twoshy

Why would we double again with a balanced 20-22 with 3+♣? Partner's supposed to be alive and well over there and it would be insipid for him to pass two doubles with a shortage in clubs unless he was flat out broke, in which case we can take our chances against 2♣. The same argument applies for those thinking we could have a penalty double of clubs. I also think it's seriously anti-percentage to play this double as showing a nuts 23-24+ hand with some clubs. It also bewilders me that some people would bid 2♦ over 1NT. Feel free to miss game and juicy penalties all you like, I guess. I can understand that sometimes doubles change in meaning when it is clear you can no longer have a certain handtype through your failure to act in a certain way. That doesn't at all exist for this situation. Partner could double 2♣ for penalties (presumably?) but I see no reason why he should do that on a yarb. So we double again with extras and expect partner to play us for a takeout double. Yes, partner will often pass with 3334 and x4x4 but passing on 3433 feels wrong. I would probably bid 2♦ (EDIT: instead of the third double) because it may be difficult to defend 2♣X as we are only able to lead one trump and 2♦ describes the hand well and avoids the problem of advancer choosing the wrong suit.

Also, why would we bid 3NT before? We got the crucial information that partner has a bad minimum. What else would 4♣ and 4♦ be other than cuebids agreeing ♥?

Thank you gnasher and bluecalm, I was going crazy reading the earlier responses. This is a pass in my sleep. Our stacked rounded suits are opposite five of partner's cards and we know that partner's values are scattered and soft rather than sharp and concentrated.

It's possible RHO has something like QTxxx, x, Kxxxx, xx where we need to tap dummy to create a trump trick for partner. I'd just play another club.

I think what gnasher is suggesting is that partner may want to bid to slam in clubs if 4NT was based on the minors, but cannot do so in case we are weak in diamonds. Partner's hand would have to be suitable for 6D opposite a strong 5D bid, too. (FWIW I would play it your way, and it also seems unlikely for partner to want to bid slam at this vul opposite a weak hand with the minors.)

+1 to Han. I recall reading Quantumcut's rationale in old Bridge Worlds but there are a lot more reasons for bypassing Stayman on minimum GF values, while using Stayman on hands with extras. In minimal HCP games, the information Stayman provides to defenders is more likely to matter since the contract is likely to be tighter. A favourable lead is more likely to provide the game-going trick or tempo (these are more likely to lead to overtricks in maximal HCP games), again being more likely after not using Stayman. In maximal HCP games, the danger of being off an entire suit (Qxx in responder's hand opposite xx, etc) and losing five tricks on the lead is more likely than a bad trump break leading to the doom of 4M. Basically, 8 cards in a suit > 5 or 6 in a side suit.

I don't play anything too fancy, though I think it's important to use 4M as to play and 4♦ as an enquiry, so that partner can show their shortage if they have one. Pass is out, even if partner has ♠Qxx we still have no play. I'd just bid 5♦, I don't think anything fancy is warranted and I definitely want to hide this hand (in case they get any ideas about cutting partner off from our hand).

Thanks, I'll have to give you a pretend +1. What is mainstream doesn't really matter much to me, I'm just happy to hear the rationale behind a style.

Bit of a tangent, but do you prefer to use 2S and 2NT for limit and GF raises, respectively, or to use them to distinguish between 3 and 4 card support? Do you think splitting the raises by strength would resolve the forcing pass issue? It seems to me that it would make it simpler, but that a forcing pass might still be wanted opposite the limit raise (big difference between 4 card support in an offensive hand compared to 3 card support in a defensive hand).

Okay so you were initially asking whether or not to alter the rule of 20 (19/18 etc) based on an awkward rebid. Han and I are saying you shouldn't be using the rule of 20 (19/18 etc). You're trying to incorporate more judgement into the decision about whether or not to open, but the awkwardness of a rebid is a very small factor in judging a hand compared to location and synergy of honours, supporting intermediates, etc. Also, compare ATxxx KQxx Qxx x and x Qxx KQxx ATxxx. (Add/subtract similar cards to make the decision borderline.) Would your decision about whether or not to open either of these depend on your rebid? No, you would be giving much more weight to your length in the majors and how opening 1S on the first would set you up for a contested auction, or considering your ability to stay low by opening 1C on the second. Doesn't matter so much what you value, the point is that there are many more valuable considerations than the awkwardness of a rebid. Hope this helps.

Here's a better example. Would you ever pass x KQJx xxx AJxxx in 1st or 2nd seat? That definitely has a horrible rebid, but that does not mean you should pass or open 1♥ if your partnership understands that this is a clear opening hand and that you don't open four card majors in 1st or 2nd seat (hypothetically). Listen to Han, just evaluate your hand and don't worry too much about your rebid. Having said that, make sure you have planned your rebid so that you can make it in tempo. In my experience, choosing what to open based on your rebid in an unobstructed auction, and especially how you can handle competitive developments, is more interesting than choosing whether or not to open based on a potentially awkward rebid. This often comes up in the decision between opening a strong 1NT and opening one of a suit when semi-balanced. (I have less experience with weak NT so I don't know if this decision turns up as frequently in that context.)

I like the idea of bidding 5♠ after partner passes 4♥X. At the table I probably would have bid 5♥ with the partnership understanding being that XX by either partner = 1st round control. Obviously this is not an optimal agreement, but I'd be hopeful of partner understanding 5♥ given this agreement.

To be fair, declarer would have been cold with spades 3-2 and diamonds 4-3 or 5-2 with Q doubleton, or spades 4-1 and diamonds 4-3 short Q, so it's not as though it's an aberration.

Line A: 1. ♣A 2. ♥A 3. ♥2 4. ♦A 5. ♣K 6. ♥3 ruffed high (if they break, cash three spades ending in table, then run hearts if spades went 4-1) If the ♥K is still out... 7. ♦2 8. ♥8 ruffed high 9. ♠J to Q 10. ♠T Hearts. This makes if hearts are 4-2 (king long) and spades 3-2 or if hearts are 3-3 or 4-2 (king short) with spades 4-1, and nothing rude in the minors. Line B: 1. ♣A 2. ♣K 3. ♥A 4. ♥2 ruffed low (maybe club ruff is better?) 5. ♦A 6. ♦K 7. ♦ ruff low 8-12. High cross ruff This needs diamonds to break 4-3 or 2=5 as well as nothing rude in either rounded suit. It'll also survive when diamonds are 5=2 with ♦Q dropping and spades being 3-2 (ruff two diamonds high using trumps to get back to hand). You'd also make when LHO is 4252. The other chance is that, after RHO overruffs a diamond and returns a trump, hearts go 33 or ♥K doubleton and spades are now 2-2. Line B looks better than line A. There's probably another line that's better than either of them. However, both of them look better than the line in the OP :P Had I followed the line in the OP, I'd probably ruff the diamond, overtake the trump and play the last trump: - AQT8 - K2 6 4 J64 J Hopefully LHO is now down to: - KJxx - ?x If he pitches a heart, we throw a club, play heart to Q, A and another heart. If he pitches a club, we throw a club, play heart to T, club K and guess if he has KJ9x(x) or KJxx. If he started with 5 hearts we exit H8, if he started with 4 hearts then we have a straight up 50:50 guess to exit ♥8 or ♥Q.

And if you learned bridge 35 years ago in China, when everybody played Precision, and every natural system was considered abnormal, you might have thought of "short club" as 16+? C'mon mate, you've been around these forums for long enough...

Thanks for the insight, especially about West's 4♦ being NF. I for sure would have treated East's 4♦ iso 4♣ as NF but this also makes sense. Maybe this is just a type of auction that people don't think about too deeply. I asked a bunch of people about a less complex auction where RHO had overcalled a major, we had agreed a minor with opening showing a minimum, and we had tried for 3NT with neither partner having the major stopped. This seemed completely clear for 4m to be NF but almost all the responses were "slam try" or "minorwood" (!). Oh well, at least my regular partner likes 4m to be NF when it is reasonable.

No he isn't, it's actually very logical from partner's perspective. We responded 2♠ so partner knows that we have longer hearts than spades. If we had three spades we certainly would have competed to the three level. Partner should assume that we have another spade for his signal to matter, else we will shift to a club - we won't play for a diamond ruff when that would need partner to be exactly 6214 and if we had been dealt four trumps it would be impossible. So, he'll play us for 2=3 or 2=4 in the majors. If we are 2=4, we still need a trump trick. Playing three rounds of spades works if we have the ♥A or ♥K and only fails if we have the ♥Q: declarer can ruff the spade, run the ♥J and we're stuffed. So it appears that the club shift works better, however you have to factor in holding the ♥T in addition to the Q, which makes the spade continuation work, as well as, more commonly, the times when declarer discards spades on the diamonds (with 3514, for example). Nothing works if we are 2=3 with the ♥Q or ♥K, but the only defense to beat it when we have the ♥A is three rounds of spades. Again, the danger of declarer discarding spades with 3613 and leading to the ♥J to lead up to the ♣Q is very real. I wouldn't expect to work all this out but I would feel pretty silly for discouraging spades so we could win in exactly one case - ♥Qxxx - compared to the numerous cases that are won by continuing spades.

Easy pass. Sure, we might get more from defending 5♦X, but our offense is terrible and we will just be tempting partner to bid on his diamond shortage.

Exactly, he can expect a little trump quality and that is all he needs if he plays the hand out in his head. My point is that he can get that from a very minimum hand and does not need to be opposite an opening bid.

It's clear for North to open, but even so, it's clear for South to bid on. ♣AQxxx and out is a cold grand. Even ♣QJxxxx must be a fair shot for six. Simply, South judged poorly. North's initial pass may have been poor judgement or an exotic system, but it shouldn't have led to the result. South 100%.

Really good point. To add, rebidding 3♠ feels wrong when resp would have raised with 3 and may be able to get spades across later with Qx for example. I didn't draw that inference so my uncontested auctions would have started 2♣ 2♥ 2♠ 3♣ 3♦* 3♥ 4♣ Not sure what responder would rebid over a fourth suit 3♦, first instinct is 3♥ (3♠ with Qx or most 2515s for example). Then 4♣ sounds like a cuebid for ♥. I almost certainly wouldn't get to 7♣ after this start, but maybe I'm lacking some imagination. With interference: 2♣ (2♦) 2♥ (4♦) 4♠ 5♦ 5♠ 6♠ Auto slam drive as responder, the only question is whether or not to invite grand. However, solid ♠, the ♥Q doubleton, ♣A in a 2♣ opener would definitely have bid slam over 5♦, so I think it's not worth a grand invite. Maybe 5♦ is the wrong bid, though. What do people think about bidding 5NT choice of slams then raising 6M to grand or bidding 6♦ over 6♣? That might do the trick but it could be ambiguous. Your opponents' unobstructed sequence is perfect. Edit: just noticed that my 5NT then 6♦ over 6♣ suggestion just about mirrors the_clown's, except with opener and responder's roles reversed :)

If the Q appears on the first round of clubs, you can play ♠A, ♠ ruff high, ♣ to J, run ♠Q. If someone drops the Q from Qx causing you to misguess spades, find an easier game :)

Could partner have Kx, AQJxx, Qx, AQxx? I don't think so, that would be at best on a finesse if we didn't have 4/5 of the A/Ks, with which we should cuebid (and I'd cuebid previously on your hand). So 5♠ for me. What are you talking about, you'd respond 2♣ on the same hand but 3=3=3=4, right? You'll still have the same problem of working out partner's hand and/or intentions. Thanks for sharing your insight.

Passing to start with, showing the club control, seems normal. When partner bids 4♥, I pass. Presumably partner can bid above 4♥ to deny 1st round control but to still show a suitable hand, given the knowledge of our club control. So with Phil's AQx Axxx x KQxxx, partner should definitely bid on. I think this is the main point of the hand, rather than worrying about ♦Kx with no club control. I just don't see why anyone is playing partner for weak minors. It is much harder to construct hands with ♦Kx than those with ♦KQJx(x), for instance. The former requires weak minors and empty majors, which can't be likely at all. Sure, use the information RHO gives, but don't let it stop you thinking about what partner can actually have.

Opening 1♣ can definitely be lead directing in a 2+ style, and there are times when partner can infer that our 3rd seat opening was based on directing a ♣ lead. Let's say we open 1♣ on KQTxx and ~8-10 HCP. If the opponents bid game and partner is looking at ~6+ HCP, he should work out we didn't open some terrible balanced 10 count in an anti-lead-directing suit. Sure, sometimes the auction won't allow partner to eliminate the possibility of us having ♣xx in a sound opening hand. However, playing short club and aggressive openings in 1st/2nd, if I want to open with 11-12 (or less) in 3rd I'll usually choose my best suit and try to pass in comfort later. 13-14 or 18-19 is really the only time I'd give more weight to opening a normal, could be short 1♣ and rebidding normally thereafter. Though even with extras, opening in a four card major in 3rd/4th shouldn't be underrated. Strange that you consider a light but natural bid a psyche, my guess is that you and Phil have different ideas about what a light opening in 3rd is. Anyway, partner really isn't doing anything rash opposite a 1M opening, though it depends on your system. Seems normal to respond 1NT on a balanced 11, right?