rmnka447

Just for the record, I've played KS successfully for over 40 years, so should be able to help. First of all, you need to have some methodology for running from 1 NT doubled part of which should be designating either pass or redouble as a strength showing bid. Then all other bids can be some sort of runout. But it is incumbent upon responder that a direct run out bid be a 5 card suit as there's no assurance that opener has more than 2 cards in the suit. Let's say responder's pass requires a redouble by partner. It then shows a willingness to play 1 NTxx or a bad hand with no 5 card suit. Then after the redouble either responder passes and plays 1 NTxx or bids the cheapest 4 card suit held and both bid suits up the line to find a resting spot. Alternatively, you might play pass doesn't require a redouble, then opener can run to a 5 card minor, or, redouble to try to run without a 5 card suit by bidding 4 card suits up the line. I think you were absolutely right to pass 2 C. Not bidding NT with a 5 card minor suit is BS. If you hold this hand ♠ AKx ♥ Kx ♦ QJ10xx ♣ xxx playing strong NTs, after 1 ♦ - (P) - 1 ♥ - (P) - ?, your rebid would be 1NT. But playing weak NTs if you can't open this hand 1 NT because of the 5 card suit, you have to open it 1 ♦ and then rebid 2 ♦. That's a disadvantage when 1 NT is the par contract. It also forces a whole bunch of hands that most often should be treated as balanced into minor suit auctions. That waters down one of the big advantages of KS which is limiting minor auctions to unbalanced minimum minor hands or hands with 15+ value. This one you're wrong on. In KS, a 1 NT rebid in this situation specifically shows a 15-17 balanced hand with a stopper. If the hand were ♠ xx ♥ AJx ♦ AJxx ♣ KQxx, then the proper rebid would be DBL showing a hand without a stopper and 15+ points (and it need not be balanced either.) Remember if you were playing strong NTs, you'd open both of these hands 1 NT and responder would still have to run with a zero count. Also if playing strong NTs, you'd open this hand ♠ xx ♥ AJx ♦ AJxx ♣ Kxxx, 1 ♦. Then after 1 ♦ - (1 ♠) - P - (P), you'd reopen with a DBL in case partner had a penalty double hand. Playing KS you have the same auction but opener promises at least a K more. If you play a variant of KS where 2 ♣ is absolutely game forcing, then partner should have doubled. Otherwise, partner has a clear cut 2 ♣ bid. As partner said, you should have bid 1 NT as I've covered above. But after 2 ♣ or the negative double, you can still get to 3 NT by opener rebidding 2 NT which also shows the 15-17 hand with major stoppers. Likewise, 2 ♥/2 ♠ would show 15+ and at least a stopper in the suit bid. 2 ♦ shows the minimum unbalanced hand. If partner shows 15-17 with 1 NT, then you can subside in ♣ or pass as you see fit. If it went strong 1 NT what would you do with the above hand? Pass. If it went 1 ♦ - (1S) - P -(P), what would you bid with ♠ stopped and 18-19 balanced ?

It's a tough hand for East. The problem is that if East bids 4 ♥, it might drive West to 5 of a minor opposite a near yarborough. If the auction were essentially the same but the preempt were in a minor (like if everyone's back suit holdings were switched), 3 ♥ would be a clear call. So I don't have a problem with pass initially over the redouble. The biggest problem I have with this auction is the double of 4 ♠ by West. North's redouble was a business Redouble showing values and a ♠ fit. It essentially said that North thought 3 ♠ was makeable. When North carries on to 4 ♠, especially vulnerable, it's not entirely clear whether it is a call to make or not. But if you take the original redouble of 3 ♠ at face value, the double is likely to gain you only maybe a +200 vs a +100. West is looking at virtually half the points in the deck and should also realize that for the opponents to carry on, they must have distribution as well as values. So a double becomes much more risky. Once North redoubles, I think East has to bid 5 ♦. The redouble says North thinks 4 ♠ is makeable and the risk of passing is just too great. 5 ♥ is too much of a shot in the dark to be bid. If 3 NT is definitely understood to be 2 places to play, then I think that should be bid instead of 4 ♦.

Trump supporters are smart enough to understand that there are more important things in this world than the consensual sexual escapades of a President long before he even ran for office. It's a dead issue anyway as "reasonable people" decided twenty years ago that the sexual proclivities of a President even when it includes exploitation of a naïve intern while in office and perjuring himself about it before a Grand Jury was OK. But, Hey, if progressives want to titillate themselves about it and engage in fantasies about what will happen because of it, have at it. It looks a pretty serious mental problem for them to me. I've turned on CNN and MSNBC several times over the past several days to get the progressive take on some important issues. Every time there were a half dozen people discussing Michael Cohen at length. Talk about delusional. Sick. BTW, hrothgar, I did take time last Sunday to pray for you in Church. I prayed that you might find peace in you life and lose your anger.

Opener's hand is definitely good enough to try for game. Normally, you pass the 3 ♦ raise with minimum 12 - tepid 14 HCP hands. You can make a move toward game possibly with a great 14 but more often with a 15+ hand. Without a fit in the major, but with a fit in the rebid minor, the first priority is to explore whether 3 NT is a possible spot to play. Opener's 3 ♥ rebid would presumably show a ♥ stopper and ask about ♣. 3 NT would show stoppers in both side suits. So, logically, 3 ♠ is the only bid available to ask about a ♥ stopper and show a ♣ stopper. The only potential problem is that 3 ♠ might also be bid with a good 6 ♠/4 ♦ hand. After a 3 ♠ rebid responder can assess whether to bid 3 NT with a ♥ stopper or not. If 3 NT is a no go, responder rebids 4 ♦. If opener happens to have the 6-4 hand, opener can carry on to 4 ♦ or 4 ♠ over responder's rebid. (Remember with a minimum 6-4 hand, it's customary for opener to just rebid 2 of the major.) Responder might also consider an initial rebid of 2 NT over opener's 2 ♦ rebid.

I already know the hand's a potential misfit, so I'll downgrade with a void in partners suit. Double and follow it up with a ♦ bid over partner's anticipated 2 ♠ rebid.

It's a thoughtful analysis as always from you. I haven't commented on this hand because I've been going around on how it should be bid. My normal agreement with my partner's is that outside of NT hands, 2 ♣ normally shows a 3 loser hand if a minor or 4 loser hand if a major. But with this 22 HCP hand, I just have a tough time opening 1 ♣ with this 4 loser hand. For me, there's just too many points to risk being passed out in 1 ♣. For those who play a 2 ♥ negative over 2 ♣, 2 ♦ becomes a positive and the hand presents little problem as 3 ♦ becomes natural. But for those of us who play 2 ♦ as simply a waiting bid, the issue is that after the 3 ♣ rebid, a 3 ♦ responder rebid indicates a bust hand whether you play cheapest suit or cheapest minor as a second negative. The best that I could come up with was to bid 3 ♦ anyway knowing opener has to take another call, then make a positive bid afterward to "erase" the apparent signoff. After 3 ♠, I'd make the same 3 NT call you advocate. With a bust, there's no way a 3 NT call should be made by responder after 3 ♠.

If 5 happens to make on these two hands with 18 total HCP, it's because of the exact distribution and fit of the hands. Do as little as flip East's minor holdings and 5 ♠ has virtually no chance. Good bidding is about getting to reasonable spots not about getting to the perfect result on every hand. I like helene-t's idea of bidding 4 ♥ rather than 4 ♠ over 4 ♣. It must be forcing to at least 4 ♠ unless West has better ♥ than ♠ (like if West's ♥ and ♦ were flipped). But it also helps West understand what's going on in the hand. I'm not sure I'd think about it at the table if East though. If anyone doubles, it should be West. West has 1 1/2 QT which includes a sure ♣ trick opposite East's opening bid. In any case, if West leads a normal low ♠ and East wins, then the 4 ♥ bid really pays off. A ♦ switch can be read easily by West as a shortness lead and you'll get ♣ A, ♠ A, a ♦ ruff and probably a ♥. I'm not sure I agree West's hand is a limit raise. To me, it's more of a mixed raise, 4 trumps with 8-9 value which makes it sort of a "tweener".

7 might shown as being made and optimum by the analysis package, but grand slams should normally be bid if you can count 13 tricks or they are something like a 67%+ chance of making. That's especially true at matchpoints where in a normal field there always seem to be a few pairs that will have trouble bidding slam. Any slam bid rates to be at least average plus. Where you might think about a NT slam versus a suit slam is if the HC controls exist and you're pretty sure everyone will be bidding slam.

If partner is indeed 0=3=5=5, they have 12 cards in ♠ and 7+ cards in ♥. With any semblance of points (5+?), I have tough time seeing how responder isn't bidding at least 4 ♠ with certainly holding at least 5 ♠ and very likely 6. If partner is instead 3=0=5=5, then they have a 9 card ♠ fit and a 10 ♥ fit. But on this distribution, it looks 5 of a minor is cold unless partner has horrendous suits. But with 6-3 in ♠ and favorable vulnerability, it would be right for responder with a smattering of points to raise 2 ♠ to 3 ♠.

Is 2 NT in this auction really unusual? If it is, the opponent's have big fits in both majors. Partner can hold no more than 3 major cards and you hold 4. That leaves at least 19 cards in the majors that the opponent's must hold. That there was no raise seems a bit suspicious to me. But, I'll accept OP statement that it is. If partner has made an Unusual NT that forces us to the 3 level VUL on poor suits, that's partner's problem. However, I do have a positive hand and preference for one of the minors. I'm bidding 4 ♣.

I agree that (P) - P - 1 ♠ - 3 ♥ 3 ♠ - ? seems obvious, although an aggressive responder might choose to show limit+ by bidding 4 ♥. South has a key decision to make by deciding how high to raise ♥, if at all, after a 3 ♠ bid. How many tricks does South expect to take on defense? Well, if preemptor has 7+ ♥, then there are 11+ plus ♥ and South's side will take at most 1 ♥. South's hand might conceivably get 1 trick out of ♦, but that's far from certain. But even if you assume that trick comes home, it would be difficult to expect that preemptor has 2 more defensive tricks outside of ♥. So it looks like 4 ♠ is almost a lock to make and you are unlikely to deter the opponents from getting to 4 ♠ by bidding 4 ♥. If there are no ♥ losers and the tenuous ♦ trick is a myth, then the opponents may be cold for 6 ♠. Tactically, South has to decide what action is most likely to make it most difficult for the opponents to find their optimum spot. I can see 4 possible choices Pass, 4 ♥, 4 ♠, or 5 ♥. Pass is an under-preempt that may muddy the waters somewhat by not showing the ♥ fit. OTOH, it leaves the most space for the opponents to explore game/slam. 4 ♥ as previously stated certainly won't stop 4 ♠, but might work well against lesser players who might not double when you take the push to 5 ♥, might not bid 5 ♠, and may not explore for slam. 4 ♠ is a possibility for a couple reasons. It pushes the opponents to 5 ♠ and alerts preemptor that you have some sort of ♠ feature. This may be useful if the opponents bid slam. It might confuse the opponents as to the extent of their values. But it does leave some space for opener or responder to show some minor values. 5 ♥ gets to the maximum level you're willing to push to immediately. It also puts the opponents to a decision immediately without any knowledge other than the ♠ fit. OTOH, it is possible that it may push an opponent to bid slam because of your expressed weakness. I'd probably bid 5 ♥ at the table because there may be some uncertainty about minor holdings making it difficult for the opponents to push on over 5 ♠.

I don't think 2 ♦ necessarily denies 4 ♥. If it does, and you have to double to show the ♥, then there are hands where you are going to be unable to properly show your shape. The choice of opener's rebids look to be between 2 NT and 2 ♥. I would rebid 2 ♥ with opener's hand. But if you bidding style prevents you from doing this with a balanced hand, I guess 2 NT will do.

I would recommend rebidding 1 NT to show the 15-17 hand. You might risk missing an occasional 2 ♠ contract, but that'll be offset by partner coming to life with a good 8+. This semi-balanced 5-4-2-2 hand is OK to treat as balanced as the bulk of your points are in the doubletons.

I agree that 4 NT is quantitative. A simple fix might be to adopt Texas Transfers. Then you could use Texas followed by 4 NT as always being a keycard ask. The 4 NT after a simple transfer then is always quantitative and there's no confusion. But an issue is that asking about keycards doesn't really settle if slam is makeable or not. The real issue is whether you have 2 or more losers in the side suits. That requires exchanging some information with partner through control bidding. I think P_Marlowe's auction is a pretty good example. If you don't play Last Train, then responder might consider jumping to 5 ♥ over 4 ♣ which asks about a ♦ control. How can that be? Well, the NT opener can see that responder has cued ♠ which must either be ♠ K or shortness. Responder's failure to bid 4 ♦ (now a cue and no longer Last Train) denies a control there as well. If responder doesn't have ♣ A also then it would be pretty hard imagining that responder would be inviting slam.

I have no problem with your comments. As I said in my analysis, if the 3 ♠ just shows a long suit then I think pass is correct. But that depends on partner having that same interpretation of what that bid means. With a presumably pick up partner on BBO, that's quite a stretch. I'm not sure I'd have a clear understanding of what 3 ♠ meant as an advance after a double even if made by some long time partners. If there's likely to be some misunderstanding, then it's probably better to not make that bid.

I'm opening in 2nd seat. There's just too much playing strength to wait and try to get in later. I'd probably lean towards 1 ♥ for a couple reasons. RHO has passed so that makes more points available for LHO and partner. There's also nothing that would preclude partner from having ♠, in which case, 4 ♠ may be where you want to be. If this hand were held in 3rd seat, it would be an easy 4 ♥ bid. I wouldn't do it in 2nd seat, but wouldn't criticize partner for making a 4 ♥ bid in 2nd seat with this hand.

When playing casually on BBO, I see behavior like East frequent enough to know it's not that unusual. But it's still unconscionable. As for OP questions -- I have no problem with the double. I think the key on strong overcall hands is whether you're willing to rebid the hand at the 3 level at your next opportunity to speak. I think this is good enough for that, so double is fine planning to bid ♥ next. I think where the auction got off the tracks is with the 3 ♠ bid by East. IMO, the right bid is 1 ♠. Since North has bid 1 ♥, East is under no obligation to make any bid. So East's 1 ♠ bid must preclude it being made on a complete bust. I would not have a problem if someone wanted to bid 2 ♠ by evaluating the ♥ void at full stroke. But that evaluation is highly dependent on finding a fit. IMO, 3 ♠ is insane with a very mediocre, at best, ♠ holding and not so many points. Opposite a minimum range TOD, it could be a disaster. I'm not sure what West was thinking 3 ♠ meant in bidding 3 NT over 3 ♠ doubled. If West thought it just showed long ♠, then the right action was to pass and let East play 3 ♠x. This is an example of a theme that comes up in hands from time to time. West can see that East's ♠ aren't likely to much help in 3 NT, but that West's HCs are likely to provide tricks for East. OTOH, it might be that West expected good ♠ and values in the East hand and was making a practical bid. The 4 ♠ bid was also insane. East has already shown the hand that was held. West heard East's bid and made a decision to bid 3 NT. With any sort of ♠ fit wouldn't West raise ♠ rather than bid 3 NT? West bid 3 NT and is responsible for the result in that contract. This is a classic case of East deciding to save partner without a clear cut notion of what partner's hand is. The moral is "Don't save partner." Bidding 4 ♠ is also a case of East bidding the same values twice which is not good bidding. I have no problem with North bidding 1 ♥ in this auction. While it's quite possible West might have 4 ♥, there's no guarantee that West does, so a N/S ♥ fit could exist. I think South's call over 3 ♠ should be pass.

First, you don't have to jump to 2 ♥ over partner's redouble. Partner has shown values by redoubling and is pretty much duty bound to make another call. The jump to 2 ♥ shows a powerhouse hand. But what you have is a terrific playing hand that looks like it will take at least 10 tricks but only if played in your suits. You can convey that message by continuing to bid your suits. If partner made a simple new suit bid over 1 ♥, you would show at least 5 ♥ and 6 ♦ by rebidding 2 ♥. Bidding ♥ a second time shows at least 5 and if a lower ranking suit were equal or shorter in length you'd bid ♥ first. I'd rebid 1 ♥ and over partner's next call jump in ♥. That should convey the message that your hand is at least 6-5 and then some, but really asks partner to pick a red suit contract. As for the actual auction, it's likely that partner has jumped with a good ♠ expecting oodles of points in your hand. But it was partner's decision to jump to 4 ♠ and partner owns that decision. If you bid further, there's no guarantee that partner will provide any help in a 5 level contract. I'd pass 4 ♠. Your points might provide help in 4 ♠.

You need to have some agreement with your partner about how to respond over 2 suited takeout like the unusual NT and Michaels. One of the more popular methods that is widely played among better players is called "Unusual versus Unusual". Since the intervener has identified some suits by the two suited bid, Unusual versus Unusual uses cues of the opponent's suits to define responder's hand strength and some feature of his/her hand. So after a 1 m - (2m) Michaels bid, 2 ♥ would show ♣ and invitational values, 2 ♠ would show ♦ and at least invitational values. Depending on which minor was opened, the cue that shows that suit and values translates into at least a limit raise. The cue that shows the other suit and values also implies tolerance for the minor opened. Then, direct bids of a minor over the two suited bid are competitive and non-forcing (1 m - (2m) - 3m/3om) Double shows the ability to penalize one of their suits. With the hand asked about, I'd probably cue 2 ♠ showing ♦ and values playing this way.

First of all, I assume the intervening bid was ♠ since you have ♦ and partner has ♣ and ♥. With a minimum range hand, you don't have tp raise ♥ immediately on 3 and probably shouldn't. If the hand is passed back to partner, partner can now reopen the auction with 2 ♣ and you can bid 2 ♥ showing 3. When partner rebids 3 ♣ over 2 ♥, you can pass knowing you're in at least a 5-3 fit. Had partner a hand worth 11-12 with 6 ♣ and 4 ♥, it would be normal for partner to bid 2 ♣ first and then reverse into ♥ over 2 ♦. Since that didn't happen you know partner holds less than that. It's normal to prefer bidding a 4 card major at the 1 level because of the great importance of finding major suit games.

Your argument might hold some water if the pick were a right wing ideologue instead of a respected, independent conservative jurist. It looks to me that it's a like for like pick, if anything. I guess you forgot that Justice Kennedy took a conservative view of the law more than 75% of the time. At least one liberal supports the nominee -- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html The most comforting aspect of President Trump's picks is that they aren't the left wing ideologues that Hillary surely would have picked. We've been saved from becoming the nightmarish permanently progressive bureaucratic state a la USSR 1960-1989 that would have followed.

A key question that has to be asked and consistently thought about during the defense is "How do we defeat this contract?" 3 ♠ is obviously a singleton. The question partner should then ask is "Do you have more than 1 trump?" Logically, if you have only one trump, then Declarer has 10 ♠ and you can't beat the contract. Declarer would then have one card in a minor. If it's a ♦, declarer is making 6 no matter what partner returns, but if it's a ♣, you might hold Declarer to 5. OTOH, if you hold more than 1 trump, failing to give you a ♠ ruff, may cost big time when Declarer only holds 8 or 9 trumps. If your ♣ A will score, the contract can't be made after the ruff. If it can't, the only hope is that a ♦ winner can be found, but returning a ♣ may set up 2 valuable pitches for Declarer. So it looks like a ♠ ruff if it exists is essential to beating the contract if it can be beat. Partner should return ♠ Q to prevent ♠ J winning and setting up a pitch on the remaining high ♠ honor in dummy.

Cyber's point is well taken. I think repeated ♣ returns might beat the contract if you play on ♥ Win ♣ A East signals ♣ 8 ♥ out A or J wins Low ♣ return, ruff ♠ 5, ♣ K discarded ♥ out, A or J wins J ♣ return, ♠ 6 ruff Now you can't take 2 top ♠ and run ♦, else West ruffs the 3rd ♦ and cashes a ♣ winner. If you try to run ♦ without drawing trumps at this point, West ruffs the 3rd round and feeds you a fourth winning ♣ forcing you to lose it or ruff with a spade honor and set up a second ♠ trick for West. I think the only thing that works is to arrange to win the 3rd ♦ in hand before ruffing a 3rd round of ♣. Win ♣ A Low ♦ to the ♦ 9 Ruff the second round of ♣ Cash the 2 high ♠ Cash a high ♦ Overtake ♦ J with the ♦ Q If it's ruffed, they can cash 2 high ♥, but no more. If West pitches, you can ruff a 3rd round of ♣ and pitch a loser on the remaining high ♦.

Are you sure you've picked up the cards from the right board? There seems to be about 50 HCP in this deck. I really don't like that stiff ♠ in this hand. Rather than worry about whether ♠ break 4-4-4-1, I'd be more worried about someone having a running ♠ suit, likely the doubler, and making a match point judgment that 1 NTx going down would be better than a ♠ partial. After all, you are red. In that case, you might just shoehorn the points into the various hands to make this auction make sense. So I'm doing the pedestrian thing and settling for the bid that shows the minors whatever the agreement is.

4 ♠. This is IMPs. So aggressively bidding VUL games is important. gszes comments are very apropos. It's always good to foist the next tough decision on the opponents.