Leaderboard

Open 1♦. If partner responds in a major, splinter and make another move if he signs off. Raise 1NT to 3NT. If he responds 2♣, the next action depends on system.

I would open 1♦ and reverse on both of those examples. If the hand was weaker, e.g. x AJxxx AQxxxx x then I would open 1♥. I might open 1♦ with really bad hearts, intending to just rebid diamonds and give up on a 5-3 heart fit, e.g. A xxxxx AKxxxx x. But even with a heart suit like 1098xx I would consider opening 1♥.

Silly rules lead to silly results. I understand why you have the rule, and I understand that arguing against the rule accomplishes nothing. But it is still silly, and if it results in an adjusted score on this hand, that will be a silly result.

Every time you put an exception in, fewer people understand the rule. So, no, it does not matter what the auction has been. I am not sure how many times I have to say it. We have gone from rules a minority understand to rules that a majority understand. Both rules were moaned about so that does not help. With rare exceptions, alerting stops at 3NT, so we are only talking low level doubles. As for always playing penalty doubles after a penalty double, I don't. But anyway, the only way to have a simple rule is to have a simple rule. The idea of a simple rule with "obvious" exceptions is that you now have a complicated rule.

If 3C isn't fit showing, is 4C a fit showing bid? That seems better than 4S. Partner may have a very awkward decision when they bid 5H.

4 ♠ -- It's OK to bid 4 ♠ with only 4 trump when you have a 6 card side suit. If partner has ♣s, your holding is golden. If partner holds other suits, you've distribution to ruff losers in them.

To me this is no problem at all: I would simply inform West that she must replace her insufficient bid (not accepted by North) with any legal call except double, and that East is required to pass for the remainder of the auction on this board. East's statement ("Dunno, maybe RKC") simply confirms that they have no kind of agreement for any call to "take over" as Blackwood if 4NT is blocked by interference. (If they could show reliable evidence of such agreement I would allow the insufficient 4NT to be replaced by such call under Law 27B1{b}.)

Mgoetze's point is probably that responder will never have a penalty X, RHO is not psyching and has bid 2H having heard his RHO show the majors. LHO has indicated 2+ hearts. It is an interesting argument that it is optional with 31 in the majors and some D, that might even be the best agreement but you cannot assume that without a special agreement.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq83hakq7daqcjt53&n=sa52ht854dt3ckq64&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp1c2dd3d4hppp]266|200[/hv] West leads ♦5 (4th best) to 10, J and Q. You cash ♥A and LHO throws ♦2 (standard remaining count). Once you've finished thinking about whether you should have bid it differently, how do you play? Edit: West could not have opened a weak 2♦, in case it matters.

[hv=pc=n&w=sa8hkqjt2dak6cj43&e=skqj63h87543dcaq5&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1sp2hp4d(Splinter)p4s(Cue)p5c(Cue)p5d(Cue)p5s(Cue)p6d(Cue)p6hppp]266|200[/hv] Making 12 tricks on the ♣8 lead. I'm not entirely happy with this auction, because I (West) was unable to find out whether partner had the A♥. Also, while I thought 6NT would be good from partner's side of the table, I wasn't sure if it would play well from my side. Where could we have done better? Our general system was Acol, so 1♠ didn't immediately promise 5, and 2♥ was 10+, not game forcing. Our cues showed first or second round control.

OK, I think this not an easy hand to get right. If it turns out to be easy, I've posted it in the wrong forum. [hv=pc=n&w=sj8432h6dajt72c62&n=sqt95hq98dq53ct73&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1h2cdp2hpp3cppp]266|200[/hv] The bidding probably doesn't count as expert,but your problem is to beat the contract however they got there. You lead the 6 of hearts, 8, 10, Jack Declarer cashes the AK of clubs (on which partner plays 9 J and you play 2 6) and then plays a diamond towards dummy. You put in a pip which holds the trick, partner playing the 4 (standard count, if anything). Now what, and why?

[hv=pc=n&s=sj853h87d6cajt732&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=ppp1s2h]133|200[/hv] IMPs. 2/1. 3♥ is limit raise w/ 3+ trump. What's your call?

X then cue bid then 3/4♠ - this shows a monster X then 4♠ - this is a serious sequence, more so than an immediate 4♠ 4♠ - sets spades as trump; does not need to be a giant in terms of high-card strength 3♠ - sets spades as trump and asks partner to go to game with anything more than his 7-point expectation X then 3♠ - this suggests something around 17 points with 5-4-2-2 shape; five spades, two hearts, a doubleton in the minor partner bid, and four of the other minor 2♠

Declarer has a rough time ruffing a heart in dummy if East covers the 2nd heart with the K after ducking a spade. Either the defense cashes out if declarer ducks or declarer is stuck in dummy without a way to hand after playing a 3rd heart. Continuing spades or diamonds leads to declarer getting stuck in hand unable to ruff in dummy or use the established ♠Q cause E gets in to cash the master trump. Good problem. I was afraid of a spade cause I thought it might just end the hand right there if declarer guessed right. Probably would have tried a diamond at the table.

There's nothing wrong with making an agreement for 1♠-1N(f)-2X-3N that includes this hand or another balanced NT range that seems troublesome. You do tend to right-side NT as well. If you do include some GF hands in 1NT, which I used to do in an experiment at one point, we would alert it and describe as "forcing, could be game forcing" in case they wanted to inquire further. Without special discussion, I think it's "standard" to bid 2♣ here despite the short suit.

I rule that there has been an irregularity under 9B1 in failing to call the director, and that declarer in trying to apply the law himself could have known that this irregularity would work in favour of his side, so under law 23 I rule that play continues and I will probably award an adjusted score at the end (giving defenders the Ace and consdiering what would happen afterwards). I'm also going to give declarer a PP and warn defenders about calling the director when attention has been drawn to an irregularity

This hand belongs in game but I would like to help partner with his decision over 5♥, so 4♣ for me. If we don't play fit jumps in competition over a major, we will after this hand.

This, if you expect partner to come to the same conclusion at the table without prompting. Otherwise, 4C if you have an agreement to play fit jumps in competition. Otherwise, 4S.

Jilly Can you post the full hand please? These big 4441's have been often discussed in the forums. I would like to see how previous comments would have fared with this hand. Thank you.

Modern tendency is to lead a Major even from a short suit against the 1N-3N auction. While your inference on ♦ length is probably right, I am not sure playing for the ♣ finesse is the best use of dummy's entry. I would cash ♣s and hope they open the majors for me. I'm rpobably duckin the 2nd round of ♦ when they are continued.

Trump lead as my 4 spots are too weak to try pumping declarer. A passive lead here is good as declarer must work to find the missing honor cards. Can't wait to see dummy.

Voted other because this is a perfect opportunity for Balance of Power Double. We own more than half the deck. South has 3 cards in both their suits (at the 3 level doubler needs only 2 - rule of 23/32). Given your methods, passing seems appropriate as partner will likely never have enough for 4♠. 3N is unilateral. Indeed opening 1N eliminates these issues.

7 1/2 to 8 losers. 4♠ would be automatic with red suits reversed. Now there's a higher risk that partner has wasted values in ♦s. IMPs will cause me to bid 4♠. At MPs I bid 3♠. This hand is not a Limit Raise - Missing an A or K somewhere.

If South is unsure what to switch to after winning the second diamond, he could try not winning it.

The problem with suitplay is that I can't use it at the table :) There's probably a way to think about these things that simplifies them. I hope.

You need at least 8 HCP for a Limit Raise, so this clearly doesn't qualify. 3♠ seems an underbid - I would bid 4♠. We might owe partner another Spade, but that Club suit and the ruffing values has me thinking we make it.

I don't think we will get away with 3m undoubled. Partner probably has shortness in ♠, but chose not to double, so should have good ♥. Sit, but It's close.

Yeah, it's disconcerting looking at a void opposite partner's overcall. But, if you take a call are you likely to improve the result any? There's no guarantee partner has any good fit for your minors. At a minimum, you're increasing the level of the contract or the cost of the set by doing anything except pass. On a good day, however, you might just find partner with something like ♥ AKJ9876 where the damage can be minimized even though there's a trump stack behind him. If partner can hold the damage to down 1 or 2, you might not be too badly off versus, say, 3 NT making their way.

My biggest pet peeve (for no reason): People who overcall 2C with 2335 rather than X. Doubling is 1000 % better than 2C don't ever question yourself again! Partner just has a good hand. He might have 2 aces and 1xxx for instance. I would pass, I have great defense, very balanced shape for a t/o X, and terrible offense.

what do you expect landy bidder to do over double other than pass?

at MP I would xx figuring if we are getting slaughtered it doesn't hurt for it to maybe be a bit worse if p has to leave it in and who knows maybe 3 of a minor wont be x:))) at IMPS I must pass since the hand figures to play badly at 3 of a minor even if we have a fit. xx if p leaves it in is turning a poor score into a catastrophe if p has to leave it in. do not bid 2n here that shows values. xx is the only way to warn p of impending doom and desire to play in a minor.

Amusing that 2/1 players treat their gadgets like Flannery and Kaplan inversion as "Natural Bidding" :) :) :)

Assuming I'm North, I think I will sit for this - there's no guarantee that 3minor will play any better. Hopefully partner wasn't messing about at this vulnerability.

w/Expert partners I play: Texas only if jump 3M GF Natural 3N to play (usually partial stopper+) 4om GF Natural 4mQbid - 44 Major with severe m shortness 0/1 Double - negative - but w/2-3 m cards. 4M to play Therefore w/55M we start w/3♠ and rebid 4♥ w/5=4 we bid 3♠ then qbidm over 3N. w/4=5 we bid 3♥. If opener has 4♠s s/he can bid 3♠ Playing 4♦ as 55 is ok but opener can't cuebid below game...

A long time ago this showed some 'stuff'. Now I will do it on most hands that I would overcall 1♠ in the direct chair.

Clearly a pass on values, especially considering that 2♠ may be shaded. Make the hand about a queen (maybe a king) stronger and I can see this as an invitation. Double should not be penalty, but should have reasonable defense. With an offensively-oriented invitation, just bid 4♠. There is a great chance in that case it is either a make or a good save.

with the system imposed on me I vote x for game try. we are too weak to make game level bids on our own and we were strong enough to open 1n originally not some ever more popular weakish hand. Noone forced p to bid 2s they have some values and we have some safety in 3s if p is not interested. The fact that we can be significantly weaker for our 1s bid forces us to act a bit more aggressively so we dont get pushed around by a bit of preemption..if p is willing to accept our game try we should have very good play.

3H might well have club support (a kind of FNJ) - otherwise it starts to sound like there's a lot of points in the deck. I don't see much wrong with having 3S competitive here, though perhaps double should be penalty with three suits bid. Anyway, I would make a game try at imps, and settle for a penalty X (passing hoping partner reopens playing these methods) at MPs. Or should I bid 3S since partner might not reopen? ahydra

Yes I read that. Just pointing out that it is a poor agreement. This auction is markedly different from 1♠ - (2♥) - 2♠ - 3(♥) where double as a random game try makes some sense.

I double for penalty. 3S should be a game try. Don't compete at the 3-level vs a non-fit auction. Of course, if 3H is cold, partmner should rip.

Responder's 4♥ sets hearts as trumps. If there was no Kickback, 4NT would be RKCB and 4♠ a cue bid. With Kickback these are reversed, i.e. 4♠ is RKCB and 4NT is a spade cue bid.