rmnka447

Unless your partnership is super aggressive opening hands, and even probably still if you do, you've got to make some call with the South hand. I think you just make the pedestrian negative double call and hope partner can make it if you end up in a Moysian 4 ♥ contract. Any other bid is just trying to mastermind what the best result will be. I have a good enough hand that I can easily defend that double call in the post mortem. Where I don't want to be is trying to defend any other action when partner shows up with a hand where partner has a clear cut 3 NT call and we miss it, say, ♠ KQJ ♥ A10x ♦ xx ♣ QJxxx. As for North's opener, it's just not a bid I'd make.

I picked this hand up in a Regional Tournament KO match on Saturday against a team of true experts: ♠ AKQJxxx ♥ K ♦ KQJx ♣ A I opened a strong and forcing 2 ♣ and nearly fell off my chair when my partner made a positive 2 ♥ reply. It showed 5+ ♥ to 2 honors and at least 1 1/2 QTs. After setting ♠ as trump and having partner raise, I jumped to the safer 7 NT when partner showed 2 As.. It was a push board as the score was +1520 N/S at both tables.

I'm also opening 1 ♠ on both hands.

Kantar has excellent explanations and examples, then follows up with some test problems. Defense is the most difficult part of the game for most players to master. I think you'll find very worthwhile. Good defenders are almost always really good players. If I seem to be a big advocate of spending a lot of time on fundamentals, it's because being completely solid with applying them will make you a good player. Once you're to that point, then moving forward by expanding your knowledge of the game makes more sense and becomes a bit easier.

The basic book I've read and reread over the years is Louis Watson's Classic Book on the Play of the Hand at Bridge at Bridge. But there are many other good books out there. My favorite partner has been praising William Root's How to Play a Bridge Hand also. As a follow on, I'd highly recommend Eddie Kantar's Modern Bridge Defense. It covers in depth a lot of the basic defense concepts covered in Watson and other basic books on play. Because of that depth, it makes it easy to get a solid grounding in how to defend and become a much better defender. The Kelsey Books -- Killing Defense and More Killing Defense are more advanced and probably better tackled after a good deal of experience playing. I'd also put Kantar's Advanced Bridge Defense, Mike Lawrence's How to Read Your Opponent's Cards, and a whole slew of Books by David Bird in the same category. Beginners should target these for no earlier than a year or so out. And if you're going to short cut that suggestion, then start with the Lawrence book. But all these are better after you've gotten the hang of playing down pretty well.

5 ♦ I don't think 4 ♥ is a preempt in 4th seat, but more probably some hand with long hearts, some values, and spade shortness. Opener likely judged that the hand wasn't ever going to make slam opposite a passing partner, had a decent chance of making, and probably wouldn't be set much if it didn't. I'd think maybe something like ♠ x ♥ AKQ10xxxx ♦ x ♣ QJ10 or maybe ♠ x ♥ KQJ10xxxx ♦ x ♣ KQJ. 4 ♥ then is a tactical bid attempting to avoid a ♥ vs. ♠ competitive auction. At least, that's what I'd expect out of a competent, reasonably sane player. At IMPs opposite a passing partner, double can't be penalty because the ballpark two passing partners are playing in is a part score and any positive isn't likely to swing many IMPs one way or the other. So sitting and taking a positive by beating 4 ♥ stands to lose little and gain when the opponents playing your way overbid in a part score. Anyhow, holding ♥ 10 doubleton makes it virtually impossible for partner to hold some hand with a stack that could penalize 4 ♥.

Exactly, 4 ♦ has to be a slam try, else a simple 4 ♠ would be bid. But after 4 ♦, responder's hand isn't limited as yet. For all responder knows opener could be bidding 4 ♠ on something like ♠ Jx ♥ Jxx ♦ AQJx ♣ Kxxx and 4 ♠ is the limit. OTOH, if responder holds something like ♠ AKQ10xxx ♥ Q10x ♦ - ♣ KQx, should the auction continue over 4 ♥, but not 4 ♠? I think so, a 5 ♦ cue puts focus on opener's ♣ A if it exists. With OP hand, you reach 6 ♠ opposite this alternative hand.

I'm also cueing 4 ♥ in a close decision. I do have some wasted values, but partner is in control of the auction and is still unlimited. You need 3+ cover cards from partner for slam to be even close to a good bet. But the splinter makes it difficult to find out if partner has them because of the bidding space chewed up. With the void, you need that space for cueing to identify the potential cover cards.

Partner had the option to pass over the double of 4 ♦, but chose to show something by bidding 4 ♥. Even if the partner's initial pass over 2 ♦ denied "values" and showed weakness, this subsequent free bid had to be positive in some way. Well judged by both. One more thought - partner doesn't have to take a preference immediately after the double. Don't you have a route to asking for a preference if partner passes and you redouble?

It's definitely natural and, at this level, ought to show opening+ values. It doesn't necessarily deny 4 ♠, but with mediocre ♣, opening values, and 4 ♠, a negative double of 3 ♥ might be made instead.

I'm bidding 4 ♠ also. The opponents have values and an 8+ card fit, meaning partner shouldn't have a ♥ stack. If partner wants to defend 4 ♥, he/she should pass. If partner has made some initial off shape double that's on them. But I wouldn't be surprised to find partner with something like ♠ AKJx ♥ - ♦ QJx ♣ A10xxx wanting to compete further or push them up a level.

I'm also doubling and bidding 3 NT over 2 ♠. If 2 ♠ is partner's correct call, RHO must be virtually pointless. I don't think partner need only have 4 ♠, but could hold a hand with not enough good values and/or decent enough ♠ to pvercall. Opener rates to have most all the missing As and Ks for the opener leaving partner with a lot of quacks to yield enough points for the 2 ♠ call, maybe ♠ Q10xxx ♥ QJx ♦ Qx ♣ Qxx leaving opener ♠ AKJx ♥ Kxxx ♦ xx ♣ Jxx to open on. But with all the prime cards in our hand, those quacks are probably going to be useful for us.

Rethinking my prior post slightly, responder can try for 7 ♥ by cue bidding 6 ♣. Since it forces to 6 ♥, it shows some interest in 7 ♥. Opener holding ♥ A should have one of those "Aha, I know what's being looked for" moments and bid 7 ♥. If opener holds instead ♥ Qx, I think 6 ♥ is opener's bid.

I think nullve's auction depends on an inference that holding both ♣ A and ♦ A opener would bid 4 ♣ rather than 4 ♦ as a cue. I have a slightly different take on nullve's auction. I'm having difficulty seeing that 4 ♦ in this case is a cue and not something like ♠ Kx ♥ x ♦ AKJ10xxx ♣ Q10x. But I think nullve's headed generally in the right direction. After --- - 1 ♦ 1 ♥ - 2 ♦ the problem is how to show a strong hand with ♥. Any number of ♥ pretty much takes slam out of the picture -- 2 ♥ - signoff -- 3 ♥ - most play this as invitational with 6+ ♥ -- 4 ♥ would be to play for most and not forward going. So you're left with a "hasty' ♠ temporizing bid that forces opener. Now after 2 ♠ - 2 NT 3 ♥ 3 ♥ is a GF with 6+ ♥, presumably 4 ♠, and is still unlimited. Opener's 2 NT rebid pretty much denies 3 ♥ and show some sort of holding in ♣ with a stopper. Also, note that 4 ♣ would be a cue agreeing ♥ because it can't be a true suit at this point in the auction. Where I'd differ from nullve is that I'd think opener should now confirm the heart fit, hence, 2 ♠ - 2 NT 3 ♥ - 4 ♥ 4 ♠ now responder is showing slam interest and showing a ♠ control. At this level, the ♠ control is likely the A. Opener should realize at this point that either responder has a huge hand with long ♥ headed by the QJ or must be holding ♥ A otherwise it's hard to see that responder could visualize any slam. Opener can now either use RKCB or cue. I'd favor making a cue of 5 ♦ (which still denies a ♣ control). ... 4 ♠ - 5 ♦ 6 ♥ with no ♣ controls and opener cooperating at the 5 level I think responder should bid 6 ♥. 7 ♥ seems a bridge too far for me.

North First of all, what is the agreement about the double of 4 ♣? If you play negative doubles through at least 4 ♣, then South's bid is fine. If you play them as negative only through 3 ♠, as many people do, then I think South has to just hitch up his/her slacks and bid 4 ♦. Let's assume it's played as negative. At the 4 level, it has to be made on a pretty decent hand. I think the distribution and tolerance for opener's suit favor bidding with this hand. Once the double is made, I think North has to bid 4 ♠. North's values are really in his/her long suit, so aren't necessarily that useful on defense. Like the man says, bid what you've got. If South persists over 4 ♠, North should preference to ♦.

Both previous comments are excellent. As a diehard weak NT player with some modicum of tournament success, let me shed a little light on competing against the weak NT. This may sound a bit iconoclastic, but you have to have more to compete than you do over a strong NT. A weak NT leaves more total points in play around the table and responder to the weak NTer often is in position to make some juicy penalty doubles. (Yep, we still play 1NT - 2 ♥ (natural)- Dbl as penalty. Anachronistic to be sure, but still very profitable.) Another reason is that if you make constructive bids, it allows for the possibility of finding potential games which as Mr. Ace mentions are more of a possibility over weak NTs. One of the advantages we continue to see is that the fog after opening a weak NT makes it difficult for the opponents to find game. Indeed, one of the most difficult games they have trouble getting to is 3 NT. That leads to the third item, the "penalty" double. The idea that you'd set weak NTs for big sets is more myth than fact. Any weak NT pair that is reasonably adroit at running from 1 NTx will avoid all but a very few of them. (I can recall less than a half dozen in 40+ years of playing weak NTs.) But I think the big reason to have "penalty" doubles is value showing giving the competing side a chance to realize that values for game may exist. That's my two cents anyway.

I'm bidding 3 ♦. No bid is perfect. But with reasonably strong ♦, I think 3 ♦ is the most descriptive bid in terms of strength and disposition of the hand. 3 ♦ doesn't deny 3 ♠.

I'd be very tempted to just bid 3 NT with responder's hand. It is a terrific hand. The intermediate combinations are big positives.

4 ♥ Yeah, the hand is a 5 loser hand. But unless you can find an entry to partner's hand, it could remain a 5 loser hand. 4 ♥ seems to be a reasonable shot at a positive if you find a card or two in partner's hand.

If you stop to analyze what has been bid and not bid after 1 ♠ - P - P, you'll learn a lot. Start with ♠. You have 7 and opener has at least 4. That means partner can hold at most 2 ♠. Since partner didn't make a takeout double or an overcall, you know partner either has less than an opener or a hand unsuitable for a takeout double that is also unsuitable for a 2 level vulnerable overcall, maybe something like ♠ x ♥ AQx ♦ 10xxxxx ♣ KJx. Figure partner has maybe 10 HCP. RHO wasn't able to make a response, so figure RHO holds 4 HCP max. So it looks like maybe there is something like 25 points max between the three hands besides opener. Opener rates to have something like 15 value and more if partner or RHO have a little less. If opener holds 4 ♠, you can limit opener's ♠ winners to 2 with repeated ♠ leads. In that case, it might be best to pass and take your positive score.

Decline with 2 NT. Like others no As, no spots make me pessimistic.

Low ♦ (4th or 5th as per your lead agreements) It probably wouldn't be unusual for declarer to be 4-4 in the majors on this auction.

The "aggressive" bid happened to work this time. West should recognize that the 3 ♦ raise has to be made on ♦ length and values. The choice becomes 3 NT or making an ornery MP double. With the fit, I think a "risky" 3 NT bid stands out at MPs. Based on the bidding, it seems like RHO who doubled is more likely to have ♥ A and gives you a probable double stopper. Even if I took a big goose egg here from these players, I'd love playing against them in the future. If they continue to be aggressive like this, I know I'll get more than my share of +1100s and +800s to offset any bad result this time.

I agree it's hard to bid past 4 ♥. With a 6 loser hand, ♦ void, and 8 ♥, it's hard to see South not bidding 3 ♥. I'd mark this up as a hand where good bidding gets you to 4 ♥, but is likely to make 6. Bidding isn't perfect, just aimed toward getting you to good spots.

Funny, but I see a lot of similar reticence in the really good players that I play with and against. They are aggressive, but pick their spots to do so.