kriegel

Another factor is how much of a suit has been shown by partner. It is quite safe, as far as leading aces goes, to lead the ace from Axx when partner has opened a weak two, since he's showing a good 6-card suit. However, leading unsupported aces in partner's suit becomes much less appealing when he hasn't shown as good a suit. I try to avoid leading from Axx when partner has opened a minor, and even when partner has opened a major, I'm wary. If the strength is on my right (whether a stopper has been shown or not), I try very hard not to lead from Axx in partner's suit. Not only do we drop a trick when declarer has Kx(x), we also come up short when he has Qxx (the queen is now behind partner's king). I'm definitely in the "don't lead unsupported aces" camp, but I would have led the ace of hearts on your example hand.

It all comes down to the two core questions of bidding: "Where?" and "How High?" In the auction 1♠ - 2♠, you already know Where you are playing (spades), so the only question is How High. It makes sense, then to have bids at the 3-level show game interest, because with a hand that wanted to play game you could just jump to 4♠ (with slam interest, you'd do something else, but I'm not going to get into that). The reason that 1♠ - 2♥; 3♣ is game forcing is you're still sorting out both Where and How High you will be playing - you might be in game or partscore in clubs, hearts, spades, or notrump. There is simply not enough room to determine your best strain and proper level if 1♠ - 2♥; 3♣ isn't game forcing. Hence, you need a bid for hands that can't force to game (like your example hand). These hands must make what's called a "default" rebid, which simply says, "I don't have anything more meaningful to say." The standard default rebid in a two-over-one sequence (I know you don't play 2/1 Game Forcing, but this is still a two-over-one sequence) is 2 of opener's major. The sequence 1♠ - 2♥; 2♠ doesn't promise a 6-card suit. It only gives negative inferences - it's a hand that can't raise hearts, can't bid 2NT, and can't bid a minor on the 3-level. You might have 5 spades or you might have 7. Your next bid should clarify your hand. P.S. I don't think responder can pass 1♠ - 2♥; 2♠ because responder is promising a rebid unless game has been reached.

Declarer play is definitely the weakest area of my game, and I'm looking for books to help me improve. My biggest problem is visualization (I'm not strong spatially), so books that address that would be best. I'm competent at advanced-level techniques (squeezes, etc.), but sometimes I manage to miss the obvious. I've read Watson's Play of the Hand, The Rodwell Files twice, Bridge Squeezes Complete twice, How to Read Your Opponents' Cards, Countdown to Better Bridge, and others. Thank you.

I've never played SAYC, but I can answer the first question. Reverses are unlimited, so they can include a game-forcing 19-21 point hand. The lower limit for a reverse is something that your partnership will have to decide on (17 or so is pretty common), but there is no upper bound besides the fact that you didn't open 2♣. For example: 1♦ - 1♠ 2♥ = roughly 17+ points, 5+ diamonds, 4 hearts (could be 6 diamonds, 5 hearts rarely), diamonds always longer than hearts If responder makes a minimum bid, say 2NT, opener can pass or rebid his first suit with a "minimum" reverse (17-18 points) or he can force to game with some other bid. You wouldn't use a jump shift into a higher-ranking suit to show a game-forcing hand. 1♦ - 1♠ 3♥ would not be a strong hand with diamonds and hearts (that hand would make a reverse). The exact definition depends on partnership agreement and isn't something to worry about as a beginner. However, a jump shift into a lower-ranking suit is natural and game-forcing, for example: 1♦ - 1♠ 3♣ would show 19+ points and (usually) 5+ diamonds, 4+ clubs I hope this helps.

[hv=pc=n&s=sahkj943dakt862cj&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1d1sdp]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints, standard negative double, 6+ points, 4+ hearts. Your bid?

I think I'd try my luck with 1♠. 3♥ is probably my second choice, but I think it's a bit heavy for that. This is quite a convincing argument for an artificial 2NT rebid...

I would open 1♣ planning on rebidding 1NT over 1♠. The stiff king notwithstanding, the hand has good texture and the concentration isn't bad. When partner bids spades, I think the ♠K goes up in value enough (or returns to its orginal 3 points) to make it reasonable to treat it as 15-17 balanced. It's not clear-cut to me, and as I'm typing this I'm moving slightly toward opening 1NT, which is my second choice. Opening 1♦ and rebidding 2♣ is reasonable too.

Almost everyone is familiar with Gerberitis, the overuse of Gerber and the assumption that any 4♣ bid is an ace-ask. I see it frequently at my local club, but I never thought it could strike me. Two years ago at a regional, when I was a novice (or more of a novice than I am now - I've only been playing for four years), I experienced this auction as well as a case of Gerberitis. Partner opened 2NT, to which I responded 3♣, Puppet Stayman. I was informed that partner had one or both 4-card majors via 3♦, and I bid 3♥ to show spades. Partner bid 3♠ to show a slam-positive hand with a spade fit. I now cuebid 4♣ and partner bid 4NT. At this point, Gerberitis struck. For some reason, I decided that my (expert) partner believed my 4♣ to be Gerber. I had not intended it that way, but that was the only possible explanation that came to me during my 30 second huddle. Spades were agreed, we were trying for slam, and partner bid 4NT - yet, "Blackwood" never crossed my mind. I eventually decided just to jump to 6♠, after all we had all the aces (partner's 4NT showed 3). The full auction was: 2NT - 3♣ (Puppet Stayman) 3♦(4-card major) - 3♥ (spades) 3♠ (spades, slam interest) - 4♣ (Gerber, in my mind) 4NT (3 aces) - 6♠ (I have no idea what's going on) Pass (Neither do I) The play involved picking up this trump suit for no losers: ♠AQxx ♠KT9x Unfortunately, my partner played the honors in the wrong order and lost a trick to Jxxx, so we were down one. In 6NT (where we would have ended up had I remembered Blackwood), it's possible to get a count on the hand, so no mis-guess. It's embarrassing to have been the goat in this scenario, but at the very least, I have a lot of empathy when my partners forget certain keycard responses or what the ask is. I've been there.

Yes, I agree that responder can count to 13 if opener asks and subsequently asks for kings. But opener's hand was ♠Axxxx ♥Axxx ♦x ♣Axx That hand seems much more likely to make cuebids than to ask for keycards - the whole value of his hand is the 3 aces. Those are easily shown via a keycard response. Opener doesn't know about the exact nature of responder's hand beyond a long (solid, if that's your agreement) diamond suit with slam interest. He doesn't know about the major-suit shortness (couldn't responder be 2=2=7=2?) or the club fillers. Granted, opener knows that responder has values somewhere, but it seems much easier for responder to ask. My solution at the table was to bid 4NT (standard Blackwood) over 1♠. I got the 3-ace response and away I went. I would never not ask for keycards with this hand; that's really all the information I want out of partner.

Yes, I was too hasty when I said he would bid 5♦, and "if" wasn't the right word - sorry. Clearly, 4♦ sets trump and starts cuebidding. But I wouldn't take it for granted that partner would continue with a second cue at the 5-level just because he's holding 2 aces. Should we make a stronger try than bidding 5♦ over 4♠? But in any case, 4♠ - 5♦ 5♥, what now?

Edit: Partner bids 4♠, showing a control.

Matchpoints, your opponents have an uncontested auction: RHO LHO 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♥ All pass You hold: ♠A ♥8654 ♦AT762 ♣Q76 Your lead?

Fairly simple 2/1, teams. You hold: ♠K ♥x ♦AKQJTxx ♣KQxx Partner opens 1♠. Opponents pass throughout. Your bid? A pretty straightforward hand if you ask me; I'm just curious about everyone's bidding plan.

I start by "finessing" the queen of hearts, followed by running the ♠7. I guess I'm hoping to find ♠AKx with West or a defensive error. I just need to make sure to keep the option of leading a diamond to the king (which I think isn't too likely to win, given the overcall on a ten-high suit). If the ♠7 is covered, I think I would duck, hoping to bring down the AK eventually. The chances of losing 4 (or even 5) spade tricks isn't great, and the opponents would be able to run those tricks anyway if I lead toward the ♦K. I also need to be careful of avoiding blocking hearts and clubs. If it's matchpoints, I might duck a couple of spades, run off my 8 tricks and lead toward the ♦K. Had West not overcalled, I would just lead a diamond to the king, hoping not to lose 4 spade tricks.

Thanks. I've read the Primer on Reverse Bidding, but I found it to be very light after responder's second response. If I recall correctly, it didn't address with any specificity what responder's rebids of his suit should be. I'm also familiar with Wolff Signoff. I guess one thing I'm wondering about is the usefulness of using 2NT not as a relay when it is the generic minimum (as in lebensohl), but just as a minimum bid. Then if opener rebids his cheaper suit, we stop at a partscore. This seems more useful to me than a relay to 3♣ because now opener has to break the relay with any game-forcing hand, which might not convey any information besides, "I'm a maximum reverse." Does anyone have experience playing 2NT as a minimum relay vs just a minimum?

I play both of these as competitive, preemptive, to play, whatever. Also, I play that 1♠ - (X) - 2♠ - (P) 3♠ is preemptive too; it's a competitive auction, so it's not invitational. I've never played 1-2-3 stop, but I know the theory and am interested in them.

I'm wondering what everyone thinks of this reverse structure. Played in a 2/1 system that's fairly natural but open to artificiality and specific treatments. After opener's "classic" reverse (which we play is 17+), responder has a few options: If the 4th suit is available on the 2-level, it shows a generic minimum 2NT is always a minimum; if the 4th suit is available, it is natural with 6-7 - if not, it's a generic minimum Responder rebidding his suit is game-forcing with 5+ cards Raising either of opener's suits is game forcing If opener gets a minimum 4th suit response, he can bid 2NT or 3 of his first suit with a hand that wants to sign off. If so, responder can correct to either of opener's suits or rebid his own to play. If opener gets a natural 2NT response, he can pass or rebid 3 of his first suit with a minimum. If opener gets a generic 2NT response, he can pass (which might not be the best idea) or he can bid 3 of his first suit with a minimum. All other sequences create a game force. So a sequence would look like: 1♣ - 1♠ 2♦ (17+) ..............2♥ (generic minimum) ..............2♠ (game forcing, 5+ spades) ..............2NT (natural, 6-7, non-forcing) ..............3♣ (3+ clubs, game forcing) ..............3♦ (4+ diamonds, game forcing) ..............3♥ (splinter for diamonds) ..............3♠ (good 6+ spades, slam interest) ..............3NT (natural, 8-10 or so) ..............4♣/♦ (natural, 5+ support, slam interest) Any feedback would be appreciated, thanks.

Like, for example, 2♥? Now you'll have to make a fancy 3♣ bid, which might not be natural at all... then, if partner shows 3-card spade support, you'll have to bid 4♥ to show your support (true, this shows more than if you had raised to 4♥ directly, but partner might not be able to make an intelligent decision about whether or not slam is good).

In Roman Keycard Blackwood, Eddie Kantar suggests using 4m as RKB in double-agreement sequences. This gives us more room - very useful, considering we have 6 keycards plus 2 queens to deal with. If you buy into this, you'll bid 4♣ and the auction will proceed: 4♣ - 4♥ (0 or 3, obviously 3) 4♠ (queen-ask) - let's say 5♦ (3rd step = higher ranking queen; 1st = neither, 2nd = lower, 3rd = higher, 4th = both) Now we know partner has something like ♠x ♥KQxxx ♦Axx ♣Axxx, assuming partner cuebid a singleton spade (he could also have the king). If you're willing to gamble on 3-2 hearts (or partner holding the jack or similar), you an bid 7NT now, or the IMP-smart 7♣, (1 spade, 5 hearts, 2 diamonds, 5 clubs). If you're worried about that, you can ask for kings, 5♠ - if partner shows the king of spades, now if you get a bad heart break you still have a spade finesse or a squeeze to fall back on - or if you don't want to risk a lot of IMPs to win a few, bid the nearly laydown 7♣. If instead, partner shows no queens with 4NT, 7♣ is still pretty good (opposite ♠x ♥Kxxxx ♦Axx ♣Axxx, and you might try that. Or, you could ask for kings to see if partner cuebid shortness or the king of spades.

With a 6-4 hand, opening the 6-card suit, rebidding the 4, and bidding the 6 again shows extras, of course, but how much extra? Are we talking just not a dead minimum or enough to bid again after partner preferences? Is ♠AQJxxx ♥xx ♦AKxx ♣x enough? Thoughts, please.

It's close. Versus weaker opposition, I'll always open this. Versus opponents who will actually compete and/or double... I think I'm going to pass. If my honors were in my long suits (void KJxxx AKxxx xxx), I'd me much more comfortable opening it.

Absolutely. I can come in later with some two-suited bid.

I'd like partner to keep making aggressive T/O doubles with me as a passed hand. It is close, though... 3♠ to show inv. with 6 might be a good agreement here. I've never discussed this sequence with any of my partners.

I believe what he meant was that the LOTT says to pass in this situation as opposed to commenting on its fallibility. Paraphrasing: "The LOTT says this is the wrong situation for bidding." Maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah, stolen bids at this level are not good. Personally, I only use X as stolen over 2♣, but over 2♦, it could work too. I play negative doubles, so with competing strength and 2 spades, partner would have doubled. I pass.