalent to a hand typically 1–2 HCP stronger, whereas the rightmost East hand, also counting 16 HCP, is in terms of controls (4) more equivalent to 12–13 HCP.

If West opens the bidding with 1♠, both East hands should aim for at least game (4♠), the partnership having the minimum 26 total points typically required for a game contract in the majors. Despite the spade suit fit, both East hands have marginal slam potential based on their 16 HCP count alone. On the leftmost layout the control-rich East (an upgraded 17–18 HCP) should explore slam and be willing to bypass 4♠ in doing so, whilst on the rightmost layout the control-weak East (a downgraded 12–13 HCP) should be more cautious and be prepared to stop in 4♠ should further bidding reveal West lacking a control in diamonds.

Having determined the degree of interest in exploring slam possibilities, the methods and conventions to determine which controls (aces, kings and even queens) are held by the partnership include: the Blackwood convention, the Norman four notrump convention, the Roman Key Card Blackwood convention and cuebids.

In his book "The Modern Losing Trick Count", Ron Klinger advocates the use of the control count to make adjustments to the LTC hand evaluation method (see below).

Negative/positive features

Certain combinations of cards have higher or lower trick taking potential than the simple point count methods would suggest. Proponents (e.g. Bep Vriend, Netherlands) of this idea suggest that HCP should be deducted from hands where negative combinations occur. Similarly, additional points might be added where positive combinations occur. This method is particularly useful in making difficult decisions on marginal hands, especially for overcalling and in competitive bidding situations. In lieu of arithmetic addition or subtraction of HCP or distributional points, 'plus' or' minus' valuations may be applied to influence the decision.

Negative features worth less than the HCP suggest:

Honour doubletons K-Q, Q-J. Q-x, J-x unless in partners suit. Although Samuel Stayman recommended deducting one HCP for K-Q, K-J, Q-J,Q-x,J-x Q-x-x, J-x-x holdoings, this is now considered extreme.

Honour singletons; some exempt the singleton ace but others consider it inflexible in play.

Honour combinations not accompanied by a small card.

Honours in opponents' suit when deciding to support partner's suit.

Honours in side suits when deciding to overcall.

The club suit when opening because it allows opponents to overcall more easily.

The next suit above RHO's suit when overcalling (unless a very good suit) which gives opponents information but does not cut into their bidding space.

Honours in suits shown by LHO.

Positive points features worth more than the HCP suggest:

Honours in long suits.

Two or three honours in long suits (better).

Honour sequences in long suits (best).

Honours in partner's suit when deciding to support it.

Honours in own suit when deciding to overcall.

Two or three intermediate cards in a suit (8, 9 10) especially if headed by honours.

The spade suit when opening ... makes overcalling more difficult.

The next suit below RHO's suit when overcalling reduces the opponents' bidding space.

Honours in suits shown by RHO.

Defensive/attacking values

Certain combinations of cards are better defence and others are more valuable in attack (i.e. as declarer). There is some overlap with the concept of negative and positive points.

Defensive values that suggest a hand should defend:

Honours in shortish side suits, e.g. Kxx.

Honours and/or length in opponents suit.

Lack of honours in own suit.

Attacking values that suggest a hand should play a contract as declarer or dummy:

Honours in own suit (the more the better).

Lack of defensive values.

Methods to help with opening bids and overcalls on marginal hands

Rule of 20

Add together the number of HCP in the hand, and the number of cards in the two longest suits. If the resultant number is 20 or higher and most of the high cards are in the long suits, then an opening bid is suggested (the choice of which bid requires further analysis). As an example, a hand containing 11 HCP and 5–4–2–2 shape would qualify for an opening bid because the resultant number would be 20 (11 + 5 + 4) whereas 11 HCP and 4–4–3–2 shape would not (11 + 4 + 4 = 19). This method gives very similar results to length points as above except for a hand containing 11 HCP and 5–3–3–2 shape which gives 19 on the Rule of 20 (insufficient to open) but 12 total points by adding 1 length point to the 11 HCP (sufficient to open). Experience and further analysis are needed to decide which is appropriate.

Rule of 19

Identical to the Rule of 20 but some expert players believe that 20 is too limiting a barrier and prefer 19.

Suit Quality Test (SQT)

The SQT evaluates an individual suit as a precursor to deciding whether, and at what level, certain bids should be made. This method is generally considered useful for making an overcall and for making a preemptive opening bid; it works for long suits i.e. 5 cards at least, as follows: Add together the number of cards in the suit and the number of high (honour) cards in the suit. For this purpose high cards are considered to be A, K, Q, J and 10 but the J and 10 are only to be counted if at least one of the A, K or Q are present. The resultant number determines the level at which the particular bid should be made (Klinger 1994) according to this scale:

7 = a one level bid

8 = a two level bid

9 = a three level bid .... etc.

An alternative way to look at this is that the bid should be to the level of the number of tricks equal to the SQT number. This method was originally proposed as a way of enabling overcalls to be made with relatively few HCP but with little risk. It can also be used to determine whether a hand is suitable for a preemptive bid.

Methods to help when a fit has been discovered

Paraphrasing Crowhurst and Kambites (1992), "Experts often sail into an unbeatable slam with only 25 HCP whereas it would never occur to most players to proceed beyond game".

North | South
1♠ | 3♦
4♦ | 4♠
? |

For example, holding ♠ K109864 ♥ A43 ♦ KQ8 ♣ 4 with the auction shown on the left, they point out that the bidding indicates at least 6/3 in spades and 5/3 in diamonds. If partner has 3 aces (easily discovered), a grand slam (13 tricks: 6♠, 1♥, 5♦, 1♣) is likely. This grand slam can easily be bid despite the partnership holding around 29 HCP only (12 in hand above plus 17 in the hand bidding the jump shift (1♠ – 3♦). At lower levels it is harder to be as precise but Crowhust & Kambites advise "With a good fit bid aggressively but with a misfit be cautious". Some of the methods that follow are designed to use arithmetic in the evaluation of hands that fit with partner's.

Losing-Trick Count (LTC)

Main article: Losing-Trick Count

Once a trump fit has been found, this alternative (to HCP) method is used in situations where shape and fit are of more significance than HCP in determining the optimum level of a suit contract. The "losing-tricks" in a hand are added to the systemically assumed losing tricks in partners hand (7 for an opening bid of 1 of a suit) and the resultant number is deducted from 24; the net figure is the number of tricks a partnership can expect to win when playing in the agreed trump suit.

The basic method assumes that an ace will never be a loser, nor will a king in a 2+ card suit, nor a queen in a 3+ card suit, thus

a void = 0 losing tricks.

a singleton other than an A = 1 losing trick.

a doubleton AK = 0, Ax, Kx or KQ = 1, xx = 2 losing tricks.

a three card suit AKQ = 0, AKx, AQx or KQx = 1 losing trick.

a three card suit Axx, Kxx or Qxx = 2, xxx = 3 losing tricks.

suits longer than three cards are judged according to the three highest cards; no suit may have more than 3 losing tricks.

A typical opening hand, e.g. ♠AKxxx ♥Axxx ♦Qx ♣xx, has 7 losers (1+2+2+2=7). To calculate how high to bid, responder adds the number of losers in their hand to the assumed number in opener's hand (7). The total number of losers is subtracted from 24. The answer is the total number of tricks available to the partnership, and this should be the next bid by responder. Thus following an opening bid of 1♥:

partner jumps to game with no more than 7 losers in hand and a fit with partner's heart suit (3 if playing 5-card majors) ... 7 + 7 = 14 subtract from 24 = 10 tricks.

With 8 losers in hand and a fit, responder bids 3♥ (8+7=15 which deducted from 24 = 9 tricks).

With 9 losers and a fit, responder bids 2♥.

With only 5 losers and a fit, a slam is likely so responder may bid straight to 6♥ if preemptive bidding seems appropriate or take a slower forcing approach.

LTC refined

Thinking that the method tended to overvalue unsupported queens and undervalue supported jacks, Eric Crowhurst and Andrew Kambites refined the scale, as have others:

AQ doubleton = ½ loser according to Ron Klinger.

Kx doubleton = 1½ losers according to others.

AJ10 = 1 loser according to Bernard Magee.

KJ10 = 1½ losers according to Bernard Magee.

Qxx = 3 losers (or possibly 2.5) unless trumps.

Subtract a loser if there is a known 9-card trump fit.

In his book The Modern Losing Trick Count, Ron Klinger advocates adjusting the number of loser based on the control count of the hand believing that the basic method undervalues an ace but overvalues a queen and undervalues short honor combinations such as Qx or a singleton king. Also it places no value on cards jack or lower.

New Losing Trick Count (NLTC)

Extending these thoughts, Klinger believes that the basic method undervalues an ace but overvalues a queen and undervalues short honor combinations such as Qx or a singleton king. Also it places no value on cards jack or lower. Recent insights on these issues have led to the New Losing Trick Count (The Bridge World, 2003). For more precision this count utilises the concept of half-losers and, more importantly, distinguishes between 'ace-losers', 'king-losers' and 'queen-losers':

a missing Ace = three half losers.

a missing King = two half losers.

a missing queen = one half loser.

A typical opening bid is assumed to have 15 or fewer half losers (i.e. half a loser more than in the basic LTC method). NLTC differs from LTC also in the fact that it utilises a value of 25 (instead of 24) in determining the trick taking potential of two partnering hands. Hence, in NLTC the expected number of tricks equates to 25 minus the sum of the losers in the two hands (i.e. half the sum of the half losers of both hands). So, 15 half-losers opposite 15 half-losers leads to 25-(15+15)/2 = 10 tricks.

The NLTC solves the problem that the basic LTC method undervalues aces and overvalues queens.

Law of Total Tricks, Total Trumps Principle

Main article: Law of Total Tricks

For shapely hands where a trump fit has been agreed, the combined length of the trump suit can be more significant than points or HCP in deciding on the level of the final contract. It is of most value in competitive bidding situations where the HCP are divided roughly equally between the partnerships.

The Law of Total Tricks states that "On every hand of bridge, the total number of tricks available is equal to, or very close to, the total number of cards in each side's longest suit". Total tricks is defined as the sum of the number of tricks available to each side if they could choose trumps.

The Total Trumps Principle is derived from the Law of Total Tricks and argues that this is more often than not a winning strategy, "Bid to the contract equal to the number of trumps you and your partner hold (and no higher) in a competitive auction".

In 2002, Anders Wirgren called the accuracy of the "law" into question, saying it works on only 35–40% of deals. However, Larry Cohen remains convinced it is a useful guideline, especially when adjustments are used properly.[citation needed] Mendelson (1998) finds that it is "accurate to within one trick on the vast majority of hands"

Methods to help with strong hands

Hands with relatively solid long suits have a trick taking potential not easily measured by the basic pointcount methods (e.g. a hand containing 13 spades will take all 13 tricks if spades are trumps, but will only score 19 on the point count method, 10 HCP + 9 length point). For such hands, playing tricks is deemed more suitable. Responding to such hands is best made considering quick tricks.

Quick Tricks (Honor Tricks in the Culbertson system)

These are calculated suit by suit as follows:

2 quick tricks = AK of the same suit

1½ quick tricks = AQ in the same suit

1 quick trick = A or KQ in the same suit

½ quick trick = Kx

This method is used when replying to very strong suit opening bids such as the Acol 2♣ where 1½ quick tricks are needed to make a positive response (Klinger 1994).

Playing Tricks

For relatively strong hands containing long suits (e.g. an Acol 2 opener), playing tricks are defined as the number of tricks expected, with no help from partner, given that the longest suit is trumps. Thus for long suits the ace, king and queen are counted together with all cards in excess of 3 in the suit; for short suits only clear winner combinations are counted:

A = 1, AK = 2, AKQ = 3

KQ = 1, KQJ = 2

An Acol strong 2 of a suit opening bid is made on 8 playing tricks (Landy 1998)

More advanced methods

Zar Points

Main article: Zar Points

This statistically derived method for evaluating Contract Bridge hands was developed by Zar Petkov. It attempts to account for many of the factors outlined above in a numerical way.

Visualisation

Key differentiator between the bidding effectiveness of experts versus laymen is the use of hand visualisation during all stages of bidding.[citation needed]

In his book The Secrets of Winning Bridge, Jeff Rubens advises to focus on just a few hands that partner might be holding, and more particularly on perfect minimum hands compatible with the bidding. This means that in order to reach an informed decision in, for example, deciding whether a hand is worth an invitation to game or slam, a player should 'visualise' the most balanced distribution with the minimum HCP partner might have with the high cards selected such that these fit precisely with your own hand. He advises that "your hand is worth an invitation to game (or slam) if this perfect minimum holding for partner will make it a laydown".

Rubens gives the following example:

♠ QJ2 ♥ A32 ♦ KQJ54 ♣ A3

Partner opens 1♠. A minimum hand compatible with the bidding would have no more than 12 HCP, and be relatively balanced (i.e. 5332). The hand would be perfect if partner's points were solely located in spades and diamond. So a perfect minimum would be:

♠ AK543 ♥ 654 ♦ A2 ♣ 542

Such a perfect minimum would give a solid slam in spades, relying on hcp would not indicate a slam possibility. This is the advantage of the 'visualisation' method.

References

Downey, Ned; Pomer, Ellen (2005). Standard Bidding with SAYC. Toronto: Master Point Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-1-897106-03-7.

English Bridge Union; Landy, Sandra; EBUTA Committee (1998). Really Easy Bidding. Aylesbury, UK: English Bridge Union. ISBN 0-9506279-2-5. OCLC 40299643.

Francis, Henry G., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Francis, Dorthy A., Editor, Sixth Edition (2001). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (6th ed.). Memphis, TN: American Contract Bridge League. ISBN 0-943855-44-6. OCLC 49606900.

Goren, Charles (1949, 1950, 1954). Point Count Bidding in Contract Bridge. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc.

Klinger, Ron; collab Pat Husband & Andrew Kambites (1994). Basic Bridge. London: Victor Gollancz. ISBN 0-575-05690-8.

Magee, Bernard (2006). Better Hand Evaluation. Ryden Grange, Bisley, Surrey, England, United Kingdom: Mr Bridge. p. 160. ISBN 1-85665-012-X.

Root, Bill (1998). The ABCs of Bridge. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0-609-80162-7.

Rubens, Jeff (1969, 1971). The Secrets of Winning Bridge. New York: Grosset and Dunlap. p. 241. ISBN 0-448-02094-7., ISBN 0-448-01746-6

Further reading

Cohen, Larry (1992). To Bid or Not to Bid: The LAW of Total Tricks (9th printing, 1997, revised and expanded ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Natco Press. p. 286. ISBN 0-9634715-0-3. LCCN 92-80759.

Crowhurst, Eric; Kambites, Andrew (1992). Understanding Acol. The Good Bidding Guide. Master Bridge Series. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd in association with Peter Crawley. p. 157. ISBN 0-575-05253-8.

Frey, Richard L., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Cohen, Ben, International Edition Editor; Barrow, Rhoda, International Edition Editor (1967). The Bridge Players' Encyclopedia. London: Paul Hamlyn. OCLC 560654187.

Jabbour, Zeke (2004). Lawless Territory. American Contract Bridge League, Bridge Bulletin, August 2004, pp. 27–28.

Klinger, Ron (1986). Bidding to Win at Contract Bridge, Book One: The Modern Losing Trick Count. Sydney, Australia: Modern Bridge Publications. p. 122. ISBN 0-9592305-2-1. — (2009) The Modern Losing Trick Count: Bidding to Win at Contract Bridge (13th impression). London: by Cassell in association with Peter Crawley, pp. 143. ISBN 978-0-304-35770-3.

Koelman, Johannes (May 2003). The Bridge World 74 (8). p. 26.

Lawrence, Mike (1983). The Complete Book on Hand Evaluation in Contract Bridge. Hawthorne, CA: Max Hardy. p. 194. ISBN 0-939460-27-0.

Lawrence, Mike; Wirgren, Anders (2004). I Fought the Law of Total Tricks.

Magee, Bernard (2006). Better Hand Evaluation. Ryden Grange, Bisley, Surrey, England, United Kingdom: Mr Bridge. p. 160. ISBN 1-85665-012-X.

Mendelson, Paul (1998). Mendelson's Guide to The Bidding Battle. Cambridge, UK: Colt Books. ISBN 0-905899-86-5.

Root, Bill (1986). Commonsense Bidding. New York: Crown Publishers Inc. ISBN 0-517-56130-1., ISBN 0-517-56129-8.

Senior, Brian (1998). Hand Evaluation in Bridge. London: B.T. Batsford. p. 141. ISBN 978-0-7134-8294-2.

External links

Advanced hand evaluation theory by Thomas Andrews

Guidelines for hand evaluation for beginners – Karen's Bridge Library

Basic hand evaluation criteria – Pattaya Bridge Club

Jeff Goldsmith website for software hand evaluators based on approaches by Kaplan and Rubens and by Danny Kleinman

Environmnetal factors affecting hand evaluation – BridgeHands

Hand Evaluation – Marty Bergen

Bridge convention

A bridge convention is a system of calls made during the auction phase of a contract bridge game which conveys a coded meaning about the players' card holdings. The calls may be "natural" (that is, show a feature of the named denomination, such as the length of a suit) or "artificial" (show a feature unrelated to the named denomination).

Contract bridge is a trick-taking card game played by four players in two competing partnerships in which a sequence of bidding, also known as the auction, precedes the play of the cards. The purpose of this bidding is for players to inform their partners of the content of their hand and to arrive at a suitable contract at which to play the hand. Although bidding is often "natural" (i.e., it describes a hand by simple reference to possession, shape, and strength of the named suit), players may also bid using conventions, which impart very specific information to certain bids, particularly at the more advanced levels of competitive play. Bill Root defines convention as: "A specific agreement between partners to give an unusual meaning to a bid".

Conventions are named after their ostensive author (e.g., the Drury convention), their promulgator (e.g., the Stayman convention), or something about the methodology itself (e.g., the Strong two clubs convention).

The term conventional is also used to describe certain opening leads, discards and signals that have specific agreed meanings.

Conventions to be played must be agreed by partners before play begins and must be disclosed to their opponents, either in advance by the use of convention cards or by alerts, announcements, and answers to questions about one's partner's bids once bidding has begun. Generally, this disclosure also must include negative implications of choosing the bid over another alternative. Failure to reveal fully the existence and meaning of a convention generally constitutes an illegal communication of information between partners.

Perhaps the most widely known and used conventions are Blackwood, which imparts information about the number of aces and kings held, Stayman convention, used to discover a 4-4 fit in a major suit following a no trump bid, Jacoby transfers, used to find a 5-3 fit in a major suit, and strong two clubs to show a very strong hand (usually at least 22 HCP). It could be argued that takeout doubles are conventional but their usage is so widespread that it is considered a natural bid.

Classification

Bridge conventions can be classified according to their purpose:

Opening bid conventions

Strong opening bids are used for hands stronger than the "normal" opening bid range (12-20 points in natural systems, 12-15/17 points in artificial systems)

Strong two clubs in natural systems denote hands of 22+ high card points

Strong one club in strong club systems denotes hands of 16-17+ points

Weak opening bids are used for hands weaker than the normal opening bid range, but with preemptive value:

Standard Preemptive Bids, including "Weak Two" Bids

Kamikaze 1NT

Ekren

Muiderberg

Other opening bid conventions:

Flannery

Multi 2 diamonds

Namyats

Fit-seeking conventions are used in constructive bidding, in order to find a fit—a suit suitable for trumps

Baron

Checkback Stayman

Forcing notrump

Jacoby transfers

New minor forcing

Stayman

LTC

Slam-seeking conventions are used in constructive bidding so that a partnership can investigate possibility of making a slam (Main article: Slam seeking conventions)

Asking bids

Blackwood

Cue bids

Gerber

Grand slam force

Jacoby 2NT

Last Train

Quantitative notrump bids

Relay bids

Splinter bid; Ingberman Convention: In this case, Monroe Ingberman uses a Three No Trump Response to force a Major Raise. Monroe Ingberman uses a conventional splinter or fragment bid.

Serious 3NT

Defensive conventions or interventions are used to show a specific type of hand after opponents have opened a bidding

Takeout double

Defenses over 1 NT, like

Cappelletti

CoCa

CRASH

DONT

Hamilton

Landy

Lionel

Meckwell

Multi-Defense

Multi-Landy

Suction

Two-suited overcalls, like

Copenhagen convention

Ghestem

Leaping Michaels

Michaels cuebid

Raptor convention

Roman two-suiters

Unusual notrump

Counter-interventions present a countermeasure after opponents' conventional and natural interventions:

Lebensohl

Negative double

Negative free bid

Rubensohl

Unusual vs. unusual

Other:

Game trial bids

Lightner double

Regulations

Under the rules of the sponsoring organization (for example national federations such as American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) and the English Bridge Union (EBU), zonal organizations, and the World Bridge Federation (WBF)), certain conventions are alertable, the partner of the player making the conventional call must say "alert" (or show an alert card from the bidding box) before the right-hand opponent calls. The right-hand opponent may ask the alerter about the meaning of the convention, or may proceed as usual. If the right-hand opponent does not ask about the convention, their partner may do so when it is their turn. Under ACBL and EBU rules, some conventions are also announced, for example Jacoby transfers. When a player makes a transfer bid, his or her partner must say, "transfer" (or, under EBU rules, state the suit in question).

Sponsoring organizations can require players at all or some levels of competition to have a convention card which is a form completed by the partnership, containing general notes of the system, together with the definition of conventional bids, leads, discards and signals. In ACBL-sanctioned games, all pairs are obliged to have such a card, which must be identical for both members of the partnership. On the ACBL convention card, alertable conventions are shown in red and announceable ones in blue.

Sponsoring organizations may also ban the usage of certain conventions or restrict their use to certain levels of competition; examples are the use of "ambiguous" suits to disrupt opponent's bidding. WBF classifies most "strong pass" and "either-or" methods into so-called HUM (highly unusual methods) and brown sticker conventions, and restricts their usage on WBF-sponsored events. Other zonal and national organizations often do the same. In general, ACBL tends to be more restrictive in allowed usage of conventions than European organizations.

See also

Glossary of contract bridge terms

Bibliography

Andersen, Ron (1987). The Lebensohl Convention Complete in Contract Bridge. Louisville, KY: Devyn Press, Inc. p. 103. ISBN 0-910791-82-1.

De Satnick, Shelly (1984). Everyone's Introduction to Bridge Conventions. New York: Avon. p. 137. ISBN 978-0-380-89318-8.

Granovetter, Matthew; Granovetter, Pamela (2003). Bridge Conventions in Depth. Toronto: Master Point Press. p. 290. ISBN 1-894154-56-8.

Grant, Audrey (2000). Commonly Used Conventions. Memphis, TN: American Contract Bridge League. p. 359. ISBN 978-0-943855-14-1.

Grant, Audrey (2001). More Commonly Used Conventions. Memphis, TN: American Contract Bridge League. p. 395. ISBN 978-0-943855-15-8.

Horton, Mark (2000). Simple Conventions. How to Play Bridge Series. NTC Publishing Group. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-8442-2223-3.

Kearse, Amalya (1990). Bridge Convention Complete (Revised and Expanded ed.). Lousiville, KY: Devyn Press, Inc. p. 1121. ISBN 0-910791-76-7.

Klinger, Ron (1993). Bridge Conventions, Defenses and Countermeasures. London: Victor Gallancz in association with Peter Crawley. p. 143. ISBN 0-575-05564-2.

Klinger, Ron; Kambites, Andrew (2001). Bridge Conventions For You (Revised & enlarged ed.). London: Cassell, in association with Peter Crawley. p. 144. ISBN 978-0-304-35795-6.

Landy, Sandra; Horton, Mark; Seagram, Barbara (2006). 25 Bridge Conventions for ACOL Players. Toronto: Master Point Press. p. 208. ISBN 978-1-897106-14-3.

Lederer, Rhoda (1982). Bridge Conventions Made Clear. Bibliagora. ISBN 978-0-906031-37-7.

Root, William; Pavlicek, Richard (1981). Modern Bridge Conventions. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks. p. 244. ISBN 0-517-58727-0.

Seagram, Barbara; Smith, Marc (1999). 25 Bridge Conventions You Should Know. Toronto: Master Point Press. p. 190. ISBN 1-894154-07-X.

Seagram, Barbara; Bird, David (2003). 25 More Bridge Conventions You Should Know. Toronto: Master Point Press. p. 210. ISBN 1-894154-65-7.

Senior, Brian (2001). Bridge Conventions Today. Better Bridge Now. London: Chess & Bridge Limited. p. 127. ISBN 0-9530218-1-5.

External links

Bridge Guys Convention Descriptions

Pattayabridge bridge conventions

Overcall

In contract bridge, an overcall is a bid made after an opening bid has been made by an opponent; the term refers only to the first such bid. A direct overcall is a bid made directly over the opening bid by right-hand opponent; an overcall in the 'last seat' (made over a bid by left-hand opponent and two subsequent passes) is referred to as a balancing overcall.

Objectives

The overcaller has one or more of the following objectives:

To secure the contract

To suggest a good lead from partner

To induce the opponents to a higher-level contract

To find an effective sacrifice

To hinder the opponents in their bidding

Suit overcalls

In most bidding systems, an overcall in an unbid suit is natural denoting length and strength in the suit bid. The common requirements include:

A good 5-card or any longer suit; the definition of 'a good 5-card suit' is subject to partnership agreement.

8-16+ high-card points (HCP) for an overcall at the 1-level.

10-16+ HCP for an overcall at the 2-level.

A higher level overcall (e.g., after an opponents' preempt) requires at least opening-bid strength.

The rule of thumb is that the weaker a hand is in high card points, the better the bid suit should be (i.e., longer or with more honors).

Examples

According to modern bridge theory, the following hands:

♠ 632 ♥ AKJ96 ♦ 8752 ♣ 4

♠ A32 ♥ AKJ96 ♦ 752 ♣ 104

♠ A3 ♥ AK986 ♦ KQ5 ♣ 742

all warrant a 1♥ overcall over an opposing 1♣/1♦ opening. Stronger hands such as ♠ A3 ♥ AK986 ♦ KQ5 ♣ Q42 are considered too strong for an overcall, and should be bid via a takeout double followed by the most economical rebid in hearts.

Notrump overcalls

Notrump overcalls at the 1-level normally indicate 15-18 points in a balanced hand, with at least one stopper in opponent's suit. Usually Stayman is 'on' but transfers are 'off'.

Example

The hand ♠ KJ63 ♥ AQ2 ♦ A84 ♣ Q93 is suitable for 1NT overcall over any opening bid, as well as 2NT overcall over an opponents' weak two bid.

Jump overcalls

Jump overcalls are made by skipping one level of bidding, e.g. 1♦ – (2♠).

In the past, such bids described either "strong" overcalls (e.g. with 17 points or more) or "intermediate" ones (11-15 points with a 6-card suit). Today, a far more common treatment is to use a weak jump overcall (WJO) to show the same hand shape and values as would an opening preempt at the same level.

Other overcalls

Some partnerships utilise more exotic overcalls. An example are the canapé overcalls used by the Italian top pair Norberto Bocchi and Giorgio Duboin. In canapé overcalls the suit bid typically contains a three card, whilst the hand contains a five card in another suit.

Conventional overcalls, such as Michaels cuebid, Unusual notrump and Raptor, denote specific hand types.

Responses to overcalls

The system of responses to overcalls typically adheres to:

pass: weak hand (no fit guaranteed)

support bid: three trumps, 7-10 HCP

cue bid: A) three trumps, invite or better (11+ hcp), B) game forcing hand

jump support: four or more trumps, weak

new suit: at least five card, round forcing

1NT: 9-12 hcp, no fit, stopper(s) in opened suit

See also

Takeout double

Leaping Michaels

Unusual notrump

Ghestem

Raptor

List of defenses to 1NT

References

Downey, Ned; Pomer, Ellen (2005). Standard Bidding with SAYC. Toronto: Master Point Press. ISBN 978-1-897106-03-7.

Further reading

Lawrence, Mike (2009). The Complete Book on Overcalls in Contract Bridge (2nd ed.). Toronto: Master Point Press. ISBN 978-1-897106-45-7.

Negative double

The negative double is a form of takeout double in bridge. It is made by the responder after his right-hand opponent overcalls on the first round of bidding, and is used to show both support for the unbid suits as well as some values. It is treated as forcing, but not unconditionally so. In practice, the negative double is sometimes used as a sort of catch-all, made when no other call properly describes responder's hand. Therefore, a partnership might even treat the negative double as a wide ranging call that merely shows some values.

Usage

Using the modern negative double convention, it is understood that a double over an initial overcall is conventional, and not for penalties (but see Playing for penalties). For example, using this convention, the following doubles would be regarded as negative, not for penalty:

1♣ – (1♦) – Dbl

1m – (1M) – Dbl

1♥ – (1♠) – Dbl

1M – (2m) – Dbl

In understandings regarding negative doubles, the emphasis is on major suit lengths. This is largely due to the special value that tournament play, especially the pairs game, places on major suits. Since the mid-1980s, the negative double has been used mainly to stand in for a bid in an unbid major suit.

Most partnerships using the negative double agree that it applies only through a particular level of overcall. For example, they may agree that the double of an overcall through 3♠ is negative, and that beyond 3♠ a double is for penalties.

At rubber bridge many players are reluctant to give up the penalty double of an overcall, and so do not use the double as conventional.

History

The term negative double was initially employed to distinguish it from the penalty, or business, or positive double, and signified a double over an opponent's opening bid whose meaning was a request for partner to bid his best suit. Around 1930, the term informatory double replaced negative double, and that term later gave way to takeout double as it is used at present; the original term negative double fell into disuse.

In 1957, Alvin Roth in his partnership with Tobias Stone appropriated the abandoned term negative double to denote a conventional double by responder over an overcall and gave it its current meaning. The bid was also briefly known as Sputnik, because it was as new as the satellite of that name that the Soviet Union had recently launched. The term is still used sometimes in Europe.

Forcing

The negative double is generally forcing, but opener might pass to convert the double to a penalty double. There is a special agreement called negative free bids, under which (after the overcall) the bid of a new suit by responder is not forcing. However, most negative doublers play that a new suit response (or free bid), whether at the one level or higher, is forcing.

The negative double loses even more definition when it can be made with a very broad range of strength, from roughly six HCP up to game forcing values. In a pinch, players use it to "get by this round of bidding."

Playing for penalties

The negative double does not cause the partnership to completely lose the ability to penalize an overcall. There are two ways that the overcall can be doubled for penalties. For example:

1♦ – (1♥) – Dbl – (Pass); Pass

Responder makes a negative double, and opener passes for penalties. This position is analogous to one in which a player makes a takeout double and his partner passes the double, converting it to a penalty double.

1♦ – (1♥) – Pass – (Pass); Dbl – (Pass) – Pass

Responder passes the overcall, opener makes a re-opening double, and responder passes that double for penalties. This can be dangerous, because opener often doesn't know whether responder is simply too weak to make any call, or is hoping that opener can re-open with a double.

These situations are rare, though, and the more so because some five-card major partnerships play negative doubles over minor suit openings only. The rationale is that responder knows much more about opener's distribution after a major suit opening than after a minor suit opening, and can better judge whether to play in opener's major suit, to play for penalties by doubling, or to show a suit of his own.

Support for unbid suits

Partnerships have different understandings about the length in unbid suits that is shown by a negative double, and the understandings differ according both to which suits remain unbid and to the current level of the bidding. Nevertheless, the following are popular understandings:

After 1♣ – (1♦), a negative double is often understood to show at least four cards in both hearts and spades. The degree of support for this agreement has grown over the years. A poll of experts taken in 1983 showed that about half concurred that doubler should have at least four hearts and at least four spades; a similar poll taken in 2000 showed 80% in concurrence.

After 1m – (1♥), a popular agreement is that a negative double shows exactly four spades. Responder would bid 1♠ with five or more. However, in 2000, this approach was favored by fewer than two thirds of polled experts.

After 1m – (1♠), in contrast to the prior sequence, most experts prefer the negative double here to show at least four hearts – not exactly four hearts.

After 1M – (2m), most play that a negative double shows at least four cards in the other major.

After 1♦ – (2♣), few play that double shows at least four cards in each major, but most play that doubler shows at least one major at least four cards long.

After 1♥ - (1♠) or 1♠ - (2♥), the negative double shows at least 4 cards in each minor because there are no unbid major suits.

See also

Negative free bid

Support double

Takeout double

Further reading

Bergen, Marty (2000). Negative Doubles. Points Schmoints Series. Stamford, CN: Magnus Books. ISBN 0-9637533-6-3.

Preempt

See also: Glossary of contract bridge terms

Preempt (also spelled "Pre-empt") is a bid in contract bridge whose primary objectives are (1) to thwart opponents ability to bid to their best contract, with some safety, and (2) to fully describe one's hand to one's partner in a single bid. A preemptive bid is usually made by jumping, i.e. skipping one or more bidding levels. Since it deprives the opponents of the bidding space, it is expected that they will either find a wrong contract (too high or in a wrong denomination) of their own, or fail to find any. A preemptive bid often has the aim of a sacrifice, where a partnership bids a contract knowing it cannot be made, but assumes that (even when doubled), the penalty will still be smaller than the value of opponents' bid and made contract.

Whenever you can describe your hand completely with a single bid, you should do so.

—Dean Panagopoulos, Bridge Teacher and Director, The Bridge Spot, Woburn, Massachusetts

Scoring context

Our Score If We Are Doubled and Defeated

When We are
Not Vulnerable
When We are
Vulnerable

Undertricks
Score
Undertricks
Score

1
-100
1
-200

2
-300
2
-500

3
-500
3
-800

4
-800
4
-1100

Our Score If They Make Game

When They are
Not Vulnerable
When They are
Vulnerable

 -400 in NT or
 -420 in a suit
 -600 in NT or
 -620 in a suit

The tables at right help to illustrate the limits of the scoring advantage to be gained in duplicate bridge by preempting or sacrificing when the opponents may be successful in making a game contract. The level to which one may preempt, bid competitively or ultimately sacrifice is heavily influenced by the vulnerability status of each side and the assumption that the defending side will double the contract. There are four possible scenarios:

Neither side is Vulnerable (Equal Vulnerability): The opponents are likely to score 400 or 420 points at game and a sacrifice bid which is defeated by no more that two tricks will lose at most 300 points.

We are Not Vulnerable and They are (Favorable Vulnerability): The opponents are likely to score 600 or 620 points at game and a sacrifice bid which is defeated by no more than three tricks will lose at most 500 points.

We are Vulnerable and They are not (Unfavorable Vulnerability): The opponents are likely to score 400 or 420 points at game and a sacrifice bid which is defeated by no more that one trick will lose at most 200 points.

Both sides are Vulnerable (Equal Vulnerability): The opponents are likely to score 600 or 620 points at game and a sacrifice bid which is defeated by no more that two tricks will lose at most 500 points.

In summary, based upon the expectation that the opponents are likely to bid and make game, it is advantageous to preempt, compete or sacrifice for down three when vulnerability is favorable, down two when equal and down one when unfavorable.

Preemptive openings

A preemptive opening bid is an opening bid on level 2 or higher, typically made with a weak hand containing a long, strong suit. Preemptive opening bids on level 3 and higher are common for most bidding systems in the world. For example, the hand of ♠ 4 ♥ KQJ9854 ♦ J62 ♣ 95 is a typical 3♥ opener. The bid is made on presumption that, without any additional tricks from the partner, at least 6 tricks can be taken with hearts as trump, and the potential penalty of 500 points in 3♥ doubled is smaller than the value or opponents' likely game or slam.

A preemptive opening bid usually shows at least six (6) high card points and a suit with six or more cards headed by honors (typically either K-Q or better or Q-J-10 or better) but less than a normal opening bid. Some textbooks recommend the "rule of 2 and 3":

Obviously, preempting at unfavorable vulnerability entails greater risk; such preempts, if ever, are often made with an intention of making the contract, and the long suit is often backed up by an unusual distribution, such as 7-4-2-0.

An alternative approach is to bid the level suggested by the Law of Total Tricks, with the assumption that partner's hand has one third of the remaining trumps. Using this approach,

If playing "weak two bids" (now standard), bid at the "two" level with six cards of the suit (except in clubs),

Bid at the "three" level with seven cards of the suit, and

Bid at the "four" level with eight or nine cards of the suit.

Note that, in the "Weak Twos" convention, an opening bid of two clubs (2♣) is strong and artificial, typically showing at least 22 HCP, and thus is not available for preemption for hand with six clubs. Thus, some partnerships bid 3♣ with good preemptive hand (typically at least 8 HCP) that has only six clubs. Many partnerships that use an opening bid of 2♦ as a conventional bid will likewise bid 3♦ with a good preemptive hand that has only six diamonds.

Obviously, preempts in the fourth seat are very rare, as there is nobody to preempt: they do occur occasionally, though, e.g. when the player has a near-opening bid with a long suit, but is reluctant to open on level 1 for fear of being outbid by perceived opponents' major. For example, the hand ♠ 3 ♥ 94 ♦ KQJ963 ♣ AJ92 might reasonably open 3♦ in the fourth seat, hoping to silence the opponents' with their spades and/or hearts.

A preemptive bidder bids again only if his or her partner makes a conventional bid that requires a response.

Gambling 3NT opening bid is often used to preempt with a solid minor suit.

If Namyats is used, 4♣ and 4♦ are no longer available for preempts.

Preemptive overcalls

A preemptive overcall is a jump overcall (so 2♦ is preemptive over 1♣ but not over 1♥) that is otherwise identical to a preemptive opening bid.

The suit requirements for preemptive overcalls are generally similar to a preemtive opening. However, they are normally loosened in third seat, when the partner has already passed, so the opening bidder can be sure that the only side preempted are the opponents, and thus can bid with better or thinner values.

Other preempts

A partnership can preempt the opponents cooperatively, having discovered that they have an excellent suit fit but not much overall defensive strength. For example, after the partner opens 1♦ and RHO doubles, the following hand is suitable for a bid of 5♦, outbidding opponents' major suit game in advance:

♠ 83 ♥ 4 ♦ Q108542 ♣ QJ64

In a more general sense, even low-level and non-jump bids can have a preemptive value if they deprive the opponents of bidding suits that they could otherwise bid on level 1 or 2. For example, weak 1 notrump (characteristic for Acol system) opening takes up entire level 1 from the opponents, who could bid their long suit on level 1 had the opening been 1 of a minor, like in Standard American bidding. However, there is always the danger that the preempting side could preempt themselves, taking up their own bidding space that could be used for constructive bidding. For example, four-card major openings have a more preemptive effect compared with five-card major openings, but also carry less precise information, as the partner should not support the opened suit without at least 4 cards; that could result in missing a partial contract or even a game.

Many partnerships also use Michaels Cue Bids preemptively. A Michaels Cue Bid is a bid of two of a suit in which an opponent has bid one that promises two five-card suits including the unbid majors and, in most partnerships, at least seven or eight HCP. Thus, either 1♣-2♣ or 1♦-2♦ promises both five hearts and five spades, 1♥-2♥ promises five spades and either five clubs or five diamonds, and 1♠-2♠ promises five hearts and either five clubs or five diamonds. Over a Michaels Cue Bid in either major suit, partner's response of 2NT asks the Micheals bidder to bid the minor suit. If the Michaels bidder has a strong hand, the Michaels bidder can show the strength by rebidding an agreed suit at a higher level.

Responses

Since the preempter has a weak hand, responder will pass most of the time. However, responder also has the following options:

Raise opener's suit: Usually done to further the preempt with 3-card support (or jump with even more support), making it even more difficult for the opponents to compete. However, a raise to game can also be made with a good hand without support for opener if responder expects to make the contract. Opener must pass after any raise by partner.

3NT: To play. Responder expects to make 9 tricks either by running partner's suit or his own. If responder expects to run opener's suit, support is needed as opener may not have outside entries to his hand. Also, responder should have stoppers in all suits.

Bid a new suit below game: Forcing, with at least 5 cards in the suit bid. Responder raises with 3-card support and rebids his own suit without support.

Over a preemptive opening bid or overcall at the "two" level, many partnerships use the 2NT response to ask for more information about the preemptive hand. In the Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC) bidding system, the preemptive bidder responds by bidding another suit containing an ace or a king or, lacking such a suit, by rebidding the suit of the preempt at the "three" level. In either case, the responder can then place the final contract.

The Ogust convention provides a more informative set of responses to the 2NT inquiry.

3♣ shows a "minimal" preempt (typically 6-7 HCP) and a "poor" suit.

3♦ shows a "minimal" preempt and a "good" suit.

3♥ shows a "strong" preempt (typically 8-10 HCP) and a "poor" suit.

3♠ shows a "strong" preempt and a "good" suit.

3NT shows that the preempt suit is "solid" (headed by AKQ).

The differentiation between "minimal" and "strong" preempts and between "poor" and "good" hands is a matter of partnership agreement, and typically depends upon the partnership's strictness in preemptive bidding. Partnerships that are very strict typically regard a suits with only two of the top three or three of the top four honors as "poor" while partnerships that preempt with poorer suits may regard such suits as "good." Hands that respond 3♦ or 3NT typically do not have outside entries, as their long suits contain nearly all of their high card points.

The Law of Total Tricks

Many players now use the "Law of Total Tricks" as a "rule of thumb" for preemptive and sacrificial bidding. Bids dictated by the Law of Total Tricks are often sacrificial, but nonetheless produce consistent "top half" results with proper play.,

The Law of Total Tricks:
In a competitive auction, it is safe to bid a number or total tricks equal to the number of trumps in the combined hands of both partners.

When viewed in context of the Law of Total Tricks, normal preemptive opening bids, described above, basically assume that the preemptive bidder's partner possesses two of the five to seven outstanding cards of the long suit—mathematically, the "expected" number based on equiprobable distribution of the missing cards. Thus, the Law of Total Tricks implies that the preemptive opener's partner can safely raise the preemptive opening bid by the number of cards in excess of two in the named suit (for example, raise an opening bid of 3♥, which promises seven hearts, to 4♥ with three hearts (7+3=10 total tricks) or to 5♥ with four hearts (7+4=11 total tricks)), regardless of the responder's high card points.

The limit raises and preemptive raises of major suits in the Standard American Yellow Card bidding system also conform to the Law of Total Tricks. By opening a major suit normally, the opening bidder promises at least five cards of the major suit. A "limit" raise, which is a response of three of the opener's suit, requires ten to twelve high card points and four cards in the responder's suit, for a total of nine. Likewise, a preemptive raise, which is a bid of four of the opener's suit, requires five cards in that suit, for a total of ten. The Law of Total tricks allows the opening bidder to raise such responses by the number of cards in excess of five in that suit.

See also

Weak two bid

Cue bid

In contract bridge, a cue bid (also, cuebid or cue-bid) is a term that applies to two types of bid:

A bid of a suit that has already been bid by opponents.

A slam-investigating bid made during an auction's later rounds that shows control of a suit. This is a traditional use of the term, but in the early 21st century the usage appears to be giving way to control bid.

Bid of the opponents' suit

After the opponents have bid a suit, a cue bid of that suit is normally intended as a forcing bid. It shows interest in contesting the contract and asks partner to describe his hand.

Immediate cue bid

An immediate cue bid is made directly over opponent's opening bid. Traditionally, it denotes a hand unsuited for a takeout double. For example, after RHO opens 1♠, a hand such as ♠ — ♥ AKQ10985 ♦ AQ6 ♣ K85 would prefer not to double for takeout, because partner might make a penalty pass. A cue bid of 2♠, as traditionally used, would be appropriate: it tends to show great high card strength, probably with a hand pattern unsuited to defense. Partner is expected to respond in his longest suit, and the subsequent bidding proceeds naturally.

However, those very strong hands are rare enough that the traditional meaning has been largely abandoned, and other meanings assigned to the immediate cue bid. The most common treatment is now the Michaels cuebid, which shows a weakish or moderate hand with at least 5-5 in two unbid suits.

The jump cue bid

The immediate jump cue bid of opener's suit has a specific meaning. It is typically a long totally solid minor with stoppers in the other two suits. Partner is asked to bid 3NT with a stop in the suit opened or else to bid four or five clubs (pass or correct).

Cue bidding in the later rounds

Generally, after the opponents have bid a suit, a cue bid of that suit shows strength, and forces the bidding to continue for at least one round. The following are common situations:

After partner's takeout double or overcall, the cue bid shows a hand with at least the strength of an opening bid:

West | North | East | South
1♥ | Dbl | Pass | 2♥

West | North | East | South
1♥ | 1♠ | Pass | 2♥

If the pair does not play strong immediate cuebids, the takeout double followed by a cue bid shows a very strong hand:

West | North | East | South
1♥ | Dbl | Pass | 1♠
Pass | 2♥ |  |

Immediately after RHO's overcall, it shows a strong hand, probably fitting partner's suit, and is usually regarded as game-forcing:

West | North | East | South
| 1♥ | 1♠ | 2♠

After RHO's overcall, in a later round but below 3NT, it often shows a stopper in the opponents' suit, so that partner can bid notrump and thus place the contract advantageously (see Antipositional). This situation calls for prior partnership discussion. For example, the cue bid in this context can be used to ask for a stopper, rather than to show one. In the US, the asking approach is known as a "Western cue bid". Sometimes, the delayed cue bid can be used as an advance cue bid (see below).

West | North | East | South
| 1♦ | 1♠ | Dbl¹
Pass | 2♣ | Pass | 2♠

Bidding notes:
1. Negative double

Slam seeking

Once a trump suit has been agreed and the bidding cannot die below the game level (e.g. 1♥–3♥, or ... 2♥–3♥, or 1♥–1♠; 3♠), any subsequent bid of a suit other than the trump suit is a cue bid showing first round control of that suit, i.e. the ace or a void.

Passing a suit that could be bid tends to deny holding first-round control in that suit. Bids of suits already bid show second-round control. Returning to the trump suit shows a lack of interest in slam or not having anything else to bid. For example:

South | North
1♦ | 1♥
3♥ | 4♣
4♦ | 4♥
4♠ | 4NT

South has shown 16-18 total points, while North's hand is largely unknown. North's bid of 4♣ is a cue-bid showing first-round control of clubs and an interest in slam. After South's bid of 4♦ North bids 4♥, an apparent signoff. It may well be that North wants to bid a slam, but has two fast losers in the spade suit. After South bids 4♠ showing control of the spade suit, North employs the Blackwood convention to proceed further.

The main disadvantage of both Blackwood and Gerber is that they give little information about voids, which can be as powerful as aces under certain circumstances. Cue bidding is designed to pass information on "first round control" i.e. an ace or a void.

In the "Italian" system of slam cue-bidding, the cheapest suit is always bid first. Thus, in the example above North's bid of 4♣ would deny control of spades, and therefore South would only proceed if he had control of spades, which in this case his continuation of 4♦ instead of a signoff of 4♥ would promise. Often, Italian cue bids only promise 2nd round control (a king or a singleton).

Basic cue bidding

Basic cue bidding occurs after the trump suit has been agreed explicitly (example above) or as it is agreed implicitly. The first bid of a side suit by either partner shows a control, and most players extend that to subsequent bids of a side suit so that both may show control in the same suit. The most common approach is that first-round controls are bid first, and second-round controls are bid in later rounds of bidding. Some players, though, bid both first and second-round controls in the first round, and confirm first-round controls only later. Some bid high-card controls first or distinguish short-suit controls by jump bids. Even basic cue bidding therefore requires some partnership agreements.

The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge gives an example where the first cue bid implies the trump-suit agreement.

♠
A J 8

W             E

♠
K Q 10 6 3

♥
K 10 7 6
♥
A 3

♦
A Q 10 7
♦
8 3 2

♣
K 9
♣
A 8 6

West | East
1NT | 3♠
4♦ | 4♥
4♠ | 5♣
6♠ | Pass

"West's 4♦ does not suggest an alternative trump suit; spades are agreed by implication, since without spade support, West would return to 3NT. "

Advance cue bidding

An advance cue bid – not to be confused with "advanced" – is made before the trump suit is agreed even implicitly. Partner does not yet know that the trump fit has been found or whether the suit bid is real or shows a control.

♠
K Q 8

W             E

♠
6 2

♥
A J 9 6 4 2
♥
K Q 3

♦
K 3
♦
A Q J 7 5 2

♣
10 3
♣
A 8

West | East
1♥ | 2♦
2♥ | 3♣
3NT | 4♥
Pass |

In the example, 3♣ is an advance cue bid, we may infer East intends, by reference to the club control without biddable club suit and to the excellent heart support. The subsequent preference for hearts by strong correction of 3NT should reveal the advance cue to partner; holding the minor suits without hearts East would pass or raise notrump. The auction should now proceed to the comfortable 6♥.

However, the advance cue bid is a subtle tool, prone to be misunderstood if the partnership is not sufficiently well coordinated and on the same wavelength. The following disaster struck world champion Paul Chemla and Catherine D'Ovidio in the 7th European Mixed Championships (2002):

♠
K J 10 9 8

W             E

♠
7 4 3

♥
A Q 3
♥
K J 9 8

♦
A 9
♦
K 3

♣
A K 3
♣
Q J 7 5

West | East
2♣¹ | 2♦²
2♠ | 2NT³
3NT | 4♦
Pass |

Bidding notes:
1. Strong and artificial.
2. Waiting.
3. Ambiguous but forcing.

D'Ovidio wanted to "refine" the bidding with an advance cue bid of 4♦ before supporting spades, but Chemla got the wrong idea and passed, imagining partner with a weak distributive hand with long diamonds. 4♦ went down three, while 6♠ and 6NT were on, as the spade finesse was working.

See also

Blackwood convention

Norman four notrump

Quantitative no trump bids

Grand slam force

Slam-seeking conventions

Grand slam force

The Grand Slam Force is a bidding convention in contract bridge that was developed by Ely Culbertson in 1936. It is intended to be used in cases where the combined hands of a partnership are so strong that a slam (winning at least 12 tricks) is a near-certainty and a grand slam (winning all 13 tricks) is a possibility. It allows one partner to gain information on the quality of trumps in the other partner's hand.

When this convention is in force, a bid of 5NT (notrump), when it does not conflict with other conventions used by that partnership (e.g., a 5NT Blackwood bid), is forcing to slam in the suit last bid, unless the trump suit has already been agreed on earlier in the auction. The partner of the 5NT bidder bids as follows:

6 of the agreed trump suit if holding one of the top three trump honors (e.g., the ace)

7 of the agreed trump suit if holding two of the top three trump honors (e.g., the king and queen)

For example, if a partnership is using the Grand Slam Force and one member bids 1♥ his or her partner bids 5NT, it is implied that hearts are the desired trump suit. The original bidder will sign off in 6♥ with one of the top three heart honors, and bid 7♥ with two of the top three heart honors.

As with all bidding systems, the Grand Slam Force has its limitations, not the least of which is that the chances of employing it directly over an opening one-bid are extremely rare and 5NT must be understood to be the GSF in other situations. Also, numerous variations on this convention have been developed.

See also

Blackwood convention

Norman four notrump

Quantitative notrump bids

Slam-seeking conventions

Cue bid

External links

Bridgeguys.com: Grand Slam Force

Blackwood convention

In the partnership card game contract bridge, the Blackwood convention is a popular bidding convention that was developed by Easley Blackwood. It is used to explore the partnership's possession of aces, kings and in some variants, the queen of trumps, to judge more precisely whether slam is likely to be a good contract.

Two versions of Blackwood are common: "standard" Blackwood, developed by Easley, and "Roman key card" or "RKC" Blackwood, named for the Italian team which invented it. Standard Blackwood enables one partner to count partnership aces and kings in general. Key card variants are defined by a particular "key" suit and enable counting the trump king and queen, as well as aces and kings. Both versions are initiated by a bid of four notrump (4NT), and the entire family of conventions may be called Blackwood 4NT in both versions, or Key Card 4NT in the key card variation.

There are other 4NT conventions, such as Norman four notrump, San Francisco and Byzantine Blackwood, but almost all bridge partnerships employ some member of the Blackwood family as part of their slam-investigation methods.

If the partnership's preceding call is a natural bid in notrump, then 4NT is also natural. Over an opposing pass it is simply a raise and a quantitative invitation to six notrump, a small slam. Over a four of a suit it is likely to be a competitive raise, expecting to play four notrump. Those natural interpretations may hold in other auctions where the partnership has previously bid notrump naturally or shown a balanced hand conventionally. In some situations where 4NT is a quantitative invitation, especially where 4♣ is a jump, many partnerships use the Gerber convention by some analogy to the Blackwood family: 4♣ asks for the number of aces or key cards.

Where both sides are bidding, 4NT is likely to be a conventional takeout asking partner to help choose one of two or three suits, similar to a lower-level takeout double or cue reply to a double.

Standard Blackwood

Where standard Blackwood 4NT is in force, a four notrump bid (4NT) asks partner to disclose the number of aces in his hand. With no aces or four, partner replies 5♣; with one, two, or three aces, 5♦, 5♥, or 5♠, respectively. The difference between no aces and four is clear to the Blackwood bidder (unless the partnership lacks all four) so one member of the partnership knows the combined number of aces. That is often sufficient to set the final contract.

The continuation bid of 5NT asks for the number of kings according to the same code of replies at the six-level: 6♣ shows no kings or four, etc. Asking for the number of kings confirms that the partnership holds all four aces, so partner may reply at the seven level with expectation of taking thirteen tricks. (A common agreement is that when spades is not the trump suit, 5♠ asks respondent to bid 5NT. That is useful when the reply to 4NT bypasses the intended trump suit but also shows that slam is likely to be a poor contract because two aces are missing.)

A void may be as good as an ace in some situations but it should not be counted as an ace. Some experts (Kantar for one[citation needed]) recommend the 5NT reply to 4NT – the cheapest with no standardly assigned meaning – to show a void plus two aces and six of a suit to show a void in the bid suit plus one ace.

Roman Key Card Blackwood (RKCB)

Roman Key Card Blackwood (RKCB) has largely replaced the standard version among tournament players. It developed from the Roman Blackwood variant (see below). According to RKCB there are five equivalent key cards rather than four aces; the trump king is counted as one. The key card replies to 4NT are more compressed than standard ones and they also begin to locate the queen of trumps.

5♣ | – 0 or 3 key cards
5♦ | – 1 or 4 key cards
5♥ | – 2 or 5 cards without the trump queen
5♠ | – 2 or 5 key cards with the trump queen

Although the replies to 4NT are more compressed, it is almost always possible to infer which number of keycards is correct: 0 or 3, 1 or 4, 2 or 5. Evidence for that inference includes the entire auction as well as the number of key cards that the 4NT bidder holds.

The 5♥ and 5♠ replies with 2 or 5 key cards also deny and show the trump queen, respectively. (Respondent may also show the queen with extra length in trumps, where the ace and king will probably draw all outstanding cards in the suit.)

The 5♣ and 5♦ replies tell nothing about the queen or extra length, but the 4NT bidder may ask about that using the cheapest bid other than five of the trump suit. The code for replies to that "queen ask" vary; a common rule is that the cheapest bid in the trump suit denies the queen or extra length and any other call shows it.

Roman Key Card Blackwood is predicated on existence of a trump suit, which determines which of the four kings and queens respondent should show as key cards. Trump agreement is not necessary, however. One common rule is that the last suit bid before 4NT bid is the key suit, lacking trump agreement.

1430 RKCB

Some partnerships use the club response to show 1 or 4 and the diamond response to show 3 or none; this is referred to as "1430" while the original version is "0314". In order to facilitate the Queen asking, an experts' version has been developed, where "1430" is used by the strong hand and "0314" is used by the weak hand. There are specific rules which determine when the asker hand is the weak one and when it is the strong one.

Roman Blackwood

A variation of the standard Blackwood convention, known as Roman Blackwood, was popularized by the famous Italian Blue Team in the 1960s. In Roman Blackwood, the responses are even more ambiguous, but more space-conserving. The basic outline of responses is:

5♣ | – 0 or 3 aces
5♦ | – 1 or 4 aces
5♥ | – 2 aces

In practice, the ambiguity is unlikely to occur, as a strength difference between hands with 0 or 1 and 3 or 4 aces is big enough that it can be established in previous rounds of bidding. In other words, a partner who has previously shown, for example, 12-15 range of high points is unlikely to hold 3 aces for his bid, etc.

Even Roman Blackwood convention has several variations, revolving around 5♥ and 5♠ responses. In all variants, they denote 2 aces. One variation is that 5♠ shows extra values, while 5♥ does not. In other variations, responses 5♥ - 5NT denote specific combinations of aces (same color, same rank, or "mixed").

If the querying partner ascertains that all aces are present, he can continue as follows:

5NT is the Grand slam force

The first available bid which is not the agreed suit is the Roman Blackwood for kings. The partner responds stepwise, as above.

Asking bids other than 4NT

Kickback

"Kickback" is the variant of RKCB devised by Jeff Rubens in accordance with the Useful space principle. The step responses are the same as in RKCB, but the ask is not necessarily 4NT. Instead it is the 4-level bid immediately above the agreed trump suit; i.e.:

4♦ | – RKCB for clubs
4♥ | – RKCB for diamonds
4♠ | – RKCB for hearts
4NT | – RKCB for spades

Kickback has the advantage that it saves bidding space and, especially for minor-suit fits, provides safety at the 5-level if the required key cards are missing. Because the Kickback bid would otherwise be a control bid, 4NT is usually substituted as the control bid in that suit (e.g., 4NT is a control bid in hearts if the agreed trump suit is diamonds). The drawback is that in unpracticed partnerships there can be confusion as to whether a bid is Kickback, a control bid or preference for a different strain:

♠
A 3

W             E

♠
K 10 6 4 2

♥
K 10 8 6 4 2
♥
A

♦
K J 9 7
♦
A Q 10 4

♣
8
♣
A 5 3

West | East
1♥ | 1♠
2♥ | 3♦
4♦ | 4♥
Pass |

East intended 4♥ as Kickback, but West thought it was secondary support for hearts, and decided to pass with minimum values. As result, a reasonable grand slam in diamonds was missed.

An established partnership might have agreed that as hearts were not supported after opener's rebid, 4♥ cannot possibly show support, and must be ace asking in diamonds.

Redwood

"Redwood" is a variation of Kickback, in which the kickback principle is used only when a minor suit is trumps. The name comes from the fact that the resulting ace/key card ask will be a red suit:

4♦– RKCB for clubs

4♥– RKCB for diamonds

Using "Redwood," the ace/key card ask of 4NT is still used when the trump suit is a major (hearts or spades).

Minorwood

"Minorwood" is a variation of Blackwood, in which the minor suit which the partners agree will be trumps is itself used as the ace/key card ask. The ask will be at the four level. Hence:

4♣– RKCB for clubs

4♦– RKCB for diamonds

Exclusion Blackwood

Exclusion Blackwood or Voidwood. was devised by Bobby Goldman[citation needed] as an attempt to resolve the situation when the Blackwood-asker has a void. In that case, he is not interested in the partner's ace in the void suit, as he already has the first-round control; partner's ace would present a duplicated value in that case. It should be noted, however, that many players, even experts, refuse to play Exclusion Blackwood because of the potential disaster of forgetting the agreement.

It is usually played as the Roman Key Card Blackwood, with only four key cards: the three Aces outside the void suit and the King of trumps. However, the asking bid is not 4NT, but the void suit — Voidwood is made by jumping on level 4 or 5 in the void suit after a fit has been found, for example:

West | East
1♠ | 3♠
5♣ |

Bids of 5♣, 5♦ and 5♥ present a Voidwood, denoting the void in the suit bid and asking for other key cards. The responses are, as in RKCB:

1st step – 0 or 3 key cards (1 or 4, if playing 1430)

2nd step – 1 or 4 key cards (0 or 3)

3rd step – 2 key cards without trump queen

4th step – 2 key cards with trump queen

Application

When the Blackwood bidder has a void, and partner shows one or more but not all missing aces, "asker" will not know whether partner's ace duplicates the void suit (where it would not be of great help) or covers side suit losers. For this reason cue bid to show aces explicitly, or Exclusion or Voidwood convention to ask for useful aces, is used with hands that contain a void.

Often non-experts ask for aces when they really need other information from partner, acting act as if the convention is designed to ascertain whether the partnership holds all of the four aces or five key-cards. In fact the fundamental purpose should usually be to distinguish between lacking one and lacking two, because lacking two aces makes slam a bad bet. In other words, ace and key-card asking conventions should normally be used by one member of a partnership who plans at least to contract for 12 tricks if no more than one ace or key card is lacking.

A simplified way to think about Blackwood is this: "I am concerned that we may lose the first two tricks, if we bid a slam. I can use Blackwood as a kind of insurance policy, to guarantee that this will not happen." But Blackwood will not help if, due to the structure of the hands, there are multiple ways to lose the first two tricks. It only helps, for the most part, if the exclusive risk of losing the first two tricks is due to the opponents' holding two cashable aces. Obviously, the opposition might hold the ace and king of a side suit, and could bang those tricks right down, resulting in an immediate set.

Thus, a player should use Blackwood only when he can ascertain that the partnership holds at least second-round controls in all suits (kings or, if a suit fit is found, singletons). Thus, a Blackwood query by the player holding two quick losers in a side suit is a wild gamble, as it is still possible that the suit is not controlled by an Ace or a King.

For the same reason, it is generally wrong to use Blackwood with a void. This is not always true, but the rule of thumb is: Don't use Blackwood with a void unless you are absolutely sure you know what you are doing, and why you are doing it. You may be missing two aces, but your void may compensate for the lack of one of the enemy aces. Thus, Blackwood will not tell you what you want to know: Are we at risk of losing the first two tricks? If your side has two aces and a void, then you are not at risk of losing the first two tricks, so long as (a) your void is useful (i.e., does not duplicate the function of an ace that your side holds) and (b) you are not vulnerable to the loss of the first two tricks in the fourth suit (because, for instance, one of the partnership hands holds a singleton in that suit or the protected king, giving your side second round control).

Other problems can easily occur when a minor is the agreed trump suit, or the key suit when no trump suit is agreed. The reply to Blackwood could take the partnership past their agreed suit and going to the next higher level may be one trick too high. In these cases experts agree on using the Kickback or Redwood convention to save steps and be able to stop at 5♣ or 5♦. An alternative is to avoid using any type of Ace asking and use the cue bid alternative.

A further problem occurs when, after hearing his partner's response, the player who bid 4NT wants to stop in 5NT — as this is a forcing bid asking for Kings. A common agreement is that the first non-suit asks responder to bid 5NT. Whenever the first non-suit is a "queen ask", then the next non-suit asks to bid 5NT. This has to be planned in advance as if there is no such space partners have to bid a usually unmakeable slam contract.

See also

Gerber convention

Grand slam force

Norman four notrump

Quantitative no trump bids

Slam-seeking conventions

Further reading

Ron Klinger, collab Husband & Kambites. (1994) Basic Bridge Victor Gollancz, London, UK. ISBN 0-575-05690-8

Paul Mendelson, Mendelson's Guide to The Bidding Battle (1998) Colt Books, Cambridge, UK. ISBN 0-905899-86-5

Ben Cohen and Rhoda Barrow (ed). The Bridge Players' Encyclopedia 1967 Paul Hamlyn, London UK.

William S. Root, The ABCs of Bridge (1998) Crown Publishers Inc, New York, USA ISBN 0-609-80162-7

Eric Crowhurst & Andrew Kambites. Understanding Acol. The Good Bidding Guide 1992 Victor Gollancz in association with Peter Crawley, London, UK. ISBN 0-575-05253-8

Eddie Kantar, Roman Keycard Blackwood: The Final Word (2008) Master Point Press, Toronto, Canada ISBN 978-1-897106-35-8

External links

"Roman Key Card Blackwood" at Bridge Bum

"Roman Key Card Blackwood" at Bridge Guys

"Roman Blackwood" at Bridge Guys

"Blue Team Roman Blackwood" at Bridge Guys

"Exclusion Keycard Blackwood" at Bridge Guys

‹The template PDFlink is being considered for possible deletion.› Kickback PDF ( 68.9 KB)

Eddie Kantar's bidding tips

Slam-seeking conventions

Slam-seeking conventions are codified artificial bids used in the card game contract bridge. Bidding and making a small slam (12 tricks) or grand slam (13 tricks) yields high bonuses ranging from 500 to 1500 points. However, the risk is also high as failure to fulfill the slam contract also means failure to score the bonus points for a game (300-500). Conventions have been devised to maximise the opportunity for success whilst minimising the risk of failure.

Contract bridge bidding systems are mainly "natural" (most bids have an obvious meaning) or "artificial" (many bids have a meaning unrelated to the denomination mentioned). However, even natural systems such as Acol find occasional need to resort to artificial means called conventions. A very common type of conventional bid is of the slam-seeking variety to be used in situations when a small slam or a grand slam appears possible but more information is needed before the optimum contract can be determined.

In order to make a small slam (grand slam) the combined strength and shape of the two hands must be sufficient to take 12 (13) tricks and the opponents must not be able to cash two (one) tricks before declarer has set up those 12 (13) tricks. It is widely considered (for example Klinger 1994 and Root 1998) that 33 high-card points are needed for making a small slam in no trumps, and 37 high card points for a NT grand slam. However, slams in a suit can be made with fewer high-card points if the two hands fit well, for example have no "wasted values", have a double fit (8+ cards in both trump suit and a side suit), have "primary values" (aces and kings) rather than "secondary" ones (jacks and queens), or are shapely (with long suits and voids or singletons). Slam seeking conventions have been devised to establish whether these conditions exist.

There are pros and cons with each convention and none are suitable in all circumstances; some are better used when a no trump contract is likely and others when a trump contract is sought. Certain groups of slam seeking conventions can be used in combination whilst others are mutually exclusive. The choice of conventions and their application to particular hands is a basic part of bridge skill.

Blackwood

Main article: Blackwood convention

In its original form, Blackwood is an artificial four notrump bid (4NT) which asks partner to disclose the number of aces in his hand. With no aces or four, partner replies 5♣; with one, two, or three aces, 5♦, 5♥, or 5♠, respectively.

In the modern more commonly used form, known as Roman Key Card Blackwood (RKCB), the 4NT bid is used to ask partner about the number of key cards held where the five key cards are the four aces and the king of trumps. Responses are stepwise: 5♣ for 0 or 3 key cards, 5♦ for 1 or 4, 5♥ for 2 without the trump queen, 5♠ for 2 with the trump queen. Some prefer to reverse the meaning of the first two responses and the variants are referred to in abbreviation as RKCB 3014 and RKCB 1430 respectively. Various methods are used to continue with king-asking bids.

Gerber

Main article: Gerber convention

This is similar to Blackwood but the ace-asking bid is 4♣ rather than 4NT. The responses are 4♦ for 0 or 4, 4♥ for 1, 4♠ for 2, and 4NT for 3. Similarly, a 5♣ bid following an ace-ask asks for kings. Gerber is a jump bid to 4♣ used after a notrump opening bid and on other occasions by partnership agreement.

Culbertson 4–5 NT

Culbertson 4–5 NT was the first slam bidding system to gain widespread approval; it was part of the Culbertson system through the 1930s, and was part of the British Acol system for many years. After suit agreement, the bid of 4NT showed two aces and the king of a (genuine) bid suit, or three aces. Responder would make one of these bids: five of the lowest bid genuine suit to deny an ace; bid a suit (if necessary at the six level) to show the ace of that suit. Bid 5NT to show two aces. There are various subtleties, and both partners are allowed some latitude for judgement. The convention is rarely used today.

Quantitative notrump bids

Main article: Quantitative notrump bids

These are used to establish whether two relatively balanced hands have sufficient high card points (HCP) to make a slam or grand slam contract in notrump; used after a notrump opening bid.

Cue bid

Main article: Cue bid

Cue bids are a co-operative system. Cues bids are used to communicate specific controls (aces or voids, kings and singletons). Once a trump suit has been agreed and the two hands are considered to be strong enough, partners bid the lowest available suit which they control; this process continues until one of the partners has sufficient information to make the contract decision. Cue bids have been part of the Acol system from the early days.

Grand slam force

Main article: Grand slam force

The grand slam force uses a direct bid of 5NT to query the quality of partner's trump suit. It cannot be used following Blackwood because the bid of 5NT asks for kings, but it can be used following cue bids or Gerber.

Splinter bid

Main article: Splinter bid

Splinter bids are a variety of cue bids. Splinters are used early in the bidding to communicate a strong hand, with a fit for partner's last bid suit and a side-suit singleton or void. This splinter bid is a double jump shift to the singleton or void suit. Partner of the splinter bidder will then typically bid game or proceed with cue-bids to investigate the possibility of a slam.

Swiss convention

In the Swiss convention, in response to an opening 1♥ or 1♠, a bid of 4♣ or 4♦ shows four-card support for partner's suit, about 13–15 points, and two or three aces respectively. Alternatively, the bids of 4♣ and 4♦ can be used to show trump quality; the specific meaning of the two bids varies between partnerships.

Asking bid

Given a hand which justifies slam exploration, an Asking bid pin-points a potential weakness. As in Blackwood, one partner takes over the control and asks the other for his holding, but as in cue bids, it is related to a specific suit. The partner replies stepwise to communicate features of the queried suit. Asking bids were devised by Ely Culbertson and are an alternative to Cue bids. They are is still used in some artificial systems, such as Precision Club.

Serious 3NT

Main article: Serious 3NT

A "Serious 3NT" is used by one partner during a cue bidding sequence to indicate a strong slam try. A cue bid that bypasses 3NT indicates a control while denying a strong hand (in case partner is strong).

Last train

Main article: Last Train

A bid just below game level, in an agreed suit, suggests the possibility of a slam.

Relay bid

Main article: Relay bid

Relays form a highly artificial codified scheme, where one partner takes full control early in the auction and just bids the cheapest available bids (relays), and the other describes distribution and controls in detail. The scheme based on relays, where one partner describes an absence of controls (rather than presence, as in cue bids), is known as Spiral scan, and can be combined with Blackwood, even in natural systems.

References

Francis, Henry G., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Francis, Dorthy A., Editor, Sixth Edition (2001). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (6th ed.). Memphis, TN: American Contract Bridge League. ISBN 0-943855-44-6. OCLC 49606900.

Takeout double

In the card game contract bridge, a takeout double is a low-level conventional call of "Double" over an opponent's bid as a request for partner to bid his best of the unbid suits. The most common takeout double is after an opponent's opening bid of one of a suit where the double shows a hand with opening values, support for all three unbid suits (at least three cards in each) and shortness in the suit doubled (preferably, no more than two). Normally, the partner of the doubler must bid his best suit but may pass if (a) his right hand opponent intervenes or (b) on the more rare occasions when his hand is such that he wishes to convert the takeout double to a penalty double..

Requirements

Commonly double is considered takeout whenever one of the following conditions is met (but see balancing double below):

Opponents have previously bid only one suit, and the player did not have chance to double that suit before.

Opponents have previously bid two suits, and partner has passed.

Opponents have found a fit.

Most common requirements to make a takeout double are:

Shortness (doubleton or less, tripleton at most) in the opponents' suit(s),

Length (at minimum 3 cards, preferably 4) in the unbid suits,

High-card point strength of at least a minimal opening bid (11 HCP)

The most common treatment is that the fewer high card points the hand possesses, the more strict are the distribution requirements (i.e. opponent's suit(s) shorter and unbid suits longer). Most players play that hands with 17-18 high card points should double regardless of distribution (unless the hand is suitable for 1NT overcall). Also, more high-card strength is required when opponents have bid on higher levels (e.g. preempted). Most players play that a double up to the level of 4♥ is takeout, while doubles on higher levels are for penalties or "cooperative" (i.e. the partner is supposed to pass unless his distribution and/or strength indicates that playing a contract of their own on a higher level is a better prospect).

Examples

1) ♠ Q974 ♥ 9 ♦ AJ93 ♣ KJ85 | This hand is a minimal takeout double when the opponent opens 1♥. With other opening bids, it should be passed though. Also, if the opening bid was 3♥, the hand would be not strong enough to double.
2) ♠ KQ83 ♥ A52 ♦ 10 ♣ AJ1062 | If opponents have bid 1♦ – 1♥, the takeout double shows unbid suits (spades and clubs)
3) ♠ KJ63 ♥ AQ2 ♦ A84 ♣ Q93 | With 16 balanced points, this card is suitable for 1NT overcall over any opening bid rather than for a double.
4) ♠ KQJ1063 ♥ AK72 ♦ A4 ♣ 6 | With 17 points and excellent spade suit, this card should double RHO's opening bid rather than overcall spades. Whatever partner bids, a subsequent bid of spades will indicate a stronger hand than a simple overcall.
5) ♠ 8 ♥ AQ1094 ♦ KJ107 ♣ A83 | Over an opening bid of 1♠ this hand can double or overcall 2♥ depending on style and agreements. However, over an opening bid of 1♥, it should pass, expecting to double later opponents' heart or notrump contract for penalties.

Responses

Normally, (assuming the RHO passes) the doubler's partner should make a descriptive bid indicating a long suit of his own and the high-card strength:

A minimal-level bid of a suit indicates a weak hand (normally, below 9 high-card points).

A jump-bid of a suit shows a long (at least a 4-card) suit and invites the partner to bid on if the double was not minimal. Normally, such bid is made with 9-11 points.

A bid of 1NT shows 8-10 HCP and balanced hand with at least one stopper in the opponent's suit. A bid of 2NT shows 11-12 HCP and balanced hand with stopper(s). One conventional alternative (Bungay Black Dog Double) is that 1NT shows 6+ points and the cheapest bid in a suit is a natural "weak squeak" denying 6 points.

With any hand of opening-bid strength or higher, the responder should cuebid opponent's suit. The doubler is supposed to make a descriptive bid.

Finally, the takeout double can be passed for penalties in extreme situations, when the hand has 5-6 or more excellent trumps (this is termed a "penalty pass" or "converting the double"). By passing, the doubler's partner is promising at least three trump tricks. The doubler is supposed to lead a trump, so that the opponent's trumps can be drawn. For this reason, it's not recommended that a takeout double be made with a void in the suit doubled.

If the RHO bids, the doubler's partner is not forced to make a bid anymore; if one is made, it is a free bid, indicating a certain minimum strength and/or length in the suit bid (e.g. 6-7 points).

The strength requirements above are lowered when the partner is known to be stronger (e.g. an opponents' preempt is doubled), and raised when partner can be weak (as in protective position).

Later-round takeout doubles

Double can be for takeout even in later rounds of bidding. As before, it denotes support for unbid suits and, often, extra values. In general, any low-level double after opponents have bid a suit (especially if they have found a fit) and partner has passed is generally played for takeout:

the opener himself can double for takeout in the second round of bidding, after the opponents have entered the auction and partner had (usually) passed

also, an overcaller can second-round double as well, to show extra values and support for unbid suits.

a first-round takeout doubler can make a takeout double again, with a strong hand (around 16+ points)

1) 1♣ – (1♠) – pass – pass; Dbl | This type of is referred to as "reopening double", and shows shortness in spades and support for other suits
2) 1♦ – (1♠) ; Dbl | Shows 4+ cards in all unbid major(s), or 4+ cards in each minor if both bid suits are majors. See negative double.
3) 1♣ – Dbl – pass – 1♠; Dbl | Again, the opener has shortness in spades and other three suits.
4) 1♣ – (1♥) – pass – (2♥); Dbl | This shows shortness in hearts, but the opener must have extra strength, as the responder is forced to bid on level 2 or 3.
5) (1♦) – 1♠ – (2♦) – pass; (pass) – Dbl | The overcaller shows shortness in diamonds, and at least 3 cards in hearts and clubs, with some extra values for the overcall.
6) (1♥) – Dbl – (2♥) – pass; (pass) – Dbl | The original doubler shows extra values and/or extreme shortness in hearts.

Protective and balancing doubles

Distribution and strength requirements for a takeout double are lowered in situations when opponents' previous auction indicates that the partner has high-card strength, but was likely unable to take an action of his own because his distribution was not suitable for a double or an overcall.

A protective double can be made with as little as 8 high card points if both the RHO and the partner have passed the opening bid. Such a situation indicates that partner has strength, but was unable to act, perhaps because he had a hand like 1) or 5) in the table above:

West | North | East | South
1♥ | Pass | Pass | ?

South, holding ♠ Q863 ♥ 84 ♦ A85 ♣ K1054 can now double, expecting to find partner with strength and likely length in hearts, allowing him to pass for penalties or make a bid.

A balancing double occurs in later rounds of bidding, in situations where opponents have found a fit, but stopped on a low level, placing some points with the partner. It is normally done with a relatively weak hand and the distribution need not be perfect.

West | North | East | South
1♣ | Pass | 1♥ | Pass
2♥ | Pass | Pass | ?

South, holding ♠ Q863 ♥ 984 ♦ K1085 ♣ AJ was not strong enough to double in the first round. However, he can expect the partner to have shortness in hearts and likely 4 cards in spades or diamonds, and thus make a balancing takeout double. Such doubles are more frequent on matchpoint scoring, where even a penalty of −100 for the failure to make 2♠ can be profitable against −110 or −140 that the opponents could score in 2♥.

Reopening double

Reopening double is a form of takeout double bid by the opener himself, after his left-hand opponent has overcalled and partner has passed. As normal takeout double, it shows support for unbid suits:

West | North | East | South
1♣ | 1♠ | Pass | Pass
Dbl |  |  |

West's double denotes shortness in spades, and invites partner to bid his best suit. A suitable hand would be e.g. ♠ 7 ♥ AJ85 ♦ K63 ♣ AQ1052. The partner should bid his longest suit on the lowest level with approximately 0-6 points, 1NT with 5-7 points and stopper in spades, (as he would bid 1NT immediately with 8-10 points), and jump in a suit with 7+ points. Finally, he can pass for penalties with 5 or more cards in spades.

Reopening doubles once showed extra values as well. With adoption of the negative double, however (a takeout double by responder), responder must pass with length and strength in the opposing suit. In order to protect against such situations, opener is obliged to double even with thin values, whenever his distribution is suitable. Some pairs even require opener to act somehow; responder's pass is forcing.

See also

Negative double

Negative free bid

Support double

The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge

The 7th Edition cover and appended CDs

The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (OEB) presents comprehensive information on the card game contract bridge with limited information on related games and on playing cards. It is "official" in reference to the American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) which authorized its production and whose staff prepared and/or supervised its various editions.

The first edition of the Encyclopedia was published in 1964 with Richard Frey as Editor-in-Chief; the seventh and latest edition was published in 2011 following intermediate editions in 1971, 1976, 1984, 1994 and 2001. The Executive Editor for the first six was Alan Truscott, bridge editor of the New York Times. For the fourth through sixth editions, Henry Francis succeeded Frey as Editor-in-Chief. Frey and Francis were also successive editors of the ACBL monthly membership magazine. Numerous contributing editors to the Encyclopedia were listed in each edition as were members of Editorial Advisory Boards.

The redesigned seventh edition, in preparation since 2006, was released in November 2011. Editor was Brent Manley, with primary assistance from Mark Horton, Barry Rigal and Tracey Yarbro. This is the first edition to depart from the traditional alphabetical listing of individual entries and present a compilation of entries grouped into chapters, such as Bidding, Conventions and Card Play. Numerous photographs are included, together with 2 CDs; one containing the full printed version of the Encyclopedia and the other with biographies and tournament results.

First edition - 1964

The first edition set the ground work for the goals and scope of the Encyclopedia. In its forward, Editor-in-Chief Richard L. Frey observed that:

The only previous Encyclopedia of Bridge was edited by Ely Culbertson and published in 1935 ... The ambitious goal set for this Official Encyclopedia of Bridge was simple to state: "To provide an official and authoritative answer to any question a reader might ask about the game of contract bridge and its leading players."

On its dust jacket, the first edition states:

This encyclopedia is the most complete and authoritative book of information, guidance, and instruction for bridge players, ever published. It covers every aspect of bridge in all bridge-playing countries of the world; it contains complete and lucid definitions of every term; it describes and illustrates every standard bid, every recognized convention, and every type of play.

The first edition is divided into two main parts:

Main listings: The Introduction indicates that the entries in the main listings fall into five main categories (technical, historical, procedural, biographical and geographical, and terminological) and are presented alphabetically over 683 pages with entries frequently ending with cross-references to other entries on related category topics. Over 50 bridge-playing countries are listed and brief biographies of over 1,500 American and over 400 other players are recorded.

Bibliography: The main listings are followed by an eight page bibliography.

The Harvard University online catalog entry for the first edition includes a note that "A great majority of the unsigned technical entries are by Alan Truscott."

In 1967 an edition revised for the needs of a British and European audience was published by Paul Hamlyn (London) under the title The Bridge Players' Encyclopedia. It was described as an International Edition based on The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge of 1964. The edition modified American spellings, 'translated' bidding structures to the more widely used Acol system, omitted biographical notes on some lesser known Americans and added biographical notes on British and European players resulting in coverage of over 50 countries and over 500 players. The editors were Ben Cohen and Rhoda Barrow.

Editors

Richard L. Frey, Editor-in-Chief

Alan F. Truscott, Executive Editor

Editorial Advisory Board

Albert H. Morehead, Chairman

B. Jay Becker

Geoffrey L. Butler

Carlos Cabanne

S. Carini-Mazzaccara

Robert de Nexon

Charles H. Goren

Alfred M. Gruenther

Ranik Halle

Johannes Hammerich

Ernst Heldring

Oswald Jacoby

Eric Jannersten

Alvin Landy

Alphonse Moyse, Jr.

Carlo Alberto Perroux

David R. Pigot

Leon Sapire

Alfred Sheinwold

Charles J. Solomon

Michael J. Sullivan

Severo A. Tuason

Harold Vanderbilt

Waldemar von Zedtwitz

Contributing Editors

Russell Baldwin

Jean Besse

George W. Beynon

Easley Blackwood

Jens Boeck

George S. Coffin

Eric Crowhurst

Victor R. Daly

Albert Dormer

Albert Field

Harry Fishbein

Mrs. A.L. Fleming

Sam Fry, Jr.

Richard Goldberg

Harry Goldwater

M. Harrison-Gray

Mrs. Dorothy Hayden

Lee Hazen

Don Horwitz

Monroe Ingberman

Arturo Jaques

Edwin B. Kantar

Edgar Kaplan

Sammy Kehela

Jack Kelly

Edwart Kempson

José Le Dentu

A. Littman-Lemaitre

Paul Lukacs

Arthur Marks

Mrs. Rixi Markus

Philip Merry

Marshall L. Miles

Victor Mollo

Florence Osborn

George Partos

Harry Polunsky

R. Anthony Priday

Terence Reese

William S. Root

Federico Rosa

Dr. George Rosenkranz

Lawrence Rosler

Ernest Rovere

Jeff Rubens

Howard Schenken

Jerome Scheuer

William Seamon

Ramon Skoroupo

Al Sobel

Norman Squire

Sam Stayman

Roy G. Telfer

Alec Traub

Robert Wakeman

Charlton Wallace

Robert W. Wilson

Second edition - 1971

Richard Frey writes that since the first edition of 1964,

...bridge has attracted new adherents throughout the world, systems and conventions have been more and more influenced by "science" and "artificiality"...

The second edition is divided into four main parts:

Main listings: technical bidding and play, historical, procedural (tournament organization, laws, etc.), geographical, and terminological. As in the first edition, entries frequently end with cross-references to other entries on related topics.

Biographies of leading personalities: The biographies include over 2,000 Americans and over 500 players from elsewhere.

Tournament results: American Bridge Association National Championships, All-American Regional Championships, and European, Far East and South American Championships. World Championships and USBA Grand Nationals are in the main listings

Bibliography: listed according to subject matter.

Editors

Richard L. Frey, Editor-in-Chief

Alan F. Truscott, Executive Editor

Thomas S. Smith, Managing Editor

Editorial Advisory Board

B. Jay Becker

Geoffrey L. Butler

Carlos Cabanne

S. Carini-Mazzaccara

Charles H. Goren

Alfred M. Gruenther

Ranik Halle

Johannes Hammerich

Ernst Heldring

Oswald Jacoby

Eric Jannersten

Edgar Kaplan

Alphonse Moyse, Jr.

Carlo Alberto Perroux

Leon Sapire

Alfred Sheinwold

Charles J. Solomon

Michael J. Sullivan

Severo A. Tuason

Waldemar von Zedtwitz

Contributing Editors

Mrs. Rhoda Barrow

Jean Besse

Easley Blackwood

Jens Boeck

George S. Coffin

Eric Crowhurst

Victor R. Daly

Albert Dormer

Albert Field

Mrs. A.L. Fleming

Sam Fry, Jr.

Richard Goldberg

Harry Goldwater

M. Harrison-Gray*

Mrs. Dorothy Hayden

Lee Hazen

Don Horwitz

Monroe Ingberman

Arturo Jaques

Edwin B. Kantar

Fred Karpin

Sammy Kehela

Jack Kelly*

Edwart Kempson*

José Le Dentu

A. Littman-Lemaitre

Paul Lukacs

Arthur Marks*

Mrs. Rixi Markus

Philip Merry

Marshall L. Miles

Victor Mollo

George Partos

Harry Polunsky

R. Anthony Priday

Terence Reese

William S. Root

Federico Rosa

Dr. George Rosenkranz

Lawrence Rosler

Ernest Rovere

Jeff Rubens

Howard Schenken

Jerome Scheuer

William Seamon

Ramon Skoroupo*

Terry Smith

Al Sobel

Sam Stayman

Roy G. Telfer

Alec Traub

Robert Wakeman

Charlton Wallace

Robert W. Wilson*

Third edition - 1976

Richard Fey comments on several themes in the Foreword to the third edition:

We have seen rapid and radical developments in bidding systems; explosions of new cheating scandals and employment of devices to prevent them; the creation of techniques for warning opponents about bids that have unusual meanings...

...the newly uncovered evidence that bridge was known and played before the earliest previous accreditation (to Russia) of its origin and its name.

The third edition is organized into the same four parts as the second. There are again over 2,500 biographies but newer and stricter criteria were applied and many previous entries have been superseded by new ones; successes in competitions remain in the appropriate event listings.

Editors

Richard L. Frey, Editor-in-Chief

Alan F. Truscott, Executive Editor

Amalya L. Kearse, Editor, Third Edition

Editorial Advisory Board

B. Jay Becker

Geoffrey L. Butler

Carlos Cabanne

S. Carini-Mazzaccara

Herman Filarski

Richard L. Goldberg

Charles Goren

Alfred M. Gruenther

Ranik Halle

Johannes Hammerich

Ernst Heldring

Oswald Jacoby

Eric Jannersten

Edgar Kaplan

José Le Dentu

A. Littman-Lemaitre

Carlo Alberto Perroux

Julius Rosenblum

George Rosenkranz

Leon Sapire

Alfred Sheinwold

Waldemar von Zedtwitz

Contributing Editors

Jean Besse

Easley Blackwood

Jens Boeck

George S. Coffin

Ralph Cohen

Eric Crowhurst

Victor R. Daly

Albert Dormer

Robert Ewen

Albert Field

Mrs. A.L. Fleming

Henry G. Francis

Harold Franklin

Sam Fry, Jr.

Richard Goldberg

Harry Goldwater

Lee Hazen

Don Horwitz

Monroe Ingberman

Arturo Jaques

Edwin B. Kantar

Fred Karpin

Sammy Kehela

Ron Klinger

Rhoda Barrow Lederer

Paul Lukacs

Rixi Markus

Philip Merry

Marshall L. Miles

Victor Mollo

George Partos

R. Anthony Priday

Terence Reese

William S. Root

Lawrence Rosler

Ernest Rovere

Jeff Rubens

Howard Schenken

William Seamon

Edith Simon

Terry Smith

Thomas M. Smith

Sam Stayman

Roy G. Telfer

Alec Traub

Robert True

Dorothy Hayden Truscott

Jo Van Den Borre

Robert Wakeman

Charlton Wallace

Fourth edition - 1984

The fourth edition contains 922 pages — the most of any edition. Again, the pace of change in bridge is great as Richard Frey, now Editor Emeritus having been succeeded as Editor-in-Chief by Henry Francis, notes in the Foreword,

...a quantum leap in the technical material...many new and intriguing methods and ideas have made their appearance in the past seven years, and some have been widely adopted.

The organization of the fourth edition follows that of the third and second.

Editors

Henry G. Francis, Editor-in-Chief

Alan F. Truscott, Executive Editor

Richard L. Frey, Editor Emeritus

Diane Hayward, Editor, Fourth Edition

Editorial Advisory Board

B. Jay Becker

Geoffrey L. Butler

Carlos Cabanne

S. Carini-Mazzaccara

Benno Gimkiewicz

Richard L. Goldberg

Charles Goren

Ranik Halle

Johannes Hammerich

Denis Howard

Oswald Jacoby

Edgar Kaplan

José Le Dentu

Jaime Ortiz-Patiño

George Rosenkranz

Leon Sapire

Alfred Sheinwold

Waldemar von Zedtwitz

Contributing Editors

Bertrand N. Bauer

Jean Besse

Easley Blackwood

George S. Coffin

Ralph Cohen

Eric Crowhurst

Victor R. Daly

George F. Donaghy

Albert Dormer

Sue Emery

Robert Ewen

Albert Field

Irene (Dimmie) Fleming

Harold Franklin

Sam Fry, Jr.

Richard Goldberg

Harry Goldwater

Lee Hazen

Don Horwitz

Monroe Ingberman

Arturo Jaques

Edwin B. Kantar

Fred Karpin

Steve Katz

Sammy Kehela

Ron Klinger

Rhoda Barrow Lederer

Rixi Markus

Philip Merry

Marshall L. Miles

Richard Oshlaf

George Partos

Richard Anthony Priday

Terence Reese

William S. Root

Lawrence Rosler

Ernest Rovere

Jeff Rubens

William Sachen

William Seamon

Edith Simon

Terry Smith

Thomas M. Smith

Sam Stayman

Peggy Sutherlin

Roy G. Telfer

Alec Traub

Robert True

Dorothy Hayden Truscott

Jo Van Den Borre

Fifth edition - 1994

In the Foreword, Alan Truscott notes,

The changes in the technical section have been far greater than in any of the earlier editions, reflecting the many theoretical advances in the past decade.

The four part organization of the book follows the format of its immediate predecessors. More than 2,800 bridge personalities are listed in the biographies, largely updated by Dorthy Fancis; Truscott prepared most of the technical and foreign material with Frank Stewart contributing significantly to the technical; the expanded 21 page bibliography was prepared by William Sachen. Previous editions were published by Crown Publishers Inc. of New York; the 5th edition was published by the American Contract Bridge League.

Editors

Henry G. Francis, Editor-in-Chief

Alan F. Truscott, Executive Editor

Dorthy A Francis, Editor, Fifth Edition

Contributing Editors

Phillip Alder

Carlos Cabanne

Larry N. Cohen

Gabriel Chagas

Hugh Darwen

Sue Emery

Albert Field

Santanu Ghose

Richard Grenside

Olof Hanner

Diane Hayward

Per Jannersten

Jared Johnson

Patrick Jourdain

Edgar Kaplan

Phillip Martin

Svend Novrup

David Parry

R. Anthony Priday

Bill Sachen

Ton Schipperheyn

Frank Stewart

Jess Stuart

Dorothy Truscott

Sol Weinstein

Sixth edition - 2001

The 6th Edition cover

The front inside panel of the dust jacket states:

"This work is the most complete and authoritative book of information, guidance and instruction ever published for bridge players."

The Foreword states,

This edition has been prepared primarily by Henry Francis, with major contributions and help from Alan Truscott and Barry Rigal. Once again Dorthy Francis has updated American biographies and world-wide tournament results. Tim Bourke, who owns one of the world's most complete bridge libraries and who assembled the Morehead Library at ACBL Headquarters, prepared the bibliography.

The four part organization of the book follows the format of its immediate predecessors. More than 3,000 bridge personalities are listed in the biographies; the 60 page bibliography doubled that of the previous edition.

Editors

Henry G. Francis, Editor-in-Chief

Alan F. Truscott, Executive Editor

Dorthy A Francis, Editor, Sixth Edition

Contributing Editors

Phillip Alder

Carlos Cabanne

Gabriel Chagas

Hugh Darwen

Herman De Wael

Elly Ducheyne-Swaan

Albert Field

Santanu Ghose

Anna Gudge

Mazhar Jafri

Per Jannersten

Danny Kleinman

Eric Kokish

Sandra Landy

Jean-Paul Meyer

Svend Novrup

Julian Pottage

Barry Rigal

Gianarrigo Rona

Seventh edition - 2011

The 7th edition had its beginning about 2006, when decisions were made about the format, the contents and the people who would be involved in putting it together. It departs from previous editions in several ways. Foremost is the medium: two CD-ROM volumes with one book whose contents match the first CD. All previous editions were one-volume books.

This edition introduces photographs—lots of them. It comes with an index instead of a cross-reference table. In the print volume, both pages and font are bigger. The four-part organization introduced in 1971, with a very large alphabetical part one, has been replaced by about 40 chapters and appendices. The printed book and the first CD both comprise chapters 1 to 26. The second volume, CD only, comprises eight chapters of biographical entries and three appendices on Masterpoints achievements and tournament results.

Editors

Brent Manley, Editor

Mark Horton, Co-Editor

Tracey Greenberg-Yarbro, Co-Editor

Barry Regal, Co-Editor

Contributing editors

Current edition

Henry B. Anderson

Bill Buttle

John Carruthers

Simon Cocheme

Lee Daugharty

Tom Dawson

Judy Dawson

Herman De Wael

Fred Gitelman

Robb Gordon

Terre Gorham

Anna Gudge

Peter Hasenson

Per Jannersten

Peggy Kaplan

Paul Linxwiler

Donna Manley

Jan Martel

Kelley McGuire

Jean-Paul Meyer

Pony Nehmert

Julian Pottage

Jeff Rubens

Frank Stewart

Ron Tacchi

Bob van de Velde

Jeroen Warmerdam

Anders Wirgen

Past editions

Jean Besse

Larry N. Cohen

Eric Crowhurst

Albert Dormer

Sue Emery

Robert Ewen

Richard Grenside

Olof Hanner

Maurice Harrison-Gray

Diane Hayward

Monroe Ingbergman

Jane Johnson

Jared Johnson

Patrick Jourdain

Edgar Kaplan

Fred Karpin

Sami Kehela

Rhoda Barrow Lederer

Phillip Martin

Marshall Miles

Victor Mollo

David Parry

Tony Priday

Bill Sachen

Jess Stuart

Alec Traub

Dorothy Truscott

Ray Telfer

Sol Weinstein

Contents

The book contains the following Table of Contents; the first of two compact discs (CD) contains a Portable Document Format (pdf) version of the book.

Chapter 1. History

Chapter 2. ACBL Hall of Fame

Chapter 3. CBF Hall of Fame

Chapter 4. Bridge at the Top

Chapter 5. Bridge Museum

Chapter 6. ACBL - How it Works

Chapter 7. Tournaments

Chapter 8. Trophies

Chapter 9. World of Bridge

Chapter 10. Terminology

Chapter 11. Bidding

Chapter 12. Competitive Bidding

Chapter 13. Conventions

Chapter 14. Systems

Chapter 15. Card play

Chapter 16. Matchpoints vs. IMPs

Chapter 17. Carding

Chapter 18. Advanced Plays

Chapter 19. Squeezes

Chapter 20. Suit Combination

Chapter 21. At the Table

Chapter 22. Mathematics at Bridge

Chapter 23. Rules and "Laws" of Bridge

Chapter 24. Bridge and the Digital Age

Chapter 25. Curiosities

Chapter 26. Rubber Bridge

The second CD provides more information about bridge people and competitions per the following table of contents; its contents are not available in print.

ACBL Hall of Fame

CBF Hall of Fame

Grand Life Masters

Platinum Life Masters

Emerald Life Masters

Diamond Life Masters

Other Noted Personalities

ACBL Presidents

National Tournament Directors

Appendix One — North American Results

Appendix Two — Masterpoints Race Results

Appendix Three — World Championship Results

Bibliographic data

Frey, Richard L., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor (1964). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (1st ed.). New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. p. 691. LCCN 64-23817.

Frey, Richard L., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Cohen, Ben, International Edition Editor; Barrow, Rhoda, International Edition Editor (1967). The Bridge Players' Encyclopedia. London: Paul Hamlyn. p. 674. OCLC 560654187.

Frey, Richard L., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Smith, Thomas M., Managing Editor (1971). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (2nd ed.). New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. p. 793. LCCN 73108084. OCLC 250404789.

Frey, Richard L., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Kearse, Amalya L., Editor, Third Edition (1976). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (3rd ed.). New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. p. 858. ISBN 0-517-52724-3. LCCN 76017053.

Francis, Henry G., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Frey, Richard L., Editor Emeritus; Hayward, Diane, Editor, Fourth Edition (1984). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (4th ed.). New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. p. 922. ISBN 0-517-55272-8. LCCN 84001791.

Francis, Henry G., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Francis, Dorthy A., Editor, Fifth Edition (1994). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (5th ed.). Memphis, TN: American Contract Bridge League. pp. 827 (plus 38 page Bibliography). ISBN 0-943855-48-9. LCCN 96188639.

Francis, Henry G., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Francis, Dorthy A., Editor, Sixth Edition (2001). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (6th ed.). Memphis, TN: American Contract Bridge League. pp. 826 (plus 60 page Bibliography). ISBN 0-943855-44-6. OCLC 49606900.

Manley, Brent, Editor; Horton, Mark, Co-Editor; Greenberg-Yarbro, Tracey, Co-Editor; Rigal, Barry, Co-Editor (2011). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (7th ed.). 6575 Windchase Blvd., Horn Lake MS 38637-1523: American Contract Bridge League. pp. 634 (plus additional 399 pages in CD format) totalling 1033 pages. ISBN 978-0-939460-99-1.

See also

Encyclopedic bibliographies on bridge

Trump

A trump is a playing card which is elevated above its normal rank in trick-taking games. Typically an entire suit is nominated as a trump suit - these cards then outrank all cards of plain (non-trump) suits. In other contexts, the term trump card can refer to any sort of action, authority, or policy which automatically prevails over all others.

Etymology

The word "trump" derives from "trionfi" or "triumph", documented as the name of a card game in 1529 and which spawned the game Ruff and Honours, which in turn led to Whist. Trionfo was also the name of the original card game for which tarot cards were designed, and in it the tarot cards had the role of what are now called trumps; later card game rules were designed to use one of the ordinary suits as a replacement for the tarots when a tarot pack was not available.

Trump in card games

In most games, the relative rank of cards within a suit is the same in trump and plain suits, but they may sometimes differ, as for example in Klabberjass or Euchre.

The trump suit may be fixed as in Spades, rotate on a fixed schedule or depend on the outcome of the previous hand as in Ninety-nine, be determined by drawing a card at random as in Bezique, by the last card dealt to a designated player as in Whist, by the first card played as in Nine Card Don, be chosen by a designated player as in Barbu, or players may bid for the right to select the trump suit as in Contract Bridge or Skat.

In most games, trump cards cannot be played if the player has any cards of the suit led to the trick; the requirement to "follow suit" is of higher priority. In a few games, trumps can be played at any time. Playing the first trump to an already-started trick is known as trumping or ruffing; if another player were to play a higher trump, that would be an overruff or overtrump.

The tarot deck contains a fifth suit, known in gaming as the atouts or honours and in occult circles as the Major Arcana, which serves as a permanent trump suit in games played with the tarot deck. The suit consists of twenty-two cards, including a Fool which serves as a highest trump or a kind of wild card in tarot games.

Due primarily to the prevalence of the trump in card games, the term used in Japan for the standard 52-card deck of playing cards is simply the English word "trump".

Metaphorical uses

From this card game use came metaphoric uses, e.g.:

"The CEO needs this report in one hour. That trumps anything you're currently working on."

"He trumped my ace" for "I thought that I had a winning advantage, but he brought along something to defeat it."

"At the hotel I ordered fresh orange juice with my breakfast ... the waiter brought out a excuse that there was not an orange in town."

In general strategy, a trump card is the move one party can use to attain decisive victory. In this sense, a trump card can be a person, weapon, or the starting of a chain of events.

See also

Major Arcana

Playing cards

Trionfi (cards)

Top Trumps

Michaels cuebid

The Michaels cuebid is a conventional bid used in the card game contract bridge. First devised by Michael Michaels of Miami Beach, it is an overcaller's cuebid in opponent's opening suit and is normally used to show a two-suited hand with at least five cards in each suit and eight or more points.

After the opponents have opened at the one-level, the overcaller bids the same suit at the two-level; the two normal cases are:

Over an opponent's minor opening, a cuebid shows both majors. For example, 1♣ – 2♣ shows hearts and spades.

Over an opponent's major opening, a cuebid shows the other major and a minor suit. For example, 1♠ – 2♠ shows hearts and either clubs or diamonds. Partner can make a 2NT relay bid to request partner to bid his minor suit.

Partnerships who have incorporated Michaels cuebid amongst their agreements usually also play the unusual notrump convention.

Requirements

Point count requirements vary and are a matter of partnership agreement. It is commonly agreed that a Michaels cuebid is constructive and should be made on hands that hold the prospect of winning the auction; hand emphasis is on trick-taking capability suggesting for suits containing most of the HCP and having good texture, particularly at unfavourable vulnerability.

With less than 8 points, Michaels is not recommended - the chances of winning the auction are small and gives the opponents too much information. Bidders expecting to make or sacrifice can use basic Michaels at all point ranges with 8 or more. In a common variant, known as Mini-Maxi Michaels, candidate hands are classed into three ranges and Michaels is applied more selectively:

Weak - 8 to 12 points: use Michaels

Intermediate - 13 to 15 points: do not use Michaels, bid the higher suit followed by the lower

Strong - 16 or more points: use Michaels

Responses to Michaels

Initially, partner should assume a weak hand by the Michaels bidder; with a strong hand, the Michaels bidder will follow with a second non-forced call. Responses to the Michaels cuebid include:

A preference bid

A jump preference bid (usually preemptive)

A cuebid of opener's suit, which is a game or slam try

A new suit, non-forcing

2NT. When the cuebid is in a major suit, asks partner to name his minor suit

3NT is to play

4♣ serves the same purpose as 2NT in competitive auctions when 2NT is no longer available. 4NT serves the same purpose as 2NT when 2NT and 4♣ are not available.

Rebids by the Michaels bidder

With 12 or less, pass or raise. Raise is not invitational, it shows 6/5 or better and is optional and preemptive

With 16 or more, bid a new suit inviting game

Modifications

Several modifications and extensions exist, such as the Modified Michaels cuebid, Leaping Michaels and Super Michaels.

In the Netherlands, a particular modification is growing in popularity: over opponent's opening a cuebid shows a major and a minor unbid suit. The 2NT overcall is then used to show both majors (after a minor suit opening) or both minors (after a major suit opening). This approach allows all three two suiters in the three unbid suits to be indicated. Disadvantage compared to standard Michaels is that after an opposing minor suit opening one can not introduce a two suiter in the majors at two-level. Also, the cuebid invariably leaves one of both suits unspecified.

A variant often referred to as upper cuebid is popular in Germany. In this treatment a cuebid shows the highest unbid suit and another unspecified suit. Together with the unusual notrump convention to indicate the lowest of the two unbid suits, this approach allows all two suiters in the three unbid suits to be indicated. Disadvantage compared to Michaels is that after an opposing minor suit opening one can not in one single bid describe a two suiter in the majors.

Also, Michaels cuebid variants exist that remove any ambiguity on what is the second suit. An example is the hi-hi cuebid that over opponent's opening invariably shows the highest unbid suits. Together with the unusual notrump convention to indicate the lowest of the two unbid suits, this hi-hi cuebid allows two out of the three possible two suiters in the unbid suits to be specified in one single bid. A drawback of this method is that the hi-hi cuebid does not cater for two-suiters in the highest and lowest unbid suits.

Defense

The opening side may defend against a Michaels cuebid or any other conventional two-suited overcall with the Unusual vs. Unusual convention. This defense assigns conventional meanings to a double and to cuebids of the suits shown by the two-suited overcall.

Comparison to Ghestem

Ghestem is more precise in terms of uniquely defining the specific suits denoted. Another drawback compared to Ghestem is that following an opposing minor suit opening, the Michaels cuebid used in combination with the unusual notrump convention does not cater for a two-suiter in spades and the other minor. Hands like these can only be indicated by overcalling 1♠ and, if possible, later introducing the minor suit.

Gerber convention

Gerber is a contract bridge convention devised by Dr. William Konigsberger and Win Nye from Switzerland who published it in 1936; John Gerber of Texas introduced it to North America in 1938 where it was named after him. It is similar to Blackwood but uses 4♣ instead of 4NT as an "asking bid" to inquire about the number of aces held by partner; a further asking bid may follow to inquire about the number of kings held.

Gerber is used primarily after notrump openings, responses and rebids, making it a complement to Blackwood rather than a replacement. Some club players also use it after suit bidding, but most experts do not recommend this.

Purpose

Because bidding and making a slam or grand slam contract in bridge gains significant bonus scoring points, partnerships will strive to bid them whenever their combined card assets are deemed sufficient. Knowing the number of aces and kings jointly held is usually crucial to this decision and Gerber is one of several bridge conventions used to ascertain the necessary information.

Responses and continuations

The ace-asking bid is 4♣. The criteria for its application vary amongst users and alternatives are detailed below; likewise, a number of response schemes have been developed over the years. Partnership agreement is required on both matters.

Original response scheme

The original responses to the 4♣ asking bid are:

4♦ = 0 aces

4♥ = 1 ace

4♠ = 2 aces

4NT = 3 aces

5♣ = 4 aces

Modern response schemes

Most modern bridge literature recommend the following response scheme:

4♦ = 0 or 4 aces

4♥ = 1 ace

4♠ = 2 ace

4NT = 3 aces

However, some experts favour the following responses, analogous to Roman Key Card Blackwood:

4♦ = 0 or 3 aces

4♥ = 1 or 4 aces

4♠ = 2 aces

Other response structures have been devised along similar lines and partnership agreement is required to establish a preferred scheme.

Continuations

Like Blackwood, a follow-on bid may be used in Gerber to ask for kings. There are two principal approaches for the king-ask bid:

Bid 5♣ to ask for kings or

Use the next available bid, skipping the trump suit if one has been agreed, to ask for kings.

Step-responses mirror those for the ace-ask bid.

Application

Comparison with Blackwood

The main perceived advantage of Gerber is that it is bid at a lower level and therefore allows for a final contract lower than does Blackwood (in the event that insufficient aces are present). This lower level also allows for an exploration of kings in more cases. A second advantage is that it is highly suitable for potential notrump contracts, whereas with Blackwood a final contract of 5NT may be confused with a bid asking for kings. For this reason, many use Gerber when the potential contract is in notrump.

Partnership agreement

Depending on the auction context, a bid of 4♣ may have several meanings; it might, for example, be confused with a splinter bid or a cue bid. For this reason, it is important that partnerships agree, in advance, when 4♣ is Gerber.

Possible partnership agreements for distinguishing 4♣ as Gerber from other meanings of 4♣ are:

4♣ is always Gerber.

4♣ is Gerber only if the immediate preceding bid by partner was in notrump.

4♣ is Gerber unless a natural club suit bid has been made by the partnership.

4♣ is only Gerber when in response to opening bids of 1NT, 2NT or a strong artificial 2♣.

4♣ is Gerber if it is a jump bid or if a suit has been agreed as trump.

In addition, agreement is required on how to handle responder holding a void and on opposition interference in the bidding.

References

Downey, Ned; Pomer, Ellen (2005). Standard Bidding with SAYC. Toronto: Master Point Press. ISBN 978-1-897106-03-7.

Francis, Henry G., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Francis, Dorthy A., Editor, Sixth Edition (2001). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (6th ed.). Memphis, TN: American Contract Bridge League. ISBN 0-943855-44-6. OCLC 49606900.

Kearse, Amalya (1990). Bridge Conventions Complete. Devyn Press Inc., Revised and Expanded. ISBN 0-910791-76-7.

Weak two bid

The weak two bid is a common treatment used in the game of contract bridge, where an opening bid of two diamonds, hearts or spades signifies a weak hand with a long suit. It is used in combination with the strong two clubs bid and is a form of preemptive bid. The term refers to an opening bid, and is not to be confused with the "weak jump overcall", which denotes a similar type of hand, but is bid over an opponent's opening bid.

The requirements for a weak two bid may vary by partnership agreement. The most common treatment is that it requires:

any good suit of exactly six cards in diamonds, hearts or spades; a longer suit should make a higher preemptive opening bid

no side 5-card suit or 4-card major

a total of about 5-11 high card points; some prefer a range of 6-10 points for a "weak two" bid, as a hand with six in a suit plus 11 points may be strong enough for a bid at the one level; see Rule of 20

What constitutes a "good" suit is a matter of partnership agreement. The American Contract Bridge League recommends that the opener hold at least two of the top three or three of the top five cards in the suit (that is, either K-Q or Q-J-10 or better). Others recommend at least three honors (J-Q-K).

History

A prototype of the weak two was used in auction bridge, and the principle was attested as early as 1910 by J.B. Elwell. It was incorporated into the Vanderbilt Club system. In early 1940s, Howard Schenken developed the modern weak two-bid along lines similar to Vanderbilt's.

In Charles Goren's original bidding system, when a player opened the bidding with two of a suit, this signified that the player held a very strong hand. (This later became known as the strong two bid.) Later players found it more effective to reserve only the conventional two clubs opening; to show a strong hand. That left the room for opening bids of 2♦, 2♥, or 2♠ to show a weak hand with a six-card suit. This became known as the weak two bid. In some systems, a bid of 2♣ shows a strong hand with a five-card suit, and a bid of 2♦ shows a hand that is similarly strong, but balanced. These alternate versions are less common.

Responses

Standard responses to a weak two opening bid are limited.

A raise of the bid suit extends the preempt, and is to play. The weak two bidder does not bid again.

A bid of 2NT is an inquiring bid, and thus forcing for one round.

A new suit at the lowest level shows a weak hand with a 7 card suit, and is to play. The weak two bidder does not bid again.

The responses to the 2NT inquiring bid are conventional.

The responses using Standard American Yellow Card methods are:

A bid of three of any suit other than the suit of the "weak two" bid shows a "feature" (typically either an ace or a king) in the named suit.

A bid of three of the suit of the "weak two" bid denies a "feature" in any other suit.
What constitutes a "feature" is, of course, a subject of partnership agreement. Some partnerships consider "features" to include voids.

When using the Ogust convention, the following alertable responses apply:

3♣ shows a "minimum" hand and a "poor" suit.

3♦ shows a "minimum" hand and a "good" suit.

3♥ shows a "maximum" hand and a "poor" suit.

3♠ shows a "maximum" hand and a "good" suit.

3NT shows A-K-Q of the preempt suit.
Here, the definitions of "minimum" and "maximum" hands and "poor" and "good" suits are matters of partnership agreement.

A range of seven HCP or less for a "minimum" hand and eight HCP or more for a "maximum" hand is fairly typical.

Since "strict" preempts usually show either K-Q or better or Q-J-10 or better, partners who play "strict" preempts typically regard a "good" suit as something more (K-Q-J or better, for example). On the other hand, partners who are less strict in their preempts might define a "good" suit to have either K-Q or better or Q-J-10 or better and a "poor" suit to have anything less.
There are several variations on the Ogust convention. Ogust's original definition, for example, had the swapped responses in the red suits and did not include the 3NT response. The responses shown here, however, are now pretty much standard.

See also

Preempt

Strong two bid

Multi 2 diamonds

Strong two clubs

In most natural bridge bidding systems, the opening bid of 2♣ is used exclusively for hands too strong for an opening bid at the one-level. Systems that incorporate a strong 2-club opening bid include modern Standard American, standard Acol, 2/1 game forcing and many others. Typically, the bid is reserved for hands that are almost strong enough to bid to the game level on their own power, or even stronger. The exact requirements for the bid vary considerably depending upon the system used and partnership agreement.

In Charles Goren's original bidding system, and "traditional" Acol, all the opening bids of two of a suit signified a very strong hand. This later became known as the strong two bid. However, pioneer bridge inventors like Pierre Albarran and David Burnstine saw that the frequency of such bids is fairly low, and that a 2♣ bid can be used for all strong hands, leaving other two-level opening bids for other purposes (for example, weak two bids).

Bid requirements

The strength requirements for the 2♣ bid differ slightly in different systems. In all cases they show a hand which is close to game forcing. For balanced hands, a 2♣ bid shows 22 or more points in Standard American (Yellow Card), and 23 or more points in standard Acol. For unbalanced hands, the typical strength is about 9 or more playing tricks, or 3 losers or less if using Losing-Trick Count.

Responses

Natural responses

With "natural" responses, which is the most commonly used treatment, the 2♦ bid is artificial and very weak (up to 6 HCP). All other bids are natural and positive.

Waiting and positive 2♦

Some players alter or reverse the order of natural responses in order to preserve bidding space and allow for more accuracy in later bidding. There are several treatments in circulation:

Waiting 2♦ – a response of 2♦ is a relay asking the opening bidder to further describe the strong hand. This bid does not limit the responder's hand in any way. Some players combine this response with each of the following.

Natural 2♥ and 2♠, typically showing at least a game-going hand (4 or more HCP) with at least a five-card major. Some players go as far to require a 6-card suit with 2 top honors for a suit response.

Weak 2♥. The response of 2♥ shows a very bad hand (0-3 HCP), making the 2♦ relay a game-forcing bid.

Positive 2♦ – a response of 2♦ shows values, and all other bids show less than 7 HCP.

Positive 2♥ – a response of 2♥ show a (semi-)positive, and 2♦ a negative (0-4 HCP)

"Three Point Step" responses

"Three Point Step" responses to a strong 2♣ opening bid is another option. In this simple convention, the responder specifies the high card strength of his or her hand, without regard to distribution, as follows.

2♦ = 0-3 High Card Points (HCP); Very Weak. The responder normally will bid again only to show a long suit (5 or more cards) or a trump fit, but should use "Garbage Stayman" or "Garbage Transfers" if appropriate whenever opener's rebid is 2NT. The opening bidder obviously needs more than minimum values (at least 25 HCP) or a good trump fit to go to game.

2♥ = 4-6 HCP; Alertable and Game Forcing. Subsequent bids are natural, seeking a trump fit, typically with "systems on" (Stayman and transfers in effect) if opener rebids 2NT showing a balanced hand.

2♠ = 7-9 HCP; Alertable and Slam Inviting. Subsequent bids are natural, seeking a trump fit, typically with "systems on" (Stayman and transfers in effect) if opener rebids 2NT showing a balanced hand. Opener must have extra values (at least 25 HCP) or a good trump fit to go to slam.

2NT = 10 or more HCP; Alertable and Slam Forcing. Subsequent bids are natural, seeking a trump fit, typically with "systems on" (Stayman and transfers in effect) if opener rebids 3NT showing a balanced hand.

Over interference, a DOUBLE (alertable) by responder shows a stolen bid (that is, takes on the same meaning as the interfering bid) and a PASS shows any inferior response. This treatment results in loss of granularity only if the interfering bid is 2♠ or higher.

If requested, the explanation of an alert should describe the meaning of the bid completely; for example:

"My partner's response of 2♥ shows 4-6 HCP. It says nothing whatsoever about distribution, and in particular neither shows nor denies hearts."

or

"My partner's double of 2♠ shows 7-9 HCP. It says nothing whatsoever about distribution, and in particular neither shows nor denies spades."

This convention for response has two significant advantages and two relatively minor disadvantages over other responses. The first advantage is that the 2♦ "Drop dead!" response alerts the opening bidder to partner's weakness immediately, while there's plenty of room to find a safe landing spot, when partner's hand is too weak to go on to game—which happens quite often in actual play. The second major advantage is that it immediately tells the opening bidder the combined high card strength of the two hands to within one HCP, and thus the most probable optimal level to which to bid (with the caveat that one sometimes can go a level higher with a good trump fit). The first drawback is that the weaker hand occasionally will end up declaring a contract with a trump fit in the major suit of the response. (Note that a transfer following opener's rebid of 2NT over a response of either 2♥ or 2♠ may be to the suit of the response. Such transfers cannot achieve the objective of making the strong hand the declarer, but they still help to find such a trump fit.) The second drawback is that it uses up some bidding space if the responder has an unusually strong hand. Nonetheless, opener's minimum of 22 HCP leaves a maximum of 18 HCP distributed among the other three hands. It's quite rare for responder to hold more than half of them. Indeed, this convention has gained popularity both for its simplicity (comparable to standard Blackwood) and for the infrequent occurrence and relatively minor consequences of its drawbacks.

The origin of this convention is uncertain. Some players have attributed it to Oswald Jacoby, of Jacoby Transfer and Jacoby 2NT fame, while others refer to it as "Castlebury" (or "Castleberry"?), but the present author is not aware of any source that would verify either attribution.

Control-showing responses

Some players prefer to show their controls (high cards) rather than suits in the response to 2♣ opening bid. This has an advantage in cases when the opener has a strong one- or two-suiter (i.e. has an interest in cover cards rather than finding the suit fit), but can take up bidding space and miss a suit fit when the opener is balanced or semi-balanced.

In standard "controls," an ace counts as two controls and a king counts as one control. The theoretical advantage of this system is that aces and kings may be more significant for finding a potential slam than other honor cards, but it also may miss a slam opportunity if the responder has a lot of inferior honor cards. There are several variations in the manner of showing the number of controls, all of which are alertable. The following examples of responses are representative but by no means all-inclusive.

2♦ shows 0 or 1 control (at most 1 king),

2♥ shows 2 controls (1 ace or 2 kings),

2♠ shows 3 controls (specifically 1 ace and 1 king),

2NT shows 3 controls (specifically 3 kings), and

3♣ shows 4 controls,

3♦ or higher, etc. on up the line.

With ace-showing responses, the responder bids the suit of the Ace, 2NT with two or more kings, and 2♦ with a king or less. With (unlikely) 2 aces, the responder bids 3♥. As a corollary, subsequent Blackwood by the opener asks for kings rather than aces.

Either-or treatment

Some players play that 2♣ can also contain a weak variant, for example the 2♦ weak two bid. In this scheme, 2♦ by responder is a waiting bid, asking the opener to describe his hand further if he is strong. If the opening hand has a weak two bid in diamonds, he should pass. However, if the responder has a strong hand, typically 15 high card points or more, he responds with 2NT. This treatment is often subject to restrictions in tournament play, as it has a destructive potential—see Bridge convention#Regulations.

Advantages

One major advantage of the artificial opening bid of 2♣ for all types of strong hands is that other opening bids at the two-level (2♦, 2♥ and 2♠) become available for weak two bids, thus eliminating many possible bids for the opponents. These weak two hands appear 20 times as often as the very strong hands, which illustrates the inefficiency of reserving all opening bids at the two-level for very strong hands.

An alternative is to use strong two bids for hands which are strong but not game forcing, which reduces the range of one-level openings and helps bidding accuracy. However, since weak twos are so useful, there are methods which allow weak twos in hearts and spades and use 2♦ to show a different range of strong hands; these are Benjaminised (Benji) Acol, Reverse Benji and the Multicoloured Two Diamonds.

Another advantage is the relative precision with which strong balanced hands can be bid. An opening bid of 2 NT indicates a balanced hand with 20-21 HCP in Standard American or 20-22 HCP in standard Acol, and for even stronger balanced hands, the opening bid of 2♣ can be used. The opener's rebid (in these cases always in No Trump) then indicates the strength of the hand using steps of 2-3 HCP. Hence 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT shows 22-24 HCP's in Standard American or 23-24 HCP in Acol, while a 3NT rebid can show 25+ HCP's.

Disadvantages

If the opening bid of 2♣ is exclusively used for strong hands, the auction becomes more susceptive to disruptive (jump) overcalls (especially when the opposing partnership is not vulnerable) than the "old" treatment of strong two bids. However, that danger is smaller when compared to strong 1♣ system in strong club systems, because 2♣ bid is made with bigger high-card strength and on a higher level. On the other hand, the strong 2♣ opening reduces the bidding space for the pair themselves compared with strong 1♣—sometimes, the pair can be unable to find a fit on a relatively low level (below 3NT), and/or reduce the space for effective slam investigation with cue bidding.

Other treatments

In most strong club systems, the opening bid of 2♣ is natural and promises a hand with long clubs (for example, in both Precision and Blue club, it shows 11-15 high card points and either a 6-card club suit or at least a 5-card club suit and a 4-card major suit). As such, it makes overcalls more difficult, since they have to be made at the two-level. Chances are therefore increased that the side of the opener has an undisturbed auction, and the opponents won't discover a fit in a major suit. However, as a corollary, their strong 1♣ opening bid is more susceptible to preempting by opponents.

Another variant advocates two strong forcing openings, 2♣ for strong hands with fewer than four spades and 2♦ for strong hands with four or more spades.

Unusual notrump

In the card game of bridge, the unusual notrump is a conventional bid showing two lower unbid suits.

When the right-hand opponent opens 1♥ or 1♠, the immediate overcall of 2 NT shows at least 5-5 in the minor suits (that is, at least five clubs plus at least five diamonds) and, presumably, a weakish hand (6 to 11 points). If the next player passes, the partner is expected to select the minor suit that he/she prefers and bid it at the 3-level. The unusual notrump extends the principle that when the natural meaning of a bid is not generally very useful, it is profitable to agree that it means something somewhat opposite. That is, while natural notrump bids show a strong hand with balanced distribution, the unusual notrump shows a weak hand with very unbalanced distribution.

The unusual notrump is used only after the opponents open the bidding. In addition to succinctly describing the hand to the partner, it also deprives the opponents of a lot of bidding space (that is, it has a preemptive value).

Many players extend the convention to have it show the "two lowest unbid" suits rather than strictly the minors. Thus, over 1♣, 2NT shows diamonds and hearts; and over 1♦, it shows clubs and hearts.

If the 2 notrump bidder bids again freely, then it shows a strong two suiter. To distinguish the weak and strong holdings, many partnerships agree not to use the unusual notrump for intermediate hands (about 12 to 14 points); they would simply overcall with one of their suits and show the other later if the bidding offers a chance. However, for two-suiters, many players apply losing trick count (LTC) instead of point count, as it more accurately depicts the offensive trick-taking potential of the hand. With LTC in effect, the required strength is about 4.5–7 losers, the latter only in favorable vulnerability.

Similarly, a 4NT overcall shows an extreme two suiter (usually at least 6-5, often 6-6 or 7-6) and enough trick-taking potential so that a 5-level contract can be made, or a sacrifice will likely be profitable. It shows the same two suits as 2NT would show. Note that 4NT is "unusual" only when the opponents open the bidding; otherwise, 4NT is normally played as the Blackwood convention or a quantitative invitation to 6NT.

The Michaels cuebid is a similar convention which is used to show a two suiter with one or both major suits.

To counteract the unusual notrump, the opening side may employ unusual vs. unusual.

Modifications

Recently, the Unusual 2NT has been used in opening seat showing a 5-5 minor suited hand and 7-11 HCP. The preemptive value of the two suited hand puts pressure on the opponents to find their fits, games and slams at the three level.

Defense to 2NT (showing both minors) as an over call and an opening bid

By opening or over calling 2NT you are given extra bids as well as the double.

An important principle is that of the corresponding Major - minor.

Spades - Diamonds

Hearts - Clubs

By cue bidding a minor you are showing a good holding in the corresponding Major while a bid of the Major shows a weaker holding.

After a 2NT Over Call of our Major

1H - 2NT - X  = looking to penalize, no primary Major fit
           3C = good raise in H (8 losers or better)
           3D = sound values in S at the three level or better
           3H = weak raise in H but stretched (8½ to 9 losers)
           3S = 6S, not forcing
           3N = to play
           4m = splinter in support of H

1S - 2NT - X  = looking to penalize, no primary Major fit
           3C = sound values in H at the three level or better
           3D = good raise in S (8 losers or better)
           3H = 6H, not forcing
           3S = weak raise in S but stretched (8½ to 9 losers)
           3N = to play
           4m = splinter in support of S

After a 2NT Opening:

2NT - X  = able to penalize one of the minors or 20+ HCP
      3C = Take Out for the Majors, better H
      3D = Take Out for the Majors, better S
      3H = single suited in H, opening hand
      3S = single suited in S, opening hand

Drawbacks

Due to the ease with which it is learned and used, it is among the most abused conventions: the convention is often used by players with insufficient strength or lengths (such as 5-4 in the minors).

This often leads to one of:

Opponents double and collect a heavy penalty.

Opponents outbid the bidders to obtain a major suit contract.

Opponents make a contract that is normally unmakeable due to forewarning of adverse distribution.

See also

Ghestem

Relay bid

See also: Glossary of contract bridge terms

In contract bridge, relay is a term for a conventional bid that usually has little or no descriptive meaning but asks partner to describe some feature of his hand. A relay is often the cheapest bid available but need not be. Stayman and Blackwood are common examples of relay bids.

The rationale for introducing relay bids emerged from the idea that it is not always the best use of bidding space for both partners to describe their hands. Instead, only one partner can make the cheapest bids available (relays) while the other describes his hand. This is especially useful when the asker has a balanced or very strong hand.

Relay bidding systems are for the most part based on relay bids: in most sequences (especially forcing ones), one partner just relays while the other describes his hand in a highly codified manner. While relay systems offer a higher level of exchanged information than natural systems, they also have the drawbacks that they are complicated to memorize and often exclude the players' judgment, particular in regard to honor location, which can be crucial.

There is often confusion between puppet bids and relays. A puppet bid requests partner to make the cheapest bid regardless of his hand. A relay bid requests partner to make a descriptive bid in response. The descriptive response can be natural (as in Stayman) or coded (as in Blackwood). A "marionette" bid is similar to a puppet bid except that it allows responses other than the cheapest bid with certain uncommon hand types. Thus technically it's a relay but with the cheapest bid expected most of the time.

External links

Relay systems on BridgeGuys

The Bridge World glossary

Jacoby transfer

The Jacoby transfer, or simply "transfers", in the card game contract bridge, is a convention initiated by responder following partner's notrump opening bid that requests opener rebid in the suit ranked just above that bid by responder, i.e. a response in diamonds requests a rebid in hearts and a response in hearts requests a rebid in spades; other responses may carry other meanings; designed to make the stronger hand declarer.

History

Transfers were first described in a series of articles by Olle Willner in Bridge Tidningen in the early 1950s, and were popularized for English speakers in 1956 in The Bridge World article by Oswald Jacoby. Transfers have such utility in no trump bidding that they enjoy broad acceptance by most players, in duplicate and in rubber bridge. In many parts of the world their usage is so widespread (e.g. the United Kingdom) that they are known simply as "transfers".

Usage

By a simple procedure, transfers allow a weak take-out contract (following an opening 1NT) in a major suit to be played by the opening (i.e. the stronger) hand thus concealing the tenaces in that hand. An additional benefit of transfers is that they allow more bidding space in the search for the optimum contract.

In the 1990s further developments of the transfer procedures enabled them to be used to even greater effect. The use of "bouncing" and "breaking" rebids by opener offered partnerships the opportunity to find safe game contracts with fewer high card points than with traditional methods.

Initial transfer bid

The transfer procedure is quite simple and is described first in response to your partner's 1NT opening bid. Since a 1NT opening bid requires a balanced hand, i.e. no more than one doubleton, it promises to have at least two cards in the desired suit:

Holding a 5-card major suit, responder would traditionally bid two, three or four of that suit depending on strength; using transfers, responder will instead bid two of the suit below the major suit

Partner (opener) must then bid two of the next suit up (i.e. the major suit in question)

Examples:

1NT - 2♦ (i.e., "I have a 5-card heart suit, please bid my suit") - opener must rebid 2♥

1NT - 2♥ (i.e., "I have a 5-card spade suit, please bid my suit.") - opener must rebid 2♠

Opener can super-accept the transfer by bidding three of the major with a maximum hand containing at least four cards in that major.

An immediate disadvantage of this method is that it is incompatible with a weak take out into 2♦, although as with the loss of the 2♣ weak take-out when using Stayman, this is not generally considered a serious loss.

Subsequent standard bids

After the transfer has been completed by the 1NT opener, subsequent bids by the transfer initiator are:

Weak hands

Pass, to play a partial game in the transferred suit

Invitational hands

2NT, giving the strong partner the option of continuing to game or playing a partial game, in either no trump or the transferred suit

three of the transferred suit, promising a six-card suit

Game strength hands

New suit, showing 5-4 or 5-5 and game forcing

3NT, allowing opener a choice of 3NT or four of the major

four in the transferred suit, to play promising a six-card suit

Non-standard but common subsequent bids

Since a 2♠ response is no longer required for a weak take-out into spades, it is often used in other ways:

In SAYC, the 2♠ response is used to sign off in either minor at the 3-level. It forces opener to bid 3♣:

1NT - 2♠ - 3♣ - Pass with a weak hand with at least six clubs.

1NT - 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♦ with a weak hand with at least six diamonds.

Simple use of the 2♠ response is to split the traditional 2NT response in a precise HCP way e.g. for Acol (1NT = 12-14 HCP):

1NT - 2♠ = I have a balanced hand and exactly 11 HCP

1NT - 2NT = I have a balanced hand and exactly 12 HCP

This has been further refined to include the use of the 2♠ bid as a means of transferring into a minor suit, thus for Acol:

1NT - 2♠ (I may have 11 HCP or I may have a long minor suit) - opener rebids:

2NT with a weak hand (i.e. 12 HCP) - partner then choses between passing or bidding a minor suit.

3♣ with a strong hand (14 HCP) - partner then choses between 3NT, passing or bidding diamonds.

An alternative method of minor suit transfers is to use 2♠ as a transfer to clubs and 3♣ as a transfer to diamonds.

Modern additions to transfer procedures

Although part of the early writings on transfers in the 1950s, "bouncing" and "breaking" have only become widespread in the UK since the 1990s. As promulgated by Paul Mendelson, they are:

Bouncing (also known as bypassing). Following the standard initiation of a transfer sequence (e.g. 1NT - 2♦ - ?).

Opener rebids 3♥ with a maximum point count (14 with Acol) and 4-card support for hearts.

With all other hands, opener rebids 2♥.

Breaking. Following the same initial sequence of 1NT - 2♦ - ?:

Opener rebids three of an unexpected suit (3♦) to show maximum points (14 with Acol) and a poor doubleton (xx) in the bid suit (e.g. diamonds)

With these two devices (bouncing and breaking) it is possible to discover, at very little risk, games that would otherwise be missed.

Using transfers in other NT situations

Transfers work well following other NT bids. A common usage follows an opening bid of 2NT where a weak take-out into three of a major becomes a possibility whereas with traditional methods such a bid would be forcing.

Transfers following a double

Following a double (i.e. partner opens 1NT and intervening opponent doubles), there are two options in fairly common use:

Transfers and Stayman become inoperative, i.e. all 2-level bids are for take-out. This has the advantage of simplicity but the disadvantage that the stronger hand becomes dummy with a resultant offering of information to opponents.

All 2-level bids become transfers according to this scheme (known as "exit transfers" in some quarters):

redouble transfers to 2♣.

2♣ transfers to 2♦.

2♦ transfers to 2♥.

2♥ transfers to 2♠.

2♠ (Acol - I have 11 HCP) transfers to NT at the appropriate level.

2NT (Acol - I have 12 HCP)

(Note: some partnerships use a "forcing pass" by the partner of the 1NT opener. The 1NT opener is then obliged to redouble. The partner of the 1NT opener may then pass the redouble with a good hand and 1NT redoubled is judged to be makeable, or with a poor hand initiate bidding 4-card suits up-the-line until at least at 4-3 suit fit is found).

Transfers following an intervening bid

Standard bidding in most systems is that all responses following a natural suit overcall are themselves natural bids ("double" may be used for take-out). An alternative is that such responses, including "double", act as transfers. For example, following a 1NT opening and a 2♦ overcall:

double ... transfer to hearts

2♥ ... transfer to spades

2♠ ... transfer to clubs

Further reading

Standard applications of the Jacoby transfer are fully described in Standard American 21 by John Sheridan Thomas (ISBN 1-4120-2063-8).

Paul Mendelson. Mendelson's Guide to the Bidding Battle, 1998. Colt Books, Cambridge, England. ISBN 0-905899-86-5

Stayman convention

See also: Glossary of contract bridge terms

In the card game contract bridge, Stayman is a bidding convention used by a partnership to find a 4-4 or 5-3 trump fit in a major suit after making a one notrump (1NT) opening bid; it has been adapted for use after a 2NT opening, a 1NT overcall and many other natural notrump bids.

The convention is named for Sam Stayman, who wrote the first published description in 1945, but its inventors were two other players: the British expert Jack Marx in 1939, who published it only in 1946, and Stayman's regular partner George Rapée in 1945.

Rationale

A game contract bid and made in a major suit (i.e. 4♥ or 4 ♠) scores better than a game contract bid and made in a minor suit (i.e. 5♣ or 5 ♦) or in notrump (i.e. 3NT). Also, the success rate for a game contract in a major suit when a partnership has a combined holding of 26 points and eight cards in the major is about 80%, whereas a game contract in 3NT with 26 high card points (HCP) has a success rate of only 60%, or 50% with 25 HCP; the success rate for a minor suit game contract when holding 26 points is about 30%.

Accordingly, partnership priority is to find an eight card or better major suit fit when jointly holding sufficient values for a game contract.

Standard Stayman

After an opening bid or an overcall of 1NT (2NT), responder or advancer bids 2♣ (3♣) (artificial) to ask opener or overcaller to bid a four card major suit headed by a Queen minimum if he has one. This bid promises four cards in at least one of the major suits and, in standard form, enough strength to continue bidding after partner's response (8 HCP for an invitational bid opposite a standard 1NT showing 15-17 HCP or 5 HCP to go to game opposite a standard 2NT showing 20-21 points). It also promises distribution that is not 4333. By invoking the Stayman convention, the responder takes control of the bidding since strength and distribution of the opener's hand is already known within a limited range. The opener responds with the following rebids.

2♦ (3♦) denies four or more cards in either major suit.

2♥ (3♥) shows at least four hearts.

2♠ (3♠) shows at least four spades.

A notrump opener should have neither a suit longer than five cards nor more than one 5-card suit since an opening notrump bid shows a balanced hand. A notrump bidder who has at least four cards in each major suit normally responds in the longer or stronger major, with a preference given to spades.

In the standard form of Stayman over 1NT, the responder has a number of options depending on his partner's answer:

If the notrump opener names a major suit and the responder has four cards in that suit, the responder bids three of the notrump bidder's suit (invitational) with 8-9 HCP or four of the notrump bidder's major suit (game) with 10 or more HCP.

If the notrump bidder bids a major suit in which the responder does not have at least four cards, the responder may bid 2NT (invitational) with 8-9 HCP or 3NT (game) with 10 or more HCP. However, if responder has 5 cards in the unnamed major, he may bid it at a convenient level in an attempt to find a 5-3 fit.

If the notrump bidder bids 2♦, denying a 4-card major, responder may bid his 5 card major with a call of 2 of his major with 8-9 HCP, or with a call of 3 of his major with 10 HCP. This allows notrump bidder to find game in a major with a 5-3 split. Otherwise, opener has the option to retreat to the appropriate notrump contract.

Over these bids, the notrump bidder (1) with a maximum hand (17 HCP), goes to game over an invitational bid and (2) with four (or more) cards in each major suit, corrects to the previously unbid major suit.

In the standard form of Stayman over 2NT, the responder has only two normal rebids.

If the notrump bidder names a major suit and the responder has four cards in that suit, the responder bids four of the notrump bidder's suit (game).

If the notrump bidder names a major suit in which the responder does not have at least four cards or bids diamonds to deny a major suit, the responder bids 3NT (game). If the notrump bidder has four cards in each major suit, the notrump bidder corrects to the previously unbid major suit.

In either case, a responder who rebids notrump over a response in a major suit promises four cards of the other major suit. Thus, a notrump opener who holds at least four cards in each major suit should "correct" by bidding the other major suit at the lowest level.

Of course, once a fit is found, responder who has sufficient strength also may bid 4♣ (Gerber) or 4NT (Blackwood), or cue bid aces, depending upon partnership agreement, to explore slam in any of the above sequences. Some partnerships also admit responder's rebids of a major suit that the notrump bidder did not name.

A bid of 4♣ over an opening bid of 3NT may be either Stayman or Gerber, depending upon the partnership agreement.

If an adverse minor suit bid is inserted immediately after a 1 NT opening, Stayman may be employed via a double or a cue bid, depending on the strength of his hand. The cue bid is completely artificial and means nothing other than invoking Stayman. For example, if South opens 1 NT, and West overcalls 2 Diamonds, North, if he has adequate values, may call 3 Diamonds, invoking Stayman. South would then show his major or bid game in NT. Alternatively, North, if his hand lacks the values for game in NT, may double, which by partnership agreement employs Stayman. This keeps the Stayman bidding at level 2.

Partnerships who had not used Stayman but choose to adopt Stayman will need to adjust their use of normal level 2 responses after a 1 NT opening, because the availability of this convention changes the nature of what had been normal 1 NT responses. When the notrump bidder's partner does not invoke Stayman but instead calls 2 Hearts or 2 Spades, it is a sign of relative weakness (since if responder held 8 HCP or more, he'd have invoked Stayman). These bids are commonly referred to as "drop dead bids", as the opening NT bidder is requested to withdraw from the auction. If opener has maximum values, a fit, and strong support, he may raise to level 3, but under no circumstances may he take any other action. This provides the partnership with an advantage that the non-Stayman partnership doesn't enjoy. For example, a responder may have no honors at all; that is, a total of zero HCP. His partner is likely to be set if he passes. A non-Stayman responder would have to pass, because to bid would provoke a rebid. But a Stayman responder can respond to his partner's 1 NT opening at level 2 if he has a 6 card non-club suit. The responder with 3 HCP and a singleton can make a similar call with a 5 card non-club suit. This gives the partnership a better than even chance of success in making the contract, whereas without a response (and without Stayman), the contract would likely be set.

Similarly, a response of 2 Diamonds indicates less than 8 hcps and should usually be passed. In rare cases, when the opener has maximum values and a fit in Diamonds with at least two of the top three honors, he may raise Diamonds, and responder may see a chance for game in notrump.

There are many variations on this basic theme, and partnership agreement may alter the details of its use. It is one of the most widely used conventions in bridge.

Using Jacoby transfers with Stayman

Today, most players use Stayman in conjunction with Jacoby transfers. With Stayman in effect, the responder practically denies having a 5-card major, as otherwise he would transfer to the major immediately. The only exception is when responder has 5-4 in the majors; in that case, he would normally use Stayman, and in the case of a 2♦ response, bid the 5-card major at the 2 level (weakness take-out) or at the 3 level (forcing to game). However, the latter hand can also be bid by first using a transfer and then showing the second suit naturally. The Smolen convention (see below) provides an alternative method to show a five-card major and game-going values.

Smolen Transfer

The Smolen convention is an extension of Standard Stayman for situations in which the notrump opener has denied holding a 4-card major and responder has a 5-card major and a 4-card major with game-going values.

If the notrump opener responds to the Stayman 2♣ asking bid with 2♦, denying a four-card major, responder initiates the Smolen Transfer with a jump shift to three of his four-card major. The jump shift shows which is the 4-card major and promises five in the other major. The notrump opener then bids four of the other major with three cards in the suit or 3NT with fewer than three.

Smolen may also be used when responder has a 6-card major and a 4-card major with game-going values; after the 2♦ negative response by opener, responder double jump shifts to four in the suit just below his 6-card major and the notrump opener transfers to four of his partner's 6-card major.

This convention allows a partnership to find either a 5-3 fit, 6-3 and 6-2 fit while ensuring that the notrump opener, who has the stronger hand, will be declarer.

Garbage Stayman and Crawling Stayman

"Garbage" Stayman and "Crawling" Stayman are adaptations of Stayman frequently used for damage control when holding a weak hand opposite a 1NT opening bid. Consider the following hand.

♠ 5432 ♥ 5432 ♦ 65432 ♣ –

One's left hand opponent passes, one's partner bids 1NT (15-17), and one's right hand opponent passes. Now, what?

In this scenario, one's partner has about 16 HCP and one's opponents have about 24 HCP. Thus, 1NT is virtually certain to go down by at least three or four tricks. Indeed, in Notrump, this dummy will be completely worthless.

But consider what happens if one interjects a bid of 2♣ rather than passing on the first round, then passes one's partner's response. If the Notrump hand rebids a major suit, it's an instant 4-4 fit and ability to trump club losers (or, alternately, to sluff the other major on club winners and then to trump losers in the other major). Likewise, a response of 2♦ guarantees no worse than a 5-2 fit in diamonds and, with a fifth trump, a potential additional ruff. The ability to get the board with a couple ruffs also may allow the declarer to take a couple finesses or execute a squeeze that otherwise would not be possible, and which might yield another trick or two. The result is a contract that will go down fewer tricks or that might even make, especially with a somewhat better hand than the example, rather than a contract that is virtually certain to go down at least three or four tricks. The practice of bidding Stayman with a relatively weak hand of this (or similar) shape and then passing the Notrump bidder's reply is often called "Garbage Stayman" because it is bidding Stayman with a "garbage" hand.

"Crawling Stayman" is an extension of "Garbage Stayman" for situations in which the responder's diamond suit is short. In "Crawling Stayman", the responder rebids 2♥ over the Notrump bidder's 2♦ reply. This conventional bid shows a weak hand with at least four cards in each major suit, asking the Notrump bidder to choose between the major suits at the cheapest level by either passing the 2♥ bid or correcting to 2♠. The name "Crawling Stayman" comes from the fact that the bidding "crawls" at the slowest possible pace: (pass) – 1NT – (pass) – 2♣; (pass) – 2♦ – (pass) – 2♥; (pass) – 2♠; (pass) – pass – (pass).

"Garbage Stayman" and "Crawling Stayman" bids over a 2NT bid work the same way, but occur at the "three" level.

Forcing and Non-Forcing Stayman

If Jacoby transfers are not played, there are two approaches to resolve the situation when responder has a 5-card major. In one, more common, referred to as non-forcing Stayman, in the sequence:

1NT – 2♣; 2♦ – 2♠

responder's simple rebid of a major suit is only invitational, showing 8-9 points and a 5-card spade suit. In the forcing Stayman variant, the bid is one-round forcing.

In the original Precision Club system, forcing and non-forcing Stayman are differentiated in the start: 2♣ by responder shows only invitational values (and the continuation is the same as in basic Stayman), while 2♦ is forcing to game (responder bids 2NT without majors).

Puppet Stayman

Puppet Stayman, initially developed by Neil Silverman and refined by Kit Woolsey and Steve Robinson in 1977-78, is a variation of the Stayman convention designed to find a 5-3 fit in a major, augmenting the search for a 4-4 major fit by standard Stayman. In 1977, Woolsey wrote that Puppet Stayman has several advantages over standard Stayman:

Opener is usually better placed than responder to choose the proper denomination given distributional information about his partner's hand

Opener becomes declarer in most cases without revealing his distribution, it being deemed less injurious to reveal responder's distribution, usually the weaker of the two hands

The side can stop in two diamonds

Since opener can show a 5-card major immediately in response to the two club bid, it is less dangerous to open 1NT with a 5-card major

It is possible to stop at two spades with a 4-4 fit, e.g. 1NT - 2♣, 2♦ - 2♥, 2♠ - All Pass

Opener may be able to perceive a weakness for a notrump contract and so save to three of a minor or a good 4-3 major-suit game instead

It is possible that a 3NT contract may be preferred over a 4-4 major fit in certain auctions

Responder's rebids

As in standard Stayman, Puppet Stayman begins with a 2♣ response to a 1NT opening and is at least game invitational; this asks opener to bid a 5-card major if he has one and otherwise to bid 2♦. Over a 2♦ response, rebids by responder are intended to dislose his distributional features in the majors as well as his strength. The original 1977 and 1978 revised rebids described by Woolsey are tabulated below:

Responder's
Rebid
Original 1977
Revised 1978

Pass
to play, having length in diamonds and a weak hand
to play, having length in diamonds and a weak hand

2♥
four spades and fewer than four hearts
either a standard raise to 2NT,
or four spades and fewer than four hearts

2♠
four hearts and fewer than four spades
four hearts and fewer than four spades

2NT
four hearts and four spades and invites game
a transfer or takeout to a minor

3♣

minor suited hands

3♦

five spades and four hearts, game invitational

3♥

four hearts and four or five spades

3♠

four spades and five hearts and forces game

3NT
four hearts and four spades and forces game
no four card major, game strength

4♣

six hearts, four spades, opener chooses

4♦

six spades, four hearts, opener chooses

4♥

transfer to four spades, no slam

Opener and responder continue the bidding having a clearer understanding of each other's distributional features and are better positioned to select the ultimate denomination and level of the contract.

Modern applications

Many variations to the Puppet Stayman bidding structure have been devised since Woolsey's 1978 summary; partnership review and agreement on the preferred modern treatment is required.

Some no longer advocate use of Puppet Stayman over a 1NT opening preferring to use the concept exclusively over a 2NT opening and reserving other Stayman variations and conventions such Jacoby Transfers and Smolen Transfers in search of major-suit fits after a 1NT opening.

Responses to a 2NT opening or rebid

Puppet Stayman is more commonly used after a 2NT opening than after a 1NT opening. Responses to a 2NT opening or very strong 2NT rebid (20-22 or 23-24):

3♣ = Puppet Stayman

3♦ = --> hearts

3♥ = --> spades

3♠ = --> 5 spades and 4 hearts

3NT = no 3+ major, to play

Responder bids 3♣ seeking information about opener's major suit holding. Opener replies:

3NT denying a 4 or 5-card major

3♥ showing a 5-card heart suit

3♠ showing a 5-card spade suit

3♦ holding a 4-card major and denying a 5-card major; following this responder bids:

3♥ showing a 4-card spade suit and denying a 4-card heart suit

3♠ showing a 4-card heart suit and denying a 4-card spade suit

3NT denying a 4-card major, to play

4♣ showing 4 spades and 4 hearts, slam try

4♦ RKCB in hearts

4♥ to play

4♠ to play

4NT RKCB in spades

4♦ showing 4 spades and 4 hearts, you choose

4NT denying a 4-card major, invitational to 6NT

By this means all 5-3 and 4-4 major suit fits can be found.

Five Card Major Stayman

As described by Australian Ron Klinger, it can be played with a weak or strong 1NT.

1NT - 2♣

2♦ = minimum, no 5M

2M = minimum, 5M

2NT = Maximum, no 5M

3M = Maximum, 5M

1NT - 2♣, 2♦ OR 2NT

3♣ = Stayman

3♦ = --> ♥

3♥ = --> ♠

3♠ = ?

3NT = to play

After a transfer, accept it with any 4333, bid 3NT with only two trumps, otherwise bid 4M.

1NT - 2♣, 2♦ OR 2NT - 3♣ = Stayman

3♦ = 4M333

3♥ = 4♥, not 4333

3♠ = 4♠, not 4333, not 4♥

3NT = no 4M

1NT - 2♣, (2♦ OR 2NT) - 3♣, 3♦

3♥ = 4♠, not 4♥

3♠ = 4♥, not 4♠

3NT = to play

4♦ = bid your 4 card Major

An alternative, simpler version of 5 card Stayman is:

1NT - 2♣

2♦ = No 5M

2M = 5M

This structure permits use by weak hands with 5+ diamonds and 2+ cards in each major.

After 1NT - 2♣, 2♦

2M = 4M invitational

2NT = invitational, no major

3M = 4M game-forcng

With a five-card major, responder begins with a transfer. After completion of the transfer, bidding the other major at the three level shows four cards in it and a game forcing hand, in line with the 1NT - 2♣, 2♦ structure above (1NT - 2♦, 2♥ - 2♠ = invitational 5♥-4♠).

Checkback Stayman

2♣ Checkback Stayman is used in the following bidding sequences, to "check back" if opener has major suit support, saying nothing additional about the club suit. Bidding Checkback implies that the responder has five cards in his major, and may have four in the other.

1m - 1M - 1NT - 2♣

The 2♣ is Checkback Stayman. Responses are as follows:

2♦ : No three card support for partner's suit, no four cards in other major. Minimum hand.

2♥/♠ : Bidding responder's major shows three, bidding the other major shows four. Minimum hand.

2NT : No three card support for partner's suit, no four cards in other major. Maximum hand.

3♥/♠ : Bidding responder's major shows three, bidding the other major shows four. Maximum hand.

You should agree with your partner how to handle the case of holding both four of the other major and three of partner's suit. You could agree to bid up the line, or support partner's suit first. If partner doesn't like your first suit, they will invite with 2NT or bid game with 3NT. You will then correct to your other suit.

2♠ Checkback Stayman is used to find a fit in spades when the 2♣ does not promise a 4M.

1NT - 2♣, 2♥ -

2♠ = 4 spades, not 4 hearts, invitational

2N = no 4 spades, invitational

3N = 4 spades and game values

New Minor Forcing

New Minor Forcing is used in the following bidding sequences, for responder with invitational values or more to find 3 card support for his major or find a 4-4 heart fit (holding 5 spades and 4 hearts), it also allows a return to the minor to play.

1♣ - 1♥/♠, 1NT - 2♣ (to play)

1♦ - 1♥/♠, 1NT - 2♦ (to play)

2 of the other minor is New Minor Forcing (NMF).

1♣ - 1♥/♠, 1NT - 2♦ (NMF)

1♦ - 1♥/♠, 1NT - 2♣ (NMF)

Your responses to NMF in order of priority are:

Show 3 card support for partner's suit (jump to 3 with a maximum)

Bid an unbid heart suit with 4 (jump to 3 with a maximum)

Bid no trump with stoppers in the two unbid suits (jump to 3 with a maximum)

Bid an unbid suit (to show a stopper) or rebid your minor without stoppers

External links

Stayman described at the Bridgeguys website

Forcing bid

In the card game contract bridge, a forcing bid is any call that obliges the partner to bid over an intermediate opposing pass. Owing to the partnership's bidding system or a bridge convention, partner must "keep the bidding open", i.e. not pass, thereby preventing his left-hand opponent from ending the auction with a pass and enabling the "forcing bidder" to bid further.

A forcing bid that creates no further obligation is called forcing for one round. A bid that is forcing and promises a rebid creates an obligation on the forcing bidder next round (typically, up to some level of the auction). A game forcing bids creates a mutual obligation to continue bidding at least to game level, or to double the opponents.

All bridge bidding systems utilise forcing bids. For instance, one over one and two over one responses to one-of-a-suit opening bids are treated as forcing in almost all bidding systems. Also, introducing a new suit at three level is generally treated as forcing provided this bid is made in a non-limited hand. The main reason it is necessary to have certain bids in the system designated as forcing is to allow the partnership to start a dialogue exploring for the right contract.

Partnership agreement on which bids are forcing is essential. This is no easy territory, as is exemplified by the fact that in certain auctions even a pass can be forcing. In particular, the following bidding situations require agreement as to their forcing character, i.e. non-forcing, round forcing or forcing to a specified level:

responses to preempts

responses to overcalls

various responses to a reverse bid of opener

2NT in competitive bidding situations

See also

Forcing pass

Playing

Opening lead

The opening lead is the first card played in the playing phase of a contract bridge deal. The defender sitting to the left (LHO) of the declarer is the one who makes the opening lead. Since it is the only card played while dummy's cards are still concealed, it can be critical for the outcome of the deal. Making the best opening lead is a combination of selecting the best suit and then the best card within that suit.

Selecting the suit

Considerations are:

Good suits to lead may be:

a suit partner has bid

a suit not bid by declarer's side

a suit bid by declarer's partner

Against a suit contract:

a short suit lead may be good, but only when it is likely that partner will be able to obtain the lead and return the suit.

but leading a suit containing an ace may be bad

Against NT contracts

leading a long suit may be good

leading a suit in which partner could have length may be good

Choosing an aggressive or safe lead is important:

defeating some contracts calls for aggressive leads, while others call for safe leads. For example, take a look at the following deal:

♠
9 3 2

♥
J 8 7

♦
A Q J 6 5

♣
7 3

N

S

♠
A 6

♥
K Q 10 5 3

♦
8 3 2

♣
A 9 8 5

North and South have reached a contract of 4♥, which has some possibilities. At first glance the declarer seems to be losing a spade, a heart, maybe a diamond if the finesse fails and a club or maybe more. However, if the opening lead is the ♥2 (a safe lead) Declarer will find it much easier to make the contract because he will have time to set up the diamond suit. The ♠4 lead (an aggressive lead) will make his job more difficult.

the best of both worlds is a lead that is both aggressive and safe, for example leading a suit headed by an honour sequence will give little away and may well set up tricks for the defence

Selecting the card

Partnerships may choose their own method of "carding". The following is considered fairly standard (mainly Klinger 1994 ):

Leading a singleton against a suit contract is recommended only when defender has a trump stop

Other short suit (two or three cards) leads:

from a doubleton lead the higher card, thus from 93 lead the 9

from a three card suit

if headed by an honour (not a sequence) lead the lowest, thus from Q92 lead the 2

if all cards are low, there are three schools of thought:

TON "top of nothing" – lead the top card. It has the advantage of denying an honour, but is ambiguous with a lead from doubleton,

MUD "middle-up-down" – lead the middle card, and play the highest card next.

the lowest card (least popular)

if headed by a sequence (even two cards) lead the highest. From QJ2 lead the Q

long suit (four cards or more) leads:

from a sequence of honours lead the highest, thus from KQJx lead the K

from a suit containing an internal sequence lead the top of that sequence, thus from KJ109 lead the J

from a suit headed by an honour, defender generally leads the fourth best card, allowing partner to employ the rule of 11

from a honourless suit, the highest or second-highest is normally led, especially against suit contracts; some partnerships lead fourth best against notrump though.

From hands containing both A and K

from AKx or AKxx etc. lead the A

from AK doubleton lead the K

Against a suit contract, many partnerships reserve a special meaning for the lead of a 10 .. it promises a touching card J or 9 and a non-touching higher honour e.g. K J10, K 109, Q 109.

Difficulties

Ambiguities can arise from this standard method, thus:

A defender would lead the 2 from K532 and from K32 ... does he have a four-card suit or not?

Similarly a defender may lead the 2 from 9432 and from KJ92 ... does he have an honour or not?

A defender would lead A from AK2 or from A32 ... does he have the K or not?

A defender would lead the K from AK doubleton and from KQx ... does he have the A or the Q?

To overcome these problems various conventions have been devised:

Rusinow leads - overcomes the ambiguity of a K lead:

| 543 |
AK6 | W    N↑ S↓    E | JT2
| ? |

When West leads the ♠K East may be confused as to the nature of his holding. If he is leading from ♠KQ East will want to encourage, but if leading from ♠AK East will want to discourage. Rusinow leads recommend leading the second of touching honours and the above confusion is largely eliminated. Rusinow leads are now considered a standard part of the Roman Club system.

Journalist leads - overcomes the ambiguity of a J lead.

The leader might have J1094 or KJ104. The convention proposes that the opening lead be the Jack from the first sequence and the 10 from the second in order to better inform his partner about the nature of his holding.

See also

Journalist leads

Rule of 10-12

Rule of 11

Rusinow leads

Further reading

Blackwood, Easley (1983-1993). Complete Book of Opening Leads. Shelbyville, KY: Devyn Press. ISBN 978-0-910791-05-2. OCLC 9991468.

Brock, Sally (2007). Leading Questions in Bridge. Toronto: Master Point Press. ISBN 978-1-897106-18-1. OCLC 76800474.

Bruelheide, F.E. (1941). Contract Bridge Leads.

Cohen, Ben; Rhoda, Barrow (1964). Opening Leads to Better Bridge. New York: A.S. Barnes. OCLC 1478228.

Cohen, Ben; Rhoda, Barrow (1964 [1963] -1985). Your Lead, Partner. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD. OCLC 30234440.

Ewen, Robert (1970). Opening Leads. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. LCCN 73-83447.

Goren, Charles (1956). Opening Leads at Contract Bridge: Guide to Winning Bridge. Minneapolis: Heines Publishing Co., Inc. pp. (spiral bound).

Kelsey, Hugh; Matheson, John (1979-1991). Improve Your Opening Leads. London: Orion Publishing Co. ISBN 978-0-575-02657-5.

Klinger, Ron (2009). Improve Your Opening Leads. Master Bridge Series. Weidenfeld & Nicolson in association with Peter Crowley. ISBN 978-0-297-85834-8. OCLC 373479550.

Lawrence, Mike (1996). Mike Lawrence's Opening Leads. Los Alamitos, California: C&T Bridge Supplies. ISBN 1-885691-06-8. OCLC 41284184.

Lawrence, Mike; Klinger, Ron (1997). Opening Leads for Acol Players. Master Bridge Series. London: Victor Gollancz in Association with Peter Crawley. ISBN 0-575-06502-8. OCLC 41243987.

Lawrence, Mike; Klinger, Ron (1998). Opening Leads Flipper. Master Bridge Series. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson in Association with Peter Crawley. ISBN 978-0-297-85558-3.

Mallon, John (1964). Opening Leads and Signals. London: Abelard-Schuman. OCLC 561617707., . New York: Collier Books. 1964. p. 159. OCLC 319800132. Missing or empty |title= (help), . New York: Collier Books. 1969. p. 158. OCLC 1084500. Missing or empty |title= (help)

Pottage, Julian (2004). The Golden Rules of Opening Leads.

Robson, Andrew (2006). Bridge Lessons: Opening Lead. London: Andrew Robson Bridge Club.

Sowter, Tony (1998). Opening Leads in Bridge. London: B.T. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-7946-9. OCLC 40617740.

Finesse

In contract bridge and similar games, a finesse is a card play technique which will enable a player to win an additional trick or tricks should there be a favorable position of one or more cards in the hands of the opponents.

The player attempts to win either the current trick or a later trick with a card of the suit he leads notwithstanding that the opponents hold a higher card in the suit; the attempt is based on the assumption that the higher card is held by a particular opponent. The specifics of the technique vary depending upon the suit combination being played and the number of tricks the player is attempting to win in that suit.

Terminology

See also: Glossary of contract bridge terms

To finesse a card is to play that card.

♠ A Q

♠ 7 2

Thus, in the example, the Queen is finessed. The outstanding King is the card finessed against, or the card the player hopes to capture by the finessing maneuver. Thus, you finesse against a missing honor, but you finesse the card you yourself play, the card finessed being so played that it has a chance of winning against the missing higher card.

Related terms

A finesse is said to be onside or on if the finessable honor is favorably placed and offside or off if it is not.

Many finesses involve a tenace which is a combination of non-touching honors in the same hand, e.g. ♠ A Q or ♥ K J.

The term hook is a colloquialism for finesse.

Basic finesses

Direct finesse

A direct finesse is a finesse that gains a trick without losing one, as long as it is "on". For example:

♠ A Q

♠ 7 2

If South (declarer) is on lead he can lead to the queen; that is, he leads a small spade and, if West plays low, plays the queen from dummy. If West is holding the king (it is "onside"), North-South will win two tricks, for a gain of one trick without losing a trick. (If West actually plays the king on the first trick, of course, North-South win two tricks by covering with the ace.)

Indirect finesse

An indirect finesse is a finesse that gains a trick - if it is on - but may involve losing a trick first. A typical example is:

♠ K 7

♠ 6 3

South leads a spade toward the king; if West holds the ace, the king will either win the current trick or will become the highest remaining spade and win a later one. (More precisely, the king is set up as a winner, but that doesn't mean it will necessarily take a trick. It might be ruffed, or at No Trump the defense might run another suit for a squeeze and force it to be discarded. But this article is about finesses, and having acknowledged that such issues exist, we will ignore them henceforth.)

Double and triple finesse

A double finesse is a finesse against two honours held by the opponents. Sometimes it can gain two tricks:

♠ A Q 10

♠ 7 4 3

South leads a spade to the 10; if it holds, he reenters his hand via another suit and leads another spade to the queen; if the 10 loses and he subsequently regains the lead in his hand, he likewise leads another spade to the queen. North-South will take three spade tricks if West has both the king and the jack (probability about 25% in the absence of any information), two if East and West have one each (50%), but only one if East has both (25%).

Other times it can gain one trick:

♠ A J 10

♠ 7 4 3

South leads a spade to the 10. Assuming it loses, he reenters his hand and then leads another spade to the jack. North-South will take two spade tricks if West has either the king or the queen, or both (probability about 75% in the absence of any information), but only one if East has both (25%). However, this combination lends itself to an endplay - if one can be effected two tricks are guaranteed.

Similarly, a triple finesse is possible, and occasionally desirable, with a holding such as A-Q-10-8. This would be a low-probability desperation play if four tricks are needed in the suit, but two or three will probably be made.

Deep finesse

A deep finesse is a maneuver that allows additional tricks to be won, but only if two or more cards are favorably positioned.

♠ A K 10

♠ 7 4 3

In the first example at left, two honors are held by the opponents. South leads a spade and inserts the 10 if West plays low. South will gain a trick if both the queen and the jack are with West. Note that if there are no entries back to the South hand, West can assure himself one trick (provided he started with at least three spades) by splitting his honors and playing the queen or jack, on South's first lead. The deep finesse has an a priori probability of success of 25%.

♠ A Q 8 7

♠ 5 4 2

This second example is a deep finesse against three or more cards held by the opponents. South leads a spade, West follows with the 3 or 6, and then the 7 is played from dummy. In this situation, South does not expect the 7 to win the trick, although that is a distant possibility—the 7 will win if East has a singleton 6 or 3, which would mean that West has blundered by playing his lowest card. The more likely purpose of this play is to keep West off lead. The term deep finesse used in this context is descriptive, but also has a somewhat humorous and fatalistic connotation, the approximate meaning being "doomed finesse."

Deep Finesse is also the trade name of a commercially marketed computer program that performs double dummy analysis of bridge play problems.

Leading high for a finesse

If the position permits (combined hands have sufficient number of intermediate cards, which can take the remaining tricks even if the three honors are played on the same trick), it is often desirable to start by leading one of the high cards, in order to retain the lead in the same hand if the finesse is on, and spare the valuable entries.

Example 1    
Example 2    
Example 3    
Example 4    
Example 5    

♠ A Q 10

♠ J 4 3

♠ A Q 4

♠ J 10 3

♠ A 4 3

♠ Q J 10

♠ A Q 4

♠ 10 9 8

♠ A 5 4

♠ Q J 3

Examples 1 and 2 play the same way. If the declarer intends to finesse, it is normally not desirable to start by leading to the queen: if the finesse is on, the hand would still have to be reentered in order to repeat the finesse. Instead, if the jack is led first, and West plays low, the small spade from dummy can be played. This is called running the jack. Now the lead is still in hand and the finesse can be simply repeated by leading low to the queen. If West does have the king and covers the jack with it, then the ace is played and, since Q and 10 are high enough, they can be cashed for the two remaining tricks.

Examples 3 and 4 show that when leading high for a finesse, the honors in the led-to hand do not have to form a tenace provided the honors in the other hand compensate it. Example 3 can be played exactly like examples 1 and 2, by running the jack (or queen or 10). In Example 4, a double finesse can be taken by running the 10 (or 9).

In Example 5, the lower honors do not provide sufficient compensation, as the ten is missing. Even if the king is with West, he can deny three tricks to the declarer by simply covering either queen or jack at any time. Thus, (except in the unlikely event of singleton king), the declarer is entitled to only two tricks in the suit no matter how he plays it. The finesse can be attempted only as a tactical move, in order to gain a tempo or manage entries.

Ruffing finesse

The ruffing finesse is a variation of a finesse in trump contracts where the finessing player chooses to ruff or not, rather than choosing which card to play from a tenace.

♠
K Q J

♥
—

♦
—

♣
A

N

S

♠
—

♥
2

♦
3 2

♣
2

In this example, hearts are trumps and South's 2 is the last one remaining, and the lead is with North (dummy). Then North-South can take all tricks if East holds the ace of spades. A spade is led from the North hand; if East plays low, a diamond is discarded and the lead is repeated. If East never covers, North-South get three spade tricks and a trump. If East plays the ace, South trumps and leads a club to return to the dummy, which is high, so taking two spades, a trump, and a club trick.

Special cases

Marked finesse

| ♠ A 10 5 4 |
♠ J 9 8 7 | W    N↑ S↓    E | ♠ 6
| ♠ K Q 3 2 |

A marked finesse is one that cannot lose, because the opponents' honor is known to be onside. In the example at right, if South begins by leading the king-queen, he learns on the second trick that East has no more spades. The finesse of the ten is now a sure thing.

Two-way finesse

A two-way finesse is a situation where one can finesse by leading from either hand toward the other.

♠ A 10 2

♠ K J 3

Start by playing the king of spades (or if in dummy, leading the 2 to the king) and then running the jack; this makes three spade tricks if East has the singleton queen or if West has the queen, and if that's not the case, then East will be on lead. Or start with the ace and 10, making three tricks in the opposite situation, or leaving West on lead. The decision of which way to finesse might be based on which opponent is more likely to have the queen, or on which opponent it would be safer to give the lead to, if need be. And there is always the option of not finessing at all.

This holding similarly presents a two-way finesse, but along with a suitable entry it will always produce 5 spade tricks no matter how the opponents' spades are placed.

♠ A K 10 3

♠ Q 9 5 4 2

Play the ace on the first spade trick. If both opponents follow suit, the jack must drop and no finesse will be needed; if one opponent shows out, there is a marked finesse available against the other. For example, if East shows out, a small spade is played to the queen, and the K and 10 score via the marked finesse; finally the South hand is entered in another suit and the 13th spade is cashed (or if spades are trump, used for a ruff).

But weaken the holding slightly and the finesse is no longer two-way:

♠ A K 8 3

♠ Q 9 5 4 2

Now the opponents have the jack and 10. Here, if entry considerations permit, the queen must be played first to discover if the spades split 4-0. Then, if they are 3-1, the play goes as before.

But if the spades split 4-0, someone has ♠J 10 7 6. If East holds all four outstanding spades, there is nothing to be done; East must take a spade trick. But if West has all four spades, declarer can still take 5 tricks: after East shows out on the lead of the queen, a small spade is led toward dummy for a deep finesse.

The point is that if an opponent might hold two minor honors, such as the jack and 10 here, declarer should not weaken a two-honor holding before it's clear how to use it. In this example, nothing is lost by cashing the queen first, because declarer can never cope with those four spades in East's hand. But declarer can cope with four spades in the West hand, so long as the A-K is retained over West's holding until West has played to the second spade trick.

Two-way position with a ruffing finesse

As noted above, a ruffing finesse is "on" if the opponents' critical honor is positioned after yours, the reverse of an ordinary finesse. Consequently, there is a form of two-way finesse where a ruffing finesse can be taken against one opponent or an ordinary finesse against the other. If there is no other reason to choose one play or the other, the ruffing finesse may be a superior alternative because it allows leading high and retain the lead. For example:

♠
A Q J 5

W             E

♠
3

♥
K 6 5 4
♥
A 7 3 2

♦
A 7 5
♦
9 6 3

♣
6 5
♣
A K 9 4 2

East plays a contract of 4 hearts. After the opening lead of a diamond, he wins the ace and plays the two top trumps; they break 3-2. He leads a spade to the queen, but the finesse is off, and the opponents now cash two diamonds. With a trump still to lose, the contract appears to be down one.

However, the contract is cold as long as trumps break 3-2 and the defense cannot get an early ruff. The correct play is to win the ace of diamonds and to continue with the ace of spades, followed by the queen for a ruffing finesse. If North does not cover with the king, declarer pitches a losing diamond. If North does play the king, declarer ruffs and later pitches a diamond on the jack of spades. Even if the king is with South, declarer loses 3 tricks only, if trumps are 3-2. And if trumps are 4-1 the game will still make if the king of spades is sitting with North. The advantage of the ruffing finesse over the ordinary finesse here is the gain of tempo if it loses.

Ann Gallagher finesse

An Ann Gallagher finesse is a special sort of two-way finesse. Instead of deciding which way to finesse, though, declarer finesses both ways. This is the classic example:

South in 4♥
♠
A

♥
K 3 2

♦
K 7 6 5

♣
A K Q J 2

♠
K Q J 10 9

N

W               E

S

♠
4 3 2

♥
Q 7 5 4
♥
6

♦
10 4
♦
A Q J 9 8 3

♣
4 3
♣
9 8 7

Lead: ♠K
♠
8 7 6 5

♥
A J 10 9 8

♦
2

♣
10 6 5

Against South's 4♥ contract, West leads the ♠K, removing an entry that might have proven useful later. South leads the ♥2 from dummy and finesses the ♥J. West can see that, with the clubs probably running, South will have no problem if West wins his ♥Q. So West ducks smoothly.

A trusting player sitting South would now lead the ♥8 to the ♥K, preparing to finesse East again for the ♥Q, but East's discard would come as a shock. After taking the ♥K, South can't knock out West's ♥Q without allowing the defense to take at least two spades, a heart and a diamond.

After the ♥J wins at trick 2, South's only correct play is to finesse West for the ♥Q, even though he has apparently and successfully finessed East for the same card. The point is to guard against West's clever holdup.

The reason for the term Ann Gallagher finesse is found in a New York Times article. Ann Gallagher was a movie actress in the 1930s. She enjoyed bridge, and when she won a two-way finesse she would repeat it in the opposite direction, saying "Now let's see if I'm really lucky."

Free finesse

A so-called free finesse is not technically a finesse at all, as it is not dependent on the position of the opponents' cards, but only on their choice of lead. A free finesse occurs when an opponent leads a suit, so that the hand containing a tenace position plays last to the trick. In the first example:

♠ A Q

♠ 7 2

the normal finesse only works if West has the king, but if East leads spades, the declarer simply plays the lowest card that will win the trick, and so gets two tricks no matter whether East or West has the king. Similarly, in the first two-way finesse example, three spade tricks are taken automatically on a free finesse if either East or West is the first to lead spades.

Free finesses often happen due to the defense guessing wrong about high cards in declarer's hand, especially on the opening lead. But it is also possible to force the defense to give you a free finesse, by endplaying them. Consider the two-way finesse example again, but with an additional card:

♠
A J 2

♥
2

♦
—

♣
—

N

S

♠
K 10 3

♥
3

♦
—

♣
—

Nobody has played any spades at any point, so the defense is known to have 7 of them, and their other card is known to be a heart. Declarer leads a heart, losing to whichever defender holds the high heart; and that defender is now on lead with nothing but spades. North-South will take 3 spade tricks for certain, and declarer need not guess which way to finesse the suit.

Entry finesse

At times, declarer needs to reach the same hand twice using a particular suit, but that hand doesn't hold the suit's two top cards.

♠ A J

♠ K 10

In this example, declarer needs to reach the North hand twice by means of the spade suit.

Normally, declarer would cash the ♠A and ♠K separately. However, two spade entries to North might be needed, for reasons such as setting up North's side suit or preparing an endplay. If West holds the ♠Q, declarer can reach dummy twice with an entry finesse: lead the ♠10 from hand and finesse the ♠J. If the ♠J holds, the ♠K can later be overtaken by the ♠A for the second entry to dummy. If West is aware of what's going on, though, he can stop it by covering the ♠10 with the ♠Q. Now the suit is blocked, because the ♠J cannot overtake the ♠K. As with many deceptive plays, declarer should take the entry finesse as early in the play as possible, before the defense realizes it must play second hand high to block the suit.

Complex finesses

Some positions require correct reading of opponent's holding, and involve a combination of basic finesses with other techniques, such as dropping or pinning opponent's honors.

Backward finesse

In the backward finesse, the player attempts to force out a higher card in a suit by means of a high-leading finesse, and then finesses against a lower card in the suit.

| ♠ A 6 4 |
♠ Q 8 2 | W    N↑ S↓    E | ♠ 10 7 5 3
| ♠ K J  9 |

In the example on the right, the standard play would be to finesse East for the queen, either before or after cashing dummy's ace. Instead, in the backward finesse South, begins by leading the jack from hand and passes it if West plays low thereby scoring all three tricks in the suit. But if West covers the jack with the queen, South takes the trick with the ace and then leads the 4 from dummy and finesses East for the 10, again winning all three tricks.

There are three reasons that South might choose to play this way, rather than taking the normal course of finessing East for the queen:

South might expect West to hold the queen because of the bidding or some similar clue.

South might want to make an avoidance play, so as to keep West off lead.

South might be shooting, hoping to score well by adopting a line of play that other declarers will not take.

Intra-finesse

Finesses which involve a second-round drop or pin are sometimes referred to as "intra-finesses".

| ♠ J 7 5 2 |
♠ Q 8 | W    N↑ S↓    E | ♠ K 9 6
| ♠ A 10 4 3 |

| ♠ J 7 5 2 |
♠ Q 8 6 | W    N↑ S↓    E | ♠ K 9
| ♠ A 10 4 3 |

| ♠ A 9 5 |
♠ J 7 | W    N↑ S↓    E | ♠ Q 10 4 3
| ♠ K 8 6 2 |

In the first diagram, the declarer must lead a small card from hand towards the dummy's jack for an "indirect" finesse. If West plays the queen, East's king can be finessed against in the next round. If West ducks, the declarer will drop the queen by playing the ace. In the second, the declarer must lead a small card from dummy and play the 10 if East plays low. In the second round, the ace will drop the king.

In these and similar cases, declarer's first play must be a low card through the hand with two cards; thus, he must guess the position to collect three tricks in the suit.

In the third diagram where declarer also requires three spade tricks, he must first lead low to the dummy's 9, losing to East's 10. Next, the ace drops the jack, and leaves a simple-finesse position against East's queen in the third round. Note that this maneuver will work with any doubleton honor with West, but will cost if West holds QJx, Q10x, or J10x

Pseudo-finesse

A pseudo or "Chinese" finesse presents a declarer's deceptive move to fake a high-leading finesse by leading an unprotected honor, hoping that the defender will misread the situation.

| ♠ A 7 4 3 |
♠ K 6 5 | W    N↑ S↓    E | ♠ 10 8 2
| ♠ Q J 9 |

Consider the legitimate finesse situation at left:

If South leads the queen first, and West covers, the declarer will be able to subsequently finesse against East's ten, losing no tricks in the suit. Thus, West should withhold the king for one round.

| ♠ A 7 4 3 |
♠ K 6 5 | W    N↑ S↓    E | ♠ J 10 9
| ♠ Q 8 2 |

However, in the alternate situation:

If South leads the queen and West ducks, the declarer will lose only one trick in the suit instead of two.

Coups involving a finesse

Bath coup

Main article: Bath coup

This specific case of a free finesse is important enough to have its own name (after the city of Bath in England). It occurs when the declarer holds a suit headed by A-J-x and the left-hand opponent leads the king or queen of the suit. If the declarer ducks and the opponent now repeats the lead, two tricks will be won with the ace-jack.

The Bath coup is not just a deceptive play. Even if the suit is not continued, the declarer gains a tempo, since he still has a sure stopper in that suit.

Trump coup and coup en passant

In positions where a finesse in trumps cannot be taken because the hand that would need to lead trumps has none, a trump coup or coup en passant may be used. See those articles.

Suit combinations

The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge lists suit combinations and how best to play them depending on how many tricks are needed. Players do not need to memorize these and can usually deduce the correct play at the table. However, it is worthwhile to study the suit combinations tables, having in mind that the optimal play in a suit may not be best in the context of the entire hand.

Further reading

Karpin, Fred L. (1972). The Finesse: How to win more tricks more often. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. ISBN 0-13-317198-1.

External links

BridgeHands.com: The Chinese Finesse

The Alberta Bridge Site: Intra-finesse

Endplay

An endplay (also throw-in), in bridge and similar games, is a tactical play where a defender is put on lead at a strategic moment, and then has to make a play that loses one or more tricks. Most commonly the losing play either constitutes a free finesse, or else it gives declarer a ruff and discard. In a case where declarer has no entries to dummy (or to his own hand), the defender may also be endplayed into leading a suit which can be won in that hand.

Example

♠
A 9 8 5 3 2

♥
K J 5 4

♦
4

♣
K 4

N

S

♠
K 7 6 4

♥
A 10 9

♦
A 8 7

♣
A Q 9

For example, South is playing in 6♠ and West leads the diamond king. If the adverse spades are divided 2-1, there are 12 certain tricks (6 spade tricks, 2 hearts, 1 diamond, 3 clubs) and the possibility of a 13th by correctly guessing the two-way finesse (or dropping the queen) in hearts. But if the spades are 3-0, the declarer will need an endplay to avoid the heart guess. He should start by winning the diamond ace and ruffing a diamond in dummy, then cash the spade ace and spade king. If this reveals a 3-0 trump split, he now ruffs another diamond in dummy. If this is not overruffed, the contract is now assured. Declarer's plan now is to play the king, ace, and queen of clubs, discarding a heart from dummy to reach this end position:

♠
9 8

♥
K J 5

♦
—

♣
—

N

S

♠
7 6

♥
A 10 9

♦
—

♣
—

South now exits with a spade, and whoever wins is endplayed. If he leads a heart, North-South must make three heart tricks; if a club or diamond, declarer will ruff in one hand and discard a heart from the other, making an extra trump trick. Or if the defender has fewer than 3 clubs and chooses to ruff before the above position is reached, he is likewise endplayed, having to lead a heart or a diamond.

Combining Endplay and Squeeze

A strip squeeze is a particular kind of squeeze that is based on endplaying the squeezed defender.

References

Mollo, Victor; Gardener, Nico (1955). Card Play Technique or the Art of Being Lucky. First Edition: George Newnes Limited (London), 381p.

Duck (bridge)

In the card game of contract bridge, to duck (or ducking) means to play low to a trick to which one has led, losing it intentionally in order to set up a suit or to preserve a control or entry. While mechanically identical, a duck is a manoeuver in one's own suit, while a hold up is in a suit played by the opponents. Nevertheless the terms are used interchangeably with duck or ducking more common.

Example

| A K 4 3 2 |
9 8 | W    N↑ S↓    E | Q J 10
| 7 6 5 |

There are no side entries to the North hand. South is on lead and if he plays to the ace and then king and another, East will win the third trick. The remaining two small cards are good, but there is no way to get to them.

Proper procedure is to duck the first (or second) trick. Then, when the lead is regained, playing the ace and king (or the remaining one of them if the first trick was taken and the second ducked) will establish the suit and the remainder of the suit can be cashed.

Note that defenders can benefit by a hold up play. North, as a defender with (A K 4 3 2) and no outside entries, may do well to hold up on the first or second round of the suit, especially in a notrump contract.

References

Francis, Henry G., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Francis, Dorthy A., Editor, Sixth Edition (2001). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (6th ed.). Memphis, TN: American Contract Bridge League. ISBN 0-943855-44-6. OCLC 49606900.

Levé, Guy (2007). The Encyclopedia of Card Play Techniques at Bridge. Toronto: Master Point Press. ISBN 978-1-897106-25-9.

Reese, Terence; Trézel, Roger (1978). When to Duck when to Win in Bridge. Master Bridge Series. New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc. p. 7. ISBN 0-88391-078-0. LCCN 77-23677.

Ruff (cards)

In trick-taking games, to ruff means to play a trump card to a trick (other than when trumps were led). According to the rules of most games, a player must have no cards left in the suit led in order to ruff. Since the other players are constrained to follow suit if they can, even a low trump can win a trick. In some games, like Pinochle and Preferans, the player who cannot follow suit is required to ruff. In others, like Bridge and Whist, he may instead discard (play any card in any other suit). Normally, ruffing will win a trick. But it is also possible that a subsequent player will overruff (play a higher trump). This is not always a bad thing—see uppercut below.

Usage of the word "ruff" vs. "trump"

"Ruff" is normally a verb, meaning "to play a trump card when a non-trump suit was led". "To trump" can be used as a synonym of "to ruff", but "ruff" is normally preferred, for clarity. As a noun, "ruff" and "trump" are completely different -- "a ruff" means only "an instance of ruffing", while "(a) trump" means only "the suit that outranks all other suits", or "a card in this suit". Hence:

One can "give a ruff" to partner but not "give a trump".

"Hearts are trumps" but not "Hearts are ruffs".

"Cross ruffing" and "cross trumping" are both correct, but "cross ruffing" is preferred.

"Ruff and discard" is common usage but "trump and discard" is not.

Ruffing and cross-ruffing in partnership games

A player gives a ruff by leading a card of a suit in which partner is void, enabling the trick to be taken with a trump card. Partner will then attempt to get the lead back into the original hand, by leading a certain suit, so that the process can be repeated.

A crossruff is a play where tricks are made by taking alternate ruffs in each hand. In order to use a crossruff, each player in the partnership must have shortness in a non-trump suit, accompanied with appropriate length in the opposite hand. Also, each partner must be short in the suit that his partner is long in. It is preferable that both players have an equal number of cards in the trump suit, otherwise a regular ruff is usually more effective, as it has the added benefit of establishing the trump suit.

The mechanics of the crossruff are simple but the effect can be dramatic as this extreme example, from a bridge hand, demonstrates:

♠
AJ8543

W             E

♠
Q109762

♥
-
♥
-

♦
-
♦
9876543

♣
9876543
♣
-

West plays the grand slam of 7♠ despite having only 7 high card points. The declarer can draw the outstanding trump king, ruff the diamonds in dummy, going back to the hand by club ruffs. Unless both minor suits are divided 6-0, one of the minor suits will ultimately become high and provide the missing two tricks. In summary, the declarer took one trick by leading a high card (the ace of trumps) and 10 tricks by cross-ruffing; the remaining two tricks came as result of long suit establishment.

However, there are risks with crossruffing: when the opponents also run out of cards in the suit(s) being ruffed, they can overruff (play a higher trump card); also this play may leave the trump suit unestablished so that opponents may be able to steal back a trick or two using their trumps later. Crossruffing is therefore just one possible strategy for taking extra tricks, others are establishing the trump suit, traditional ruffing and finessing.

Bridge considerations: the additional information given by the existence of the "dummy" in bridge produces many opportunities for ruffing and cross-ruffing

It is often important to cash side-suit winners before commencing a cross-ruff, otherwise the opponents may discard in the side-suit, allowing them to trump the winner later.

In some cases, it is effective to cross-ruff after drawing the opponents' trumps, when this can be done with trumps remaining in both hands.

In other cases, it is effective to cross-ruff only until one opponent becomes likely to be void in a particular suit, and revert to drawing trumps thereafter.

The basic defense against crossruff is simple: lead trumps whenever possible, removing trumps from both opponent's hands. In bridge this may mean that, the defense must lead trumps from the opening lead in order to prevail. Thus, it is important to recognize the situations when a trump opening lead is called for – usually, they arise when both declarer and dummy have bid other suits but found the trump fit in the third one.

Ruff and discard

♠
7

♥
—

♦
—

♣
3

♠
—

N

W               E

S

♠
—

♥
Q 9
♥
—

♦
—
♦
—

♣
—
♣
Q J

♠
6

♥
—

♦
—

♣
7

A ruff and discard (also known as ruff and slough or ruff and sluff) occurs when a player leads a suit that neither opponent has - typically in a suit contract, a defender leads a suit in which dummy and declarer are both void and dummy and declarer have at least one trump each. This gives declarer the option of discarding a losing card from one hand while playing a trump from the other, usually garnering an additional trick in the process. Thus, the ruff and discard is generally to be avoided by the defenders, except in rare cases where declarer has no side suit loser to discard. It is often inflicted upon the defence via an endplay.

In the position shown, West is on lead and spades are trumps: When West leads a heart, declarer can ruff in one hand and throw a club loser from the other, making both the remaining tricks. With any other player on lead, declarer would only make one trick.

However, if one of N-S hands had a diamond instead of a club, then West's lead would make no difference: the declarer can always take the remaining two tricks by crossruffing clubs and diamonds.

Similar events can occur in other trick taking games where partnerships exist (e.g. whist) and occasionally for the defending side in bridge.

Uses of ruffing techniques in bridge and other whist type games

Dummy reversal

Dummy reversal (also known as reverse dummy) is a technique in contract bridge whereby declarer uses trump cards to ruff from the hand with more (longer) trumps, and retains the trumps in the other (shorter) hand to draw the opponents' remaining trumps. Normally in play technique, ruffs are taken from the hand with shorter trumps, retaining trumps in the longer hand for control. Declarer, being the first to have bid the suit, usually has more trumps than his partner (the eventual dummy) and so the term "dummy reversal" is used to describe the case where during the play, dummy is made to have more.

The purpose of dummy reversal is to yield more tricks than the normal technique; the technique can be adapted for use in other trick-taking games.

Indicators

Some indicators that a hand may lend itself to dummy reversal are:

shortness (singleton or void) in declarer's hand with length in the same suit in dummy

loser(s) in declarer's hand that cannot be ruffed or discarded on a side suit

adequate trump strength and length in dummy (typically a three or four card trump suit with at least two honors for drawing the final trumps)

entries to dummy outside of the trump suit

Example

♠
AKJ

W             E

♠
Q10853

♥
A854
♥
6

♦
AK2
♦
954

♣
A64
♣
J853

East is in 4♠ and receives a trump lead. There are five trump tricks, three aces and king of diamonds off the top, but there is no tempo to ruff a club in dummy, as the defenders will deprive it of the trumps after they regain the lead in clubs. The solution is to ruff hearts in hand instead – in trick two, East plays ♥A, ruffs a heart, enters the dummy with ♣A, ruffs a heart, enters the dummy with ♦A and ruffs a heart. In this way, the declarer took three ruffs in hand, and still has two trumps in dummy to take care of opponents' trumps (assuming that they are divided 3-2, which is the most common division of five cards).

Ruffing finesse

For more details on this topic, see finesse.

A finesse is an attempt to take a trick with a card, not the highest in the suit, by taking advantage of the lie of the cards. At its simplest a ruffing finesse involves a high seqence (e.g. KQJ) opposite a void in the same suit. The K is led and partner is prepared to ruff if the intervening player plays the ace, or discard if the ace is not played. Repetition of this will avoid the loss of a trick to the ace, but it only works when the ace is on the right side (i.e. 50%)

Trump promotion

For more details on this topic, see Trump promotion.

A technique where one side creates an otherwise non-existing trump trick by ruffing high knowing it will be over-ruffed or, in other situations, by refusing to over-ruff.

Uppercut

For more details on this topic, see Uppercut (bridge).

A play that involves one player ruffing high in the hope that an overruff by an opponent will result in the promotion of a trump card in partner's hand into a winner. This is a type of trump promotion.

Trump coup

For more details on this topic, see Trump coup.

A play that substitutes for a direct finesse in the trump suit because the hand required to lead has no trumps. At the point of execution it is important that the hand being finessed and the next hand only have trumps so that the hand being finessed is forced to trump, allowing the next hand to over-ruff. A trump reduction play is sometimes a necessary precursor to a trump coup.

Coup en passant

For more details on this topic, see Coup en passant.

A play where a trump trick is "stolen" by taking the opportunity to ruff after the player who has the master trump. This is a type of indirect finesse.

Trump squeeze

For more details on this topic, see Trump squeeze.

A play involving a simple squeeze where a side suit presents a menace which can be established by ruffing.

Bridge strategies

Normal suit play in bridge (as opposed to the play at no trumps) revolves around the trump suit. Usually the declarer and dummy together will have the majority of trumps, as they chose the suit in which to play. Declarer will attempt to draw the opponents' trumps, leaving them with none. Declarer's remaining trumps ensure that the opponents cannot establish long cards, as they will just be trumped.

Although drawing the opponent's trumps is usually to be recommended, there are occasions when other strategies yield more tricks. One is crossruffing — drawing the opponents trumps in this case reduces the number of trumps (and hence tricks) for the crossruff. Another case is when after drawing one or two rounds of trumps the opponents are left with one master trump. In this case drawing it will use two of declarer's trumps for one of the opponents'. Unless entry problems are feared, it is usually better to let the opponents take their trump when they will.

It is important to realize that trumping in the hand with more trumps does not add tricks, as these are long cards which will win anyway. In order to gain tricks by trumping, the ruff has to be taken in the short hand, or enough ruffs must be made in the hand which was originally longer in trumps to make it shorter than the other hand (dummy reversal, described above).

See also

Ruff and Honours, a 17th century card game featuring a trump suit

Further reading

Ron Klinger, collab Husband & Kambites. (1994) Basic Bridge Victor Gollancz, London, UK. ISBN 0-575-05690-8

Ben Cohen and Rhoda Barrow (ed). The Bridge Players' Encyclopedia 1967 Paul Hamlyn, London UK.

(Willam S.) Bill Root. The ABCs of Bridge (1998) Crown Publishers Inc, New York, USA ISBN 0-609-80162-7

Sandra Landy and EBU Committee, Really Easy Play with Trumps (1999) The English Bridge Union, Aylesbury, England. ISBN 0-9506279-8-4

Ron Klinger & Andrew Kambites. Card play made easy 3 (1998) St Edsmundsbury Press Ltd, Bury St Edmunds, Suffol, England. ISBN 0-575-06596-6

Squeeze play (bridge)

A squeeze play (or squeeze) is a tactic, often occurring late in the hand, used in contract bridge and other trick-taking games in which the play of a card (the squeeze card) forces an opponent to discard a winner or the guard of a potential winner. Although numerous types of squeezes have been analyzed and catalogued in contract bridge, they were first discovered and described in whist.

Most squeezes operate on the principle that declarer's and dummy's hands can, between them, hold more cards with the potential to take extra tricks than a single defender's hand can protect or guard. Infrequently, due to of the difficulty of coordinating their holdings, two defenders can cooperate to squeeze declarer or dummy on the same principle.

Context

Complexity

Squeeze plays are considered by many "to be the domain of the experts but many of the positions are straightforward once the basic principles are understood." And according to Terence Reese, the squeeze play "in its practical aspects is not particularly difficult. It takes time, admittedly...and has...to be learned - it cannot be 'picked up'".

Significance and prevalence

Squeeze plays are important in difficult-to-make high-level contracts and in matchpoint play where the taking of one more trick than generally achieved by the field is a real difference-maker likely to result in a top board.

The opportunity to employ a squeeze play arises sufficiently frequently that it essential to learn if aspiring to become an advancing player.,

Terminology

Busy cards: Cards held by defenders which are winners or protecting winners.

Card reading: Determining or assuming the location of the opponents' cards.

The count: The number of tricks that must be lost before the squeeze can function.

Rectify the count: To lose the necessary number of tricks.

Entry: A high card or trump that enables declarer to place the lead in the hand that holds, or that will hold, another card that the squeeze has established.

Idle cards: Cards that can safely be discarded by defenders. The act of rectifying the count removes idle cards from the defenders' hands.

Menace or threat cards: Cards held by declarer or dummy which start out as losers, but which are promoted to winning rank when the squeeze forces the defense to discard its stoppers.

Squeeze card: The card which when led forces the defense to discard a busy card or cards. Before the squeeze card can bring the squeeze about, several conditions described below must be met.

Conditions

The most basic forms of squeeze require all the following conditions to be in place before the squeeze can operate:

The defense's guards in the threat suits must be held by one defender only.

The count has been rectified which ensures that:

Declarer has enough winners to take all the remaining tricks but one, which is to be gained from the squeeze; and

The defender being squeezed has no idle cards.

Between them, declarer and dummy have threat cards in two suits that the squeeze may establish as winners:

At least one of the threat cards must be in the hand opposite the squeeze card; and

At least one of the threat cards must lie in the hand that plays after the squeezed defender.

There is an entry to the threat opposite the squeeze card.

Examples

Example 1
♠
A J

♥
K

♦
—

♣
—

♠
K Q

N

W                 

S

♥
A

♦
—

♣
—

South to lead
♠
4

♥
2

♦
—

♣
A

South needs all three remaining tricks in a notrump contract. South leads the squeeze card, the ♣A, and West is squeezed in hearts and spades. If West discards the ♥A, North's ♥K becomes a winner. If West discards either spade, North's ♠J becomes a winner.

Note the following features of this position:

One defender, West, holds the defense's only guards in declarer's two threat suits, spades and hearts.

The count is rectified. Three cards remain, and declarer has two immediate winners (the ♣A and ♠A). Another winner will be established by the squeeze (either the ♥K or the ♠J).

The ♥K and the ♠J are the threat cards. At least one threat card (in this case, both the ♥K and the ♠J) lies opposite the squeeze card (the ♣A).

At least one threat card (in this case, both the ♥K and the ♠J) is in the hand that plays after the squeezed defender.

The ♠A is an entry to either threat card.

This is an example of a positional squeeze, because both threat cards are in the same hand, North's. No threat card lies over East and therefore the squeeze can take effect only if West is to be squeezed.

If West's cards are transferred to East, as shown in Example 2, the squeeze fails because the fourth condition above is not satisfied. In that case, one of the menaces must be discarded before it is East's turn to play. If the ♥K is discarded, East can safely discard the ♥A. If the ♠J is discarded, East can safely discard a spade.

♠
A J
Example 2
South to lead

♥
K

♦
—

♣
—

N

                 E

S

♠
K Q

♥
A

♦
—

♣
—

♠
4

♥
2

♦
—

♣
A

Classification

There are several ways to classify squeezes:

According to which opponent can be squeezed:

In a positional squeeze, only one opponent can be squeezed.

In an automatic squeeze, either opponent can be squeezed.

According to number of opponents squeezed:

In a single squeeze, only one opponent is squeezed.

In a double squeeze, both opponents are squeezed.

According to number of suits involved:

In a two-suit squeeze, there are menaces in two suits.

In a three-suit squeeze, there are menaces in three suits.

In a compound squeeze, there are menaces in three suits (against one); then, menaces in three suits (against both opponents). It could be named a six-suit squeeze.

The peculiar and rare single-suit squeeze is actually a type of endplay rather than a real squeeze.

According to what is gained:

In a material squeeze, the opponents are forced to give up a trick directly.

In a non-material squeeze, the opponents are forced to give up strategic position. For example, an opponent can be squeezed out of an exit card or a card that disturbs declarer's entries. An extra trick, however, may materialize later.

According to the count rectification:

In a squeeze with the count, the count is rectified before the squeeze card is played, and declarer will lose no more tricks. These are typically material squeezes.

In a squeeze without the count, the count is not yet rectified. These are typically non-material squeezes, often with a throw-in in the end position.

Most of the common types of squeezes (and some of the rare ones) have names:

Type of Squeeze
Positional or
Automatic
Opponents
Suits
Material or
Non-material
Count
Rectified

Simple squeeze
Either
Single
2
Yes
Yes

Criss-cross squeeze
Automatic
Single
2
Yes
Yes

Trump squeeze
Either
Single
2
Yes
Yes

Progressive squeeze
(aka Triple squeeze)
Positional
Single
3
Yes
Yes

Double squeeze
(also: Simultaneous double squeeze
Non-simultaneous double squeeze)
Either
Double
3
Yes
Yes

Compound squeeze
Positional
Double
3
Yes
Yes

Entry-shifting squeeze
Positional
Single
2
Yes
Yes

Single-suit squeeze
Positional
Single
1
Yes
No

Strip squeeze
Positional
Single
2-3
Yes
No

Backwash squeeze
Positional
Single
2
Yes
Yes

Cannibal squeeze
(aka Suicide squeeze)
Positional
Single
2
Yes
Yes*

Stepping-stone squeeze
Positional
Either
2
No
No

Guard squeeze
Positional
Either
2-3
Yes
Yes

Vice squeeze
Positional
Single
2-3
Yes
No

Winkle squeeze
Positional
Single
3
No
No

Clash squeeze
Positional
Either
3
Yes
Yes

Saturated squeeze
Positional
Double
4
Yes
Yes

Pseudo-squeeze
N/A
N/A
N/A
No
N/A

Entry squeeze
Either
Either
3
No
No

Knockout squeeze
Either
Single
3
No
No

See also

Bridge Squeezes Complete by Clyde E. Love

List of play techniques (bridge)

Further reading

Bird, David; Smith, Marc (2001). Squeezes Made Simple. Toronto: Master Point Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-1-894154-32-1. OCLC 46620681.

Bird, David (2002). Bridge Squeezes for Everyone. Toronto: Master Point Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-1-894154-42-0. OCLC 48533829.

Coffin, George. Endplays in Bridge: Eliminations, Squeezes and Coups. LCCN 81069898.

Eng, Fook H. (1973). Bridge Squeezes Illustrated. Los Angeles: Eng. p. 185. OCLC 2556958.

Freehill, H.G. (1949). The Squeeze at Bridge. London: Faber and Faber. p. 126. OCLC 2813446.

Kelsey, Hugh (1985). Simple Squeezes. Victor Gollancz Ltd. in association with Peter Crawley (London), 120p. ISBN 0-575-03607-9.

Laderman, Julian (2007). A Bridge to Simple Squeezes (2nd ed.). Toronto: Master Point Press. p. 151. ISBN 978-1-897106-26-6. OCLC 154712413.

Love, Clyde E. (1951). Squeeze Play in Bridge. New York: Richard R. Smith Publisher Inc. p. 183. OCLC 2556862.

Love, Clyde E. (1959). Bridge Squeezes Complete or Winning End Play Strategy (1st ed.). Long Island, NY: Barclay Bridge Supplies, Sterling Publishing Company Inc. p. 260. LCCN 59014249.

Love, Clyde E. (2010). In Lee, Linda; Pottage, Julian. Bridge Squeezes Complete: Winning Endgame Strategy (Revised ed.). Toronto: Master Point Press. p. 384. ISBN 978-1-897106-58-7.

Mollo, Victor; Gardener, Nico (1955). Card Play Technique or the Art of Being Lucky (1st ed.). London: George Newnes Limited.

Moon, Anthony (2010). Simple Squeezes (2nd ed.). Pressure Point Press. ISBN 978-0-9561532-5-8.

Ottlik, Géza; Kelsey, Hugh (1979). Adventures in Card Play. Victor Gallancz Ltd. in association with Peter Crawley / 7th Impression: Cassell (London), 2005, 285p. ISBN 0-304-36807-5.

Reese, Terence; Jourdain, Patrick (1980). Squeeze Play is Easy. George Allen & Unwin LTD (London), 145 pages, ISBN 0-04-793047-0 / Squeeze Play Made Easy', Sterling Publishing Co. Inc., (New York), 145 pages, ISBN 0-8069-4940-6.

Terence Reese, Master Play in Contract Bridge

Schuld, Frank (1977). The Simple Squeeze in Bridge (New and Revised ed.). New York: Drake Publishers Inc. ISBN 0-8473-1453-7.

Norman Squire, Contract Bridge, Squeeze Play Simplified

Peter Thoma, The Art of Bridge Squeezes

Wang, Chien-Hwa (1993). The Squeeze at Bridge. Cadogan bridge series. London: Cadogan Books. p. 203. ISBN 1-85744-507-4. LCCN 93007343.

Entry (cards)

An entry, in trick-taking card games such as bridge, is a means of gaining the lead in a particular hand, i.e. winning the trick in that hand. Gaining the lead when some other player (including one's partner) led to the previous trick is referred to as entering one's hand; a card that wins a trick to which another player made the lead (except to the last trick) is therefore known as an entry card.

Example

♠
A K Q J 10 9

♥
4 3 2

♦
4 3 2

♣
2

N

S

♠
—

♥
A K Q J 10 9

♦
A K 7 6 5

♣
A 3

If South declares this hand at notrump and the opening lead is a club, he will probably take just nine tricks with the top cards in his hand. Although the dummy holds the top six spades, they can win no tricks unless someone leads a spade; South has no spades, and so cannot do so and the opponents are unlikely to do so either. If South had just one spade (and one less card elsewhere), he could play it as a means of entering the North hand, enabling it to win six spades tricks.

On the same deal, if South declares with hearts as trump, he has a good chance of making 13 tricks on any lead. For example, if a club is lead, he wins the ace in his hand, plays two rounds of trump and then leads the three of clubs which he ruffs in dummy - an entry play. Unless the defense can ruff one of the next three top spade leads from dummy, South's three small diamonds can be discarded on the three top spades. A diamond is subsequently lead from dummy to enter the South hand with the ace of diamonds, followed by the remaining trump and the king of diamonds.

See also

Endplay

Coup (bridge)

In contract bridge, coup is a generic name for various techniques in play, denoting a specific pattern in the lie and the play of cards; it is a special play maneuver by declarer.

There are various types of coup which can be effected.

Pure Coups

There are many coups which the opponents can do little to prevent.

Bath coup

The original coup was referred to as the Bath Coup, whereby a player holding the Ace, Jack and small card(s) plays small against the lead of a King-Queen sequence, so as to get two tricks (if the suit is continued) or gain tempo.

Belladonna coup

The declarer's act of playing low card below king from Kx-Jxx combination in a suit contract, in order to tangle defender's communications for trumping, ensuring either a trick in the suit or a third-round ruff.

Crocodile coup

The Crocodile coup is a technique used by the defense. It is executed by second hand, following suit with a higher card than apparently necessary, to keep fourth hand from winning and thereby being endplayed.

Deschapelles coup

The act of sacrificing a card that would ordinarily be an eventual winner (such as an offside King) to establish an entry into partner's hand.

Devil's coup

The Devil's coup is the act of stopping defenders getting a trump trick from Qx opposite Jxx - surely the work of the Devil?

Coup en passant

The act of ruffing through the player who has bigger trump(s), so that the trump is taken either by ruffing or by making it master trump if the other player ruffs.

Galileo coup

The Galileo coup is so named because Galileo Galilei is usually credited with the invention of the telescope; this coup arises when the contract is in a suit in which the declaring side is missing both the Ace and King; if successful, the defenders end up being forced to play the Ace and King of trumps to the same trick, thus "telescoping" their two trump tricks into one.

Grand coup

A Trump coup where the cards ruffed in order to execute a trump reduction are winners.

Merrimac coup

The Merrimac coup is the act of sacrificing an honour (usually a King) in order to remove an entry from an opponent's hand.

Morton's fork coup

The forcing of an opponent to choose between establishing one or more extra tricks in the suit led and losing the opportunity to win a trick in the suit led.

Scissors coup

The Scissors coup is so named because it cuts communications between defenders, most commonly by discarding a key card from either the declarer's own hand or dummy. This enables declarer to prevent the defenders transferring the lead; usually for a defensive ruff.

Trump coup

The Trump coup happens in the end-game when declarer needs to finesse in trumps but doesn't have one to lead up. It is often associated with a Trump Reduction.

Vienna coup

The Vienna coup is the act of cashing an ace opposite the queen (or, more generically, an immediate winner opposite a menace) in order to enable a squeeze to work on either opponent.

Deceptive Coups

Some coups rely on the opponents making a mistake.

Grosvenor gambit

The act of deliberately misplaying a hand in order to induce a mistake by an opponent which results in either the same or a superior result. Even when the gambit does not yield a material gain, it usually induces a big psychological impact on the opponents who were offered a trick for free but couldn't have believed it were possible.

Idiot coup

The act of only losing one trick when missing AKx of trumps. Declarer leads through one of the defenders hoping they will play the king from Kx which then falls under their partner's stiff ace. Obviously going up with the king is foolish because if declarer holds the ace, he has a legitimate line whereby he can escape a loser (play the ace and hope for stiff king or take a finesse), hence the name.

An Idiot coup can also refer to a play that appears to present an alternative (losing) option to an opponent, but upon closer inspection could not possibly be the right one. For example, suppose declarer holds ♠xx opposite ♠KT in dummy. During the play of another suit LHO, who is holding ♠AJx, discards the jack, knowing that he is only entitled to one trick in the suit in any case. Now when declarer leads the small card toward dummy and LHO follows low, he might think he has a "guess" in the suit, when in fact LHO would have no reason to discard the jack if he also had the queen. (That is, unless LHO is trying to Grosvenor him.)

Illegal Coups

There are also a number of illegal coups:

Alcatraz coup

The Alcatraz coup is performed by purposely revoking when declarer is uncertain which defender to finesse. After the trick is over, declarer knows which defender to finesse, "notices" and corrects his misplay, and finesses the correct defender.

Superglue coup

The Superglue Coup is where a defender pulls out two cards together (as if they were superglued together). Declarer sees the cards and assumes they are adjacent in rank in the defender's hand. For example if declarer is missing K103 and one defender pulls the K and 3 out together declarer can assume that the defender does not have the 10.

External links

An article describing the Grosvenor Gambit

A list of amusing (and mostly unethical) coups

Hold up (bridge)

In the card game of contract bridge, to hold up means to play low to a trick led by the opponents, losing it intentionally in order to sever their communication. The primary purpose is to give as many tricks to opponents as needed to exhaust all the cards in the suit from one of their hands. If that hand regains the lead, it will not be able to put the partner on lead to cash its tricks. Hold up is one of basic techniques in play.

While mechanically identical, a hold up is in a suit played by the opponents while a duck (or ducking) is a manoeuver in one's own suit. Nevertheless the terms are used interchangeably with duck or ducking more common.

Examples

Denying an entry (declarer play)

| 10 8 7 |
9 2 | W    N↑ S↓    E | K Q 3
| A J 6 5 4 |

West leads the top of a doubleton against a suit contract, and East plays the queen. Suppose South wins the first trick with the ace and West gets in before trumps are drawn (with the ace of trumps, for example). Now West can lead his remaining card in the suit to East's king, and East can return the suit for West to ruff.

Proper procedure is for South to hold up on the first trick, and win the ace on the second round of the suit. Now, when West gets in, he is void in his short suit and cannot lead that suit to get to East's hand.

Denying an entry (defender play)

| K Q J 2 |
10 9 8 7 | W    N↑ S↓    E | A 6 5
| 4 3 |

The declarer (South) plays toward dummy's long suit. Assuming there are no side entries, on the distribution shown East must duck once to prevent declarer from running the suit.

Note that West must give a proper count signal in this situation. In the distribution shown, West signals an even count; East assumes it shows four and ducks once. (If West has only two, then South has four and ducking neither helps nor hurts.) If West signals an odd count, East will have to decide (possibly from the bidding or previous play in other suits) whether it shows three or five, and win the first or third trick accordingly.

Rectifying the count

Often, to set up a squeeze, one or more tricks must be lost in advance. This is known as "rectifying the count", but it is actually just another instance of ducking.

Endplay

Here is a simple endplay situation:

♠
—

♥
—

♦
4 3 2

♣
—

♠
K 2

N

W               E

S

♠
—

♥
A
♥
—

♦
—
♦
7 6 5

♣
—
♣
—

South to lead
♠
A Q

♥
2

♦
—

♣
—

At no trump, South is on lead with three cards left to play. South ducks the ♥2 to West, who must now lead spades into South's ace-queen tenace and South wins two tricks. If South plays spades first, he wins only one of the last three tricks. This play is not really a duck, because it does not surrender a trick that could be won.

South in 3NT
♠
J 10 7

♥
10 8 3 2

♦
A 5 3

♣
K J 10

♠
Q 9 6

N

W               E

S

♠
5 4 3 2

♥
7 5 4
♥
Q J 6

♦
K Q J 10 9
♦
7 4 2

♣
8 3
♣
A 7 4

Lead:♦K
♠
A K 8

♥
A K 9

♦
8 6

♣
Q 9 6 5 2

South is playing a contract of three notrump, and West leads the king of diamonds. There are nine needed tricks: two spades, two hearts, one diamond and four clubs. However, if the declarer wins the ace of diamonds at trick one and drives out the ace of clubs, the defenders will cash four diamond tricks to set the contract.

South can assure the contract (provided the ace of clubs is with East) by holding up the ace of diamonds: he plays low to the first two diamond tricks (known as ducking) and wins the ace of diamonds on the third trick. Now, when East wins the ace of clubs, he has no diamonds left to play. If West holds the ace of clubs, the contract is impossible to make. If, on the other hand, East had a diamond, that would mean that diamonds were originally split 4-4 and defenders could only cash three tricks in the suit, so the contract was not in danger.

Deception

| K 10 8 2 |
A 5 3 | W    N↑ S↓    E | J 6
| Q 9 7 4 |

A defender can deceive the declarer by ducking a trick he could win, inducing him to place the defender's cards wrongly and adopt a losing line of play. In the position shown, declarer leads a small card from dummy to the queen in trump suit. If West takes the ace, the declarer could easily play the king in second round, dropping East's jack. However, if West ducks, the declarer will place the ace with East, and finesse the dummy's ten in second round, losing to East's now singleton jack.

This kind of duck requires perfect reading of cards and nerve, especially if the suit involved is a side suit in a trump contract. East must duck smoothly, without hesitation, otherwise the declarer could infer the actual layout.

Rule of seven

The rule assumes play in a 3NT contract and is as follows:

Subtract from seven the total number of cards that declarer and dummy hold in the defenders' suit and duck their lead of the suit that many times.

The rule can be generalized for all notrump contracts as follows:

In a notrump contract, subtract from 'n' the total number of cards that declarer and dummy hold in the defenders' suit and duck their lead of the suit that many times; 'n' is equal to four plus the level of the contract.

In the hand above, there are five diamonds in the combined North-South hands, and declarer must duck two tricks (winning the third).

If there were an additional diamond in either the North or South hand, for a total of six, then declarer need only duck one trick (winning the second). This is because if West has five diamonds (and North-South six), then East will have only two and will be out of diamonds after two rounds of the suit. If East does have three diamonds, then West will have only four and the defenders can cash only two additional diamond tricks (for a total of three) upon winning the ace of clubs.

See also

Avoidance play

References

Francis, Henry G., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Francis, Dorthy A., Editor, Sixth Edition (2001). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (6th ed.). Memphis, TN: American Contract Bridge League. ISBN 0-943855-44-6. OCLC 49606900.

Levé, Guy (2007). The Encyclopedia of Card Play Techniques at Bridge. Toronto: Master Point Press. ISBN 978-1-897106-25-9.

Reese, Terence; Trézel, Roger (1978). When to Duck when to Win in Bridge. Master Bridge Series. New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc. p. 7. ISBN 0-88391-078-0. LCCN 77-23677.

Signal (bridge)

In the card game of contract bridge, partners defending against a contract may play particular cards in a manner which gives a signal or coded meaning to guide their subsequent card play; also referred to as carding. Signals are usually given with the cards from the two-spot to the nine-spot. There are three types of signals:

attitude signals, the most frequently used, to encourage or discourage continuation of the suit lead by partner

count signals, showing either an even or odd number of cards held in the suit lead and

suit preference signals, the least frequently used, indicating partiality for a specific side suit.

The methods used for each type of signal have evolved over time and fall into two broad categories:

standard signals where a high card or one followed by a lower card is encouraging when an attitude signal and showing an even number of cards when a count signal; and

reverse or upside down signals where the meanings are reversed, i.e. a low card or one followed by a higher card is encouraging when an attitude signal and showing an even number of cards when a count signal.

Precedence of signal types

Lead is by
Following suit
Discarding

Partner
1. attitude
2. count
1. attitude

Declarer
1. count
2. suit preference
1. attitude
2. suit preference

Partnerships decide on which methods to adopt and must disclose them to their opponents. Use and interpretation is dependent upon their context, i.e. the contract, the auction, the opening lead or prior play, the cards visible in dummy, the cards visible in one's hand, who has led to the current trick and whether following suit or discarding. Accordingly, partnerships generally have an order of precedence for the interpretation of signals such as that indicated in the adjacent table. In the vast majority of cases, the third-hand follow-suit signal is an attitude signal, but when the attitude signal does not apply, it is a count signal. Usually, it is relatively easy to recognize a signal correctly when the declarer leads – either a count signal when following suit, or an attitude signal when discarding, and when they do not apply, it is a suit-preference signal.

Even so, while signals are a means of permissible communication between defenders, they are considered as providing guiding information to partner and are not absolutely binding on him; partner may proceed otherwise as he deems rationally appropriate.

Attitude signal

When signaling standard attitude, a high card is encouraging and a low card is discouraging. Attitude is normally signaled when following suit to partner's led suit and when discarding on either partner's or declarer's led suit.

For example, if partner leads the Ace of spades, you might signal with the nine if you held the King (requesting partner to continue the suit), or with the three if you held nothing but small cards in spades (notifying partner that a switch to another suit is likely best).

Of course, you can only signal with the cards you hold. Signaling low is easy for you, but if your lowest card is the eight, partner might have difficulty "reading" it as low. When you are signaling high, play the highest card you can afford. Having easily-readable cards to signal with is part of the luck of the deal.

Suppose declarer is drawing trumps and you are out on the third round. Your discard should be an attitude signal for partner. If you play a high-spot diamond, for example, you ask partner to lead diamonds if she should gain the lead. Normally, you would have an honor or honors in diamonds in this case. If you play a low diamond, you ask partner to not lead diamonds if she should gain the lead. Partner will usually be able to figure out which of the other suits you do like (if any).

If declarer plays yet another round of trump, you may be able to play yet another diamond. This will make it unambiguous to partner whether you are encouraging diamonds (by playing high-low) or discouraging diamonds (by playing low-high).

Attitude signals at notrump contracts

With standard attitude signals you generally play the highest card you can afford for that purpose. Typically attitude signals are made when partner leads an honour (either on the opening lead or later) and requests a continuation. The usual reason for this is that you possess an honour equal to the honour played or promised by the lead. Against no trump contract (especially on the opening lead) partner will lead an honour from a solid or broken sequence, such as QJ10 or KQ10. With less solid holdings like QJxx(x) or KQxx(x) partner will lead his fourth best card. The reason to signal is, if partner leads from a broken sequence and there are small cards in dummy, partner may not know whether to continue the suit (should the trick hold or they gain the lead before you).

Example:

| 7 4 |
K Q 10 6 2 | W    N↑ S↓    E | J 8 3
| A 9 5 |

Partner leads the king against a notrump contract, with your J83 you would play the 8. So if partner has something like KQ1062 and declarer A95 they can continue the suit without giving up a trick if declarer lets it hold.

| 7 4 |
K Q 10 6 2 | W    N↑ S↓    E | 9 8 3
| A J 5 |

If you play the 3 partner may take this view of the suit, and may switch to another suit hoping to get you in to lead though declarer's probable jack. It is also possible that you have the singleton or doubleton 8, but in that case declarer would have 4 or 5 cards in the suit and the bidding may have revealed that. If declarer had bid the suit, your partner would also be less likely to lead from a broken honour sequence or maybe even lead the suit at all.

Note that some players agree to unblock their highest honour when a King is led against a notrump contract, and with no honuor to give a count signal.

Attitude signals at trump contracts

Signaling with honor cards

When not to signal

The general principle is to not signal if doing so will help declarer more than the defenders.

Case 1: You judge that you hold virtually all of the defensive cards, that partner will very probably never gain the lead. Do not signal. Partner, on the other hand, knowing the situation, should consider signalling honestly.

Case 2: Signalling against a slam is very dangerous. Make declarer work as hard as possible.

Smith Peter convention

A Smith Peter is a defensive signalling convention whereby a defender signals whether or not he likes his partners opening lead by playing either a high spot card (if he would like partner to continue to suit where possible) or a low spot card (if he would like partner to change to a different suit at the first opportunity) on the first declarer's first lead. This assumes that standard attitude signals are being played - a pair playing upside down attitude signals will often also play upside down Smith Peters whereby a high card discourages the suit of the opening lead and a low card encourages it.

Count signal

The standard count signal is to play high-low with an even number of cards, and low-high with an odd number. Normally, you "give count" when following suit to declarer's led suits. This will help partner determine the distribution of the suit. See duck (bridge) for an example.

Count in the trump suit is normally inverted. Thus, high-low shows an odd number of trumps (probably three). Some partnerships (by advance agreement) signal this way only when they have a desire or ability to ruff something.

Suit preference signal

This signal is used infrequently. When it is clear that the choice of lead is between two suits, the play of a high card on a previous trick suggests the lead of the higher-ranking suit and a low card suggests the lower-ranking suit. There are four common cases:

When following suit on partner's lead (complement to the attitude signal): In situations where partner has made an opening lead and an attitude signal would not be meaningful, such as when dummy displays a singleton or void in the suit being led, a suit preference signal is used to indicate which of the other two suits to lead - excluding trumps and the suit originally led. The signal can also be useful when a switch to a side suit is not desired, since there are hands in which continuing the original suit or switching to a trump is the right thing to do. In this case, a middle card is often used to indicate this situation, but it can be hard to read.

When leading in a suit partner is expected to ruff: The rank of the card led suggests a preference for the suits to be returned by partner after the ruff. Letting partner know this may allow one to regain the lead for another ruff. For example, in each of the two hands below, partner has led what is likely a singleton club against a 4♥ contract. After winning the ♣A, the lead of ♣10 for the first hand and ♣2 for the second hand indicates which suit partner should return.

♠ A964 ♥ 104 ♦ 765 ♣ A1062

♠ 765 ♥ 104 ♦ A964 ♣ A1062

When following suit on declarer/dummy's lead of a long suit (complement to the count signal): When partner has a single honor, a suit preference signal shows which of dummy's side suits is preferred for partner to return after winning a trick. If there is no side entry, the card is a count signal to show your partner when best to win or duck a trick.

When discarding - see below

Some defenders use the trump suit to show suit preference. When a defender can afford to play either of two trump cards, following suit with the higher card first shows interest in the higher ranking suit while playing the lower card first indicates interest in the lower ranking suit. This is a non-standard agreement - see count signal above.

Upside down count and attitude

Some partnerships agree in advance to play UDCA. With this agreement, the standard count and attitude signals are inverted: when signaling attitude, a low card is encouraging and a high card is discouraging; when signaling count high-low shows odd count, low-high shows even count.

Many experienced players believe UDCA is superior to standard signaling. Most importantly, it is often easier for partner to read your signals. Also, you do not have to "waste" high cards in suits you like.

Caution: UDCA, as the name states, applies to count and attitude signals only. Suit preference signals are played standard. Also, your leads (as opposed to signals) are unchanged—you still lead high from a doubleton, for example, barring another special agreement to the contrary.

As mentioned above, standard count in the trump suit is already "upside down". Experts recommend that trump signaling be the same in UDCA as standard trump signaling, that is, when playing UDCA, signal the same in all four suits.

Discarding agreements

Some partnerships agree in advance to assign special meaning to the first discard (failure to follow suit).

Lavinthal (McKenney)

With this agreement, the first discard is suit preference. You do not like the led suit, of course, and you do not like the suit discarded. Your suit preference signal tells partner which of the two remaining suits you prefer. A high card for the higher ranking of the remaining suits and a low card for the lower ranking. This treatment is known as Lavinthal in the United States, or McKenney in the UK. The potential disadvantage of this method is that you always have to give preference for one suit or other, and you may not want any switch in particular. This can be overcome at times by signalling for an "impossible" switch, such as a suit in which dummy has a very strong holding e.g. AKQ.

There is another slightly different Lavinthal used by SAYC OKBridge Style Simplified: discard of a low card of either remaining suit (i.e., excluding trumps and the suit you are out of), asks for the lower suit. For example, if hearts are trumps and you are discarding on clubs, then a low spade or diamond asks for a diamond. Discard of a high card of either remaining suit, asks for the higher suit.

Revolving Discard

As with Lavinthal, you have the possibility to request suit preference in two ways. A low discard indicates interest in the suit directly below (a low club signaling spades); a high discard signals preference for the suit directly above (a high spade signaling clubs). In a suit contract, the trump suit is skipped in reading the signal. This is felt by many to be easier to remember than Lavinthal.

Odd-Even (Roman)

With this agreement, the first discard shows the following: if it is an odd spot card (three, five, seven or nine) it is encouraging in that suit; if it is a low even spot card (deuce or four), it is suit preference for the lower ranking suit of the other two suits; if it is a high even spot card (six or eight), it shows preference for the higher ranking suit. The even card often has a dual function, in that, it not only indicates suit preference but it is also a negative indication for the suit being used for the even card.

Surrogate

A surrogate suit is one played by declarer in which a defender has neither need to signal his attitude or count nor use to give a preference signal; usually the trump suit is a good surrogate suit if a trump echo is not needed. The suit in which the count will be given is called the target suit.

Disclosure

Declarer is entitled to know what signaling agreements you have with your partner, and you must disclose them if asked. However, you do not have to interpret any particular play (and should not, because it might transmit information to your partner). For example, if partner plays the 5 of clubs and you are asked what it means, you should simply say "a high club encourages clubs, a low club discourages clubs" (assuming that is your agreement). If you see the 4, 3, and 2 in your hand, you know that the 5 is a low club and therefore discouraging, but you should not say so. As far as your partner knows it might equally well be declarer who holds those cards and then you might misread the 5 as encouraging.

Most regulating bodies in bridge also prohibit the use of encrypted signals. These signals convey a message that can only be interpreted by knowing some specifics of the hands of the defenders. For example, declarer's bidding might promise exactly a certain number of spades. By looking at the dummy, each defender knows how many spades the other has. An agreement applied in such circumstances, such as "if I have an even number of spades at the start of play, then we play standard signals on this deal, otherwise upside-down signals" would be encrypted and therefore widely prohibited.

Falsecarding

In general, the partner will gain more from a player's signals than declarer, so it is worthwhile to signal honestly most of the time. However, since declarer can see your signals as well, a player who gains a reputation for always giving accurate count, for example, may find information given away by their signals used to their disadvantage. So it is common practice to throw in a misleading signal now and then, hopefully when it won't matter to partner.

Further reading

Bird, David (2010). Defensive Signaling at Bridge. Toronto: Master Point Press. ISBN 978-1-897106-63-1.

Horton, Mark (1994). Step-by-Step Signalling.

Lavinthal, Hy (1964). Suit Preference Signals in Contract Bridge. London: Faber and Faber.

Lavinthal, Hy (1974). Defensive Strategy in Bridge: Featuring Suit-Preference Signals. New York: Dover Publications Inc. ISBN 0-486-23010-4.

Magee, Bernard (1999). Practise Your Discarding with Bernard Magee. The Bridge Plus Practise Series. Reading, England: Bridge Plus. ISBN 1-902123-12-3.

Rigal, Barry (1999). Practise Your Signalling with Barry Rigal. The Bridge Plus Practise Series. Reading, England: Bridge Plus. ISBN 1-902123-07-7.

Smith, Marc (2000). Bridge Cardplay - Attack and Defence. Finesse Bridge Publications. ISBN 0-9538737--2-2.

Woolsey, Kit (1981). Modern Defensive Signalling in Contract Bridge. Port Chester, NY: Barclay Bridge Supplies Inc.. 1992, Devyn Press Inc., Louisville, KY, ISBN 0-910791-40-6

Safety play

Safety play in contract bridge is a generic name for plays in which declarer maximizes the chances for fulfilling the contract (or achieving a certain score) by ignoring a chance for a higher score. Declarer uses safety plays to cope with potentially unfavorable layouts of the opponent's cards. In so doing, declarer attempts to ensure the contract even in worst-case scenarios, by giving up the possibility of overtricks.

Safety plays adapt declarer's strategy to the scoring system. In IMP-scoring tournaments and rubber bridge, the primary concern is to fulfill the contract, because overtricks are of secondary interest. Therefore, safety plays are an important part of declarer technique at quantitative scoring.

In matchpoint games, which use comparative scoring, overtricks are very important. Therefore, although safety plays have a certain role at matchpoints, they are normally avoided if the odds for making the contract are good and overtricks are likely.

Definition

The term safety play is difficult to define crisply. The Bridge World glossary defines safety play as "the surest line to make the contract, disregarding extra tricks that might be made in some other way." Marshall Miles has defined it as "playing in such a way as to lose a trick with average breaks in order to avoid losing additional tricks with bad breaks."

Conflating discussions from various sources yields the following points, each descriptive of safety play characteristics:

A safety play is made in a single suit. In the context of that suit, it can often be described using other terms that might or might not pertain to the full deal, such as avoidance play, percentage play, coup or duck.

A safety play, although made in a single suit, is intended to maximize declarer's chances to make the contract.

A safety play usually gives up the opportunity to win as many tricks as possible in a particular suit in order to gain an advantage on the full deal. It therefore is sometimes compared to an insurance premium.

Examples

Safety plays have a role at both comparative scoring and quantitative scoring, although they are used more often at quantitative scoring because they tend to give up on overtricks.

Safety play at IMPs

This hand is from a team of four game:

♠
K J

♥
Q 5

♦
A J 7 2

♣
Q 8 7 5 3

♠
10 9 7 3

N

W               E

S

♠
Q 8 5 4 2

♥
10 8 6 4
♥
9 7 2

♦
9
♦
K 10 8 5

♣
J 9 4 2
♣
10

♠
A 6

♥
A K J 3

♦
Q 6 4 3

♣
A K 6

South plays 6NT against the lead of the ♠10. Dummy's ♠K wins, and the ♣A and ♣K are played. East discards a small spade on the second club trick.

This particular hand is one of a relatively small group of (non-trivial) deals in which perfect safety is available after the third trick. Single-dummy, using a safety play in diamonds, it is possible to guarantee the contract against any remaining distribution and play of the E-W cards.

South started by expecting to win five clubs, one or two diamonds, four hearts and two spades, but the 4-1 split in clubs complicates matters. Still, a safety play in diamonds will bring in twelve tricks.

It's just coincidence, but the proper diamond play on this hand is the same as the percentage play with this diamond holding, considering the suit in isolation. The best play for three diamond tricks is to play the ♦A, and then lead toward either the ♦Q or the ♦J. This play brings in three diamond tricks 73% of the time.

Using that play on this deal brings in twelve tricks 100% of the time. Cash the ♦A, and lead small toward the ♦Q. Then:

If diamonds are 3-2, South will always win three clubs, three diamonds, four hearts and two spades.

If diamonds are 4-1 and West has the singleton, East cannot play the ♦K on the second lead without setting up both the ♦Q and the ♦J. If East plays low and West shows out, concede a club and take four clubs, two diamonds, four hearts and two spades. The same play works if East began with five diamonds.

If diamonds are 4-1 and East has the singleton, West can capture the ♦Q with the ♦K. But in that case West is known to hold four cards in each minor, and on the run of the major suits will be squeezed out of his guard in either diamonds or clubs. In with the ♦K, West can attack dummy's entry in diamonds or in clubs, but not both. The same play works if West began with five diamonds.

Note that South gives up the 14% chance of four diamond tricks (finessing the ♦J and then cashing the ♦A, hoping for the ♦K onside and doubleton) in exchange for insuring the contract against any diamond break. If South begins the diamonds by finessing the ♦J, the contract fails against king-fourth in the East hand.

Safety play at matchpoints

Safety play usually involves giving up the chance of the maximum result in exchange for the best chance of making the contract. So one seldom sees safety plays made at matchpoints or board-a-match. But even at those forms of scoring, there can be good reasons to make safety plays.

Suppose that, at pairs, declarer is in a standard contract, one that the majority of the field will surely reach. However, the defense makes an unorthodox opening lead, presenting declarer with a possible overtrick. There may now be a way, unavailable to other declarers, that will guarantee the contract while retaining good chances for the overtrick.

Or declarer might be in an unusually good contract. Hugh Kelsey gives this example:

♠
5

♥
7 6 3

♦
A Q 9 7 5 4

♣
J 8 4

N

S

♠
J 10 8 3

♥
A K Q 4

♦
K 6 3

♣
Q 2

The bidding goes 1♥ — 2♥; Pass, and West leads the ♠K and continues with the ♥10.

South is in an unusually good matchpoint contract. Most players will open the South hand with 1NT rather than 1♥. And it is very difficult to reach a heart contract if South opens 1NT or 1♦: either way, North signs off in diamonds.

In any case, 2♥ is both an exceptionally good matchpoint contract and difficult to reach. Assuming reasonably competent defense, plus 130 is the limit playing in diamonds, and plus 120 in notrump contracts.

But there's an easy way to score plus 140 in 2♥: take a safety play in hearts by ducking the first round. This gives up the chance of plus 170 (if hearts break 3-3) in exchange for the best chance of plus 140 (if hearts break either 4-2 or 3-3). Note that playing hearts from the top leads to defeat if hearts are 4-2, the most likely split.

Safety play at notrump

Safety plays, of course, are not limited to trump contracts. Here is an example of a safety play at notrump.

♠
A 10 8 7 2

♥
A

♦
A 5 3 2

♣
8 4 3

N

S

♠
K 9

♥
K 10 2

♦
K 9 6 4

♣
A K 6 2

South declares 3NT and gets the lead of the ♥Q. After winning the ♥A, declarer leads the ♠2 and East plays a small spade. The play of the ♠9 now assures the contract. If West wins the trick he cannot play another heart without giving the ninth trick to declarer and the tempo to develop more in spades. West therefore switches to a diamond and South wins in hand. South overtakes the ♠K with the ♠A – the key play on this hand – and the ♦A assures an entry to two more spade tricks. If spades are played from top the hand might not make if East holds Q J x x and both minor suits fail to break.

See also

Scoring and tactics in duplicate bridge

Loser on loser

Hold up

Avoidance play

Suit combinations

Belladonna coup

Vacant Places

In the card game bridge, the law or principle of vacant places is a simple method for estimating the probable location of any particular card in the four hands. It can be used both to aid in a decision at the table and to derive the entire suit division probability table.

At the beginning of a deal, each of four hands comprises thirteen cards and one may say there are thirteen vacant places in each hand. The probability that a particular card lies in a particular hand is one-quarter, or 13/52, the proportion of vacant places in that hand. From the perspective of a player who sees one hand, the probable lie of a missing card in a particular one of the other hands is one-third. The principle of vacant places is a rule for updating those uniform probabilities as one learns about the deal during the auction and the play. Essentially, as the lies of some cards become known – especially as the entire distributions of some suits become known – the odds on location of any other particular card remain proportional to the dwindling numbers of unidentified cards in all hands, i.e. to the numbers of so-called vacant places.

The principle of vacant places follows from Conditional Probability theory, which is based on Bayes Theorem. For a good background to bridge probabilities, and vacant places in particular, see Kelsey; see also the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge

How Vacant Places calculations work at the table

♥K 9 6 2

♥A J 8 7 3

We are the declarer in a heart contract with trump suit combination Kxxx in dummy and AJxxx in hand (see figure). There are four heart cards missing, the queen and three spot cards or ♥Qxxx. We play small to the king as both opponents follow low and lead another small heart, ♥2. The last of the three spot cards appears on our right leaving one outstanding heart, the queen. Because no one would play the queen while holding a spot card too, we have learned nothing about the location of the queen directly, only the distribution of the three spot cards, one at left and two at right. At the moment of decision we can perform a vacant places calculation.

First, suppose we know nothing about the other suits, probably because the opponents did not bid. Then we know only the one small heart observed at left and the two observed at right. That leaves twelve "vacant places" where ♥Q may reside at left and eleven vacant places at right. If the queen lies in 12 of the 23 vacant places, at left, we win by playing the ace; the queen drops. In 11 of the 23 vacant places, we win by playing the jack and then the ace, dropping the queen at right on the next heart trick. Thus the odds in favor of playing the ace are 12 to 11; the ace is a slight favorite to win an extra trick, i.e. to win five tricks in hearts. The proportion 12/23 = 52.174% is exactly the probability that appears in standard catalogs of suit combinations.

Note, however, that this calculation is only available in the heart suit because we have accounted for all the other hearts, that is to say every heart but the one we are still seeking. If we were missing a total of five heart cards, then a vacant places calculation could not be applied.

♥K 9 6 2 ♠x x x

♥A J 8 7 3 ♠x x

Alternatively, suppose that LHO dealt and opened 2♠ (weak); we reached a heart contract without further bidding by the opponents; and we have five spades between dummy and hand leaving eight for the opponents. We may infer that LHO has six spades and RHO two. (This is not certain; occasionally the spades lie seven and one or five and three. If six and two, that leaves seven and eleven vacant places for the other three suits.) The heart suit combination and play are as discussed above: the combination in the figure; we lead small to the king while both opponents follow low, and lead ♥2 back toward hand while RHO follows low. Now there are six vacant places for ♥Q at left and nine vacant places at right. The odds are now 6 to 9 against the queen at left, and against winning if we play the ace. The proportion 9/15 = 60% is the probability that RHO holds the queen and playing the jack will win the suit.

How Vacant Places calculations work away from the table

Let us imagine that we are required to build up a set of probability tables to help show how a suit might be splitting, for example, the Probability of suit distributions in two hidden hands on the page Bridge probabilities. Let's suppose that we are missing three cards in the suit and we know nothing about the distribution of other suits (i.e. we are looking for the a priori probabilities). When we "deal" out the first card of the three, we can put it in either hand. Each hand, by definition, has 13 vacant places, so it is a toss-up which hand it goes into (13/26 = 50% for either hand). Now let us suppose that we want to know the probability of the suit being divided 3–0. The first card is already in, let's say, the East hand. Now he has only 12 vacant places so the probability of that hand getting the second of the three cards is 12/(12 + 13). This must be multiplied by the initial 1/2 probability to find the probability of East having both of the first two cards. Now let's deal out the third (and last) of the missing cards. By this time, East has only 11 vacant places, while West still has 13. The probability of East getting all three of the missing cards is 1/2 × 12/25 × 11/24 which is exactly 0.11, which is the value that we see in the fourth row of the table (3 - 0 : 0.22 : 2 : 0.11).

Now, let's calculate the individual probability of a 2-2 split when missing four cards (the following row in the table). This time, proceeding similarly to before, the calculation is:

13/26 × 12/25 × 13/24 × 12/23 = (3 × 13) / (23 × 25) = 0.067826.

The probabilities of other suit divisions can be calculated similarly.

See also

Bridge probabilities

Percentage play

Principle of restricted choice

Safety play

Suit combination

Principle of restricted choice

In contract bridge, the principle of restricted choice states that play of a particular card decreases the probability its player holds any equivalent card. For example, South leads a low spade, West plays a low one, North plays the queen, East wins with the king. The ace and king are equivalent cards; East's play of the king decreases the probability East holds the ace – and increases the probability West holds the ace. The principle helps other players infer the locations of unobserved equivalent cards such as that spade ace after observing the king. The increase or decrease in probability is an example of Bayesian updating as evidence accumulates and particular applications of restricted choice are similar to the Monty Hall problem.

Jeff Rubens (1964, 457) stated the principle thus: "The play of a card which may have been selected as a choice of equal plays increases the chance that the player started with a holding in which his choice was restricted." Crucially, it helps play "in situations which used to be thought of as guesswork." In many of those situations the rule derived from the principle is to play for split honors. After observing one equivalent card, that is, one should continue play as if two equivalents were split between the opposing players, so that there was no choice about which one to play. Whoever played the first one doesn't have the other one.

When the number of equivalent cards is greater than two, the principle is complicated because their equivalence may not be manifest. When one partner holds ♣Q and ♣10, say, and the other holds ♣J, it is usually true that those three cards are equivalent but the one who holds two of them does not know it. Restricted choice is always introduced in terms of two touching cards – consecutive ranks in the same suit, such as ♥QJ or ♦KQ – where equivalence is manifest.

If there is no reason to prefer a specific card (for example to signal to partner), a player holding two or more equivalent cards should sometimes randomize their order of play (see the note on Nash equilibrium). The probability calculations in coverage of restricted choice often take uniform randomization for granted but that is problematic.

The principle of restricted choice even applies to an opponent's choice of an opening lead from equivalent suits. See Kelsey & Glauert (1980).

Example

Consider the suit combination represented in the figure. There are four spade cards ♠8754 in the South (closed hand) and five ♠AJ1096 in the North (dummy, visible to all players). West and East hold the other four spades ♠KQ32 in their two closed hands.

♠ A J 10 9 6

♠ 8 7 5 4

South leads a small spade, West plays the 2 or 3, dummy North plays the ♠J, and East wins with the ♠K. Later South leads another small spade and West follows low again. Now only one spade card is "unknown" to South, not yet observed or inferred, with North and East yet to play on the second spade trick. Is it better to play ♠A, hoping to drop ♠Q from East, or to finesse again with ♠10, hoping to drop ♠Q from West on the third round of the suit? That is, should declarer play for the defenders' original holdings to be 32 and KQ or Q32 and K? The principle of restricted choice explains why the latter is now about twice as likely, so that to finesse again by playing ♠10 is nearly twice as likely to succeed.

2-2 Split | 3-1 Split | 4-0 Split
West | East | West | East | West | East
KQ | 32 | KQ3 | 2 | KQ32 | —
K3 | Q2 | KQ2 | 3 | — | KQ32
K2 | Q3 | K32 | Q |  |
Q3 | K2 | Q32 | K |  |
Q2 | K3 | K | Q32 |  |
32 | KQ | Q | K32 |  |
|  | 3 | KQ2 |  |
|  | 2 | KQ3 |  |

Prior to play, 16 possible West and East spade holdings or "lies" are possible from the perspective of South. These are listed at left, ordered first by "split" from equal to unequal numbers of cards, then by West's holding from strongest to weakest.

After West follows to the second spade, which is the moment of decision referred to above, only two of 16 original lies remain possible (bold), for West has played both low cards and East the king. At first glance, it may seem that the odds are now even, 1:1, so that South should expect to do equally well with either of the two possible continuations.

However, this is not the case because if East had ♠KQ, he could equally well have played the queen instead of the king. Thus some deals with original lie 32 and KQ would not reach this stage; they would instead reach the parallel stage with ♠K alone missing, South having observed 32 and Q. In contrast, every deal with original lie Q32 and K would reach this stage, for East played the king perforce (without choice, or by "restricted choice").

If East would win the first trick with the king or queen uniformly at random from ♠KQ, then that original lie 32 and KQ would reach this stage half the time and would take the other fork in the road half the time. Thus on the actual sequence of play, the odds are not even but one-half to one, or 1:2. East would retain queen from original ♠KQ about one-third of the time and retain no spades from original ♠K about two-thirds of the time.

Importantly, this assumes that the defenders have no signalling system, so that the play by west of (say) the 3 followed by the 2 does not signal a doubleton. During the course of many equivalent deals, East with ♠KQ should in theory win the first trick with the king or queen uniformly at random; that is, half each without any pattern.

Better calculation of odds

This is an attempt at a more accurate calculation of the odds as explained in the previous section.

A priori, four outstanding cards "split" as shown in the first two columns of the table. For example, three cards are together and the fourth is alone, a "3-1 split" with probability 49.74%. To understand the "number of specific lies" refer to the preceding list of all lies.

Split
Probability
of Split
Number of
specific lies
Probability of
any specific lie

2-2
40.70%
6
6.78%

3-1
49.74%
8
6.22%

4-0
9.57%
2
4.78%

The last column gives the a priori probability of any specific original holding such as 32 and KQ; that one is represented by row one covering the 2-2 split. The other lie featured in our example play of the spade suit, Q32 and K, is represented by row two covering the 3-1 split.

Thus the table shows that the a priori odds on these two specific lies were not even but slightly in favor of the former, about 6.78 to 6.22 for ♠KQ against ♠K.

What are the odds a posteriori, at the moment of truth in our example play of the spade suit? If East does with ♠KQ win the first trick uniformly at random with the king or the queen – and with ♠K win the first trick with the king, having no choice – the posterior odds are 3.39 to 6.22, a little more than 1:2, in percentage terms a little more than 35% for ♠KQ. To play the ace ♠A from North on the second round should win about 35% while to finesse again with the ten ♠10 wins about 65%.

The principle of restricted choice is general but this specific probability calculation does suppose East would win with the king from ♠KQ precisely half the time (which is best). If East would win with the king from ♠KQ more or less than half the time, then South wins more or less than 35% by playing the ace. Indeed, if East would win with the king 92% of the time (=6.22/6.78), then South wins 50% by playing the ace and 50% by repeating the finesse. If that is true, however, South wins almost 100% by repeating the finesse after East wins with the queen – for the queen from that East player almost denies the king.

Better yet

A more complete treatment would consider all of the choices, not only the choices of high card from two equals. In the example spades suit, we must incorporate the choice of low card by West from ♠32 and from ♠Q32. The 2 and 3 are manifestly equivalent cards which West should play uniform randomly from both original holdings – that is, randomly on the first two tricks, always retaining the queen from ♠Q32. The preceding probability calculation depends on West doing so.

Mathematic theory

The principle of restricted choice is an application of Bayes Law. Increases and decreases in the probabilities of original lies of the opposing cards, as the play of the hand proceeds, are examples of Bayesian updating as evidence accumulates.

Further reading

Kelsey, Hugh; Glauert, Michael (1980). Bridge Odds for Practical Players. Master Bridge Series. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd in association with Peter Crawley. pp. 92–116. ISBN 0-575-02799-1.

Frey, Richard L., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor (1964). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (1st ed.). New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. p. 381-385. LCCN 64-23817. The article on Restricted Choice was originated by Jeff Rubens in the first Encyclopedia (1964 edition). In it and subsequent editions (e.g. on page 381 of the 6th edition) Rubens states that Reese in his book Master Play "unified" the "underlying principles ... first discussed by Alan Truscott in the Contract Bridge Journal"; he does not give a date for the Truscott article.

Reese, Terence (1958). The Expert Game. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd. ISBN 0-575-02799-1. Published in the USA in 1960 as Master Play. George Coffin (Waltham MA).

External links

"Monty Hall problem and the principle of restricted choice"

"Bridge paradoxes" by Richard Pavlicek

An advanced example

Systems

Bidding system

See also: Glossary of contract bridge terms

A bidding system in contract bridge is the set of agreements and understandings assigned to calls and sequences of calls used by a partnership, and includes a full description of the meaning of each treatment and convention. The purpose of bidding is for each partnership to ascertain which contract, whether made or defeated and whether bid by them or by their opponents, would give the partnership their best scoring result.

Each bidding system ascribes a meaning to every possible call by each member of a partnership, and presents a codified language which allows the players to exchange information about their card holdings. The vocabulary of bidding is limited to 38 different calls - 35 level/denomination bids plus pass, double and redouble. Any bid becomes a contract if followed by three successive passes, therefore every bridge bid is a potential contract.

By the rules of the game, the agreed meanings of all calls must be public and known to the opponents. In normal club or home play, the opponents are entitled, at their turn to make a call, to ask the partner of the bidder about the meaning of the call. In high-level tournaments, where screens are used, the procedure is to ask the screen-mate about their calls as well as their partner's calls. In serious online tournaments, the procedure is for the player making the call to self-alert it, but the explanation is visible only to the opponents.

Classification

Bidding systems can be classified into two broad categories: natural systems and artificial systems. In natural systems, most bids (especially in the early phase of the bidding) denote length in the suit bid. In artificial systems, the bids are more highly codified, so that for example a bid of 1♣ may not be related to a holding in the club suit.

Natural system(s) are the "lingua franca" of bridge players, with regional variations. Thus, a new partnership can agree to play a natural system and understand each other fairly well. Players sometimes alter certain aspects of a system, adding their specific agreements or preferred conventions.

Structure and meaning of opening bids are the common determining factor for system classification: in most modern natural systems, opening bids of 1♣ through 2♣ have the same or similar meaning, with level-one bids denoting length in a suit. Artificial systems typically reserve at least one one-level suit opening bid for special purposes, unrelated to the suit.

Natural systems

Natural systems generally use opening bids as follows:

A bid of 1♥ or 1♠ shows at least 4 or 5 cards in the major suit, and 1♣ or 1♦ shows at least 3 or 4 cards in the minor suit. The complete hand usually contains about (11)12-20(22) high card points. As between two major suits or between two minor suits, the bidder opens in the longer suit; with equal lengths, the higher ranking suit is usually chosen. If the opening bid of 1♥ or 1♠ promises 5 cards, the system is referred to as a "five-card major" system; otherwise, it is referred to as a "four-card major" system. The term five-card majors implies that an opening bid in a minor suit bid might show three card length only (for example, the hand pattern might be 4=4=2=3, so neither major suit is long enough to show with an opening bid).

A bid of 1NT shows a balanced hand in a narrow high card points range. The common ranges are 15-17 or 16-18 HCP ("strong notrump") and 12-14 ("weak notrump").

A bid of 2♣ typically shows a very strong hand (22+ points).

A bid of 2NT shows a strong balanced hand, usually 20-21 HCP.

Opening bids of 3 of any suit are preemptive, showing a 7+ card suit and 6-10 points (mostly inside the bid suit).

The meaning of 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ varies. One common usage is that the bid shows a weak two bid, similar to a preemptive bid. Another is that the strong two bid, which is natural and shows a very strong hand (too strong for a 1-level opening). Yet another usage, popular in otherwise natural systems, is to use weak two bids in the major suits, and 2♦ as Flannery: four spades and five hearts in a hand of minimum strength.

Specific systems

The most widespread natural systems are:

Acol, featuring 4-card majors and weak notrump, originating in Great Britain

Standard American, originally with 4-card majors but later adopting 5-card majors.

Bridge Base Basic, based on Standard American and used in internet play

2/1 game forcing, based on Standard American and gradually superseding it. Some features of 2/1 game forcing originated from the Roth-Stone and Kaplan-Sheinwold systems of the 1950s and 1960s.

Various developments in the area of natural systems have resulted in systems that are natural in essence, but contain special features. Examples are systems like Romex, Boring club, Fantunes, and EHAA (Every Hand An Adventure).

Artificial systems

Artificial systems can be further classified into:

Strong club systems are the most popular artificial systems, where opening of 1♣ shows a strong hand (typically 16+ HCP). Other 1-level bids are typically natural, but limited to about 15 HCP. The most popular strong club systems are:

Vanderbilt Club (the predecessor)

Precision Club (a detailed modern version can be found here... Jones Strong Club)

Blue Club

In Small club systems, the opening bid of 1♣ is forcing but not necessarily strong. It typically includes some range of balanced hands, some hands with long club suit, and very strong hands. Examples are:

Vienna Club (the predecessor)

Roman Club, developed and used by famous Blue team

Polish Club, originating (and standard) in Poland but also gained certain popularity worldwide. Here is an example of a Polish Club System

Dutch doubleton, an offspring of the Polish Club system

Strong diamond systems are similar to strong club systems, but the bid of 1♦ shows a strong opening, typically 16+ and the bid of 1♣ is typically nebulous. This gives more room over the nebulous 1♣ opening compared to the strong club's nebulous 1♦ opening. There are several examples listed here www.strongdiamond.co.uk.

Strong pass systems are highly artificial and fairly rare. In those systems, an initial pass shows a hand of opening strength (13+ HCP); as result, weaker hands (8-12 must be opened with a bid instead (normally one low level bid is reserved to show 0-7 HCP, that bid is sometimes called a "fert", short for fertilizers). Strong pass systems are mostly banned by World Bridge Federation and other governing organizations from all competitions except the highest-level ones, because opponents cannot be reasonably expected to cope with such an unusual approach. See: Highly unusual method

Relay systems are based on relay bids – the artificial bids where one partner just bids the cheapest denomination (relay bid) and the other describes his distribution and high cards in detail (relay response) using a highly codified scheme. Such systems are out of the above classification (based on opening bid structure), as the relay feature takes place later in the auction. For example, relatively popular "Moscito system" has variants based on strong-club and strong-pass approaches. Symmetric relay is based on Precision club. Relay systems do not need to begin with an initial forcing pass or an initial forcing 1♣ opening. The ACBL typically disallows relay systems, on the grounds that they are too difficult to defend against without a lot of advance preparation.

See also

Bridge conventions

List of bidding systems

Standard American

External links

List of bidding systems on BridgeGuys

List of bidding systems on ClaireBridge

A classification of natural bidding systems

List of bidding systems in 'Full-disclosure' (BBO compatible) format

Standard American

Main article: Bidding system

Standard American is a widely used bidding system for the game of bridge in the United States and elsewhere. Owing to the popularization of the game by Charles Goren in the 1950s and '60s, it is sometimes referred to simply as 'Goren'.

While the basics of the system are learned by most beginners, its details have continued to evolve and now incorporate many partnership agreement variations and optional conventions. The advent of on-line computer bridge play has lead to the adoption of a variant known as Standard American Yellow Card (or SAYC) which uses an explicit set of bidding agreements to enable quick consensus between strangers as to the bidding system to be used. Most advanced or expert players play the more modern derivative known as 2/1 Game Forcing or strong club systems such as Precision.

Role of bidding systems

The purpose of bidding is to exchange information with your partner so that you can arrive at an optimal contract, while preventing the opponents from finding their optimal contract. A bidding system is a set of agreements about the meanings of the different bids that the players can make during the auction phase of each hand. Bids are generally defined in terms of the hand's suit distribution and strength. In Standard American, strength is evaluated by the high card point method, with adjustments for distribution. Most beginners rigidly follow point count requirements, but experts will make adjustments based on their hand and the bidding so far.

History

"Standard American" was the label given to the bridge bidding system developed by Charles Goren in the 1940s. This system was the first to employ the point-count method to evaluate the strength of a bridge hand. Most bids had fairly specific requirements regarding hand strength and suit distribution. The Goren point-count system became so popular that nearly all bridge players in the United States, social and tournament players alike, used it. American bridge teams won world championships using Goren's Standard American.

Modifications began to appear from the 1960s forward. By the year 2000, some completely new bidding systems had evolved, including "Precision Club" and "2/1 Game Forcing" which, although still relying on point-count rules for hand evaluation, are otherwise substantial departures from the early Goren system. Most tournament pairs now assemble their own system from a variety of new treatments and conventions that have evolved. The nearest thing to a common system in tournament play is the "Standard American Yellow Card" (SAYC) promulgated by the American Contract Bridge League. SAYC is widely used in internet bridge play, but only rarely in on-site tournament play.

There is no longer a universally recognized standard for social/rubber bridge players. However generally they follow the rules described in Standard American 21, The Rubber Bridge Players Guide for the Twenty-first Century by John Sheridan Thomas.

The essential common elements of modern Standard American systems are:

A hand-strength requirement of at least 12-13 points to open 1-of-a-suit.

Five-card majors: opening a major suit promises at least a five-card holding in that suit.

Weak two bids: Two diamond, heart or spade openers are made with a sound six-card suit in a hand without enough overall strength to open 1 of the suit.

Strong two clubs: All unbalanced hands too strong to open at the one-level are opened with an artificial 2♣ call, as well as balanced hands stronger than 22 HCP (unless opener has the right strength for a 3NT opening bid).

Pre-emptive opening bids: All suit openings above the two level are pre-emptive, promising a long and strong suit.

Limit Raises: A jump-raise of the opener's suit by responder, in the absence of opponent interference, is invitational to game. In Goren's system, this was a strong game-forcing raise.

Notrump openers show a balanced hand, with the following common point ranges:

1 NT = 15-17 HCP

2 NT = 20-21 HCP

3 NT = 25-27 HCP

Common Notrump follow-up conventions include Stayman, Jacoby transfers and Gerber.

SAYC

"SAYC" is an acronym for Standard American Yellow Card, which is a specific set of partnership agreements and conventions, using Standard American as a base. Some of the specific agreements in SAYC that elaborate on basic Standard American are:

A 2♣ response to a 1 NT opening is specified as the "non-forcing" version of the Stayman convention.

A 2♠ response to a 1 NT opening forces the opener to bid 3♣, so that the responder may play there or bid 3♦, which the opener is expected to pass.

Straight Blackwood is used, and not the "Roman Key-Card" or other variation.

In response to a 2♣ opening, the 2♦ response is the "waiting" version of that response.

In response to a weak-two opening, RONF ("Raise Only Non-Force") is used.

Negative doubles are used through the level of 2♠.

Fourth suit forcing is used.

Michaels cuebid and Unusual notrump are used.

Conventions are specified as being "off" in response to a 1NT overcall, except that 2♣ is still Stayman.

SAYC is a very specific collection of agreements, which can, of course, be modified and augmented by partnership agreement. In practical use, the term is often mis-used to refer to Standard American in general, or it could refer to a system that used SAYC as a base and made additional augmentations or changes to the base agreements.

References

Standard American 21 by John Sheridan Thomas, ISBN 1-4120-2063-8

Standard Bidding with SAYC by Ned Downey & Ellen Pomer, ISBN 1-897106-03-3, eBook version

External links

Standard American Yellow Card by the American Contract Bridge League

2/1 game forcing

2/1 game forcing (Two-over-one game forcing) is a bidding system in modern contract bridge in which, after a one-level opening bid, a non-jump response in a new suit at the two level commits the partnership to bidding at least game.

Game forcing auctions

The 2/1 auctions are 1♥–2♣, 1♥–2♦, 1♠–2♣, 1♠–2♦, and 1♠–2♥. Hands without an opening bid (generally 12+ high card points) are required to respond 1NT to 1♠, or to 1♥ if they lack 4 spades.

Exceptions

Some pairs don't play that 1♦–2♣ is game forcing, although some do. Also, 2/1 game forcing doesn't apply to a passed hand, or if there is an intervening call by an opponent. Some pairs play that 2/1 isn't absolutely game forcing; the pair can stop below game only when responder rebids his suit. For example, 1♥–2♣; 2♥–3♣ is treated as nonforcing by some 2/1 players. A regular partnership should discuss this possibility.

1NT response

Because the two-level responses are stronger than in Standard American bidding, the response of 1NT to 1♥ or 1♠ opening is forcing for one round and is used (among other things) for weaker hands containing low-ranking suits. Since the 1NT response is forcing, hands with a three-card limit raise can start with 1NT and later jump-support partner. See Forcing notrump for additional details. Some pairs play a variant in which the 1NT response to 1♥ or 1♠ is semi-forcing.

Other features

Use of the 2/1 system usually implies (at least) the following additional agreements:

Five card majors, i.e. major suit openings require at least a five-card suit;

Either limit raises of major suit openings (i.e. the jump raise 1♠ – 3♠ or 1♥ – 3♥ shows a game-invitational hand with at least four-card support) or Bergen raises;

Inverted minor raises, in which a jump raise of a minor suit opening is a weak preemptive bid, while a single raise is strong and forcing for one round;

Jacoby transfers over 1NT opening;

Jacoby 2NT, showing strong support with 4 or more cards;

Splinter bids;

New minor forcing;

Fourth suit forcing and artificial.

Examples

1♠ – 2♣
2♦ – 2♠
Forcing to game, with original spade support and good club suit. This is different from standard bidding, in which such a sequence would show about 10 points, and club suit could be semi-fake.

1♠ – 2♣
2♠ – 2NT.
Forcing to game, with balanced hand and a good club suit.

1♠ – 2♣
2♦ – 3♣
Forcing, unless the partnership has agreed that this is an exception to the "2/1 rule."

1♦ – 2♣
Forcing for one round only (as in Standard American), except in the variant of 2/1 where this sequence is game forcing as well.

1♣ – 2♣
Forcing for one round; 10 points or more with at least four clubs.

1♣ – 3♣
Weak; 9 points or less—sometimes much less—with at least five clubs.

1♥ – 2♥
Weak; 6-9 points with at least 3 hearts (unless Bergen raises are in use, in which case it shows precisely 3 hearts)

1♠ – 1NT;
2♣ – 2♠
Shows a weak hand, 6-9 points, with precisely two spades. Some also use this for an extremely weak hand (0-5) with three spades.

1♠ – 1NT;
2♣ – Pass
Shows a very weak hand, perhaps 5-7 points, with at least four clubs.

1♠ – 1NT;
2♣ – 2♦
Shows a weak hand, 5-9 points, with a long diamond suit.

1♠ – 1NT;
2♦ – 2♥
Shows a weak hand, 5-9 points, with a long heart suit.

1♠ – 1NT;
2♥ – 3♣
Shows a weak hand, 5-9 points, with a long club suit.

1♠ – 1NT;
2♣ – 2NT;
Shows 10-11 points without support for spades.

1♠ – 1NT;
2♣ – 3♠
Shows 10-11 points with 3-card support for spades.

1♠ – 3♠
Shows 10-11 points with at least 4-card support for spades.

1♠ – 1NT;
2♣ – 3♥
Shows 10-11 points with a long heart suit.

1♦ – 2♥
This is a jump response, and there are different ways of handling it. In Standard American, such a "jump shift" shows a very strong hand and is unequivocally forcing. However, since such hands do not occur with great frequency, it is more common today to use such a bid to show a weak hand with a long suit, unsuitable for defense. Another possibility is to play it as a "fit-showing jump", showing 8-10 points, a decent heart suit, and good diamond support.

Further reading

Grant, Audrey; Rodwell, Eric (2009). 2/1 Game Force. Louisville, KY: Baron Barclay Bridge Supply. ISBN 978-0-939460-84-7.

Hardy, Max (2000). Standard Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century. SQueeZe Books. ISBN 978-1-58776-049-5. LCCN 00-104457.

Hardy, Max (2002). Advanced Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century. SQueeZe Books. ISBN 978-1-58776-125-6. LCCN 2002104136.

Strong club system

The Strong Club System is a set of bidding conventions and agreements used in the game of contract bridge and is based upon an opening bid of 1♣ as being an artificial forcing bid promising a strong hand. Unlike Standard American which typically opens with 2♣ to show a strong hand of 21 (or 22) or more points, the strong 1♣ opening is assigned a lower minimum strength promising 16 or more high card points. All other bids would therefore be limited to a maximum of 15 high card points. There are several variants of the strong club system and all are classified as artificial because the bids are highly codified.

Strengths and weaknesses

There are two generally acknowledged strengths of the strong club systems:

accuracy in uncontested slam-strength auctions, because the bidding starts at such a low level when opener has a fairly strong hand.

the fact that all other opening bids have their strength capped by the strong club means more accurate judgment and scope for tactical operation both in constructive and competitive bidding.

The generally acknowledged weakness of such systems is the fact that the opponents can aggressively overcall the 1♣ bid to deprive the stronger opponents of their bidding room, and that the loss of the 1♣ opening bid often causes strain on other opening bids, most often 1♦ and 2♣.

Variants

There are several types of strong club systems

Precision Club - It uses five-card majors (opening 1♥ or 1♠ promises five) which makes them very powerful at the cost of opening 40% of hands with 1♦.

Moscito - invented by the Australian expert Paul Marston in the mid-1980s.

Blue Club - invented by Benito Garozzo.

History

The original strong club system was the Vanderbilt Club, invented in the 1920s by Harold Vanderbilt. For many years, the most popular strong club systems were the Schenken Club in the US and the Neapolitan and Blue Team Club systems in Europe. Both are four-card major systems. The former is patterned closely after the Standard American bidding of the time and the latter is characterized by canapé (bidding the second-longer suit) in many situations.

See also

Contract bridge

Bidding system

Strong Diamond

Precision Club

Main article: Bidding system

Precision Club is a bidding system in the game of contract bridge. It is a strong club system invented by C. C. Wei assisted by Alan Truscott and first used by Taiwan teams in the late 1960s. Their success in placing second at the 1969 Bermuda Bowl launched the system's popularity.

The central feature of the Precision system is that an opening bid of one club is used for any hand with 16 or more high card points (HCPs), regardless of distribution. An opening bid of one of a major suit signifies a five-card suit and 11-15 HCPs. A one notrump opening bid signifies a balanced hand (no five-card major suit) and 13-15 HCPs.

Popularity

After the success of Taiwan (Republic of China) teams in 1969 and 1970 Bermuda Bowls with the system, the entire Italian Blue team switched to Precision Club and won yet another World Team Olympiad in 1972. The modifications to the system were made chiefly by Benito Garozzo and he titled it Super Precision. Today, multiple world champions Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell play their own variant known as RM Precision. In North America, Precision is less commonly played than Standard American or 2/1 game forcing, especially at the club level.

Advantages and disadvantages

Advocates of Precision say that it is generally more efficient (and precise, as the name would suggest) than systems such as Standard American. Because all opening bids except 1♣ are limited, the responder almost immediately knows the hand potential and the chances for a part score, game or slam.

Critics of Precision bidding, question the wisdom of combining a strong club with 5 card majors. This causes certain hand shapes to bid awkwardly, and a high percentage of hands are opened with one diamond, including in some cases hands with only a doubleton diamond. Howard Schenken wrote in Big Club, "This is so absurd that I wish to go on record in stating that the Big Club cannot be played with any hope of success if you attempt to use it by bidding only 5-card majors."Bob Hamman was quoted as saying, "My opinion on Precision is that combining five-card majors with a forcing club is like trying to mix oil and water, and it has serious structural defects…"

Some players have abandoned Precision in favour of a Strong Diamond System that swaps the strong 1♣ and weaker 1♦ openings. This gives the commoner weaker opening more room to bid.[citation needed]

Main opening sequences

1♣: Conventional, 16+

Responses:

1♦: negative, 0-7. If playing the "impossible negative", any 4-4-4-1; this will be followed by a strong rebid.

1♥, 1♠, 2♣ 2♦: 8+, 5-card suit

1NT: 8-10, balanced

2♥, 2♠: 4-7, 6-card suit

2NT: 11-13 or 16+, balanced

3♣, 3♦, 3♥, 3♠: 4-7, 7-card suit

3NT: 14-15, balanced

1♦: 11-15, no 5 card major or 6 card club suit. Sometimes a 3 card suit; some partnerships will open on a 2 card suit with shapes such as 3-3-2-5.

1♥, 1♠: 11-15, 5-card suit

1NT: 13-15, balanced

2♣: 11-15, 6-card suit or a 5-card suit with a 4-card major

2♦: Conventional (Mini-Roman), 11-15, 3-suited hand with singleton or void in diamond

2♥, 2♠: Weak two bid, 8-10, good 6-card suit

2NT: 22-24, balanced

3♣, 3♦, 3♥, 3♠: normal preempts

3NT: Conventional (Gambling), solid 7-card minor suit leading with AKQ, no outside strength

Precision today

There have been many variations since 1969's 'Precision Club'. 3NT is played as 'Gambling' (where it used to show 24-27HCP), 1♣ - 1♦ is not anymore a 4-4-4-1 (Impossible Negative), and the "Unusual Positive" is used instead.

When 1♣ - 1♦ is not anymore a 4-4-4-1,

1♣ - 2♥ = 8+ HCP, 4-4-4-1 Singleton ♠;

1♣ - 2♠ = 8+ HCP, 4-4-4-1 Singleton ♣;

1♣ - 3♣ = 8+ HCP, 4-4-4-1 Singleton ♦;

1♣ - 3♦ = 8+ HCP, 4-4-4-1 Singleton ♥

Also, modern Precision often uses relay bids or transfer responses to 1♣ to both try to make the strong hand declarer and saving space in the auction. Other popular Precison variations on opening bids are using a strong 1NT (14-16 is most common), using 2♣ to show only a 6+ club suit and expanding the possible hand patterns for the 2♦ bid to include the usual 4-4-1-4 and 4-4-0-5 as well as 4-3-1-5 and 3-4-1-5.

Further reading

Reese, Terence (1980). Precision Bidding and Precision Play (2nd ed.). London: Hale. ISBN 978-0-7090-3221-2.

Berkowitz, David; Manley, Brent. Precision Today.

External links

Precision Bidding at TurboIRC

Precision Bidding at BIL Precision

Problems With Precision Bidding

A Modern Version Of Precision

A Strong Diamond Variant of Precision

Acol

Acol is the bridge bidding system that, according to The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, is "standard in British tournament play and widely used in other parts of the world". It is named after the Acol Bridge Club, previously located on Acol Road in London NW6, where the system started to evolve in the late 1920s. According to Terence Reese, its main devisers were Maurice Harrison-Gray, Jack Marx and S. J. Simon. Marx himself, writing in the Contract Bridge Journal in December, 1952, said: "...the Acol system was pieced together by Skid Simon and myself the best part of 20 years ago." In another account, Marx and Simon...

progressively, infected and re-infected each other with the virus of the game. In interminable slow walks...they would wander round and round the quiet streets, endlessly discussing the refinments of the enthralling game. Out of these conversations—surely a strange gestation—was born Acol as we know it and play it to-day.

—Guy Ramsay, Aces All (1955), Museum Press Limited, London, p. 170.

The first book on the system was written by Ben Cohen and Terence Reese. Skid Simon explained the principles that lay behind the system, and the system was further popularised in Britain by Iain Macleod. The Acol system is continually evolving but the underlying principle is to keep the bidding as natural as possible. It is common in the British Commonwealth but rarely played in the United States.

Bidding system structure

As a bidding system, Acol has the following characteristics:

It is a natural system: most opening bids, responses and rebids are made with at least 4 cards in the suit bid, and most no trump bids are made with balanced hands.

It is a four-card major system: only four-card suits are required to open 1♠ or 1♥, unlike Standard American and many other systems where five-card suits are typically required.

It is an approach forcing system: whether or not a bid is forcing (systemically requiring a response) depends on the previous bidding ("approach"). This is in contrast to level forcing systems, such as 2-over-1, where the level of the bid determines whether or not it is forcing.

It makes extensive use of limit bids: limit bids describe the hand so closely, in terms of high card points (HCP) and shape, that the one who makes the limit bid is expected to pass on the next round, unless partner makes a forcing bid.

Understanding and correct use of limit bids and forcing bids is fundamental to applying the system: all no trump bids below the level of 4NT are limit bids, as are all suit bids that merely repeat a suit already bid by the partnership; changes of suit may be forcing or not depending on the approach bids.

The level of the 1 NT opening bid influences other bids: the normal choice is between a "weak no trump" (12-14 HCP) and a "strong no trump" (15-17 HCP).

Variants

Acol is an unregulated system. There is no Acol governing body and no single publication containing the "official" Acol (unlike, for example, Standard American Yellow Card). It can be compared to a living language since it is liable to change at the whim of users. The main versions of Acol in use today are:

Acol: unregulated Acol, from the simple to the complex, remains in common use throughout the UK. At any one time the version in most common use will be known as "Standard Acol" although this term will mean different things to different players and is becoming increasingly confused with Standard English Acol.

Standard English Acol (originally called simply "Standard English"). Developed by Sandra Landy under the auspices of the English Bridge Union (EBU), this variant was designed to facilitate the learning of bridge and to provide standardised guidance to novices, intermediate players and their teachers. This variant uses the weak 1NT opening (12-14 points). Simple conventions such as Stayman, Blackwood and Transfers are included at various stages in the learning process. It has been widely promulgated by the EBU and by EBUTA in particular, but the exact form is used mainly by those who have learned their bridge recently and those who taught them.

Benjaminised (Benji) Acol: recognising that strong 2 opening bids are rarely used, the 2♥ and 2♠ openings are used to show weak hands containing long suits (under 10 HCP and a 6-card suit). Very strong hands (8 playing tricks) are shown by an opening bid of 2♣ which forces a 2♦ response allowing suits to be shown. The strongest hands (e.g., 23+ points or a game force hand) are shown by an opening bid of 2♦.

Reverse Benji: identical to Benji except that the 2♣ and 2♦ bids are switched in meaning. A 2♣ opening bid is now the strongest bid as in basic Acol.

Acol with Three Weak Twos: this variant is similar to Reverse Benji Acol except that the strong 2♦ bid is abandoned in favour of a third weak two (in diamonds). Thus 2♣ is the only strong bid in this system. Abandoning the extra grade of strong bid means that 'Acol two' style hands cause some problems, either having to be opened at the one level or forced into the 2♣ bid.

Acol with Multi 2♦: this variant of Acol makes use of the Multi 2 diamonds convention. The 2♣ bid is used as in standard Acol (23+ points). Various uses are made of the 2♥ and 2♠ bids, with traditional strong twos or Lucas twos being some popular methods.

Standard Acol

The following is a brief summary of the Standard Acol of the early/mid-2000s. Standard Acol has not changed significantly since that time.

Opening bids

Opening bids promise at least 12 high card points (HCP), or the equivalent in HCP and shape, unless preempting. Apart from NT, opening bids guarantee the ability to make a rebid over any forcing response from partner. There are six special opening bids which are quite closely defined, and one wide-ranging opening bid:

Special opening bids:

1 NT - Shows a balanced hand (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2 or 5-3-3-2). Subject to partnership agreement, it may be either weak (12-14 HCP), strong (15-17 or 16-18 HCP) or variable (i.e., varying between weak and strong according to vulnerability). Limit bid.

2♣ - Conventional game-forcing bid, promising game-going values (normally 23+ HCP) and at least 5 quick tricks. Game forcing unless responder replies 2♦ and opener rebids 2NT.

2 of any other suit - Strong two bid which shows a strong hand with at least eight playing tricks and a 6-card suit (or two 5-card suits). Forcing for one round.

2NT - Shows a balanced hand with 20-22 HCP. Limit bid.

3 of a suit - Pre-emptive, normally seven or more cards in the suit bid (may be six at favourable vulnerability), weak hand (not more than 10 HCP). Not forcing.

3NT - Pre-emptive, shows a long solid minor suit and is called the Gambling 3NT

Wide-ranging opening bid (made if too strong to pass and unable to make one of the special opening bids):

1 of a suit - Promises a minimum of 12 HCP and a 4-card suit, 11 HCP and a 5-card suit, or 10 HCP and a 6-card suit. Not forcing.

Responses to 1 of a suit

pass - less than 6 HCP

2 of opener's suit - at least four-card support and 6-9 HCP. Limit bid.

3 of opener's suit - at least four-card support and 10-12 HCP. Invites game if opener has requisite strength (14 HCP or more). Limit bid.

4 of opener's suit - at least five-card support for opener's major and 6-10 HCP, this is pre-emptive and to play.

1 NT - 6-9 HCP, denies ability to bid at 2 level. Not necessarily balanced. Limit bid.

2 NT - balanced, 10-12 HCP. Limit bid.

3 NT - balanced, 12-15 HCP. Limit bid.

1 of a new suit - promises at least four cards in the suit bid, 6 HCP upwards. Forcing for one round.

2 of a new suit (below 2 of opener's suit) - normally 5-card suit, at least a good 8 or 9 HCP. Forcing for one round

Jump in a new suit - 5-card suit (or support for partner), at least 16 HCP, Game force.

note: these last three bids may conceal 4-card support for opener's suit, whereas the three NT responses deny 4-card support for opener

Responses to 1 NT

2♣ - Stayman. Opener responds 2♦ with no four-card major, 2♥ with a four-card heart suit and 2♠ with four spades (denies four hearts). Forcing for one round.

2 of any other suit - weak takeout, opener must pass. Some players make use of transfers.

3 of a suit - shows a five-card suit, forcing for one round.

2NT - 11-12 HCP. invites game if opener is maximum (i.e., for a weak opening NT, if opener has 14 or a good 13 HCP).

3NT - to play.

4♣ - asks for aces. (Gerber)

4♥, 4♠ - to play.

4NT - slam invitation, opener bids 6NT with a maximum.

5NT - slam invitation, opener bids 6NT unless a minimum. Note: some play as invitation to 7NT; opener bids 6NT if minimum, 7NT with a maximum).

Responses to 2 NT

3♣ - Baron. Opener bids his lowest four-card suit. Forcing. (Stayman may also be used as in responses to 1NT; i.e., 3♦ shows no 4-card major).

3 of other suit - shows a five card suit, forcing to game.

Other responses as over 1NT.

Responses to 2 ♣

2♦ - negative. Responder lacks the strength for a positive response. Unless opener rebids 2NT (balanced, 23-24 HCP, which may be passed), the sequence is forcing to game.

2NT - fairly balanced, 8 or more HCP. Forcing to game.

2 of a suit - at least five in the suit, the equivalent of an ace and a king in high cards. Forcing to game.

3 of a suit - Solid suit of at least six cards. Forcing to game.

Responses to 2 of a suit

2NT - negative. Responder lacks the strength for a positive response.

Simple bid of a new suit - 8 or more HCP, at least five in the suit. Forcing to game.

3 of opener's suit - 5-8 HCP, at least 3-card support. Forcing to game.

3NT - flat hand, 8-11 HCP. Not forcing.

Opener's suit rebid after one-level opening

Rebid own suit

Rebid of own suit at lowest level - minimum hand, at least a five-card suit, 12-15 HCP, non-forcing.

Jump rebid of own suit - strong hand, normally at least six-card suit, 15-19 HCP, non-forcing but highly invitational.

Bid new suit

Bid of new suit at lower level than first suit - minimum hand, 12-15 HCP, first suit has at least as many cards as second suit, non-forcing.

Bid of new suit at higher level than two of the first suit, but without jumping (a Reverse bid) - strong hand, 16-19 HCP, first suit has more cards (at least five) than second suit, forcing for one round.

Jump in new suit - strong hand, 16-19 HCP, first suit has at least as many cards as second suit, forcing for one round.

Support for responder

Simple raise of responder's suit - minimum hand, 4-card support, 12-15 HCP, non-forcing

Jump raise of responder's suit - stronger hand, 4-card support, 16-18 HCP, non-forcing

Jump to game in responder's suit - game values, 4-card support, 19 HCP, non-forcing

Opener's NT rebid after one-level opening

(The following bids assume a weak NT opening)

After suit response at one level the traditional rebids are:

1NT - balanced, 15-16 HCP, limit bid

2NT - balanced, 17-18 HCP, limit bid

3NT - balanced, 19 HCP, limit bid

However, the modern approach modifies the ranges for the rebids thus:

1NT - balanced, 15-17 HCP, limit bid

2NT - balanced, 18-19 HCP, limit bid

3NT - Often an Acol two type of hand prepared to play in NT.

After a suit response at two level the traditional rebids are:

2NT - balanced, 15-17 HCP, limit bid

3NT - balanced, 18-19 HCP, limit bid

The modern approach is to use the 2NT rebid as forcing and use 3NT as 15-17 with support for the minor that responder has bid (one option).

After the 2NT (forcing) rebid, either bid naturally or use an enquiry (3♣) to seek definition of the 2NT rebid.

Fourth suit forcing

Main article: Fourth suit forcing

A bid of the fourth suit at the 2 level by responder is a one-round force, usually asking opener to bid no trumps with a stopper in the fourth suit. A fourth suit bid at the 3 level is similar, but forcing to game.

External links

The English Bridge Union, Standard English Modern Acol System File (PDF)

Standard English Acol (Described as a "dialect of Acol")

Landy and EBU Committee. Really Easy Bidding 1998 The English Bridge Union, Aylesbury, UK, ISBN 0-9506279-2-5.

Special notes

Card reading (bridge)

Card reading (or counting the hand), in contract bridge (with playing cards), is the process of inferring which remaining cards are held by each opponent. The reading is based on information gained in bidding and the playing of cards to previous tricks. The technique is used by the declarer and defenders to determine the probable suit distribution and honor card holdings of each unseen hand.

There are two basic and fundamental facts underlying card counting that are considered to be powerful:

The total number of cards in each suit is thirteen.

The total number of cards in each hand is thirteen.

General tips

Basic

There are some basic tips:

The player could memorize the common patterns of the 13 cards, in a suit, as held by the 4 players: 4432, 4333, 4441, 5332, 5431, 5422, 6322, 6331, etc. If a player discovers that each opponent has 3 cards in a suit, and the player holds 2 cards, then no arithmetic is needed to know that the partner holds the remaining 5 cards of the suit, because the "5332" pattern will come to mind.

Concentration on the distribution of the unseen cards is considered an important aspect of card counting and, after this skill is mastered, the counter is then able to recognize common patterns. That is, the counter can then start thinking not just about the number of outstanding cards in a suit, but also about how the cards might "break" (the section below, "Counting trumps" provides an example).

It is recommended that a single unseen hand is observed first, with the most straightforward hand belonging to:

the player who made the most bids during the auction

the player who made the opening lead

the player who has a long suit

Card counting in bridge is considered a very difficult practice to learn, with speedier progress possible through concentration upon one or two suits for every deal played, regardless of the potential influence of the respective hand; through this process, the brain becomes adept at remembering cards.

Advanced

The advanced tips include:

Memorize the original layout. Whether declaring or defending, the player can study the dummy hand at trick one and create a mental picture of its distribution. Commit it to memory by repeating the pattern in the mind (for example: 3-5-3-2, or 35-32). Players can do the same with their own hands. Later in the play, if unable to remember how many cards have been played in a suit, the player could reconstruct the play – and figure out how many times the suit has been led – by recalling a mental picture of the number of cards which the player and the dummy originally held in the suit.

The player could mentally review the bidding before playing to the first trick. If possible, the player could visualize a picture of each player's general hand pattern and high-card strength. Consider not just what the hidden hands actually bid, but also what they did not bid. When they bid, consider not just what they have, but also what they do not have.

Counting suits

Counting one suit

Counting two suits

Counting four suits

Counting trumps

As a declarer, an efficient way of counting the trump cards is: instead of counting the number of trump rounds and cards trumped in, count the number of trumps in the opponents' hands. Once the dummy hand appears, calculate the number of trumps which the opponents have, then reduce this number mentally as they are played from the opponents' hands. This means keeping track of one small number, and your own trumps do not enter the calculation.

An even better way, of counting trumps, is to get familiar with common distribution patterns. For example, 5-3 and 4-4 are among the most common trump distributions on the declarer and dummy's hands. In cases, if an opponent shows out on the second trump round, then 5-3-1 or 4-4-1 is known, and the pattern 5-3-4-1 or 4-4-4-1 comes up automatically, and the other defender is known to have begun with four.

Counting as a defender

Counting HCP and winners

See also

Signal (bridge)

External links

Developing Counting Skills

Suit combination

See also: Play of the hand in contract bridge

In the partnership card game contract bridge, a suit combination is a specific set of cards of a particular suit held in declarer's and dummy's hands. While the ranks of the remaining cards held in the opposing hands can be deduced immediately, their location is uncertain. A suit combination allows for all possible lies of these remaining cards in those hands.

The term is also used for the sequence of plays from the declarer and dummy hands, conditional on intervening plays by the opponents; in other words, declarer's plan or strategy of play given his holdings and his goal for the number of tricks to be taken.

In addition to understanding the possible initial combinations and probabilities for the location of the opponents's cards in a suit, declarer can further inform himself from the bidding, the opening lead and by the play of cards to each trick in establishing, executing and amending his plan.

Examples

♥ Q J 9 7 6 5

♥ A 4 3 2

West | East
♥ K 10 8 | ♥ —
♥ — | ♥ K 10 8
♥ K 10 | ♥ 8
♥ K 8 | ♥ 10
♥ 10 8 | ♥ K
♥ 8 | ♥ K 10
♥ 10 | ♥ K 8
♥ K | ♥ 10 8

A bridge deal diagram usually shows dummy at the top, North, and declarer at the bottom, South. The diagram shows a heart suit combination with six in dummy and four in declarer, or a "6–4 fit". Declarer can deduce that the two opposing hands hold only three hearts - the king, the ten and the eight but their exact location are unknown. The adjacent table shows the eight possible lies of those three cards; the suit combination and its diagram implicitly include all eight possibilities.

As the number of cards in a particular suit held by declarer and dummy decreases, the number held by the opposing side must increase since there are always 13 cards in each suit. The number of possible combinations of the cards held by the opposing side increases by a multiple of two for every decrease of one in the number of cards held by declarer and dummy.

♥ Q J 9 6 5

♥ A 4 3 2

♥ Q J 9 5

♥ A 4 3 2

In the left deal diagram, North and South hold nine hearts and the four held by the opposing side can be held in 16 different ways; in the right deal diagram, eight are held leaving five for the opponents in 32 possible combinations.

Representation

Consider these five alternatives to the preceding diagram of a 4–4 fit.

♥ Q J 9 x

♥ A x x x

♥ Q J 9 5

♥ A x x x

♥ Q J 9 6

♥ A x x x

♥ Q J 9 7

♥ A x x x

♥Q J 9 8

♥A x x x

The first alternative differs from the original in replacing each of the 5, 4, 3, and 2 by 'x', which conventionally represents the 2 or any other card low enough to be equivalent to the 2 for the purpose at hand. To determine which are those cards does require analysis that is challenging in some instances.

In bridge exposition, 'x' represents the 2 or any equivalent card in the same suit, whence it may be a great challenge to determine which cards 'x' represents in any specific diagram. Lacking such analysis 'x' nevertheless represents a card below any one that is specified. For example, the last of these five variations is equivalent to the original diagram because specification of the '5' implies that any unspecified 'x' is below the 5. The first variation is also equivalent to the original by convention. The middle three represent ♥A in declarer's hand with three cards below 8, three cards below 7, and three cards below 6 respectively. To say which of those diagrams is equivalent to the original, and whether they are equivalent to each other, demands analysis of the play.

(For standard analysis of suit combinations, the 7 is generally different from 'x' where the longer holding (traditionally dummy) is four cards and the defenders hold two high cards such as the king and ten in this case. The 7 is irrelevant if one hand holds QJ98, however, and the 8 is irrelevant if one hand holds AQJ9. Furthermore, when the defenders do hold at least 7 and two higher cards, the cards below 7 become important.)

♥ Q J 9

♥ A x x

♥ Q J 9 x x

♥ A x x x x

♥ Q J 9 x x x

♥ A x x x x x

(As presented here, a diagram may be inconsistent. In the last of these variations on the given combination, there are eight 'x' in the diagram, whose lowest specified card is 9, but a suit contains only seven cards below 9. Put another way, a 12-card combination is given, with the king and ten nominally missing, but there are only thirteen cards in a suit.)

Simplified setting

Optimal strategy in the play of one deal at the bridge table varies along with variation in declarer's objective; the opponents' information, skill, and objective; the contract and vulnerability; and the lie of the cards in four hands, which includes four suit combinations and their arrangement. In bridge exposition it is routine to suppose two partnerships with opposite objectives that incorporate the conditions of contest (scoring variant and tournament variant) and the contract and vulnerability. In terms of game theory, then, the play of any deal is a zero-sum game.

At least since Crowhurst (1964), the analysis of suit combinations routinely makes further simplifications along the same lines. Most fundamental, the play of any suit combination is a zero-sum game. In effect, the two sides agree on the relation of the suit to the entire hand so that their opposite entire objectives reduce to opposite objectives in the suit. (The double-dummy nature of the defense, below, makes this an important unexplored objective.*) The bottom line is that their opposite objectives can be expressed in terms of the number of tricks won and lost in the featured suit.

It is common to go two steps further with Crowhurst. First, a suit combination is a two-person zero-sum game. That means the two defenders play as one; they are of one mind. They know each other's cards and thereby, knowing the dummy, they know declarer's hand too. (That particular is properly called double-dummy defense.) One plan governs both their plays. If they choose to randomize their plays (see "Mixed strategy" below), they are able to randomize together.

Second, play of a suit combination amounts to a sequence of tricks with the lead always from dummy or from the closed hand at declarer's option. In effect, the defenders always switch to a side suit when they win a trick, and declarer stops those side suits at least before discarding from the featured suit. Declarer is able to cross between hands using side suits; i.e. communication or entry management is no problem.

Upside down?

One other convention is to put the greater number of cards in dummy, North, if the suit combination comprises two unequal holdings. Given the simplified setting, that makes no difference except for occasional psychological considerations, Crowhurst says. At the table, against two defenders who do see the open hand and don't see the closed hand, the difference may be very important.

Limited scope of conventional objectives

Crowhurst generally covers two alternative objective functions, (maximum) expected number of tricks won, or tricks expectation, and (maximum) probability of winning a salient specific number of tricks such as three for a combination with four cards in each hand.

♥QJ9x

♥Axxx

That set of two objectives is limited in some ways that are practically important, so they may have a big impact on the application of any findings to "real deals". It turns out that the findings are not simply applicable to trump contracts or to notrump contracts; nor generally applicable to a trump suit or a side suit in a trump contract. The crux of the matter is that the number of winning tricks in a suit is too simple. The number of losing tricks is not redundant and the sequence of winning and losing tricks may be significant.

First, consider the given suit combination in a heart contract. If the suit splits 0=5, or ♥– at left and ♥KT876 at right, then the defense has a fifth-round winner in hearts, which cannot be avoided. (The fifth trick in a suit may never be played, but the fifth card in trumps is a winner if played on a side-suit trick.) In a four-card suit combination such as this one, "three winners" usually means "one loser" but that is not redundant, and the distinction between three with one loser and three with two losers may be vital to the objectives of the two sides on a real deal.

Second, consider the given suit combination in a spade contract. Three winners on the first three hearts and a loser on the fourth trick — say, T876 opposite singleton king, and dummy leads the queen — leave open the possibility of losing no heart tricks, if the fourth one can be discarded or trumped. Three winners on the first, third, and fourth heart tricks — say, 87 opposite KT6, and declarer leads the ace — imply a loser on the second trick which cannot be avoided (or only rarely). The number of winning tricks for the declaring side, out of four cards in the suit, only approximately matches the objectives of the two sides on a real deal.

Deriving optimum suit plays

Within the simplified setting, declarer's optimal play of a suit combination may be derived using well-established game theory, namely the theory of two-person zero-sum games. Crowhurst generally covers two alternative objective functions for every suit combination in the catalog. One is the (maximum) expected number of tricks won, or tricks expectation. Another is the (maximum) probability of winning a salient specific number of tricks such as three for a combination with four cards in each hand.

This means that an objective function to be maximised is specified. For suit play purposes, this objective function (or goal) is usually taken to be the likelihood of making a specified minimum number of tricks.

Given this objective, all lines of play are checked against all possible defenses for each distribution of opponent's cards, and the objective function is determined for each of these cases. Each line of play combined with each distribution of opponent's cards can then be assigned a minimum value of the objective function resulting from the best defense for that layout. The optimum line of play is selected as the line that maximises the minimum value of the objective function averaged over all possible layouts. As a result, the optimum solution to the suit combination takes into account all lines of defense (including all forms of falsecarding), and guards against the best lines of defense, but is not necessarily optimal in terms of exploiting errors made by the defense.

Examples

Two tricks are required from the following combination:

♥ A 10 4

♥ Q 3 2

The optimal approach is to lead low toward the queen, a finesse against the king. If the queen loses to the king, lead low toward the ten, a second-round finesse against the jack. This wins two tricks 74% of the time. The approximation is easy to see by considering the four possible lies of the king and the jack in the defending hands. You succeed in three of the four cases: both king and jack in East (24% chance), king alone in East (26% chance), and neither in East (24% chance). In the fourth case, king in west and jack in East (26%), you succeed if the jack is singleton (0.5% chance).

Suppose two tricks are required from the next combination:

♥ J 10 5 4 3

♥ A 2

The optimal approach is to cash the ace and then lead low toward the jack. That fails only against ♥KQxxx(xx) in east; that is the king, queen, and at least three of the five small hearts. In other words, it succeeds if West holds either honor or at least three spot cards. Overall the probability of success is 90.0%[citation needed].

If three tricks are required, Lawrence recommends a different line of play. Cash the ace and then duck the second trick; that is, play low from both hands regardless of the defense. This succeeds when the suit is distributed 3-3 between the opponents and also when it splits 4-2 with one or both honors doubleton. (Against both honors doubleton, it wins four tricks. Against one honor doubleton it loses the second trick to that honor and the third trick to the other, winning the other three tricks.) Overall the probability of success is 64.6%.

Exploiting defensive errors

The optimum treatment of a particular suit combination guarantees a certain minimum likelihood of success against any possible defense. However, such a treatment, whilst guarding against opponents who would exploit any error in declarer play, does not itself exploit defensive errors. In some practical cases when defensive errors are likely, it might be advisable to deviate from the optimum play of the suit so as to benefit from the assumed defensive errors.

♥ K Q 10

♥ 4 3 2

In this example, from 5th edition of the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, declarer needs two tricks from a suit in which he has three small spotcards and dummy has K Q 10:

The game-theoretical optimum approach is to lead towards the king in dummy, and subsequently - whether the king won or not - to lead to the queen.

An expert defender sitting East with the ace, but no jack, is likely to duck on the first round to protect partner's jack. Thus, if this expert defender plays the ace on the first trick, he is most likely to have either the ace singleton, or the ace and jack because with any other combination he would have ducked. In the latter case, declarer's only chance to get two tricks from this suit is to play East for ace-jack doubleton. As the chance for ace-jack doubleton (0.73%) is larger than the chance for ace singleton (0.48%), if the king loses to the ace in trick one, declarer's optimum play is to play for the drop of the jack in trick two and put up the queen.

In practice however, if in the first round the king loses to East's ace, declarer must decide whether East would hold up the ace in the first round when not holding the jack. If East is judged as likely to play the ace in the first round regardless of the holding of the jack, declarer should finesse the ten in the second round. Note that an expert sitting East who deliberately makes the exploitative defense of catching the king with the ace whilst holding one or more small cards in the suit (but not the jack), is counting on the fact that declarer would judge him not to make that suboptimal play.

Improved computer analysis

Although optimum plays for suit combinations were traditionally derived by hand, the computational capabilities of modern computers has enabled greater detail and accuracy in the analysis and presentation of optimal lines of play. In reference to Roudinesco's Dictionary of Suit Combinations, bibliographers Bourke and Sugden note that it "has been superseded by computer programs, such as SuitPlay" - a program developed by Jeroen Warmerdam of the Netherlands"

Even without psychological factors, the analysis of complex suit combinations is not straightforward. Human analysis can lead to oversight of certain possibilities. Supposedly optimum approaches to suit combinations were published in the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, 5th edition, but automated analysis later demonstrated some to be incorrect and these were updated in later editions.

Example

♥ A 10 4 2

♥ 9 5 3

This suit combination is an example. Two tricks are required.

The line of play claimed by the 5th edition of The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge to guarantee 51% success is: "Lead small to the nine. If this loses to West, finesse the ten next. If an honor appears from East on the first round, lead small to the nine again; if East shows out or plays another honor, finesse the ten next; otherwise play to the ace."

However, using computerised exhaustive searches of his own design, Warmerdam found a play that he claims leads to at least 58% success against any possible defense: "Lead small to the nine. If this loses to West, cash the ace. If an honor appears from East on the first round, run the 9 and if it loses finesse the ten." The 6th edition of The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge recommends the same line of play as Warmerdam but states that the chance of success is 51%; the 7th edition corrected the percentage to 58%.

Goal setting

Although there can be little debate on what is the game-theoretically optimum play of a suit given the suit lay-out and the objective function to be maximised, the choice of what constitutes the right objective function for a given practical situation can be subject of debate. Generally, the specification of the objective function depends on the type of scoring. In team matches with IMP scoring, the objective of maximising the imp score usually corresponds to the goal of maximising the likelihood of obtaining a specified number of tricks from the suit under consideration (see above examples). In matchpoint scoring, one usually assumes that the objective of maximising your matchpoint score corresponds to the goal of maximising the expected number of tricks from the suit under consideration. This assumption is not always correct. The goal for declarer in matchpoint scoring rather is to ensure that his line of play beats alternative approaches in term of scoring more tricks on as many lay-outs as possible. When applying this 'matchpoint objective' to the line of play for a single suit, optimum lines of play originate that may differ from the non-exploitative line of play that optimises the expected number of tricks from the suit. An example illustrates the point:

♥ K 10 8 4

♥ Q 3 2

What is the best matchpoint play? The line of play that maximises the expected number of tricks from this suit is to finesse by playing to the ten. If the ten loses to the jack, you next play towards the king. If the ten loses to the ace, you next play the queen. This approach results in three tricks in 28.7% of the cases, two tricks in 54.4% of the cases, and one trick in 16.9% of the cases. The expectation value for the number of tricks is therefore 2.12 tricks.

However, this play is not optimal in the sense of optimising the above described matchpoint objective. Consider the line of play that starts by taking a deep finesse by playing to the eight. If the eight loses to the nine, next play to the king. If the eight loses to the jack, next let the ten run. If the eight loses to the ace, let the queen run and then finesse over the jack. This play results in 2.09 expected tricks, a results slightly less than the above 2.12 tricks obtained by playing to the ten. Yet, the play that leads to 2.09 tricks on average, beats the play leading to an average of 2.12 tricks in terms of matchpoint objective.

This can be seen by considering the lay-outs on which the line of play that starts with a deep finesse takes more tricks than the line of play starting with a finesse and vice-versa: it follows that the deep finesse beats the finesse in 22.95% of the cases, while the finesse beats the deep finesse only in 18.33% of the cases. In the remainder of the cases (58.72%) both lines of play lead to the same number of tricks.

Mixed strategies

Further complications can arise as in some cases no single deterministic strategy leads to an optimal result. A well-known result in game theory states that in such cases an optimal mixed strategy must exist. A small change in the lay-out of the last example illustrates this:[citation needed]

♥ K 10 8 7

♥ Q 3 2

What is the best matchpoint play for this suit? The line of play that maximises the expected number of tricks is to finesse by playing to the ten. If the ten loses to the jack, you next play towards the king. If the ten loses to the ace, you next play the queen.

Again, this play is not optimal in terms of matchpoint objective, as it gets beaten by the following line of play: take a deep finesse by playing to the eight. If the eight loses to the nine, next play the ten and finesse the jack. If the eight loses to the jack, next let the ten run. If the eight loses to the ace, let the queen run and then finesse over the jack. A similar analysis as in the previous example shows that the line of play that starts with a deep finesse in 31.43% of the cases leads to more tricks than the line of play starting with a finesse. The reverse result holds only in 23.18% of the cases.

Interestingly, the above line of play starting with the deep finesse also fails to optimise the matchpoint objective as it gets beaten by another line of play. In turns out that there are a total of eight lines of play that are non-transitive: the eight lines of play can be thought to be placed on a circle such that each line of play beats its left neighbor. As a result, the optimal approach in the context of the matchpoint objective corresponds to a so-called mixed strategy and is probabilistic in nature: the declarer has to select randomly one of the eight lines of play.

See also

Bridge probabilities

Finesse

Principle of restricted choice

Safety play

Vacant Places

References

Lawrence, Mike (1988). How to Play Card Combinations. Louisville, KY: Devyn Press, Inc. ISBN 978-0-910791-63-2.

Manley, Brent, Editor; Horton, Mark, Co-Editor; Greenberg-Yarbro, Tracey, Co-Editor; Rigal, Barry, Co-Editor (2011). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (7th ed.). Horn Lake, MS: American Contract Bridge League. ISBN 978-0-939460-99-1.

Roudinesco, J. M. (1996). The Dictionary of Suit Combinations. Paris: Guy Tredaniel.

Francis, Henry G., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Francis, Dorthy A., Editor, Fifth Edition (1994). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (5th ed.). Memphis, TN: American Contract Bridge League. ISBN 0-943855-48-9. LCCN 96188639.

Francis, Henry G., Editor-in-Chief; Truscott, Alan F., Executive Editor; Francis, Dorthy A., Editor, Sixth Edition (2001). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (6th ed.). Memphis, TN: American Contract Bridge League. ISBN 0-943855-44-6. OCLC 49606900.

Further reading

M. Kosmulski, Rozgrywka pojedynczego koloru, Warsaw, 1990 (in Polish).

Levé, Guy (2007). The Encyclopedia of Card Play Techniqes at Bridge. Toronto: Master Point Press. ISBN 978-1-897106-25-9.

Mollo, Victor; Gardener, Nico (1955). Card Play Technique or the Art of Being Lucky. First Edition: George Newnes Limited (London), 381p.

Alan Truscott, Standard Play of Card Combinations.

Article Sources and Contributors

Glossary of contract bridge terms Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=540934798 Contributors: 2005, 4ofaKind, Abtract, Aeusoes1, Alan Liefting, Ankemeny, Arjayay, Atrian, Bedders, Boskoman, Cambion, Carlossuarez46, Chris the speller, ChrisCork, Colonies Chris, Consci, Craw-daddy, Curb Chain, CyberSkull, DESiegel, Doradus, Download, Dr Smith, Dtrebbien, Duja, Duncan.france, Ehrenkater, Emurphy42, Erasmussen, FT2, Fuhghettaboutit, FutharkRed, GDibyendu, GriffenMac, Helenuh, Hu, Hvn0413, Icairns, Insanephantom, JethroElfman, JmBrPotter, JocK, John of Reading, John plaut, Larryco3, Marudubshinki, Matchups, MaxBrowne, Miklcct, Mild Bill Hiccup, Newwhist, Nwbeeson, Openworld24, P64, Pattayabridge, Petropetro, PigFlu Oink, Premeditated Chaos, PrimeHunter, Quadell, Qwfp, Radagast83, RichardF, Rossami, Rotorcowboy, SGBailey, SMcCandlish, Savantas83, Sectorzz9pluralzalpha, Smsarmad, SteveW60, TimNelson, Tomtheman5, TurnerHodges, Unint, UnitedStatesian, Virginia Dutch, Xlmvp, Xyzzyplugh, Zvd, Zwyciezca, 130 anonymous edits

List of play techniques (bridge) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=530495594 Contributors: ALife, Chutznik, D6, Erik9, Leolaursen, Newwhist, 5 anonymous edits

Hand evaluation Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=551736096 Contributors: Abtract, Arjayay, Boskoman, Bubba73, Buoren, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Chris the speller, ChrisCork, Closedmouth, Doradus, Dr Smith, Duja, Erasmussen, Eumolpo, Firsfron, Go Phightins!, GoingBatty, Griswold62, Hose502, Hyperman 42, Insanephantom, Jcb55iii, JocK, Johnor, Magioladitis, Mandarax, Newwhist, P64, Radius, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Rrius, Terryeo, User A1, 49 anonymous edits

Bridge convention Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=540869108 Contributors: Abtract, Andres, Atrian, B, Bbankler, Bearcat, Benwing, Boskoman, Burkefirm, Coachb05, Curb Chain, DESiegel, Decrypt3, Dryke, Duja, Giantsfan7131994, Jim Huggins, JmBrPotter, JocK, LazyJob, Ligulem, MECU, Mangojuice, Michael Devore, Newwhist, Ninly, Nutster, Otm.sk, P64, Pattayabridge, Pawlinu, Quadell, Radius, Raz1el, ShaneHarrison, Smile a While, Stevage, Tassedethe, TheKurgan, Tigga en, ^demon, 24 anonymous edits

Overcall Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=544417368 Contributors: Bobblehead, Dtrebbien, Duja, JocK, Newwhist, Rymatz, יונה בנדלאק, 4 anonymous edits

Negative double Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=551725579 Contributors: Bald patch, Cambion, Dtrebbien, Duja, Enkidu666, FT2, Insanephantom, Newwhist, TurnerHodges, Xlmvp, 3 anonymous edits

Preempt Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=552635065 Contributors: Aliotra, Chris the speller, Dale Arnett, Duja, Insanephantom, Intgr, Mare-Silverus, Newwhist, Quadell, Renesis, Robert K S, Ublun Ääts, 38 anonymous edits

Cue bid Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=541419619 Contributors: Abtract, Badtoyx, DJ Clayworth, DeltaQuad, Dtrebbien, Duja, Eljamin, HughGRex, Insanephantom, Kenrexford, Mbbradford, Newwhist, P64, Pattayabridge, Pinkadelica, Spikesdad, Toddst1, Xlmvp, 9 anonymous edits

Grand slam force Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=527185641 Contributors: Abtract, Andrewb1, Dale Arnett, Duja, GdB, HughGRex, Newwhist, 2 anonymous edits

Blackwood convention Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=540798427 Contributors: 209.151.140.xxx, Abtract, Bradj658, Bubba73, BunnyRabbit, Carlossuarez46, ChrisGualtieri, Conversion script, DJ Clayworth, Dan D. Ric, Darklilac, Decrypt3, Dtrebbien, Duja, Eljamin, Estienne, FT2, Gbwzx, Graham87, HughGRex, Jmmifsud, JocK, John plaut, Josh Cherry, Kipdole, Lenthe, LittleWink, Lynskyder, Mbbn, Mild Bill Hiccup, Newwhist, Niffweed17, P64, Phil Holmes, Pirate pete, Plastikspork, Pmanderson, Quadell, Radius, Rbarreira, S2000magician, Stifle, T-rex, TurnerHodges, Wikid77, Yecril, Zchenyu, Zwyciezca, 34 anonymous edits

Slam-seeking conventions Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=525056354 Contributors: Abtract, Bbankler, Cambion, Duja, François Haffner, Insanephantom, JocK, Kotniski, Lynskyder, Macdonald-ross, MaxBrowne, Newwhist, TimBentley, Wcw1966, 2 anonymous edits

Takeout double Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=551950738 Contributors: Benwing, Carlossuarez46, Dtrebbien, Duja, Enkidu666, Gryffon, Insanephantom, Jhbdel, JmBrPotter, Mam711, Matchups, Newwhist, Not-just-yeti, P64, Rich Farmbrough, Sgilch, SpacemanSpiff, Thedillybar, Xlmvp, 9 anonymous edits

The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=544364944 Contributors: 2005, Dryke, Duja, Fazzzoola, GoingBatty, Jhall1, John plaut, LittleWink, Newwhist, Northern winter, P64, Pol098, Rich Farmbrough, Smile a While, Trusilver, Ulric1313, 2 anonymous edits

Trump Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=539822420 Contributors: 2005, 37luke1, Allhailchester, Andycjp, Angr, Anthony Appleyard, AugieWest, Basawala, Bkonrad, Bongwarrior, Brierv, Chairman S., ColourBurst, CowboySpartan, Cuchullain, DJQ78, Dddstone, Dream of Nyx, EdwardLockhart, Fanatix, Floquenbeam, Fuhghettaboutit, GoShow, GoingBatty, Hans Adler, Hrothberht, Iandowe, J36miles, Janejellyroll, Jerome Charles Potts, Kiwinil, Krenakarore, Krótki, Liko81, Mattiyeh, MegX, Mild Bill Hiccup, Mmm-kkk, Nagy, Nsaa, Queenmomcat, SC, Silvermen, Smiloid, Tb, TonyTheTiger, William Allen Simpson, Wizard of Wizards, Zargulon, Zondor, 40 anonymous edits

Michaels cuebid Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=541691476 Contributors: Alai, Atrian, Bridgesnort, ChrisGualtieri, Duja, Ehrenkater, Errabee, Fornadan, Hyperman 42, Jasonglchu, JmBrPotter, JocK, Lavep, Matchups, Newwhist, Radius, Robertwragg, Rosiestep, Vang, 6 anonymous edits

Gerber convention Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=544407832 Contributors: Abtract, Braincricket, Bte99, Coachb05, Coxpaul, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, Duja, Hmains, Hyperman 42, Jaellee, Jimbob298, Lavep, Mild Bill Hiccup, MoraSique, Newwhist, PigFlu Oink, Radius, Some P. Erson, Travholt, 12 anonymous edits

Weak two bid Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=546541887 Contributors: Arrivisto, Atrian, Boskoman, DESiegel, Dtrebbien, Duja, FT2, Insanephantom, Lightlowemon, Mangojuice, Marudubshinki, MaverickPH, Melchoir, Newwhist, Quadell, יונה בנדלאק, 18 anonymous edits

Strong two clubs Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=517391288 Contributors: Agamemnon2, Canis Lupus, Duja, Errabee, Hyperman 42, Insanephantom, Jontom, Kenrexford, Leeyc0, Mangojuice, Marknau, Melaen, NawlinWiki, Newwhist, Pearle, Pmyteh, WLior, Weimanm, 21 anonymous edits

Unusual notrump Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=543898161 Contributors: 4ofaKind, Basilicofresco, Chowbok, Decrypt3, Dtrebbien, Duja, Ehrenkater, JmBrPotter, Matchups, Newwhist, Radius, Scout32, TurnerHodges, 12 anonymous edits

Relay bid Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=544375464 Contributors: Duja, Matchups, Newwhist, R'n'B, SteveW60

Jacoby transfer Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=550675641 Contributors: Abtract, Ambarish, AnOddName, Andrew.baine, Bluejak, Charles Matthews, Duja, Eisnel, Emersoni, François Haffner, Fuhghettaboutit, Func, GdB, GoingBatty, Insanephantom, Macho, Nabla, Newwhist, Paleocon44, Poccil, Quadell, RJaguar3, RattBoy, SGBailey, SimonP, Surturz, Tofof, Twmv, Zchenyu, 20 anonymous edits

Stayman convention Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=551856860 Contributors: 0, 209.151.140.xxx, 360P, Abortz, Abtract, Alpha Quadrant (alt), AndrewWTaylor, Brighterorange, Brisco90, Bubba73, Clarityfiend, Cymru.lass, Decrypt3, Dtrebbien, Duja, Eclecticology, Eythcobb, FT2, Fazzzoola, FingLongah, François Haffner, Gkklein, Grafen, Graham87, Gregch, Ibbn, Insanephantom, Lee Daniel Crocker, MER-C, Macdonald-ross, Marknau, Mbbn, Meisterkoch, Newwhist, P64, Pichpich, Radius, Redux, Richardpaulhall, Rjstott, Roo72, Sectorzz9pluralzalpha, T-dot, Tabletop, Tamfang, TenOfAllTrades, The Audient Void, The Cunctator, USCIAUberAlles?..., WallsComeTumblingDown, Yecril, Yingxu98, 114 anonymous edits

Forcing bid Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=547050987 Contributors: Duja, Insanephantom, JocK, Newwhist, P64, 1 anonymous edits

Opening lead Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=544586189 Contributors: Abtract, Bubba73, Dewritech, Dtrebbien, Duja, DuncanHill, Eljamin, Insanephantom, Newwhist, Radius, RchB, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Stephen, Suokko, 5 anonymous edits

Finesse Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=540484556 Contributors: 2005, ALife, Ary29, Bombastus, Cambion, Charles Matthews, Chzz, DESiegel, Dthomsen8, Dtrebbien, Duja, Estienne, Gaius Cornelius, Grand51paul, Gslin, Insanephantom, Jdg71, Jimka, JocK, Kemperb, Kuru, Laurascudder, Mihai, Newwhist, Radius, Ralian, Robert Dober, TOttenville8, TPIRFanSteve, Tabletop, Tarquin, Wk muriithi, Wmahan, Wwoods, Xlmvp, Yecril, 69 anonymous edits

Endplay Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=541189800 Contributors: Aerion, Bbankler, Binand, Chiroubles, Dtrebbien, Duja, Newwhist, Radius, Roo72, 4 anonymous edits

Duck (bridge) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=530476631 Contributors: DESiegel, Duja, Insanephantom, John plaut, Newwhist, NineOfDiamonds, Piperh, Radius, Rich Farmbrough, 9 anonymous edits

Ruff (cards) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=548438687 Contributors: 2005, Abtract, Benwing, Bgwhite, Cambion, CesarB, Charles Matthews, ChrisGualtieri, Duja, Gaius Cornelius, Gene Nygaard, Krenakarore, MattGiuca, Neelix, Newwhist, P64, Prolinol, Radius, Simpsone4, Stifle, TypoBoy, Wwoods, 14 anonymous edits

Squeeze play (bridge) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=541167923 Contributors: Andre Engels, Bridgepard, Cambion, Charles Matthews, Cwpetersen, Dtrebbien, Duja, Eclecticology, FvdP, GdB, Insanephantom, John plaut, Kerseyd, Lee Daniel Crocker, Newwhist, NineOfDiamonds, Ortolan88, Robert Dober, Roo72, Telso, Tomc74, Torage, Tord Grejder, TurnerHodges, WantItNow2Go, Xlmvp, Yecril, Zargulon, 13 anonymous edits

Entry (cards) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=530477030 Contributors: Aerion, Duja, Newwhist, 1 anonymous edits

Coup (bridge) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=459152302 Contributors: Alai, Cambion, Duja, Fuhghettaboutit, Ian Pitchford, Jag123, John P McCullagh, Kemperb, Newwhist, Phr, Radius, TOttenville8, Vang, Xlmvp, 19 anonymous edits

Hold up (bridge) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=543658913 Contributors: C362338312, DESiegel, Decrypt3, Duja, Firsfron, Grafen, Johnor, Newwhist, Offby1, Radius, Rich Farmbrough, Winstonsmith99, 3 anonymous edits

Signal (bridge) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=549402531 Contributors: ALife, Aceshaw, Ajay Dotar Sojat, CoachingFool, DogdogO, Dthomsen8, Duja, Everyking, FT2, FingLongah, Gaius Cornelius, Harryboyles, Insanephantom, JocK, John plaut, Kotniski, Lukewise, MCWNT, Mild Bill Hiccup, Newwhist, NineOfDiamonds, Otm.sk, Radius, RevRagnarok, Ronkral, Sectorzz9pluralzalpha, Sheila A, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Sonicyouth86, Trumps, Welsh, Yecril, 30 anonymous edits

Safety play Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=543299336 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Boskoman, Cambion, DESiegel, Dtrebbien, Duja, JocK, Newwhist, Otm.sk, P64, Radius, Robert Dober, Telso, TurnerHodges, Xlmvp, Yecril, 3 anonymous edits

Vacant Places Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=514278448 Contributors: John of Reading, Michael Hardy, Mrathel, Newwhist, P64, Rchillyard

Principle of restricted choice Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=541692291 Contributors: Cambion, Carlossuarez46, ChrisGualtieri, Dirac66, Doradus, Drpickem, Dtrebbien, Duja, Ehrenkater, Esrever, Humblefool, JocK, King of Hearts, Newwhist, Outriggr, P64, Paul A, Ralian, Roo72, Secondfoxbat, Taral, That Guy, From That Show!, Vang, Wizardman, Xlmvp, Yoak, 8 anonymous edits

Bidding system Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=550510128 Contributors: Abtract, AllyD, BnBeever, DESiegel, Dtrebbien, Duja, Ehrenkater, Fsk, Grand51paul, Insanephantom, JocK, Lowellian, Mangojuice, Mbbradford, Mboverload, Newwhist, PKYip, Peter Karlsen, Poshua, Quadell, R6144, Remzag, Roo72, Sfan00 IMG, Stevage, Tb, Terryeo, Vikyathrao, Vitani III, Xlmvp, Yngvadottir, Zwyciezca, 19 anonymous edits

Standard American Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=540803700 Contributors: Angr, Cantons-de-l'Est, Cnj, Decrypt3, Duja, Eclecticology, Ewlyahoocom, Hyperman 42, Iamthebob, Insanephantom, JamesMLane, Jontom, Kevlarsen, Kivgaen, Marknau, Mbbradford, Mitsufreak, Newwhist, Palica, Poccil, Radius, Roo72, Sligocki, Travholt, Vang, Vicki Rosenzweig, Wispity, 44 anonymous edits

2/1 game forcing Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=542928019 Contributors: Cambion, Charles Matthews, Dodiad, Dtrebbien, Duja, Estienne, Grand51paul, Hyperman 42, Jbolden1517, Jeepday, JocK, Magioladitis, Newwhist, Pichpich, Radius, Randommuser, Sgt Pinback, Sngha2, The Cunctator, Waggers, Yecril, 9 anonymous edits

Strong club system Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=541452898 Contributors: Decrypt3, Derek Ross, Duja, Ellmist, Esrever, Grand51paul, Insanephantom, John of Reading, Marknau, Moscito, Mskadu, Newwhist, Radius, Roo72, Six, Yecril, 8 anonymous edits

Precision Club Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=541118243 Contributors: Alai, Andre Engels, Decrypt3, Delibaltas, Dtrebbien, Duja, Erasmussen, Exteray, Francs2000, Insanephantom, JamesMLane, Kenneth614, Kwschneider, MCWNT, Marknau, MaxBrowne, Mchourdakis, Newwhist, Palica, Quadell, Radius, Roo72, RxS, Scout32, SimonMayer, Six and Four, Strstrep, Sun Creator, UdayanBanerjee, Vang, Wikikeylime, Yecril, 29 anonymous edits

Acol Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=540531102 Contributors: Abtract, AllyD, Bearfoot, Bissinger, Buzzilla, Cimon Avaro, Cj1340, Cometstyles, Dryke, Duja, DuncanHill, El C, EricK, Evercat, Harm.frielink, Herostratus, HughGRex, Hyperman 42, Insanephantom, JCJC777, Jatoas, Jhall1, Kotniski, Macdonald-ross, Magispo, Maros, Mmcgrath, Newwhist, Ninly, Oberiko, Pd jones, Pearle, Peter Shearan, Radius, Rich Farmbrough, Roo72, S2000magician, SGBailey, Shadowjams, SteveW60, Storkk, Ukexpat, Yecril, 36 anonymous edits

Card reading (bridge) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=516389578 Contributors: ALife, Dr meetsingh, EastTN, Editfromwithout, Insanephantom, Jesse V., JustAGal, Katharineamy, Leefkrust22, Newwhist, SDnogo, Soulparadox, Wikid77, 4 anonymous edits

Suit combination Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=517393906 Contributors: Abtract, Appraiser, Cambion, Duja, Eewild, Estienne, JocK, Kemperb, Mkosmul, Newwhist, P64, Pol098, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Valentinejoesmith, 12 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

Rubber_Bridge_Scoring_Blank_Version_2.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rubber_Bridge_Scoring_Blank_Version_2.svg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: Newwhist

Autobridge.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Autobridge.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Contributors: User:Peng

magnify-clip.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Magnify-clip.png License: Contributors: -

4suits.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:4suits.svg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: User:Duja

Ambox_content.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ambox_content.png License: Public Domain Contributors: El T (original icon); David Levy (modified design); Penubag (modified color)

The_Official_Encyclopedia_of_Bridge_7th_Edition.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_Official_Encyclopedia_of_Bridge_7th_Edition.jpg License: Fair Use Contributors: American Contract Bridge League

TheOfficialEncyclopediaOfBridge.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:TheOfficialEncyclopediaOfBridge.jpg License: Contributors: User:Duja

Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Anomie, Mifter

People_icon.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:People_icon.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: OpenClipart

Question_book-new.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Question_book-new.svg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Tkgd2007

Edit-clear.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Edit-clear.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the file, specifically: "Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although minimally)."

Wiktionary-logo-en.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Vectorized by , based on original logo tossed together by Brion Vibber

Merge-arrows.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Merge-arrows.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:Erin Silversmith, User:Lifeisunfair, User:Rei-artur