rmnka447

No. Partner has to have an awful lot of cards for slam to make. There's just no way to know if they are there. Sit for 5 ♥.

Yes, I agree with your bidding so far. Partner has made a move toward slam by showing a ♥ control AND missing ♠ AQ which you hold. The move was made after you Splintered. Partner also made a further move toward slam after you didn't show any interest in slam. There are some inferences you can make from that information. o Likely partner has no wasted values in ♦, o Partner must hold 1st round controls in at least 2 of the side suits, else it would be unlikely partner would continue on over 4 ♠, o Partner has to have ♠ K and very likely ♠ J10 as well because without them there's too much risk of 2 potential ♠ losers to go past 4 ♠, o Partner is likely to have the ♣ A for the 5 ♣ cue. If not, it might a stiff or void with ♦ A and lots of high ♥ because with your splinter, you're likely to have some ♥ length, and, o Partner is not likely to bid beyond 5 ♠ missing the ♠ AQ. In any case, every bid partner has made has made your hand more valuable. So, I think you must carry on past 5 ♠. So, there are really 2 choices, 6 ♣ or just blasting 6 ♠. By not cueing 5 ♦, you deny either a void or stiff ♦ A. I'd think seriously about blasting 6 ♠, but in the end would probably bid 6 ♣ which may be useful to partner if has long ♣. It also lets partner potentially try for grand by bidding 6 ♥.

Like others, Minorwood if we'd agreed on that, otherwise forcing. Any bid which jumps past 3 NT voluntarily in a minor oriented hand where it still could be a consideration should be forcing unless a game bid.

If the ♥ suit was a minor I'd seriously consider opening a strong 1 NT versus a jump rebid in the minor. But I'm not going to suppress a 6 card major. So, it's I ♥ followed by 3 ♥ for me. I'll take my lumps if that doesn't turn out well.

I would think of your original choices Double stands out. Here in the US, most people play a balancing 1 NT as 11-14 with stoppers and a balancing 2 NT as Unusual. So with a stronger NT hand, you have to double and rebid in NT. Double normally shows about an opening bid, but can be shaded with shapely distribution. But just because you've got a void in the opponents suit, doesn't mean you can double to reopen with rubbish. Partner with a ♠ stopper and a lot of junk otherwise, should just bid a suit. So, 1 NT should show a stopper and about the 8-10 you're normally playing partner for when you reopen. With good stoppers and more values, advancer may jump in NT. After the 1 NT advance, I think you sit with the 9-10 shapely double and hope partner can make it. If they double, then you can redouble and scramble from there. Likewise, with a non-descript minimum opener, you do the same. So any further bid by reopener should be forward going. So, I would endorse an auction pretty close to the one helene_t proffered. --- - Double 1 NT- 2 ♣ 3 ♣ - 3 NT* * - If partner has a fit in ♣ and 8-10, 3 NT should have some play with stoppers in the remaining suits. If a further suit bid is made, partner may bypass 3 NT without a stopper in the remaining suit.

Double is entirely normal with OP's hand. You want to find an 8 card ♥ fit when one exists. So even with very strong ♠ stoppers and 4 decent ♥, you should normally prefer to double versus bid NT. You may be able to bid NT later on, if necessary. The hand is worth a solid 8 points. ♠ K behind the ♠ bidder is a plus. But who knows how valuable ♣ Jxxxx is? So on balance, 8 value seems about right and certainly enough for a negative double. OP partner might consider whether rebidding 2 ♦ is right with Qxxxx. Normally, a good plan is to expect no more than a small xx. Opposite such a holding, the opponents are likely to get 3 or 4 ♦ tricks. If opener holds a ♠ stopper, then maybe 1 NT should be considered. But if none is held, then the bulk of opener's points must be in ♣ and ♥ and maybe a 2 ♣ bid on 3 ♣ might be considered. If responder passes, you've gotten to at least a 4-3 fit yet it leaves room for responder to preference back to ♦ or rebid 2 ♥ with 5 decent ♥. In any case, I think the initial response was correct and the result unfortunate. It happens sometimes

1. Most people here play this as 11-14 natural 2. Since you've already passed, you can't have enough for a natural NT call so it's unusual. 3. With two unlimited as yet opponents bidding, many people are using this as a sandwich 1 NT that is unusual and weaker than a double in this position. It's hard to see you coming in with a NT call when the opponents have presumably already shown about half the points in the deck. 4. Unusual for the lower two unbid suits. 1 NT here is 11-14 natural, Double followed by minimum NT is 15-18, Double followed by a jump in NT is 19-20. 5. Unusual, same as #2

I missed this thread, but would bid 3 NT over 3 ♦. Over 3 NT, partner clearly has to make a bid to get you to 4 ♥. ("What do you call a 7 card suit? Trump") If the auction is passed back to partner and I was partner, I'd just bid 3 ♥ not 4 ♦. Preemptor's partner didn't make any further move over the preempt, so is unlikely to have a huge hand. Opposite a stiff ♥ with 1 or 2 other useful cards in partner's hand, 3 ♥ should be pretty close to making.

I'd start with 5 ♦ now. And anticipate possibly making a 6 ♣ bid next, if necessary. 5 ♦ now gives the opponents a tough decision. All they know is they each have major and likely ♦ shortness. So do they carry on to the 5 level?

Since most of my partners like to play a jump raise to 3 ♠ as preemptive we had to have some device for showing a limit raise. So we've adopted something suggested by one of them. We play a jump cue of opener's suit as a limit raise. So here I'd use that tool and bid 3 ♦. Partner can convert to either 3 ♠ or 4 ♠ as their hand dictates. But more importantly, I think you want to show some values here as a possible deterrent to the opponent's bidding. Also, if partner has decent values for the 1 ♠ bid, it might help avoid taking a phantom sac in 4 ♠. If you don't have a tool like the jump cue, you might even consider making just a 2 ♦ cue. You only have 9 HCP but all points are working -- ♦ K behind the bidder, ♣ A, and ♠ Q is sure to fill in holes in the trump suit. Plus you have ♥ shortness and 4 trumps. The downside is that partner might decide more and have a tough time stopping at the right level.

A free bid of 2 ♦ over the double shouldn't be made with a minimum hand with 5 ♥/4 ♦. It's perfectly OK to pass with such a holding and let responder tell their story. So, I think it's more of a picture bid showing a very red hand. Q empty 6th of ♣ with bad spots isn't a good holding either. Transport between hands may be a huge problem at NT. So, I'm another person who would pass 2 ♦.

Normally, over partner's 1 of a minor opener, you try to respond in major if you can and may push the minimum response a little. This is especially true if you hold only 3 or less cards in opener's suit. I'd open the hand 1 ♦. As responder, I'd bid 1 ♠. You bid 1 ♠ for several reasons. First, if opener promises 3+ ♦, you normally don't want to end up playing in ♦ with a 3-3 ♦ fit nor with a stiff or void in the opening suit. Also, opener often has a 4+ card major when opening a minor, so you'd like to find the major fit if one exists. If the bidding goes 1 ♦ - 1 ♠ 2 ♠ - P you're probably in a better spot then 1 ♦ passed out. Sometimes partner has a powerhouse hand and only has to hear any response to push forward. It's even more so after a minor opening because some hands can be awkward to bid after a strong 2 ♣ opener followed by a 3 of a minor rebid. These are more apt to be in 1 of a minor figuring they won't get passed out. Partner's rebid may put you in a decent contract. If partner rebids 2 ♦, you've gotten to an 8+ card fit, you pass. If partner rebids 1 NT, you pass. Of course, the hand above could occur and you'll play 2 ♠. You plan on making minimum responses throughout and plan to pass at the first opportunity to do so unless partner makes a forcing bid.

With all the discussion in this thread, I have to admit that my previous answer of 4 ♥ with this hand was too timid. Normally, with my partners, we agree that 2 ♣ bids should be made with no more than 4 losers in a major hand or 3 losers in a minor hand. So with the given hand, you know that the two Qs must cover two of the losers and 5 ♥ should be relatively safe. So the 5 ♥ bid must convey the message that in a "poor" hand you must have a good heart fit and some holding that makes you think you can cover a couple of opener's losers. Even if you don't bid 2 ♣ as disciplined we do, it's still probably worth the 5 ♥ bid.

Unless a hand qualifies for a strong 2 ♣ opener, just open it naturally and don't worry about it being passed out. Especially when you open a minor, chances of it being passed out are pretty small. If partner can't find enough to scrounge up a response, you probably don't have game anyhow. So with a 0=3=5=5, your normal bid would be 1 ♦.

I missed this entire thread for a day or two, but I'd also bid 2 ♣ followed by 2 NT. The fairly good, long ♣ suit raises this hand beyond a 21 point balanced hand. I'm also applying a bidding principle that top Chicago player Dick Bruno has stated several times in lectures on bidding problem hands. He calls it the "one card off" principle. In this hand, if a ♣ were instead a card in another suit, you'd have no problem opening this hand with a NT bid. So bidding NT with this hand means you're no more than one card off in telling partner what you have. Also, with the points and stoppers spread across all suits, this feel more like a NT hand. If the values were concentrated in two suits, than that might be a reason to favor ♣ versus NT -- perhaps something like ♠ AKQ ♥ xx ♦ Kx ♣ AKQJxx.

My point, if not expressed clearly, is that I'd never simple LTC by itself to decide to open a hand. It's more a qualitative measure for me to be considered with all the other pieces of information that go into adjusting hand evaluation. For example, the non-opener hand I posed (x KJ QJxxx QJxxx) is a 6 loser hand, but still not an opener.

It would be an easy 1 NT opening for me when playing weak NTs on this side of the Atlantic.

Yes, there definitely are very good players who check this particular area in the forum. All are interested in helping newer players get better because they want to see the game flourish. That means having a continuing flow of new players who develop into good players. Getting better at bridge is an ongoing process for all bridge players from novices all the way up to and including World Grand Masters. It includes both study and playing. And part of it is learning from the mistakes you make. First of all, you need an objective. Whoever (Yogi Berra?) said "If you don't know where you're going, you're never going to get there." was right. For a new player, that objective is to get to a point where you consistently play really good, solid fundamental bridge. Players who play good fundamental bridge consistently are winning players. I think you're on the right path by trying to analyze your results, identify the mistakes you made, and try to correct them. In the US these days, many bridge clubs use pre-dealt hands and electronic scoring, then post the results on-line including the contract and result at each table for each board along with hand records. Such postings are terrific for reviewing your results. If you live elsewhere, then maybe they have something similar. If you've picked up how to play the cards on your own, then a good step would be to read a good book on overall card play. In the US, William Root's books are good as is Louis Watson's Play of the Hand. In the UK, Mollo/Gardener's Card Play Technique is a classic. There are probably a lot of other good books out there, too. As far as bidding is concerned, I'd recommend using a fairly simple natural bidding system at first. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid applies. Larry Cohen, top American player recognized as one of the best teachers of the game, in an article emphasized that newer players will make much better progress learning to use basic bidding tools well, then trying to add a lot of gadgets to their bidding systems. It's good advice. For example, understanding the meaning of all the possible bidding sequences that follow from using Stayman and understanding when to use them to describe your hand is much more important than adding a new bidding gadget. It gets you further down the road of being a good fundamental bridge player. The reason I'd recommend a natural based bidding system is that there's a lot to learn about the mechanics of and judgment in bidding to become a very competent bidder. These include things like -- which bids are forcing, which bids aren't forcing, how do you invite, when do you accept invitations, hand evaluation, slam exploration, etc. These are probably a lot easier to learn and understand when using a natural bidding system. If you have question about mistakes you've made, you might be able to get answers from really good players. It doesn't hurt to ask.

Answer:

Hint:

I would open this hand as I use not only HCP, but also use Quick Tricks (Defensive tricks) in evaluating a hand. My normal standard is 12 HCP and 2 QT to open hands. As the number of QTs goes up, the HCP can reduced. This hand has 2 1/2 QTs, so even discounting ♠ J, I'd open it. If it had 13 HCP and 1 1/2 QTs, I'd consider opening it. But hands with 1 QT or less, I'd never open unless it was possibly a preemptive bid. Quick tricks are evaluated in each suit separately and totaled for the hand. They are a means of evaluating the underlying strength/foundation of the hand. The honor combinations that yield QTs are: AK = 2 QTs AQ = 1 1/2 QTs Ax = 1 QT KQ = 1 QT Kx = 1/2 QT But even these measures should not be used alone or blindly applied. For example, ♠ AQ ♥ KQx ♦ Jxxx ♣ xxxx is not as strong as your original hand and I might consider passing it.

Put me solidly in line with the mikeh and miamijd posts. mikeh likes to check controls (basically K=1, A=2) as part of his opening analysis. I opt for QTs. So I will use rule of 20 for hands that satisfy it and have 2+ QTs. But as mikeh pointed out, there are certain hands that even though they satisfy the rule and extra high card quality requirements are not openers. I like to use losing trick count as a "tie breaker" on distributional hands that are on the opener/non-opener cusp. I think where the abhorrence for the Rule of 20 applies is in the blind application of it to any hand. I've certainly gotten into heated debates with other posters on this forum about not opening hands that satisfy the Rule of 20 that I know the really good players I respect wouldn't open either. For example, ♠ x ♥ KJ ♦ QJxxx ♣ QJxxx satisfies the rule of 20, but is never an opener. OTOH, there are hands that don't satisfy the rule of 20 or meet the extra high card requirements that I have opened. They include: ♠ - ♥ xx ♦ KQ109xx ♣ KJ10xx (meets Rule of 20, but only 1 1/2 QT but lots of playing tricks in this 6 loser hand) ♠ AQ10xx ♥ A109x ♦ xx ♣ xx (fails Rule of 20, but has 2 1/2 QTs with honors and intermediates working together in the long suits in a Major oriented hand) Ultimately, you have to learn to use judgment in applying any rules or techniques that you use to determine whether to open hands.

If opener finds a 3 NT second rebid, you probably have a hand that won't disappoint because of having honors in both of partner's bid suits. 3 ♦ also let's opener look for a partial ♥ stopper in your hand with a 3 ♥ rebid. If that happens, you bid 3 ♠ denying the partial stopper and letting opener decide what to do next. But if you hold something like ♥ Jxx, then 3 NT should be bid. If partner rebids 3 ♠ presumably showing 6-4, you raise to 4 ♠. If partner rebids 4 ♣ presumably showing at least 5-5, you still bid 4 ♠. Had your hand been Qx xx AJ9xxx Kxx, then raising to 5 ♣ instead of 4 ♠ comes into view.

Whatever style you adopt, just be consistent in how you apply it. It's even OK if both partners apply it slightly differently as long as you pretty much stick to the parameters you've agreed upon. Where you are likely to run into trouble is if at similar vulnerability conditions the preemptor is completely unpredictable -- preempts on KQ10xxxx one time and Jxxxxxx another.

The bad hand default here would be 3 ♠. You have a good hand so there's no reason not to bid your suit with a 3 ♦ bid. It also has the advantage of here using up the least bidding space to give partner a better chance to describe their hand.