rmnka447

I'm also in the raise 3 ♠ to 4 ♠ camp. I don't think OP made any wrong bids. As some others have said, ♥ Q is of questionable value opposite a likely stiff or void. So you're likely looking at only a working 8 points opposite the reverse. Slam seems to be a long way off unless partner has a super-maximum reverse. I abhor how the robot bid the hand. Part of the result is the bots own doing. I think the proper rebid is 2 ♠ rather than 3 ♣. It establishes that responder has 5 ♠ and while not promising a lot isn't inherently negative either. With a really bad hand, such as ♠ Jxxxx ♥ xxx ♦ Ax ♣ xxx, responder simply starts the potential sign off sequence whatever it is. 2 ♠ takes up little bidding space and allows opener more potential rebids. In reverse auctions, opener is telling. It's a good bidding principle for the weaker hand to try to keep out of the way of the stronger hand telling their story. Over 2 ♠, opener has both 2 NT and 3 ♣ available as additional rebids. 2 NT would seem to indicate 2=2=4=5 or possibly 1=3=4=5 with a ♥ stopper. 3 ♣ is presumably 4=6 in the minors, but could also be made with 4=5 to allow room to explore for 3 NT. Also, a 3 ♠ rebid by opener shows 3=1=4=5, strong 4=1=4=4, or strong 4=1=3=5 hands. Splinters are available for more disjointed hands 4 trump hands such as ♠ AQxx ♥ x ♦ Q10xx ♣ AKxxx. But the bot chose to rebid 3 ♣ (which should be positive) and opener's rebids are limited. Now, how do you invite 3 NT? With a ♥ stopper, obviously, you'd just bid it. Without a stopper or with only a partial stopper, the other rebids available are only 3 ♥ or 3 ♠. But then what does each of those rebids mean? If both could be steps toward 3 NT or 3 ♥ could be natural, then it may not be clear that 3 ♠ necessarily shows any, let alone 3. IMO, 3 ♠ ought to show 3 (or at least ♠ Hx). I think 4 ♠ is right by responder.

I'm passing 3 ♠. Partner has shown at least a reversing hand that is 6-5. But my hand is of little or no use to partner and the hand is likely a misfit. I don't think that 3 ♠ is forcing. I'm electing to play in our 7 card fit rather than our 6 card fit. If I try to "save" partner, there's no guarantee that playing in ♣ will be any better and could just be raising the amount of the set.

Lots of good comments so far. Part of the blasting to slam is recognizing that slam is likely to exist and either they known the right cards are likely to exist in partner's hand or that slam is close and there's no way to ascertain exactly what you need to know and are taking a calculated gamble in bidding it. (In this latter case, I've often heard really good players say "Well, partner, this hand's likely either making 5 or 7 and I decided to bid slam." after the auction is over.) In your example hand, you've hit upon one of the classic types of hands where slam is very likely to exist. When opener rebids 3 ♥, you know there are two fits of at least 8 cards. These "double fit" hands will often yield 12+ tricks if the suits are reasonably solid and appropriate controls are available in the side suits. Let's consider your hand. In ♠, you hold 3 card support to 2 honors, a terrific holding for potentially solidifying the ♠ suit. In ♥, you hold 3 honors which is also good. Even if partner's support is just xxx, you might well be able to bring the suit in with only 1 loser. If partner happens to hold the ♥ A, you may even be able to bring home the suit with a 4-1 break. As for the ♣ and ♦ side suits, you have 1st round controls in both, so this is a very slam positive hand. So, after partner's 3 ♥ raise, it's up to you to start slam exploration. In a 2/1 GF context, you can do that either of two ways. The first is to let partner in on the double fit by bidding 3 ♠. If you just wanted to play in game you could bid either 4 ♥ or 4 ♠. So, 3 ♠ says we not only have a fit in ♥, but one in ♠ also. If partner doesn't like his/her hand then partner can signoff in 4 ♥ or 4 ♠. Otherwise, partner can bid a control. The second is for you to bid a control. That would tend to point you toward a ♥ slam since you've not revealed the ♠ fit. As you can see, partner's hand ought to get excited about slam once you take any step towards it. Partner knows that you have a 10+ card ♥ fit. Over 3 ♠, partner can show continued slam interest by bidding a control, or, possibly using RKCB/1430. Some pairs, by agreement, also use 3 NT as a waiting bid showing slam interest. I'd likely bid 3 ♠ over 3 ♥. It let's partner know his/her ♠ holding is important and also get partner to focus on the side suit controls when holding reasonable cards in the fitting suits. Good bidding is normally a cooperative effort.

I wouldn't pass this hand at MPs and I generally make solid opening bids. The hand has 2 QTs with 7 seven losers and a very comfortable 2 ♣ rebid fairly certain to be available. So, in this case, there's little risk in opening the hand. Change a low ♣ to a low ♥ making it an 8 loser hand and maybe you'd have a little more pause about opening it. And, if it were something like ♠ Kxx ♥ xxxx ♦ Ax ♣ KJxx passing might be the best option.

You definitely made a takeout double. Partner should have responded, but didn't. So definitely not your fault. I would think your partner was probably a newer player and didn't realize your call was for takeout.

You can play systems over 1 NT on or systems off. Either is workable, the major thing is to just remember what you are playing. Systems on is easy -- same bids as if your side opened 1 NT. Systems off - cue of the opponents suit is Stayman, everything else is natural.

I think you make the safety play. You only make 5 if you can nail the stiff K by playing the A. Leading towards the A, covering if RHO follows or playing A if RHO shows out, lets you handle both 3-0 breaks. If RHO plays 9, you only lose when LHO has stiff K and playing the A allows you to make . It makes no difference in the other two cases where 9 was stiff or from K9.

The play of the ♣ A isn't so bad. But once S refuses to take the second round of trump. West can still make the hand playing on ♥. All it takes is the realization that South likely has the ♠ A and, in any case, can't play on ♠ without giving up a ♠ trick. After the second round of trump, declarer doesn't have to use two trumps to remove the ♣ K but leaves it in place, thereby retaining 2 trumps in dummy that can be used to trump a ♥ and a ♠. So at trick 4, declarer should lead a ♥ to the ♥ Q, and then a ♥ back to hand winning with A or K, if South follows. When both players follow, ♥ can't break worse than 4-2. Declarer can then ruffs the third round of ♥ (10 or 9 led) in dummy. If ♥ break 3-3, declarer has two good ♥ in hand on which to pitch 2 ♠ from dummy. If South ruffs the 2nd round of ♥, declarer has 2 high heart on which to pitch ♠. If South pitches on the 2nd ♥, declarer wins high and takes a ruffing finesse against North, pitching a ♠ if North doesn't cover. ------------ As for commenting at all on partner's play, you're right about not saying anything at all to partner. Obviously, your partner already was upset about the play that had been made. If anything, be encouraging or say nothing. With your partner already upset, your aim is to get partner back to concentrating on bridge and not on thinking about the "mistake". Something like "That's OK, keep playing, the hand isn't over yet." might do a world of good. The biggest problem with criticizing a partner's play is not only how it affects the current hand, but how it carries over into subsequent hands. With my best partners, we have agreements to never comment on hands during a session other than to clarify a possible misunderstanding. You'd be surprised how much that helps us play our best.

If RHO has bid correctly, then it's almost certain that the hand is very black with almost all the black honors. That would make the hand very distributional to say the least. So, I don't think doubling 5 ♣ makes much sense because there's no way to know if it will go down or not. From the looks of your hand, even if 5 ♣ goes down it doesn't seem like you'll beat it more than one or possibly 2 at the most. I don't know what you expect partner to do once you double, either. I think it comes down to either making a bid or passing. Passing could let them play in their last makeable contract. Bidding could push them to a makeable slam or be spectacularly wrong if the distribution lies the wrong way. At the table, I'd probably just put the 5 ♥ bid card on the table. If I find one helpful card in partner's hand, I think there's a decent chance of making.

1 ♠ If you want to be pushy, it does have only 4 losers and might qualify for 2 ♣. BUT you could easily end up only making 8 tricks if the cards lie wrong or opposite a complete bust. So, this is a better hand to open 1 ♠ on to avoid getting too high. If the hand were ♠ AKQxxxx ♥ AQJx ♦ x ♣ xx (a K less), you'd have a much better hand to open 2 ♣ on as you're virtually certain to take 9 tricks.

Given the bidding by opener, you're bidding is correct. It's up to opener, with a huge playing hand, to carry on beyond 3 ♥. I'd be very likely as opener to just bid 4 ♠ over 1 NT.

A strong single raise and/or a preemptive double raise in the minors are both alertable in the ACBL. If the opponents inquire, your partner must give an explanation of your agreement. If the agreement is that it shows 10+ value with 4+ cards and denies a 4 card major, then that is the explanation that must be given. If you as a player, for some reason, decide to violate that agreement, that's OK. BUT, if your partnership violates such an agreement with any regularity so that there may be a tacit understanding that you could be concealing a 4 card major, then that is improper. In that case, partner must include that information in the explanation -- "10+ value 4+ cards in the minor, but doesn't deny a 4 card major". If the opponents don't ask, but assume you don't have a 4 card, that's their problem.

At Imps, you play on ♠ and as long as the opponents follow to 2 rounds, you make your contract by continuing to play on ♠. At MPs, I'm in the leading a low ♣ at trick 2 toward the ♣ Q. If the ♣ K lies favorably, you may bring in the whole ♣ suit. And whether it's favorable or not, you may still do so if ♣ J10 are doubleton (with the lovely ♣ 9 in the North hand.

Realistically, real bridge players will only bid grand slams when they can count 13 tricks or know the odds of making are at least 67% or better. The robot's 7 ♣ bid is completely from outer space. There's no problem with your bidding other than possibly bidding 4 ♦ instead of 4 ♣. But 4 ♣ wasn't the problem on this hand.

After the normal defense of ♥ 4 by West, East winning ♥ A and returning a middle ♥ for a ruff by West, you still need the ♣ finesse to work to make 5 ♦. Partner has shown values by bidding 3 ♥ and is likely to hold something in the black suits unless opener has made some really ratty 2 ♥ bid. So 3 NT is an alternative. Following that wise bridge tip by ?(Hamman? Wolff?) "when in the auction 3 NT is an alternative, it probably should be bid."

IMPERFECT SHAPED HANDS People did use doubles for takeout without promising 3+ cards in each suit back in the 1950s. Back then it only promised about opening values. But as smerriman pointed out, there were always some problems when doubler's partner bid a suit that doubler was short in. Gradually, bridge players moved toward doubles always guaranteeing 3+ cards in unbid suits and presumably about opening values. Many of the "disasters" disappeared and competitive bidding proceeded on a much firmer basis. But, of course, that left the very hands OP poster is asking about -- those with values but imperfect shape for takeout doubles. Those hands had to be passed which sometimes meant missing reasonable part scores and even some games. What made the shaped takeouts eventually work was the concept of balancing/reopening the auction when the opponents find a fit and stop at a low level, or, the initial opening bid is passed to 4th seat. In the latter case, opener's partner didn't have enough to respond, so the person in 4th seat knows that their partner must have some values. Thus, 4th seat could make a bid even on pretty modest values knowing partner was likely to have enough to roughly "balance" out the points between the two sides. To be sure opener, on occasion, opener can have a monster of a hand and that isn't true, but those cases are rare enough and don't necessarily result in disaster to not worry about. For example, if 4th seat has 7 HCP and the auction goes 1 ♥-P-P-?, 4th seat knows opener's partner likely has no more than 5 HCP and quite possibly less. That leaves at least 28 HCP split between opener's hand and 4th seat's partner. If opener has a normal 12-14 opener, then 4th seats side has at least half the points in the deck and can compete. Additionally, 4th seat's partner sits behind the strong hand so whatever points that hand holds are likely to be a little more valuable in terms of trick taking because of their position. Likewise, if the opponents find a fit and stop at a low level, a similar situation arises. When one side has a fit, the other side is very likely to have a fit also. So, again the person in pass out seat, can compete. After the opponents bid unopposed 1 ♦- 1 ♥ - 2 ♥ - P - P to the pass out seat, pass out seat knows there's probably a fit somewhere and the opponent's don't have much more than half the points in the deck (responder didn't invite, opener didn't jump raise). So with a suitable hand, pass out seat can compete. Without spending a lot of time completely explaining balancing beyond the concept of why it's possible, the current state of competitive bidding is that you pass with hands that are imperfect for a takeout double and hope either partner or yourself can balance later in the auction. TAKEOUT DOUBLES with 5 CARD SUITS Generally, you prefer to overcall with a 5 card suit. But situations arise, where the 5 card suit isn't particularly good and the hand is otherwise suitable for a takeout double. In those circumstances, it may be preferable to double instead of overcalling. That is especially true when the 5 card suit is a minor. For example, you are vulnerable and hold ♠ Axxx ♥ KJx ♦ x ♣ A5432 and RHO bids 1 ♦ in 1st seat. If you overcall on this hand, it'll have to be 2 ♣ and that's not very wise with such a bad suit. (After a few 800-1400 sets when LHO holds a ♣ stack and some values, you'll understand why this is so.) But your hand is good enough for a takeout double and does have the proper shape so here double is preferable. If your hand were ♠ Axxx ♥ xxx ♦ x ♣ AKJxx, you have good ♣, so 2 ♣ is fine. Note that if the suit were a major and could be bid at the 1 level, most good players would prefer an overcall --bid 1 ♠ on ♠ A5432 ♥ KJx ♦ x ♣ Axxx or ♠ AKJxx ♥ xxx ♦ x ♣ Axxx.

First of all, skill at preempting and sacrificing is something that is acquired with experience. Everyone who has mastered those skills has some point suffered some ignominious sets. I've certainly had my share of telephone numbers (4 digit sets) over the years. One point previously stated cannot be emphasized enough "Once you have preempted, it's up to your partner to do any further preempting." The objective of preempting is to obstruct or make it difficult for the opponents to find there optimum spot. If you can go down less than they score in the par (not necessarily optimum) contract, then you're likely to get a good result. If they get to a reasonable spot, but not their optimal spot, you've also scored a victory in the sense that you haven't given away as much as you could have. The trick is to make life as difficult as possible for them while avoiding too large a set. Your preempt worked on this hand although it was very aggressive. Looking at your hand alone, you rate to have no winners outside of the ♣ suit and likely have 2 losers in ♣ opposite a small doubleton in partner's hand (which is all you should assume absent any other information). Partner made a dangerous raise to 4 ♣, but the opponents vulnerable elected to go on not wanting to risk missing a game versus an uncertain set. Consider that if you had passed, the opponents might well find 6 ♠. Either East will open a strong 2 ♣ and go on over West's strong ♠ raise, or, after opening 1 ♠ will explore for slam after West makes a 3 ♠ limit raise.

How aggressively do you open? I know many people who would pass the East hand. But the hand satisfies the rule of 20 and has 2 QTs so there are bound to be some who do open it. Let's start with East as the opener --- --- - 1 ♣ 1 ♥ - 2 ♥ It's Ok to use 1430 as West because you have controls in all the suits. So, West asks himself, "What do I need to know for slam?" The answer is ♥ honors East holds and possibly Ks for evaluating whether grand should be bid if East shows ♥ AQ. 4 NT - 5 ♣ (1 or 4, obviously 1) 5 ♦ - 5 ♥ (♥ Q ask, denial by East) 6 ♥ - Pass If East passes then West opens --- 2 NT - 3 ♣ (puppet Stayman) 3 ♦ - 3 ♠ (West=1 or more 4 card majors, East=4 card ♥ suit) 4 ♣ - 4 ♦ (West=♣ control+good hand for slam, East=♦ control, also interest in slam) At this point, I can see the auction diverging in either of two ways --- 4 ♠ - 4 NT (West=♠control, East=1430) 5 ♣ - 5 ♦ (4 KCs, Queen ask) 5 ♥ - 6 ♥ (no Queen, set final contract) Pass ,or, 4 ♥ - 4 ♠ (West=waiting/sets trumps, East=♠ control) 4 NT - 5 ♣ (1430, 1 KC) 5 ♦ - 5 ♥ (queen ask, no Queen) 6 ♥ - Pass

Double. It leaves the most flexibility to find the right contract. If partner finds a 3 ♥ bid, I'll bid 3 NT. If partner bids 3 ♠, I'll continue with a 4 ♦ cue. Then if partner cooperates with a 4 ♥ control bid, we'll continue exploring for slam.

I agree with the others that after the first trick that partner should also know you don't have the ♣ Q. Playing simple defense (third hand high), it would be the card you should play to that trick if you held it. Also, on the third round of trump, you might consider playing ♥ 6 (start of a high/low) showing something in ♥. It doesn't necessarily show the ♥ K but an honor in ♥ against a slam. Your side isn't like to hold a lot opposite a slam, but any honor, especially a K or Q, is likely to be valuable. So showing it might help partner if partner has a discarding problem. Finally, on the second last trick or whenever, when you get down to having to discard one of two possible guards, you should keep the suit that only you can guard and hope for help from partner in the other suit.

I've played Kaplan-Sheinwold (11+-14 NT with 2/1 and 5 card majors) with my favorite partner for a long time with some success. If there's a problem with strong NT type hands when playing weak NTs, I think part of it comes from most people not adapting their minor openings bidding to reflect the changed population of hands that results. The change in balanced hands present when 1 of a minor is opened profoundly changes the character of minor openers -- approximately 65% of minor openers are 15+ when playing weak NTs versus about 25% when playing strong NTs. Kaplan-Sheinwold addresses this by changing the meaning of many simple bidding sequences. For example, a simple raise by opener of responder's major is redefined as showing 15-17 value and 4 trump. Yep, there is a question of what to do with a minimum minor opener with a fit for responder's major. The answer is to raise anyhow and accept the consequences of responder expecting more. However, this doesn't come up very frequently. Since the minimum opener must be unbalanced, it may be with distribution that the hand is pretty close to 15 value anyhow. Originally, a bidding sequence of 1 m - 1 ♥ - 1 ♠ could be made on any 15+ hand with 4 ♠. But eventually, several problems developed with this approach. The major one was wrongsiding NT contracts when opener held the strong NT hand. Also, some follow up bidding sequences made it difficult for responder to know if opener held a real minor suit or not. So most K-S players moved to just rebidding 1 NT with the strong NT hand. To avoid losing a potential ♠ fit in these situations, NMF emerged as an answer. This was way back in the 1970s. Also, this meant that after 1 m- 1 ♥ - 1 ♠ opener had an unbalanced hand. With the revised minor opening bidding, Kaplan-Sheinwold has proved to be very effective. My sense is that we've been able on a fairly consistent basis to be more accurate in bidding minor suit games (vs. NT) and slams. This is off set by occasional wrong siding of major suit contracts versus strong NTers. And over a weak NT sometimes playing 1 NT when 2 of a major on a 4-4 fit is preferable. Pay your money, take your choice.

If the preempt was 2 ♥ instead of 3 ♥, responder would have a clear forcing 3 ♣ bid. But the 3 ♥ preempt has made life difficult. The hand is clearly worth bidding to game. However, a 4 ♣ bid shows the hand's suit but bypasses 3 NT which might be the right spot. So, despite the ♣ suit, I think the right bid is Double. If opener finds a 3 NT bid, I think there are reasonable prospects the contract will make. The ♣ suit may provide a running suit if partner happens to hold ♣ Q. If not, the ♥ J may help provide a potential 2nd stopper if opener's stopper is something like ♥ K10x. If opener doesn't find a 3 NT bid, then opener's bid will provide some information in the quest where to play the hand. If opener bids 3 ♠, responder can bid 4 ♣ trying for 4 ♠ or 5 ♣. If opener bids 4 ♣, responder can carry on to 5 ♣. If opener bids 4 ♦, then the question is whether to play in ♦ on a potential 4-3 fit or play somewhere else. I'd be apt to try 4 ♠ over 4 ♦. Someone asked about what opener's double meant in the auction 1 ♠ - (3 ♥) - Dbl - (4 ♥) - Dbl. Since the original negative double was already for takeout with presumably about game going values, I don't think it's for takeout. Opener can simply bid a suit if there's a preference for a minor or pass to give responder the chance to bid further or double. I'd probably take the double as showing values/cooperative versus necessarily being penalty. With 3 QTs, I'd just pass and take what looks like a sure set. +300 versus a game our way gives up at worst a part score swing, but gains if any game at the 5 level goes down.

WTP,you bid 3 NT, what else? If partner has ♠ ??, they can cash their five or six ♠ and you move on to the next hand. But it's possible they may not find a ♠ lead and/or ♠ block. It also possible partner might have a hand where 9 tricks are always available.

Normally, you should not violate partnership agreements. So, if your normal agreement is 3+ trump and 6-9 for a single raise, then adhere to that. While it is tempting to try to show a fit with less, the problem is that partner will expect more from your hand and overbid. As others have pointed out, passing doesn't necessarily mean you won't be able to show support at some point in the auction. Also, supporting with less than agreed values might even work out on a particular hand, but the problem may be on future hands when you raise with "normal" values and partner has doubts about what values you have for your raise.

I think it would be hard to put together a hand where opener would explore for slam and continue exploring for slam after a signoff missing AKQ of trumps. Even holding KJ10xx(x..), which is the best holding opener can have, there's no way for opener to know if there's a trump loser or not. Well, maybe, if opener is holding 7 or 8 trumps and a lot of cards outside knowing there can't be more than 1 trump loser because responder must have 4+ trumps. Once responder "signs off" with 4 ♠, opener has to consider whether continued slam exploration and sign off in 5 ♠ is too risky. Voluntarily bidding past game and going down in 5 ♠ is pitching a game swing at IMPs unless most everyone else is also doing it. Without certainty about the trump suit, opener shouldn't bid on without some sense that there's a fairly good probability of no more than 1 loser outside of trump. As for the existence of a void in opener's hand, positing such a holding is really breaking a cardinal rule of good bidding "Never put cards into partner's hand unless bridge logic tells you they are there." However if there is a void, it would seem much more likely to be in ♥, because a ♣ void would mean the opponents hold 11 ♣ and haven't made a peep. It's been interesting to see some of the minimal hands that allow slam to be made. IMO, opener needs quite a bit more to push for slam beyond the 4 ♠ signoff as responder's splinter is limited to something like 11-15 value and is not likely to have that many cards to cover opener's losers. With responder's shortness in one side suit defined, responder is likely to have length in the other side suits, so opener's holdings in those suits becomes critical. Also, I agree with virtually all mikeh has pointed out.