rmnka447

I'm very much in sync with Tramticket's comments. I'm also in agreement with fourdad's quip. But I would add to it something that a very good player said to me ages ago. "Pass is the most underrated call in bridge." In the decades since, I've come to appreciate the wisdom of that statement more and more. Properly used Pass can significantly improve clarity both when you use it and when you bid. One's bids become better defined. Partner can also take some inferences from when you fail to bid.

1 NT semi-forcing is really a variant of 1 NT forcing -- wide ranging 5-11/12, virtually any distribution. The difference is opener can pass with a hand that would not go to game opposite the 1 NT response 10-12 invitational hand. But consider that opener has zero information as to what responder's hand is, so is, at best, guessing what to do. If responder has a fairly balanced 6-9, 1NT may be a decent spot. 1 NT forcing does have some sequences where it's hard to get to a good spot. But it also provides the chance over opener's rebid to settle in a better spot than passing 1 NT. On some hands where 1 NT makes, 2 ♠ on a 5-2 fit also makes and is a better result. If you as responder hold something like ♠ x ♥ Kx ♦ Qxxxx ♣ Qxxxx, 1 NT passed out can be a terrible place to play after a 1 ♠ opener. But after a forcing 1 NT, a 2 of a minor rebid by opener even on a 3 card suit gets you to a better place. Or, with ♠ x ♥ KJxxxx ♦ Kxx ♣ xxx, 2 ♥ may well be the premier spot and you'll have a chance to get there if opener rebids anything under 2 ♠.

Sorry, smerriman, but just because North passed originally it doesn't automatically negate 1 NT forcing. North could well have 10-11 points and not have an opener. If you want to make that bidding agreement that's up to you. If you want to play 1 NT as semi-forcing by a passed hand that's also up to you. OP's actual auction was normal and the result was normal. I fully agree with awm's comments. 2 of opener's major is sort of the default contract when responder doesn't hold much but holds a doubleton in opener's suit. Since 1 NT is forcing, you can't play there. That seems like a great loss until you realize that a 1 NT response by responder is made on virtually all 6-9 point hands that aren't raises whether it is forcing or not. Over the years when 1 NT wasn't forcing, my partners and I have played 1 NT with some pretty strange looking hands fairly frequently with not so good results. So making 1 NT forcing does more frequently allow the partnership to escape to a better spot when holding such hands. 1 NT Forcing is vital to 2/1 to provide a way to bid hands that used to be 2 level responses but weren't game forcing hands. That expands the number of hands where you bid 1 NT It is a necessity if you want to take advantage of the better precision that 2/1 provides for game going and slam hands. But 1 NT forcing also provides a good way to bid invitational hands in opener's major with 3 card support by responder's jump rebid in opener's major. That facilitated the use of limit raises even before Jacoby 2 NT came along. All bidding systems involve some tradeoffs in how the bidding system is set up. 2/1 gains a whole lot of improvements at the expense of making the auctions over the forcing 1 NT a bit more complicated. Some people hate that. But, on balance, the improvements are well worth it. I know back in the day when most people played Standard and looked at you funny when you announced the 1NT response was forcing, that advantage was pretty apparent to us and, IMO, remains so today.

I would rebid a "hasty" 2 ♥ reverse rather than 3 ♦ with the opening hand. The hand is a 5 loser hand with 20 HCP (17 working points and stiff ♣ K). Except for the stiff K, all the points are working together and add up to 4 QTs. IMO, that's way more than 3 ♦ rebid hand which is typically 16-18, 6 losers, and something like 3 QTs. Also, the ♦ suit while not solid is also pretty chunky. Responder's hand is a solid 9 HCP opposite the 3 ♦ rebid which shows 16-18 so is too much to pass. I'd probably just bid 3 NT especially at MPs. Note that when opener jump rebids in ♦, it's usually with a fairly good ♦ holding. So beyond it's point count value, the ♦ K is a huge working card that will solidify ♦. BTW, bidding 2 NT isn't unreasonable by the "one card off" approach. If a ♦ were a ♣, you'd surely open 2 NT, so you're only one card off if the other methods of bidding don't appeal to you. However, I'd probably still open 1 ♦ as I think all the good intermediates in ♦ make it a suit that I'd emphasize.

I think you could have a lot worse 21 HCP hands, 16 of your HCP are As and Ks. So I wouldn't downgrade and would try the multi 2 ♦ bid. After opening 1 ♥, being overcalled 2 ♣, and having partner raise, I'm going to consult with partner on where to play by forcing for a round. If 3 ♣ asks for some help for NT, then that would be my bid as it implies sort of the hand held. If not, then I'll make a 3 ♦ game try. in either case, it leaves room for partner to bail in 3 ♥, if necessary. I can accept if overbidding to a game loses, but what I don't want to do is NOT bid a game and lose when the opponents are in a position to push a bit for swings.

The question by OP seems to a basic one that someone trying to master SAYC might pose. In that vein, providing information on fairly widely used methods would seem to be more appropriate. Providing some basic scheme that is easier to learn and can be used with just about anyone would seem more right for OP than more complicated methods that few players are likely to know. KISS applies. To be sure, there will be some players who use more involved methods like you prefer. But I'd bet if you attended a tournament or club games on this side of the pond, you'd find something like 75% of the players playing some variation of what I outlined. I checked Bridge World Standard 2017 (sort of a default bidding system/ bidding agreements for pick up expert partnerships and expert bidding problem contests). It lists a modified four suit transfer scheme which is more in line with your thinking. But the way experts play isn't necessarily easily translatable or desirable for people trying to get the basics down.

You did right. You are in a tournament even if in a "guppy" event (as johnu noted). Letting the tournament director handle the situation is fair to everyone at the table and in the event. Where things can get terribly tacky is if you try to handle the situation amongst yourselves and a second irregularity occurs. It does happen. Calling the director is merely ensuring the proper follow up occurs. In this case, because of the mistake, your partner has the option to accept the insufficient bid. Most partners won't do so and the person making the insufficient bid can correct it to make it sufficient by bidding 2 ♦ getting things back to "normal". But then again, like one opponent I played in a similar situation, the director can caution them about the penalities for changing their bid to some other sufficient bid. Try having that happen and then calling the director -- really messy.

Make your best judgement, live with the results, and don't worry about it too much. Had you bid, there's no way to know that the opponents would also defend the hand wrong to give you a push. So the result might well be similar no matter what you did.

As for the OP hand, I'm right on the edge between passing or doubling. Not absolutely sure I wouldn't pass at the table. Against better more aggressive players, I'd be more apt to double and hope I haven't stepped into it. Against weaker opposition, I'd probably pass.

In an IMP league match last week, an opponent opened 2 ♠ vulnerable (all vulnerable) in 2nd seat and had partner make a reasonable raise to 4 with a 17 point hand albeit with just a stiff ♠ 10. I held ♠ AJ98 in front of declarer and thought we had some prospects of beating the contract as I passed. Eventually, declarer led the 10 which I covered with the J and was shocked to find partner win with the ♠ K when declarer covered. Partner held ♠ K4. +300 turned out to be a big swing when partners also went positive. Sort of shocking in the top bracket where all the teams have 10000+ Masterpoints.

2 ♦ for most people is neither negative nor positive, but just a waiting bid. It doesn't deny anything except the ability to make a positive response in other suits. It's entirely possible it could be anywhere from 0-20 HCP. So, that bid is fine. Most people then have a second negative defined for bad hands. The original default for that was 2 NT. But more recently, most people now play either cheapest suit or cheapest minor suit as the second negative drop dead bid. The second negative is something you and your partner need to agree upon. Once you make a second negative, partner needs to understand that UNLESS partner makes another forcing bid you can pass the next bid partner makes. Over partner's 2 ♠ rebid, you need to make the second negative bid whatever that is. As Hrothgar said, partner probably took your 2 NT bid as showing values rather than a bust believing 3 ♣ to be the bid that showed that. If you had shown a bust, partner should have rebid 3 ♠.

You have 3 possible ways to show a minor over 1 NT assuming you only play 2 ♦ and 2 ♥ as transfers to ♥ and ♠: o Bid the 3 of the minor directly over 1 NT, o Bid 2 ♠ as a relay to 3 ♣, then correct to ♦, if necessary, and, o Bid Stayman and then over the NT bidder's response, bid your minor. Fortunately, there are levels of minor hands -- ones where you want to just play 3 of a minor, ones that are invitational to game, and ones that are game forcing. So you can cover all bases by assigning one of those sequences to each task. My experience has been that most people use the 2 ♠ relay to 3 ♣ as a pass or correct signoff sequence. Then you can take your choice as to whether to play the direct bid of a minor or the Stayman sequence as forcing. The other sequence then becomes the invitational sequence. Whichever way you do it, the way you show slam interest in a minor is to go through the forcing sequence and then rebid your minor at the 4 level (usually over 3 NT by opener). So if you choose to make the Stayman sequence forcing, then - 1 NT - 2 ♣ 2 ♥ - 3 ♣ 3 NT - 4 ♣ would show slam interest in ♣. As for choosing which way to show game forcing values, I've seen good players do it both ways. The majority of players seem to use the direct bids as invitational and the Stayman sequence as forcing. The invitational sequences usually show (for 15-17 NTs), 6-8 and a good 6 card suit with honors. Something like AQ10xxx would be enough. Knowing you have good cards in the suit may enable opener to bid 3 NT even with a minimum if holding the right cards - something like ♠ AK09x ♥ QJ10 ♦ KQ10 ♣ xxx or ♠ Axxx ♥ Axxx ♦ Axx ♣ Kx.

Hands do come up where the strict rules that your partner wants to impose can cause problems. How about something like ♠ AK ♥ AKx ♦ AQ ♣ 10xxxxx? The only practical bid seems to me to be 2 NT. If you open 1 ♣ on this example hand, then you have a severe rebid problem if the hand isn't passed out? Also, with something like ♠ AK ♥ AK ♦ QJxx ♣ Kxxxx, opening 2 NT would seem preferable to reversing or jump shifting in the minors with such lousy suits. Where you might seek some compromise is to assure partner that if you decide to allow 2 NT openers with off shape hands that it won't be carte blanche to open all off shape hands with 20-22 HCP 2 NT. Rather it should only include those hands where bidding anything else would present a greater challenge to finding the right place than 2 NT. Dick Bruno, a top Chicago player, lectured on bidding problem hands at a local regional several ago. He proffered what he called the "one card off" principle for problem hands. If no bids seems to fit the hand, then you ask yourself if one small card was different, what would you bid? If you find something that would fit, then you can make that bid and know that you're only one card off from that bid which would be the least egregious lie. In the above examples, if you asked yourself what would you bid if a small ♣ were a major card, you'd easily come to 2 NT as the bid you'd make. Finally, if worse comes to worse and partner won't budge, you can always try the ploy of bidding 2 NT and then apologize saying "Sorry, partner I thought a ____ was a ____". But don't do that too often or you'll risk partnership trust. Save it for the 1 in 1000 hands, where bidding 2 NT just absolutely seems to be necessary.

The crux of the bidding rests on some understanding of how weak a hand the Lebensohl 2 NT sequence shows, how strong a simple suit bid can be, and minimum strength for a ♠ cue in response to the takeout double. Different people will have different views on where these will be. I play with one really fine player who thinks you need 8 or 9 counts to just bid a suit and Lebensohl 2 NT with lesser hands. I also play with other very good players where a decent 6 count is enough to avoid the Lebensohl 2 NT drop dead sequence. You need understandings not only about advancing the takeout double, but also exactly what's expected when you double and show 2 suits (i.e. the big 2 suiter). IMO, neither of the alternate examples you pose would qualify as a big 2 suiter for me. I'd be overcalling 3 ♥ with both and trying to bid ♦ later, if possible. I'd probably respond 3 ♣ to the takeout double, but not without some trepidations. IMO, advancer's hand is close, but not quite enough for a cue. The question is what should advancer do over doubler's 4 ♦ call. ♦ Qx has turned to gold giving advancer 3 cover cards for doubler's losers. OTOH, if doubler is simply 5-5 in the red suits, slam isn't necessarily a sure thing. Tough decision, but I'd probably give it one try with a 4 ♠ call.

The +710 might "feel bad", but a look at the conditions needed for that to occur and their probabilities will make you understand that the result was a very lucky one. It takes 3-3 ♦, 3-2 ♥, and the ♥ queen onside for +710. If any of those conditions isn't there, you're not making +710. Since all must occur simultaneously, the probability is the product of multiplying together the probability of each condition happening. It's roughly then 36% (3-3 ♦) X 68% (3-2 ♥) X 50% (Q onside) which comes out to about a 12% chance they will all occur. So it is a very lucky hand. Given the bidding agreements you have, I don't think the bidding was bad. You did about as good as you could with the tools available. But you might want to discuss with your partner bidding with 2 suited hands over weak 2s. If you have to double and then bid both suits to show the big 2 suiter, you may not in some auctions be able to show both suits. Also, bidding that way does put quite a burden on the takeout double. With most of my partners, we use a Roman Jump overcall structure for big 2 suiters (5-5 or better, 16+) where a jump in a new suit over a weak 2 shows the suit bid and the next higher unbid suit. That way responder has immediate information on what overcaller holds. But as Tramticket alluded to in his comment about using leaping michaels, it doesn't highlight the 6th ♥ in overcaller's hand.

I'm also of the opinion that this is a 2 ♣ opener. It's a 3 loser hand with 21 HCP (all primes) and 5 1/2 QTs. As far as South's bidding is concerned, pass is correct over 1 ♠. The hand happens to make 7 because of some very fortuitous circumstances -- ♠ break 2-2 and ♦ break 3-2. For those to occur simultaneously, the probability is around 28% (40% chance of 2-2 X 68% chance of 3-2 break). If ♠ break 3-1 or worse, you're likely to lose a trump trick and a ♥ if the defense can find the switch. After a 2 ♣ opening, it depends on the partnership bidding agreements. If you play 2 ♦ waiting with an agreed second negative available, then you should reach 4 ♠. If you play 2 ♦ as constructive and 2 ♥ negative, this is a problem hand. In the former case, the bidding would likely go 2 ♣ - 2 ♦(waiting) 2 ♠ - 3 ♣ (2nd negative whether cheapest suit/cheapest minor) 3 ♦ - 4 ♠ (responder's hand got better -- ♦ Q is a big card that with ♠ fit justifies bidding on.) In the latter case, the bidding might go 2 ♣ - 2 ♥ (negative) ? Opener has a rebid problem because any rebid is likely to be passed. Two suited hands are problematic for this style of responding to 2 ♣ and maybe should be opened 1 ♠ by those bidding in this manner. But that would get you to the actual auction that occurred.

This auction is one of those that is difficult with a pickup partner as you've never discussed it. It's also one that will be in the discussion of any pair that has time to discuss what they are playing, such as a pickup partnership at a club game where you go over the convention card. My sense is that more people play new suits over weak 2s by an unpassed hand as forcing than don't. If your partner was a passed hand, then you were correct and partner should have raised or passed. If partner was unpassed, it's possible that partner was showing ♠ and looking for a feature in your hand in order to bid game. With something like ♠ AKQxx ♥ xxx ♦ x ♣ Kxx, game is a good bet if you can show a feature in a minor or show solid ♥.

I'm bidding 2 ♣ on the North hand. If you have 8+ points as North, you'd consider doubling 1 NT for penalties. So any bid you make directly after the 1 NT call is to play and not forward going.

Tramticket has brought up a lot of good points about team play. A couple more things to be aware of at team play -- o Don't double opponent part scores for penalties unless you're absolutely sure they can beat. Giving away a game swing by doubling a part score into game is often fatal. o Make your contract includes making safety plays to ensure your result -- especially in doubled contracts. o Some hands are ones where it's difficult to guess who's sacrificing and who's bidding to make. In these hands, if there's any doubt about beating the opponent's contract, don't be afraid to bid one more. I've seen plenty of hands where both pairs on a team bid to a game that makes and play there. And these double swing boards are usually big time match winners. o Don't be scared to double games if you don't think your side can bid more, has had a makeable game outbid, and has a decent chance of beating the contract. If you're wrong, you're probably giving up an additional 200 points or so, but the additional value of setting the contract may be essential in offsetting the IMP loss if your partners don't find the sacrifice. (This is sort of the opposite side of the previous bullet.) There is one point where I disagree a bit with Tramticket. He recommended "Don't be overaggressive in pushing for a part score." However, fighting for part scores IS important. If you can push the opponents up 1 level and beat them while your partners are allowed to play at the lower level and make, it results in a part score swing of 5-7 IMPs. These swings can be match winners. Of course, vulnerable, you have to be cognizant of the danger of going for a number and not compete wildly. This competing is an important part of successful team play, but may take actual playing experience to learn what works best. It's my observation that many team matches are won by: o bidding and making "thin games" especially vulnerable ones, and, o winning the battle of the part scores. Team play is also about playing good solid bridge -- bidding and making the games/slams you should, not going for telephone number sets, avoiding bad contracts, and playing good defense. If you can do that you can be very competitive in team events.

I'm rebidding 3 ♣ as there is no assurance ♣ will run if partner has no fit.

Your bidding was fine. Just a bad break.

I'm very much in line with HardVector's comments. I'd recommend bidding 1 ♣ on this hand, but also advocated bidding 1 NT on the ♠ Q2 ♥ AQ97 ♦ KQ ♣ QJ1073 hand he used as a counter example. One of the other commenters on the counter example hand (The_Badger) discussed thinking about anticipating responses to the opening. That is an important consideration. For that hand, the point was made that after 1 ♠ response, the rebid becomes awkward as nothing quite fits. But with the current hand, that is not the case. You have a reasonable next call over any of responder's rebid to your reverse. Although the current hand is just a 16 count and the value of ♠ J10 is a bit suspect, the 10s that solidify the long suits are certainly very positive factors that offset that. Also, most of the values are concentrated in prime cards (As,Ks) which is indicated by the hand having 4 QTs.

+1 for The_Badger's post.

Rather than cueing 3 ♣, how about cueing 2 ♠ which is your cheapest actual control? Partner will treat it as a game try and may bid 4 ♥ or try to sign off in 3 ♥. In either case, you can still make a 2nd ♠ cue which converts the "game try" to a a "slam try". It also gives partner the most room to bid something else in response to the try. If partner bids 3 ♣ or 3 ♦ would indicate a concentration of values in the suit bid, then you have the ability to make a second ♠ cue a level lower. That confirms a slam try and highlights the remaining suit as problematic for slam. Also, once you bid ♣ and follow up with a ♠ cue, it's possible/probable that partner might consider the ♣ bid as showing a control and bid on.

Double probably shows no more than 3 ♥ and extras. I could see it being either a hand like nige1 conceived or like apollo1201 suggested. The doubler can't exactly know what the 3 ♥ bidder has. If doubler is holding 4 ♥, it would be proper to carry on to 4 ♥ rather than double because of the known 8+ card fit. If holding a ♠ stack, pass or a 3 NT bid would be proper because the 3 H bid implies some values. If holding the apollo1201 hand, it might be right to play in a minor, 3 NT if advancer has ♠ stoppers, or sit for 3 ♠ doubled depending on advancer's hand.