rmnka447

This is a classic dilemma hand over a weak NT. Do you or don't you come in? RHO can be anywhere from 4-5 to a decent 10 count (i.e., not quite enough for 2 NT) You have about as good as possible hand that you could pass and then double. With the doubleton ♠, I'm doubling at NV. I'd very likely pass at VUL.

For most playing inverted minors in NA, the raise denies a 4 card major. Opener's rebids are 2 ♥, 2 ♠ = Stopper, good minimum (13-14)+, 4+ ♦ looking possibly for NT 2 NT = minimum range 12-14 balanced hand usually with 3 ♦. 3 ♣= presumably 5-4 in minors but might be 5-5 or 4-5 3 ♦ = minimum ♦ hand, often 11-12, responder can pass with 10-11. 3 NT = 15+ balanced.

3 ♠ is virtually required with this hand. Who knows exactly what partner has doubled on. If it's a very aggressive bid by partner, then 3 ♦ may make giving up a VUL game swing. If 3 ♠ goes down, them's the breaks. OTOH, partner might have the biggest bone crusher 4=4=1=4 ever and just needs to find a fit to bid game. Can you beat 3 ♦ enough to offset your VUL game? So it comes down to "Which would you feel better about defending in the post mortem Pass or 3 ♠?" About the only way, I'd possibly think about pass would be if partner jumps up from the table and slams the double card on the table. But, of course, that would be unauthorized information, so I'd feel duty bound to bid 3 ♠ anyway.

Ok, if 4 ♣ is Gerber and partner somehow shows 2 As, now what? You know absolutely nothing about partner's hand other than partner has 2 As. Any further bid might be wrong. It's better to figure out your fits first and then ask for As.

It is not really that aggressive/restrictive. Remember you're taking some inferences from the auction. If you balance on a 6 count at 1 ♠, RHO probably has less than 5, if LHO (opener) has a decent 16 count, that leaves roughly 13+ for partner to have sitting behind opener. Does that mean you balance with every 6 count? No, especially not if you are VUL. But if you had something like ♠ AK10xx ♥ xx ♦ xxx ♣ xxx, I'd doubt you'd find many people who wouldn't balance 1 ♠. At the 2 level, such as a non-jump 2 of a minor reopen, needs to be a bit stronger more like a 9/10 minimum. Corresponding balancing bids also need to be a bit stronger. So a jump to 3 of a minor ought to be more like a good 14/15 with a good 6 card suit. After (1H)-p-(p)-x;(2H)-3D-(P)-?, if you're bidding 3 ♠, you're showing the 16+ strong overcall and it's non-forcing for partner. If you have the light shapely double, you're passing 3 ♦. If you have an off shape double with a doubleton ♦, you're probably passing 3 ♦ also. In most cases, you need chunky normal takeout double to move. Mostly, balancing is geared toward fighting for the part scores. BTW, the Pavlicek link identified in an earlier post connects to a write up very similar to what I've covered. as usual, it's excellent.

Definitely East 100%. Sometimes you have to take a second and analyze the bidding. That's what East has to do after 4 ♥ is passed back It should go something like this. RHO has bid ♠ and LHO has raised, so it is unlikely partner has more than 1 ♠. An inference that goes with this is that partner can't have more than 1 ♠ honor with a singleton and may not have any if void. Partner on the basis of your negative double has freely bid 4 ♥. Is partner likely to make that bid with a bad unbalanced red suit hand when all you promise is at least 6 HCP with the double? Looking at ♣, partner cant have more than 2 HCP (♣ Q) there. So with 5 points max in the black suits, the bulk of partner's points must be in the red suits. East also has 1st round controls in the black side suits, ♥ A and a doubleton ♦. The doubleton is big because with a reasonable ♦ holding you may be able to make the ruffs necessary to set up the suit. With West having as little as ♠ x ♥ KQxx ♦ KQJxx ♣ xxx and reasonable breaks 6 ♥ could be gin. And West is likely to have more than that. So, it's incumbent upon East to make a slam try. Some suggest that East can bid 4 NT RKCB, but what good does any information that West provide do you since you really don't know what West's hand is. I'd prefer making a 4 ♠ cue which at this level should be ♠ A. If West decides to use RKCB (knowing you won't go past 5 ♥ with your reply because of holding ♥ Q), after 3 keys are shown, a slam can be bid by West. If West instead decides to bid 5 ♦ cue or 5 ♦ last train, East can carry on to slam.

Yes, you should. A simple 1 ♠ bid could be on anything from a 4 card suit and guts to a long suit with few values, but generally is less than an opener. A double could be light and shapely, a normal take out double with about opening values, or an off shape takeout double with values. 1 NT shows some range of values with stoppers, most often something like 11-14. So you need a way to show an overcall type hand with opening values. It's pretty typical then to define a jump in pass out seat as 12-14 and a good 6 card suit exactly the hand your asking about. It paints a pretty good picture for reopener's partner to make an intelligent decision about competing further. But if the hand was ♠ A10xxxx ♥ Kx ♦ AJxx ♣ x, I'd probably downgrade it to a 1 ♠ bid because of the lousy suit and slightly less value associated with the ♥ K being in front of the ♥ bidder. Note that this scheme allows using a double followed by a new suit bid to show the "strong" overcall. So with something like ♠ AK10xxx ♥ Jx ♦ AKxx ♣ x, you'd go that route and partner's companion hand here would find an easy raise to 4. Also, double followed by a NT bid would show a hand with stoppers and more than the 1 NT reopening bid -- 15-17?

It seems to me that progressive candidates consistently campaign saying they will appoint judges that will rule favorably on progressive programs. So complaining about the courts playing politics is completely disingenuous by any progressive. It's the pot calling the kettle black. While you may think that way of selecting the judiciary is fine, conservatives see it as completely undermining the viability of our democracy.

Thanks, Winston. Whether you agreed with him or not, he was one most articulate and intelligent political writers/analysts.

If you have a second negative bid (here cheapest minor), in this sequence, 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ 2 ♥ - 2 NT then the 2 NT bid can be an unspecified positive (from 5 up to 20 HCP). It doesn't specifically promise any stoppers or promise a balanced hand, but is more of a waiting bid just confirming you don't have a bust. Its importance is that it conserves bidding space which allows the 2 ♣ bidder to continue describing the big hand.

I'm another who would opt for 3 ♣ followed by 4 NT.

4 ♠ is entirely normal by East. You can see that the hand will make a lot of tricks because partner is short in ♥. I'd be more apt to bid either 2 ♠ or 4 ♠ with the West hand. One now gone expert I knew suggested that it was right to bid 4 holding 10+ cards in 2 suits with at least 4 trumps. But that was in the context of 5 card major openers. I'm not sure how well that translates into in 4 card major opening environment. I really think the problem lies with the 3 ♠ bid. Yeah, if you fully count distributional values, you get to an invitational hand. The problem is, that with the ♥ void, it's highly likely the opponents will compete further and partner may attribute more values to West's hand. Let's say in this auction West passes over 5 ♥ and East doubles. Now West is in a quandary because it unknown whether East is doubling expecting more from West or not. So here a bid that shows a little less may be preferable because it eliminates that quandary. If, say, West bids 4 ♠ initially and they compete to 5 ♥, whatever East does over 5 ♥ will be fine because west's hand has been limited.

It's hard to say exactly what to do without knowing your methods over the double. The important thing is to have a method to distinguish between hands where you are running from 1 NT and those where you've got values. Let's just assume that the double shows an equal+ hand in value from the opponent. You're looking at terrific 14 point distributional hand, so unless partner has opened rashly, the opponents are in big trouble. It's possible that the doubler might have a running black suit. If so, you might pay off to it. But normally, you need to make some kind of strength showing bid with this hand. So, if redouble shows a hand willing to sit for 1 NT redoubled that's the way to go. Without that, it would be best to show a suit at the 3 level which should be forcing. Normally, 2 level natural bids are just natural weak runouts showing 5+ cards and an unwillingness to sit for 1 NT. In your actual auction, you've shown 2 suits and partner has persisted in bidding 3 NT. Partner has heard you bids and made a judgment. So you should sit. If it doesn't work out then maybe the hand is one to review after the session. One thing you should note is that you do have a fine ♦ suit that opposite a small doubleton in partner's hand will yield 6 running tricks most of the time. That's something very important if partner may have only a single stopper in their best suit for tricks. In any case, 3 NT is normally to be strongly preferred at MPs versus 5 ♦, even sometimes if it is a bit risky. BTW, if the opponent's double forces a relay, you could pass, then come in after the doubler has revealed what hand the double was made on. That way you can use the same tools you have that for direct interference over 1 NT.

It definitely would be a pleasant game with probably pretty good results. Likely, we'd be gaining big time defending and bidding hands, but might have a gaffe or two declaring. Unless we both had a very bad night, I'd expect to scratch in just about every session.

I'm also staying put. Partner heard my bids and should know I have no As or ♠ K because of the control response. If bidding 6 ♠ is wrong, so be it. The issue is that you can't discern what prompted partner to bid 6 ♠. Without knowing what holding prompted him/her to do so, making any move is pure speculation and unwise.

I strongly agree wit these sentiments. What people forget is that bidding isn't a perfect science always leading to perfect results. There are times that you bid to good games when you bid to good games or slams and they go down because the cards lie wrong. Conversely, there are times when you don't bid game or slam and it makes because of the extremely fortuitous lie of the cards. All you can hope is to get to reasonably good spots. Here, I think the take away is that North should act period. ATB for not reaching slam is a bridge too far on this hand.

This time it's fair to criticize your partner's jump to 5 ♦. Holding a minor fit, 3 NT, if biddable, should be a priority. However, I think rebidding 2 ♠ is better with this absolutely minimum hand. Ir would lead to something like this …. 2 ♠ - 2 NT 3 ♦ - 3 ♥ 3 NT where 3 ♥ asks for a part stopper.

I also agree that bidding 2 ♠ is not something to do. You should note that 2 NT by the opponents was off 2. Assuming a somewhat similar defense sitting for 1 NT is likely to beat it 1 for a minimal loss. Your point that a 2 ♦ overcall wins is well taken, but that doesn't lessen the problem with making the 2 ♠ bid.

Fine, if that's your opinion. But the source you cite is also just an opinion provided by a not-demonstratably unbiased source. My reference was a fact-based article to shed some light on the economic situation. See you in a month or two when I may espy something else worthy of comment here.

Funny, but that's an argument conservatives used when progressives were touting 4.0% unemployment in 2016 as proof the economy was doing just fine. The election proved that a significant part of the electorate didn't buy those claims. The following article provides some more substantial evidence with regard to where we're at -- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-real-us-unemployment-rate-reached-a-17-year-low-2018-06-01

When playing 15-17 NTs, I open 1 NT with any 15-17 5-3-3-2 hand. I have run across some real experts who choose to open 1 of a major with such hands when they hold only 2 cards in the other major. Their thinking, so far as I can discern, is to avoid being transferred into a 5-2 major fit when a 5-3 fit might exist. If they do open 1 of a major, they will rebid 3 NT over a 2/1 response to show the "strong" NT hand. When playing weak NTs in conjunction with 5 card major openers, I virtually never open 1 NT with a 5 card major. Interestingly, our 1 of a major openers include all the 15-17 5-3-3-2 hands opened 1 NT by the strong NTers. But we've never been aware of any appreciable difference in results from opening in a major versus opening 1 NT. The one sop that we've made is to make a 2 NT rebid over a 2/1 response show 16+ balanced. That simply means we use the simple rebid of 2 of the major as a minimum hand any shape.

Depending on which version of 2/1 you play you are or virtually are in a game force situation when responder bids 2 ♣. The "virtually" refers to 2/1 that some players play that allows opener to pass if responder simply rebids the 2/1 bid suit. I'll speak to the version of 2/1 where a simple rebid by opener of his major just shows a minimum and doesn't necessarily promise extra length. Flannery does play into this auction as it eliminates all possible 11 to 15 5 ♥/4 ♠ hands from this kind of 2/1 auction. So, any time you the auction goes: 1 ♥ - 2 ♣ 2 ♠ opener is showing a hand that was too good for Flannery so 16+ with at least 5 ♥/4 ♠. Since responder has presumably shown opening values (with the possible exception to game force noted earlier), you are in a game force situation. Well, how about a minimum opener with 6 ♥/4 ♠? Opener can rebid 2 ♥ and then if responder has 4 ♠ can rebid 2 ♠. Opener can then raise in ♠ and responder will know opener must be 6-4 because Flannery wasn't used. Over responder's rebid (2 NT or possibly 3 ♣ if forcing), opener can then rebid 3 ♥ to show the 6/4 "good" (16+) hand. Responder can then raise to 4 ♥ and opener can use RKCB. But if your partnership has the understanding that responder would immediately raise 2 ♠ to 3 ♠ with 4 ♠, responder might consider rebidding 3 ♠ over 3 ♥, then bidding or raising ♥ next. That would show a better hand that responder was reluctant to bid only 4 ♥ on the previous round. It's sort of a "I like my hand for ♥ and wanted to show something on the way to 4 " bid. 1 ♥ - 2 ♣ 2 ♠ - 2 NT 3 ♥ - 3 ♠ 3 NT- 4 ♥ ? Now opener can more easily use RKCB or variant. 1 ♥ - 2 ♣ 2 ♠ - 2 NT 3 ♥ - 3 ♠ 3 NT- 4 ♥ 4NT- 5 ♠ 6 ♥ - P

Sorry, but 4 ♠ by South is already a sacrifice bid. So South has said his/her piece. Further sacrificing should only be the prerogative of North. By bidding 6 ♠ on his/her own, South is making unwarranted assumptions about North's holdings. Any sacrifice by the weak side is based on being able to offset the strong side's high cards by ruffing losers. For a successful sacrifice, that requires complementary shortness in North's hand to cover some of South's losers. And that is something only North knows. The only time when South might consider a further sacrifice is when the South hand has some extreme distribution, say 6-5-1-1 or such, that insures fewer losers. BTW, there's no way for South to know if that North holds 4+ trump or the ♠ K, so it could have been even worse. As for 2 ♠ by South initially, that's a matter of style, I wouldn't. In the aftermath of the hand, I think South should take full responsibility for taking a "shot" on intuition and having it backfire. We all do it from time to time.

I'm bidding 4 ♠.

It seems like every time my partner and I discuss jettisoning Flannery, something comes up that reaffirms it's utility. The following was from a KO match, vulnerable, where partner bid 2 ♦ Flannery and I held: ♠ AJ9xx ♥ - ♦ 1098x ♣ Q872 and bid 2 NT asking for more info knowing we had a 9 card ♠ fit and would likely be able to ruff any of partner's ♥ losers. Partner rebid 3 ♣ showing 3 ♣ and 1 ♦. So I bid 4 ♠ feeling that the probability of making the vulnerable game (> 37%) was good enough at IMPs. Partner had ♠ Kxxx ♥ AQxxx ♦ X ♣ A103 losing a ♦ and 2 ♣ when ♠ behaved and only 2 ♣ losers existed.