dave_beer

My 1st choice is PASS with 3NT a distant 2nd. The opponents probably don't have 9 trumps and might have only 7. Partner's cards are well placed over dummy's. If you can make 3NT you might be getting 800 and even 500 isn't a big loss. ♥ is likely a 7-card fit and they probably aren't breaking; even if ♣ are an 8-card fit that may not be enough.

I never pull direct double of 1NT with a balanced hand. Since it is virtually impossible to know that we can take 9 tricks on both offense and defense I can't really bid 3NT at unfavorable vulnerability. If I have a bad unbalanced hand I will pull with 6-card suit or with chunky 5-card suit and side singleton. If I have a good unbalanced hand and I think we have reasonable chance for game I can cue-bid 2NT which partner will assume is bad hand with both minors but I will do something inconsistent with that later.

I think that 2NT should show a tricks-based hand such as Kx-Ax-Jxx-AKQxxx or maybe a bit better, but not good enough to bid 3NT. Partner show either raise to 3NT or retreat to 3♣.

On different auctions where I could have rebid 2 of either minor that would be rejecting the presumed 7-card fit and signing off in a safer partscore. Since the support double is unlimited partner could bid again but probably shouldn't return to the major. I wouldn't want to bid either 3♣ or 3♦ on this auction without having discussed it first.

I wouldn't want to take that chance without discussion. I might have to bid that with a bad hand that bypassed ♦ to bid 1♠ and now I want to sign off there.

3♥ since it is the only forcing bid available below 3NT which might be our best spot. I would have responded 1♦, not 1♠, intending to bid out my shape. In partnerships that allow an inverted raise with 5+ card support and side 4-card suits I would prefer 2♣.

The current consensus is indeed that DBL shows exactly 4-card ♠ suit and that 1♠ shows 5+. The older alternative is that 1♠ showed 4+ and DBL denied ♠. The newer alternative, frequently used by pairs who also play transfer responses, is similar to the older alternative except that they may restrict DBL to show 4 or 5-card ♠ suit and some other call to show 6+. This could become the consensus in the not-so-distant future. Assuming partner's opening bid was 1♦, responder has to make a least of evils choice between PASS, 1NT, 2♣ and 2♦. My preference is for 2♦ on inadequate support. I may take another call if 2♥ comes back to me.

PASS. Partner couldn't make a negative double and didn't bid 2♦. Given my holding in ♣ it is highly unlikely that he is passing if I reopen with double. My second choice is DBL. However I would PASS if he responded 2♥ since his hand is more likely to be worth a few tricks with ♥ as trump and could be worth less in ♠ or ♦.

I play that I could have a 3-card ♣ suit and I also play different kinds of checkback with different partners. The disadvantage of this approach is that partner doesn't know if I have a real ♣ suit. The advantage is that I can play in 1♠ when partner can't afford to check back. That could be a 7-card fit since partner should probably pass with 3-(5-4)-1 and no reason to rebid 1NT. If partner has a 4-card ♠ suit and a hand good enough to check back then it probably doesn't make any difference.

The problem with negative double is that you can't afford to make one if the auction goes 1M-2♦ and your long suit is ♣. Partner may bid an inconvenient number of the other major expecting you to have support and you have no safety at that level. I think you have to either PASS or take your chances bidding your long suit. There are other approaches but I don't think they are suitable for the novice/beginner forum. You can file them away for future reference. There are at least two other system-independent ways to handle hands like this: Negative free bids: 3♦ is not forcing but shows a hand suitable for competing at the level it has bid. This requires that hands that want to force must make a negative double and then bid their suit. That is easier when there is still room left below 3NT and where there is not an unbid major that partner might bid at too high a level when you don't have the promised support. Useful space principal: The 2nd article in Jeff Rubens' series on this subject mostly deals with coping with a jump overcall like 1♣-2♠. If you hold the example hand you would like to bid 3♦ as invitational but that leaves you with the same problem of what to do with the forcing hand. His suggestion is to use 2NT as either Lebensohl or as a transfer. There are two different versions of the transfer approach - in the first 2NT transfers to any suit and in the second it skips over opener's suit with additional gadgetry when responder has the forcing hand without a stopper in the opponent's suit. My preference is the 2nd version of USP with transfers as opposed to Lebensohl.

I think that Qxxx-Axxx-x-Axxx is better than a limit raise and I don't think it is an opening bid.

2♠ because I have 4-card support. I would DBL, which I believe should show convertible values, if I had only 3-card support.

A balancing jump overcall is usually played as intermediate, i.e., an opening bid with a good 6-card suit.

A reverse is a bid which forces simple preference at a level higher than the preferred suit could have been rebid. It is a matter or partnership agreement as to whether or not the reverse promises extra values and/or shape. In most modern systems reverses in non-forcing auctions promise both extra values and shape, typically also promising that opener will rebid unless responder bids game. After a response at the two-level, the reverse may not promise either extra values and after 1♦-2♣ may not promise extra shape. In competitive auctions I think you still need extra values but should promise a rebid only if opener could have rebid his first below the level of the reverse. So after 1♣-P-1♦-1♠, 2♥ promises a rebid since opener could have bid 2♣ instead of 2♥; but after 1♣-P-1♥-2♦, 2♠ is a reverse but doesn't promise a rebid.

While there is no reason to credit responder with at least one key-card there is a good reason to believe that opener isn't leaping past game if he needs two of them. Why not use 0, 0+Q, 1, 1+Q, etc assuming that you and your partner agree to it and will both remember if it ever comes up. You might not be able to afford this if the void is one below responder's suit. This way we get to 5♥ opposite xxxx, 6♥ opposite Axxx and 7♥ opposite AQxx or Axxxxx. We can decide whether or not to bid 6 opposite Qxxx. We also have room to ask for extra trump length if partner shows the A.

Partner doesn't necessarily have a real ♦ suit but could have some GF hand with a 6-card ♠ and only a 3-card ♦ suit. I think that 4♦ is very forward-going if partner really has ♦ and that 5♦ shows at least 5-card support (so partner isn't worried if he has only 3 of them) but an otherwise bad hand. I think that 3♥ shows a real suit that we couldn't bid on the previous round and 3NT shows stoppers in the unbid suits. If I am playing with someone who would expect it I would bid 3♠ which does not necessarily shown any kind of support but is merely a mark-time bid. Partner's rebid should show why he jump-shifted. I will may still have a problem after that but I have given partner extra room to describe his hand at a lower level. If I am playing with some who would not expect it to be an advanced cue-bid for ♦, I would bid 4♣.

I think that PASS is the best action at matchpoints. We will miss 4♥ if partner has the somewhat unlikely combination of at least 2♥ and at most one ♣ but partner is more likely to have at most one ♥ and at least 2♣. 5♦ (or 3NT) would require even less likely holdings.

Lead the Q from dummy intending to let it ride if not covered. If it loses, cash the A next (unless LHO showed out). This wins when (1) suit is 2-2 (2) suit is 3-1 and either honor is singleton onside (3) suit is 3-1 and both honors are onside (4) suit is 3-1 and the J is singleton offside (5) suit is 4-0 onside Leading the T from dummy has the same expectation of taking 6 tricks but doesn't take 7 in case (4) above but does take 6 when stiff K is offside. I don't know about Bridge Master but there is a free application called SuitPlay that you can get by sending an e-mail to SuitPlayRequestOnly@kpnmail.nl. See instructions on suitplay.com for details.

I clicked on the bridgewinners link. ♠A3-♥T832-♦A9542-♣92 looks like 5♥ to me. If there was more room, then 5♥ says bid a slam if you have 2nd round control of their suit; in this auction I think it means you can PASS even with 2nd round control if you don't like your hand.

(1) I would pass; my 2nd choice would be double; I would never bid 5♠. (2) Pass is not forcing. Partner presumably had some way to invite me back into the auction and chose not to do so, (3) I would have bid 3♠ instead of 2♠. I think the hand is on the border between 2♠ and 3♠ and I bid 3♠ because I have good trumps and I believe that the partner with good trumps should make the aggressive choice in borderline situations.

Both the S.O.S. redouble and a slightly different version due to Kock and Werner have been around since at least the 1950s.

You have 3 imperfect choices: (1) Pass and hope to make delayed takeout double of 1♠ or 2♠. (2) 1NT ignoring the singleton ♠ and hope partner doesn't bid too many of them. (3) 1♥ ignoring the lack of fifth trump. I didn't include double because I think that making a takeout double and rebidding NT or a suit that partner didn't bid shows a much better hand than what I have. Since I don't like to sit back and assume that the opponents will do what I expect, my preference is to act and I prefer the 1♥ overcall.

"If it isn't obvious or otherwise agreed, then it’s non-forcing." The fast that different responders have different answers means it isn't obvious or that they have otherwise agreed to play it as forcing. The fact that you are asking this question means it isn't agreed upon or you forgot. Ergo, it isn't forcing.

Playing against normal Michaels you have to change your approach depending on which suit is opened. When you open a minor your opponent has the majors so there two phantom cue-bids; when you open a major your opponent has the other major and an unknown minor so there is only one phantom cue-bid. If you want a 2nd cue-bid when you open a major I suggest 2NT.

I think you underestimate the danger of a 3♣ rebid. Let's see what is likely to happen over each of responder's normal rebids: 3♥ shows a suit good enough to play opposite Hx. No problem here. 3NT shows 1½ ♠ stoppers and no slam interest. Are you going to hope that your 3♣ bid stops the suit or are you going to remove 3NT to 4♥ describing a hand (roughly) 1-3-5-4? Good luck! 3♠ usually shows a hand that wants you to declare 3NT. You do have them stopped but there is that nagging problem with ♣ again. Same great choices as over 3NT. 4♣ suggests at least ♣Hxxx and maybe a 5th trump and no interest in hearing about delayed ♥ support. Something like xxx-KQxx-x-KTxxx. Now we probably belong in 3NT but we can't get there from here. 3♦ shows none of the above. It is a mark time bid which asks for further description. It does not promise ♦ support and could even be a singleton (or void). You can now rebid 3♥ showing roughly 1-3-5-4. Good luck with partner making an intelligent choice after that if his ♥ aren't playable opposite 3-card support. On the other hand, if you bid 2♠, I think you only have a problem if partner raises ♠ or decides to take control with Blackwood. I don't think your example hand is a Blackwood call but I'm sure some players would do it. With that hand partner might bid 6NT which could easily be better than 6♠ at any form of scoring but especially at match points. 4♠ shows good trumps and denies 1st or 2nd round control of ♣. Given that I have ♠AQx that means at least ♠KJxx. While I could be missing a slam or have better play for 5♦ or 5♥ I would pass. 3♠ shows primary ♠ support but denies a hand that bids 4♠. I think 4♥ at this point suggests roughly 4-3-5-1 and also think that it should be forcing but I will not be surprised if partner passes.