broze

Interesting. One of those hands that I would auto-jump shift after 1♦-1♥ but after 1♠ perhaps 2♣ is enough (though I would still jump at teams since my partnership is not forced to game and has a good system over jump-shifts).

I'm curious. Was this a joke? Oh, and at risk of completely de-railing the thread, my pet peeve: people who are very politically partisan. Even the sentence "I'm a democrat" or "I'm a tory" annoys me coming from a member of the public.

I strongly disagree with a redouble. Partner is hardly ever going to pull to ♠ with even 3 and he never has 4. ♠ may well be your best spot, but you'll find yourself in 3m before you know it/ With a pickup partner I would just pass, but with my regular partner I would bid 2♠ (which would promise another safe suit). P will then sit 2 with a doubleton or better and pull or redouble (if doubled) for SOS with a single or void ♠. We then probably end up in 3 of a minor.

Yes, the trouble I would have with this hand is getting a ♥ cue from partner. This is closer to how I'd bid it. Although, instead of North's 4♥ bid why does he not bid 4♦ cuing his void? And what would it mean if he did? Same question regarding the 4♥ bid in this auction. I like this treatment of 3♦ though.

Here us one of those hands where most pairs will end up in the correct contract, but will arrive there in all manner of ways, some of them less than accurate. How would you do it? North deals. EDIT: I'm most interested in your 2/1 methods but other approaches welcome. [hv=pc=n&s=sat83hj52dakqj94c&n=skq96542hkq9dcq84]133|200[/hv]

That is some hand. Good thing your p didn't open 1♠ (as I would have done) because I imagine in that case your head would have exploded...

As I said this was a new partnership and there was no understanding (obviously!) When exactly should he have spoken up? The opponents had no further questions before the opening lead.

Just for the record, I was sitting South. North bid 3♦ and one of the opponents asked about the meaning. I told him it was natural without even considering any other possibilities! My partner had an excellent poker face - in reality he was more than a bit nervous.

That is a great shame. I also find it pretty irritating to have to keep logging in and out.

I agree that both players should realise 4♠ will not be a good spot, and that's fine if after 1♣-1♠-2♥-2♠-3♥-3NT-4♠ 5♣ is unambiguously 'to play', especially as this is a new partnership. I hardly think it is 'bad partnership behaviour' to bid the game you think will have the greatest chance of making, over choosing to play in a contract outside your two-suiter. Furthermore, as N I'm still thinking about 6♣ and choosing 4♣ rather than 4♠ is going to make this a lot easier.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq87643h4dq973ca3&w=st9ht985dkjt85c76&n=sj2hakq72dckqjt85&e=sak5hj63da642c942&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1hp1sp2cp2sp3dppp]399|300[/hv] Here's the whole hand and the bidding. As you can see NS had somewhat of a disaster. North intended 3♦ as 4th suit game-forcing and South took it as natural with 5-4-4-0 shape. I could have made this topic into an "assign the blame" post, but that was not really the point - being a new partnership the answer is probably "both." I do however think that with best bidding North should take pains to eschew the 4♠ game, which as you can see is (though unluckily) down 3. Your void is worthless, and it's unclear how many ♦ losers you will be able to chuck before the opponents take their winners. I disagree with ArtK78 that you are being given no choice. Of course you can't bid 3NT, but how often do you find after picking up a big two-suiter that your best contract is in a strain outside those two suits. Bidding 4♠ after say 1♣-1♠-2♥-2♠-3♥-3NT- has the advantage of describing your hand shape perfectly but realistically 4♠ is very rarely going to be your best spot and at this point you still cannot rule out the possibility of a ♣ slam. Obviously I am benefited with the clarity of hindsight, but it is certainly an interesting problem.

What action do you take over 3NT, 4♣ or 3♠?

Yes, I should probably add a bit more. Your partner will respond 1♠ to your opening bid and your rebid. E.g. 1♣-1♠-2♥-2♠. Now what?

Playing 2/1 with a new partner, you pick up this hand as North - how do you proceed? And what is the standard treatment for hands like these? [hv=pc=n&n=sj2hakq72dckqjt85&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p]133|200[/hv] I'll post the whole hand and the actual auction later. EDIT: I intended this topic to be a poll, but it doesn't seem to have worked. Basically then, how would you bid this?

Yes, you're right. It was only really a loose practical example to supplement an otherwise theoretical topic.

I think you have to take a stand and open hands like that 2♣ or 2NT if you have puppet stayman available. That hand is worth well more than 21 HCP and you're not so 2-suited for it to be important. EDIT: Just checked the K&R evaluator and it puts your hand at 24.4! Therefore something like: 2NT - 3♥ 3♠ - 4♦ 4♥ - 4NT(♠) 5♦ - 6♠ does not seem unreasonable. Or, 2♣ - 2♠ 3♥ - 4♥ followed by an asking sequence and 6♥. As you point out Kickback is most useful for this.

If you are right ArtK78 and such leads and discards are illegal then it seems to me to be distorting the game of bridge somewhat. Are they also illegal in the EBU? Or at the highest professional level where most laws about psyching and conventions are much less strict? I can understand you might not expect the average club player to be able to counter this tactic but I would expect the pros to. If the law forbids such agreements (which one btw?) then it seems to be distorting the equality somewhat by giving declarer an advantage. His systems have revealed the layout of a particular suit and so surely it is not unreasonable for him to be punished in this slight way. There are a myriad of examples where the layout of the hands becomes clear to declarer before the defence. Why should the defence not try and counter this advantage? It certainly raises interesting ethical questions. As you say, it will make a difference very infrequently. This is why I chose a hand where the advantage is clear.

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt2hakj5dc&w=s95hq6dc&n=skq643h732dc&e=sa87ht984dc]399|300[/hv] South deals 1♦ - 1♠ 1NT - 2♣* 2♠ - 4♠ *NMF In this hand NS have reached 4♠ and declarer must pick up the ♥ suit for 3 winners to make. EW play coded leads meaning East leads the 9 from QT9x. On this deal therefore coded leads lose as the lead of the 10 denies the Q and the ♥ position becomes immediately known to declarer. He can comfortably play to drop the Q♥ doubleton. Here is my idea for "hyper-coded leads" - it's probably been thought of before but I've never heard of anything like it: Both defenders have information that declarer doesn't on this hand, that is the split of the trump suit since the auction shows that the opps have exactly 8. It is therefore possible on hands like these to further code your leads. For example, when leader has an odd # of trumps he can lead the 9 from this suit and when he has an even number he can lead the 10. That is just an example but it demonstrates the principle I'm trying to indicate which is that the ♥ position then becomes evident to the defence but not to declarer since at that point he is unaware of the ♠ split. When East gets in again with the A♠ he can lead another ♥ and force declarer to guess. I hope that all makes sense. Is this implementation legal or even useful? I have my doubts because I've never come across any discussion about it. Obviously it could only be used when the defenders have an exact count of the opps trumps from the auctio,n but like I say it is the principle I am theorising about.

I would establish ♥ as trump after a strong 2♣ bid, bid an ace-asking sequence and whatever response I get I can bid 6♦ meaning "bid grand slam with 3rd round diamond control."

Try this forum. The answer may well be in there somewhere.

Yes, I agree with cyberyeti. In a 2/1 auction you would surely rebid 3♦ with this hand. After North's pull of 3NT to 4♣ that would to all intents and purposes set ♣ as trump in my partnership (one of the reasons I think it's a bad bid - those ♣ are pretty horrible). Then 4♦ would be kickback, 4♥ and 4NT natural. Would you not want to bid 4♥ instead of 4NT? EDIT: Although, having said that I know pairs that reserve that kind of bid for when they have an honour doubleton. Partnership style I guess.

Ok, I have my IMP hat on. There is certainly a strong argument for playing in NT, but kickback also allows you to do this. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable playing in 6♥ when the A♥ appears offside.

Another auction demonstrating the need to have an ace-asking bid that can stop in 5 of a minor. After 4♦ kickback reveals you are missing the Q♣ and an ace you can comfortably stop in 5 with only an 8 card fit.

Yep, this is exactly how I play it too. Even when not playing 2/1, 3♠ will be game forcing and showing a double fit.

My partnership has three options here: 1) 5♣ immediately 2) 2NT (Lebensohl) - 3♣ (relay) - 3♥ (declaring a ♥ stopper) - 3NT (if p has a ♠stopper; if he has no ♠ stopper the I will be investigating a ♣ slam) 3) 2♥ (5+ ♣ and game forcing) Personally I prefer the last option. I'm not too bothered if the opps come in with their spades as I will happily compete to 5♣. Bidding 2♥ establishes an early force and has the advantage of right-siding the contract.