mikestar13

This is a 3.5♠ opening, but since this is not legal, I go aggressive with the 7-4 shape and choose 4♠. 3♠ is reasonable though not to my taste. 2♠ is worse than passing.

1♠ is the only choice IHMO and if I were forced to take some other action, I'd go to the bar and take the PP and I don't drink!

Her's a sequence that works in ultra-vanilla 2/1 where neither partner has ever heard of Walsh and the partnership bids 4 card suits up the line: 1♣-1♦; 1♥-4♥; 4NT-5♠; 6♥ I'm assuming the partnership doesn't know RCKB either, so 5♠ shows 3 Aces. This is how I would have bid with an average partner circa 1977. Methods aren't the key here--it's that West needs to realize that this is about the best 13-count he will see in his life and bid accordingly (I'd estimate the playing value of West's hand to be about 19-20.)

Out of curiosity, what was west bidding 4NT on (or maybe what was West on) ?

Stayman is best used for 2 types of hands: (1) game invitational or better hands with major suit interest (2) hopeless hands which will pass partner's rebid. This hand falls between those ranges and is better passed. Change the ♠A to a small spade and I would risk Stayman in spite of the poor diamonds.

I'm one of those 2,3,4 advocates, so this is 4♠ except at unfavorable. Though I can see a case for pulling in a notch when you have spades. A reasonable partnership agreement might well be 1,2,3 in spades and 2,3,4 in other suits. In any case, be aggressive with that middle number when neither side is vulnerable and conservative when both sides are vulnerable; but the given hand is a pretty clear 7 tricks.

My preferred meta rule: when faced with competition above 2 of our suit, 3 of our suit is never invitational; with a good invite bid game, with a bad invite, settle for competing. Where it is possible for partner to have substantial extra, he can go on to game. This needs to be a good bit stronger than the minimum which would accept accept an invite in a non-competitive auction. That is not possible in this specific sequence, as partner would have super-accepted with such a holding.

Try this for the best info on the web about card games: pagat.com. Bound to be something to your taste here.

At matchpoints, action is very dubious IMHO. At Imps, its borderline psychotic.

I can't understand it either. The WBF makes no exception to its definition of a weak hand (<10 HCP, regardless of distribution). Sensibly, the English Bridge Union's Blue Book contains the definition that a hand with a suit of AKQxxx or longer is not a weak hand (therefor not subject to Brown Sticker). I don't know how may other bridge organizations follow their lead. I would think that most of Europe would do so; but since I live in bat-**** crazy ACBL land, I may ascribe more rationality to European NBO's than is in point of fact the case.

I'd try 4♠. I have little experience with Gazzilli; but this sequence is very much like the corresponding Precision sequence, where I would take a shot at game.

You've got 14 tricks, why the h*ll didn't you find the laydown 8♦?:rolleyes:

Your single raise range 6-12?? is unplayable, anything either of you do will be wrong a good portion of the time. Try a better structure, then your judgement will improve.

I would probably upgrade this one: the hand is significantly better than a typical 11-count, while 1NT gets in their way if it is their hand and is easy to bid if it is ours--I simply decline all invitations and refuse to co-operate in any slam investigations. In the actual auction, 3NT.

2♠ for me. I'd try no trump if I had a club stopper--but xxxx doesn't cut it vs. a likely 6 card suit. The hand is simply to strong to pass if I can help it--but I can see the other side of this, too. Partner is short in clubs but can't find a bid: he's more likely to be weak than if I had the club shortage.

Exactly--no one in the club had ever dared try it, but I expect the club's card committee was have banned the offending party for at least a year. Expected length was per the CC (if filled out) for other bids; for preempts, it 6 cards for a weak 2 and seven cards for 3... illegal to agree to open a shorter suit. A partnership could agree to a longer minimum suit length if properly disclosed (God knows why they would want to.) Truth is, these folks really wanted everyone to play 1950's Goren, but they very grudgingly accepted some innovations/heresies from up to about 1970. Quote from one of the players (excellent at declarer play, good defender, unimaginative bidder) -- "I never opened a weak two in my life!"

Yes, the club defined it as a deviation of more than a queen in strength or one card in length from the convention card (or SA in no card was filled out--the usual case) as a psychic -- but preempts could not be a card short of the expected length. Weak two on five cards a bridge felony in the club's eyes :o Like I said, I needed the money.

I've been following this idea more and more as I get older: use judgement, but when in doubt, reach for Hamman's Hammer.

Beware -- some club level players insist that a passed out hand on the first round of play can be redealt, notwithstanding the clear prohibition in the Laws. Call the director immediately if someone tries this. I once directed in a non-sanctioned game in a club where there were several club rules that contradicted the Laws--one of which allowed the redeal mentioned above. (Didn't make me happy, but I needed the money.) Never could get them to repeal this club rule--at least I got them to make the redeal mandatory rather than discretionary with the players (that practice allowed out and out cheating by more experienced though less ethical pairs). Another chestnut from that club -- a rule that all psychics were illegal, non-offending side couldn't score worse than average+, offenders got an automatic zero.

4♠ for me at these colors, make a small heart a stiff diamond and I'd probably pull in my horns and bid 3♠ (though I'd sill try 4♠ white vs. red). This hand doesn't feel like a one bid at all.

I think 2NT is better at any scoring--how likely are we to end in a minor suit partial even in MP? The choice is likely going to be between 3NT and 5m, and the major suit honors strongly suggest 3NT. I might consider correcting to 4♠ after 2NT-3♥;3♠-3NT as the heart lead has been pinpointed. After 2NT-3NT I'm less concerned, as partner may have help in hearts or they may not lead them. if you're likely going to end up punting 3NT at some point anyway, the less revealing auction starting with 2NT is more likely to be a winner. I think the OP showed good judgement here, whether or not it worked out at the table--there are no 100% actions available on a hand like this, and I feel confident that 2NT is the best % action.

I have passed a Blackwood bid (simple or RKC) exactly once in my bridge career: the sequence was 1NT by me, 4NT by partner. Of course, I didn't know he intended 4NT as Blackwood. This is of course an inferior treatment, but my partner (a pickup) was a believer in "Any 4NT bid asks for aces", but neglected to tell me until after the hand. Ironically, this was above average result as 11 tricks were the limit even though we had all 4 aces-- we only had 31 HCP combined and both hands were 4-3-3-3, and a couple of genius pairs at other tables were off 1 in 6NT.

Double dummy probably works to the defense's advantage in this case (totally non-revealing auction to game level). If this is true, 3NT on 12 opposite 12 should be a winner vulnerable and a wash non-vulnerable. Relative skill level of the partnerships (if known) is quite important to this decision at the table.

And old partner of mine used to say TYP (trust your partner). I 100% agree that you should trust partner to know how to balance.

3♥ for me. IMHO, North would have done better to make his choice of bids on the previous round. I could tolerate any of 2, 3, or 4♥ according to North's evaluation of the hand, but I don't like the pass of XX.