rmnka447

Interesting how sometimes something comes up that identifies "holes" in your system. I've played Lebensohl 2 NT for years as primarily a way to distinguish between bust response to the double and decent values. The situation is a little different than Lebensohl in response to competition over partner's 1 NT. Partner is describing a hand "short" in the opponents suit and presumably without real light values. But there's no reason, you shouldn't include some other pieces of Lebensohl as well. I'm not sure all of Lebensohl applies though. Clearly bidding NT with or without the relay is useful. Given OP hand and the auction as given, I'd be inclined to bid 3 NT to show values without a stopper and likely no 4 card ♥ suit. BTW, I'd also bid 2 NT with the South hand to start.

The Special Counsel's office has said the Buzzfeed report is inaccurate. But, of course, in the progressive biosphere, the steady stream of unattributed accusations are considered all fact and must be shaking our democracy to its foundations. The only problem with that reality is that whenever things aren't going well for the Dems, one of these "bombshells" seems to appear with a regularity that is unreal. But, of course, fake news is that way. The President postponing the trip was a political act just like Speaker Pelosi's refusing to make the House available for the State of the Union Address. Sure its tit for tat, if you please. But it made its point that if Speaker Pelosi wants to play political games she'll get full measure back. Of course, it focuses attention that the Speaker who has been claiming the Dems were with the workers was going out of the country for a week and ensuring the shutdown would last a week longer. Guess the Dems are more interested in retreating to Puerto Rico to a lobbyist sponsored and paid for "retreat" on the beach and junkets to smooze with the financial elite in Switzerland than address the problems facing this nation. The optics are terrible for Dems, my friend.

In your wildest dreams, Winnie!! The current impasse and political situation reminds me of a couple current affairs events in the recent past. The "trip postponement" is eerily similar to when Kim Jung Un boasted about having a button on his desk and President Trump retorted "I've got a bigger button and mine works." It also occurs to me that the shutdown is very similar to when the Reps tried to shutdown the government during the Obama administration. Mitch McConnell is doing a great Harry Reid imitation in the Senate and President Trump is out-Obamaing Obama. King Barak I was terrific at talking about compromise, then coming out a day or two later and saying he wouldn't sign anything unless it had what he had originally asked for. In the end, Reid and Obama were able to make the Reps cave on the shutdown. Let's see how the Dems fair. Now, I won't compare Speaker Pelosi to any of the Reps who sought to shutdown the government. She's either being held hostage by the radical left of the Dem party or has become unhinged with a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Take your pick. The funniest moments of this situation was the Dem response to President Trump's speech. Many comments abounded about how Chuck and Nancy looked and spoke like cardboard cut-outs. That was pretty apt. But the best satire of that situation was the person who imposed Chuck and Nancy's faces over Grant Wood's classic painting American Gothic -- perfect! The Dem push for opening the government and then negotiating on border security is a con job. Starting with the Reagan administration, the Dems promised to follow up on improved border security and comprehensive immigration reform for amnesty. Then they reneged. Several times since, it's been the same story. Reps know that if they open up the government, the Dems won't negotiate nor compromise on border security. Once burned, twice wise. I think the situation may linger until the new mega-caravan gets to the border. It may be the tipping point to turn public opinion in favor of the "wall".

I don't see the initial pass as necessarily a problem. But once partner doubles a weak 2 ♠ bid, 3 ♣ is a serious underbid. Even if you play a Lebensohl 2 NT response to double of a weak 2 bid to show bust hands, a 3 ♣ response is still a serious underbid. 3 ♣ shows something more than a bust according to partnership agreement. I think it show at least a 6-7 count, otherwise you Lebensohl and pass or correct. (One good player I play with insists it shows even more.) The whole point is to avoid making the doubler guess what to do when holding a more than minimum double. If you don't play it, 3 ♣ could be made on a zero count, so can't be right. 3 ♠, for me, remains the bid of choice to get partner to understand that game is likely opposite the double even if partner is an unknown quantity. If partner doesn't field it properly, that's his/her problem. If you bid incorrectly, then it's on partner. Partner is likely to bid 3 NT and, as johnu suggests, likely to misguess the ♦ finesse and go down. It may be small consolation, but avoids the wear and tear of recriminations. Good bidding doesn't always get you to the right spot, just a reasonably good spot.

The pass isn't forcing, the negative double you made was correct and promised no more than 6 or 7 value. North, though distributional, has had the value of his/her hand decrease since RHO has bid ♠. (You and LHO are likely to be short in ♠. So if some ruffing in ♠ occurs, LHO opponent will have the opportunity to overruff you.) North hand was on a minimum HCP count anyway. So North's pass is a way to seek information about whether your side the balance of the power in the hand and should compete further. I see no blame for the result -- rub of the green. Had you held 10+ HCP in your hand, then you could make a call to reopen the auction. Double by your hand would show that with hands with that value but no clear cut other call and ask partner to do something intelligent. Or, you could make a clear cut bid if it was available.

I'm pretty much on board with 4 ♦ being a control bid. Responder has a couple of ways to show natural ♦ after a 2 ♣ opener. One is to make a direct strong response of 3 ♦ to 2 ♣. The other is to show ♦ after opener rebids 2 ♥ -- 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ 2 ♥ - 3 ♦ shows a ♦ feature presumably 5+. OP mentioned standard methods, so apparently 2 ♦ is a pure waiting bid response not promising anything. (The 2 ♥ negative crowd make 2 ♦ a waiting bid with positives meaning.) Normally, then a second negative bid is agreed upon. Way back when 2 NT used to be negative, but it's now usually either cheapest minor or cheapest suit as negative depending on agreement. OP describes 2 NT as natural, so likely the second negative is one of the other two. But 2 NT can be a lot of hands that don't fit any other bid. It can be barely enough to make game to a rock crusher. BUT, it isn't a single raise reserved for a fit and values, a game raise with a fit and enough for game and no more, a hand with values and a decent 5+ suit (but could a hand with the suit designated as second negative bid) and, of course, wouldn't be a hand with which responder would make a direct positive response over 2 ♣. Last Train isn't a standard treatment/convention so is something you only play by agreement. In any case, mikeh makes a very cogent and strong case why 4 ♦ isn't Last Train. So, like Sherlock Holmes, once you remove everything that can't true, what remains must be the fact whatever it is -- a control bid with some slam interest presumably agreeing on ♥. The meaning of the control bid is a matter of what control bidding style the partnership uses by agreement. If the pair normally cues any first or second round control, then 4 ♦ must deny a black suit control. If the pair still insists on cueing 1st round controls first, then 4 ♦ must be ♦ A, no black suit As, but not denying any other second round control. But the control bid should also imply some other potential cover cards that reduce the loser count in opener's hand. Opener has bid the hand like holding a typical 4 loser Major 2 ♣ opener. With simply something like ♥ xx and ♦ Axxx, responder would just bid 4 ♥. But with something say like ♥ Hx and ♦ AQxx, there's a good chance that 3 losers can be covered and a slam is a good bet. ♥ xx and ♦ AKQ is another possible useful holding for slam.

Hand 1 per your agreements is a 4 ♣ opener, so bid it that way. I agree with others that Hand 2 is a 1 ♣ opener. Just keep bidding ♣ and partner will get the idea.

If you play Fourth Suit Forcing (FSF), then the bidding is a bit easier -- If FSF is forcing for one round, then you can define jumps as GF, so 1 ♦ - 1 ♥ 1 ♠ - 3 ♥ (GF) is a game forcing auction with long ♥. and now, 1 ♦ - 1 ♥ 1 ♠ - 2 ♣ (FSF 1 Rd) 2 ♦ - 3 ♥ (Inv) is invitational with long ♥. If FSF is GF, the auctions are similar but the 3 ♥ rebid switches meaning -- direct jump to 3 ♥ is invitational, jump to 3 ♥ after FSF is GF. Without FSF or something like it, the jump to 3 ♥ has to be either invitational or game forcing. Since it can't be both, partnerships have to pick one of those meanings to use then accept the bidding "hole" in their system or figure out some workaround. With FSF GF, I could see the bidding on this hand going 1 ♦ - 1 ♥ 1 ♠ - 2 ♣(GF) 3 ♦ - 3 ♥ 3 ♠ - ? 3 ♦ should show 6-4 and 16-18 value. 3 ♠ doesn't show 6-5 but is a catch all bid. If opener was 6-5, then a ♠ rebid should be made over the 2 ♣ FSF bid. So 3 ♠ denies the ability to bid 3 NT or raise ♥. It's sort of a waiting bid letting responder pick a place to play or keep the auction/conversation going. Over 3 ♠, the logical follow ups are either 4 ♥ or 4 ♦. At MPs, responder might gamble on 3 NT. I'd probably just bid 4 ♥.

Additionally, there are a few skills required that are not often covered in educational materials, such as ducking smoothly. When you are LHO to declarer and hold Ax in a suit with KJ of the suit in dummy, if can you play low in tempo so as to not reveal your holding, you put declarer to a guess when a low card is led toward dummy from declarer's hand. This is "ducking smoothly". However, if you flinch or hitch in playing your low card, it usually gives away the position to an observant declarer.

Amen, Badger! Defense is much harder to do well than declaring or bidding. All are important, but if contracts tend to fall evenly among all hands, you're going to be defending twice as much as you'll be declaring (as partner should be declaring about half your contracts). Because of the increased way you can personally affect the play, good defending players are usually winning players. Counting is vital. But analyzing both how partner and declarer are playing is also critical. Part of that is both looking at what they are doing/did and what they haven't done. Start with the opening lead. ♠ 8 is almost assuredly a doubleton. Why, because if it isn't, the Rule of 11 tells you that from a 4th best lead 3 higher cards are out. From the spot, dummy's holding and your holding, the one remaining higher card in declarer's hand must be an honor which meant partner would have led low from a holding with 3 honors. If the lead is a doubleton, it's likely that partner also holds a high trump card because doubleton leads usually are only good when declarer can't draw one's trump to prevent a ruff. Looking at dummy, that high trump is the A. So at the opening lead, you are pretty certain opener holds ♠ AKQJ along with 5 ♥. That tells you that declarer also has at least 8 tricks when the ♥ A is driven out. That's one of the important counts to keep. It's also important to count the tricks your side has and focus on how to get enough tricks to beat the contract. When partner wins the ♥ A, he switches to a passive defense and returns a trump. What didn't partner do? Partner didn't lead from a touching honor combination in a minor such as ♦ AK, ♣ AK, ♣ KQ, or ♣ QJ. The trump return also tends to make you think partner has honors in both minors, is reluctant to lead away from them, and give something to declarer. As declarer runs his major suit tricks, partner discards the ♣ 6 first. Could it be a signal of holding an honor? From your holding and dummy, you see that the ♣ 3 hasn't been played yet. So it remains a possibility that the ♣ 6 shows an honor. On the next lead, partner discards the ♦ 9 definitely showing a ♦ honor. But without a ♣ honor, wouldn't it be likely that partner would flash a high ♦ first rather than play ♣ 6. Declarer is also discarding ♣ from dummy. So, as you get to the critical discard, it looks like you have to protect against declarer setting up the ♦ J in dummy. A good book to help develop these card reading skills is Mike Lawrence's How to Read Your Opponent's Cards. It do so from declarer's perspective and is a little dated in that it still uses 16-18 NT. But the thinking process it start to develop is invaluable on defense as well. Also, the two books on defense by Eddie Kantar should be part of every bridge player education. They are Modern Bridge Defense and Advanced Bridge Defense. Modern covers all the basic defending plays in detail so that you fully understand how and when to make them. Advanced covers a lot of the thinking processes that accompany good defense such as starting to develop the distribution of the hand from the bidding, counting tricks, etc. It's well worthwhile for every player below a bona fide (not BBO) expert to read and work through them.

If you're playing 2/1, it is important to know which rebids from opener show extras (16+) and which limit opener's hand. Most people will play opener's 2 of a major and 2 NT as defaults to show a minimum hand. The only exception is that 2 NT can also be made with 18-19 balanced hand. With that hand opener will carry on to 4 NT if responder bids 3 NT. Most 2/1 players will also allow a 2 ♥ rebid by opener over a 1 ♠ opener to possibly be on a minimum in order not to miss a potential major fit. Other non-reverse rebids at the 2 level are subject to partnership agreement. But most play that any rebid at the 3 level definitely show extras. Such a 3 level rebid is known as a high reverse because you have to show a preference at the 3 level. If opener's hand in this auction had been ♠ AJxxx ♥ xx ♦ xx ♣ AKxx the right rebid would be 2 ♠ not 3 ♣. Then with the hand you held you could simply sign off in 4 ♠. Knowing partner has extras and a ♣ suit of some sort should make you think about at least exploring for slam. Your hand has only 13 HCP but is a 6 loser hand with 3 QT. The doubleton in partner's ♣ suit isn't a bad holding especially with the extra trump as you will likely be able to ruff out any losers beyond one in the suit. Adding points for distribution or trump length, you get something like a good 14-15 value. You know the total value of the 2 hands is around 30-31 minimum. So, yes, 3 ♠ is the right rebid with your hand suggesting that you hold a hand better than one you simply sign off on. "What do we need to know for slam?" The answer is "Most importantly, we need to know there are not 2 quick ♥ losers." So an immediate A asking bid is inappropriate. Control bids are needed to ensure that no 2 quick losers exist anywhere. After two control bids 4 ♣ by opener and 4 ♦by you, opener knows enough to use RKCB. If you play Jacoby 2 NT as the forcing raise, then opener playing (standard responses to Jacoby) would bid 3 ♠ showing 17+ and presumably no shortness. As others have suggested, it's useful to use 3 NT as waiting bid showing slam interest because it conserves bidding space. After the ♣ and ♦ control bids, opener is again in position to use RKCB. So both ways can get you to 6 ♠.

I could see a couple possible auctions depending on how South views the hand -- 1 ♣ - (P) - 1 ♠ - (P) 3 ♣ - (P) - P - (P) or 1 ♣ - (P) - 1 ♠ - (P) 2 NT - (P) - 3 ♣ - (P) (3 ♣) is Wolff) 3 ♦ - (P) - 3 ♠ - (P) P - (P) I wouldn't bid 1 ♦ with the West hand as it has no preemptive/obstructive value and is a poor suit. Change it from a ♦ suit to a ♠ suit and now 1 ♠ forces the opponents to try to find a red suit fit at the 2 level. So, I'd probably bid 1 ♠ with that hand.

Totally agree with this. A 2 NT rebid normally shows a balanced invitational hand with stoppers. You'll probably bid it that way 95% of the time, but hands do come up where 2 NT is sort of a default bid to show an invitational hand as nothing else makes much sense. One area you might want to discuss with partner occurs on auctions similar to the following -- 1 ♥ - 1 NT 2 ♦ - ? and you hold the following hands: A) ♠ xxx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ AQ10xxxx B) ♠ xxx ♥ x ♦ Qxx ♣ AKJxxx Neither hand is worth a GF 2/1 response, but neither ♥ nor ♦ looks to be a particularly good contract. The problem is that a 3 ♣ rebid would be descriptive, but impossible for opener to continue properly if it includes both hands. The solution suggested by my teammates (we're all ACBL Gold LM or better) is to bid 2 NT with invitational hands like Hand B and reserve 3 ♣ for weak hands like Hand A as a signoff.

As long as your convention card reflects how you normally play Flannery, you shouldn't get into trouble if you have an occasional variance. But that's more "rarely" than anything else. If you vary from your stated range with any frequency, then you have an implied agreement which is not allowed and is open to adjustment or penalty. If I had to guess, 2 or 3 times a year probably won't get you into trouble. 2 or 3 times a month probably will. In a similar vein, you should let your opponents know that a 1 ♠ response to 1 ♥ shows 5+. They are entitled to the same information that you have and use to make bidding decisions (raising with 3, etc.). Way back when forcing NT were first appearing as part of 2/1 back in the late 60s/early 70s, a 2 ♠ rebid by responder after a forcing NT response did show a weak hand with long ♠. But that gave way to the current "impossible" 2 ♠ which is normally used to show a good 10-12 raise of opener's minor rebid suit. Then the auction -- 1 ♥ - 1 NT 2 m - 3 m can be used as a weak competitive raise to make it difficult for the opponents to compete. But if opener opens 1 ♠ -- 1 ♠ - 1 NT 2 m - 3 m shows the good 10-12 raise only. There's no mechanism to make a weak competitive raise.

Exactly, there are just some people who think it's just hideous to bid a 4 card major when holding 6 ♦. But if as Larry Cohen suggests, opener rebids 1 NT with any balanced hand that may have a 4 card major, responder faces a dilemma holding such a hand without reversing values. If responder reverses and bids the major, opener will think responder's hand is a lot better than it is. If responder doesn't rebid the major, a 4-4 major fit could be lost. I'm not sure there is any "right' answer, but partnerships need to assess their tolerance for whatever they choose being wrong. I think it is again something that is subject to partnership agreement. The hands that are on the cusp between 1 NT and 1 of a major rebid are the 5-4-2-2 hands. IMO, if the strength of these hands are in the long suits, it seems like rebidding the major would be preferable -- ♠ AKxx ♥ xx ♦ xx ♣ AQxxx. If the strength is in the short suits then 1 NT is probably preferable ♠ Q10xx ♥ Ax ♦ AQ ♣ Jxxxx. In between, take your pick. The rebid of a major establishes that opener has at least 4 ♣ (as could be 4=4=1=4) but is usually 5+. That's sometimes very useful for responder to know in the ensuing auction (something like xxx xx xxxxx xxx with no stopper in the unbid major).

I think people are missing a key factor in Cohen's article. Beyond the previous quote, he goes on to say that with a minimum balanced hand opener does not rebid a 4 card major but must rebid 1 NT. A 1 ♦ response is made with a hand that has diamonds with no major OR a hand with ♦ and a major with which responder can reverse. So if opener bids 1 NT over 1 ♦ with a balanced hand containing a major, a major fit may still be found be found when responder reverses into the major -- 1 ♣ - 1 ♦ 1 NT - 2 ♥/2 ♠ is GF and shows ♦ and the major bid. And if responder doesn't reverse, then opener knows there is no 4 card major in responder's hand. The only thing odd about Cohen's assertion is that the ♦ bid can be made with only 4 ♦. As most posters have suggested, it's more usual for ♦ to be longer when holding a major when making a 1 ♦ response. The advantage in doing as Cohen suggests is that opener gives away the least information when the contract is in NT or in a minor. Also, any auction that goes -- 1 ♣ - 1 ♦ 1 M must show an unbalanced opening hand with a real ♣ suit and a 4 card major. The other side of this discussion is exactly how distributional responder can be in favoring a major response vs. a 1 ♦ response is just how unbalanced that responder can get with one bid hand. Certainly everyone would have no problem favoring 1 ♥ on something like ♠ xx ♥ KQxx ♦ Qxxxx ♣ xx. But what about ♠ KJxx ♥ xx ♦ QJxxxx ♣ x or even ♠ KQxx ♥ xx ♦ Jxxxxxx. These are good issues for each partnership to decide.

It sounds like you hit one of the kinks that occur with newer partners because you haven't discussed them. Some people used to play a jump raise as you indicated "ignoring the overcall". However, with the advent of Law of Total Tricks championed by Marty Bergen, it's gotten to be more common here to use direct raises in the agreed suit as preemptive. So, you have to use some other means to show a limit raise or better hand. Typically that is cueing the opponent's suit. The important thing is to discuss how you will play with your partner and decide on your approach. With most of my partners, we play all direct raises in competition as showing 5-8 value -- 2 level shows 3 trump, 3 level shows 4 trump, 4 level shows 5 trump. We play like this over our openings and our overcalls. Opener can use the LOTT to compete further with this information. After opening, the cue of opponents suit shows limit raise or better. After our overcalls, a jump cue if available at the 3 level (1 ♦ - (1 ♠) - P - (3 ♦)) shows a limit raise while a simple cue shows a better hand.

If playing UvU, there's no reason for West to suppress the ♠ suit. Therefore, the correct bid would be 3 ♥ showing ♠ and values, then if necessary keep bidding ♣. Opener raises ♠ and a sacrifice/make 6 ♠ will be bid. This is a classic example of failing to show a suit and then losing it. I agree with gordontd. You look at the trick taking power of the hand of extreme distribution hands. Your hand is a 2 loser hand so bidding a lot with it is OK.

I won't comment on the first auction. But I disagree with those who say opener shouldn't bid 6 ♥ in the second auction. The ♠ void is an undisclosed value that responder can't know about. Especially with something like - AJxxxx xxx xxxx, it wouldn't be unreasonable to bid on to 6 ♥. It's highly unlikely that responder is also void in ♠. So opener knows that their hand covers 2 losers for a hand that was willing to freely bid 5 ♥. Against a likely ♠ lead, if responder is also void, a sluff and ruff will occur.

Are N/S playing Unusual vs. Unusual? The poll choices include one where 2 ♠ is indicated as forcing. In U vs. U, 2 ♠ would indicate ♦ and values. In any case, if you have a forcing bid available and choose to splinter, you must not only be showing values but a distributional feature as well. With poor or mediocre values and distribution, you can just pick a level of ♦ and bid it. When North bids 4 ♠, it shows absolute control of ♠ and must show a pretty good hand for ♦ because it indicates some slam interest (else 5 ♦). Tramticket pointed out that South has only 8 working which is true. But South also doesn't have 2 Quick losers in any suit outside of ♠ and North has already shown complete control of the ♠ suit. North can't bid as shown with an A-less hand outside of ♠. Given at least one A in ♣, ♦ or ♥, 5 ♦ must have some sort of play. If North has 2 or more, than slam should be playable. So whether 4 NT is A asking, Last Train/waiting, or 2 places to play, I think South has to bid it and also show some slam interest.

With a good hand, opener can double and rebid ♦ later, so 3 ♦ here shows length but not much extra strength.

When your auction has been preempted, the ides is to get to a good spot not necessarily the "best" spot. 6 ♣ happens to make on this layout, but there's no way to know what partner holds. It's quite possible partner could hold a hand where even 5 ♣ is iffy. 5 ♣ looks fine to me.

Responder has essentially given a double negative and then is inviting slam with 5 ♥. The thing to realize is that responder can't know that opener has any more than a 4 loser hand but the hand actually has only 2 losers. So I think bidding some slam is mandatory. I think cyberyeti is on the right track with being pretty sure that responder must hand something like ♥ Qxxx(x..). But responder has also effectively denied any help in the minors by making a second negative. With just ♥ Qxxx, responder would just bid 4 ♥. So, logically, the "extra" feature that would be slam positive must be some help in ♠ -- either shortness or ♠ Q or both. IMO, responder has bid correctly unless you want responder to show a ♥ feature by bidding 3 ♥ over 2 ♠ with just the 2 Qs. I wouldn't. it's also correct sometime to just get out of the way of the strong hand and let that hand tell its story. So I'd say denying 2 Qs isn't an absolute. I'd bid 7 ♥ also.

There are always a few hands that don't fit the pattern where 1 NT makes sense. So restrictions about distribution shouldn't be absolute. Ask partner how he/she would bid this hand ♠ AK ♥ AQ ♦ K1032 ♣ 105432. It's a 5-4-4-2 hand with the preponderance of strength in the short suits. Anything other than 1 NT puts you into an auction where you'll have to misrepresent your hand worse than if you bid 1 NT. Also, in the last few years, the ACBL revised restrictions on opening 1 NT to allow with a singleton A, K, or Q. That was a sop to the expert players who realized that on occasion 1 NT may be the best bid with a singleton because of severe rebidding dilemmas with other bids. My experience with opening 1 NT with a 5 card major is pretty commonplace among really good to expert players. Since I don't run across many of these players that use "puppet" Stayman at the 2 or 3 level over 1 NT, they must not be worrying about it too much. Where "puppet" is used a lot is over 2 NT openers. Maybe some of your fears could be assuaged if you and your partner can work through some sequences where the major could be shown.