rmnka447

One thing to consider in what you do on this hand is how useful either hand will be for the other hand in any contract bid. For this hand, any holding responder has in ♥ may not be of any use whatsoever to opener in a minor contract. OTOH, opener's HCs are very likely to provide some tricks for responder's hand when responder holds something like ♠ xxx ♥ KQxxxx ♦ xx ♣ xx This consideration is a theme that recurs through hands from time to time. If you think about it, running out of 1 NT to a long suit in a weak hand is one of the variations of this theme. But definitely something useful to think about when it comes up.

Well, how many times do you expect passing 2 ♥ will get a good result? Any time you can make 2 ♠, you'd have to beat 2 ♥ 3 tricks to get a better result. Usually assume partner can provide at least 1 useful card in auctions like this. Holding a 6 loser hand, so 2 ♠ looks like a pretty good bet most of the time. So that's what I'll bid.

Pass. You've already told your story presumably showing at least 5 ♦ and 4 ♣. Partner has persisted in rebidding 2 ♥ despite that message. You can see the hand appears to be a misfit. The first rule with misfits is to get out of the auction as quickly as possible. So get out now by passing. As others have alluded, any further bidding isn't likely to improve the contract. Likely, all it will do is raise the number of tricks needed to make and the potential set. BTW, I wouldn't open this hand.

I'm opening this hand with 1 ♣. 12 with 2 1/2 QTs looks like an opener to me.

Yep, the West hand is just a 15 count and on power alone probably not enough for a NT slam. But, then again, the 15 count is all prime cards (As, Ks) and you know the point count is somewhere between 30 and 32 points. So a decision needs to be made whether to make a minor slam try or not. I'd be inclined to make a try because responder's hand just about insures there are unlikely to be two quick losers in any suit. So rather than just bidding NT, I think you ought to use whatever tools you have to show ♣ and settle for NT if no fit is found. The risk is that if you then settle in NT that reveal enough in the try to guide the defense or that you may get too high in NT. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. For me, the auction would probably be as follows: 1 NT - 2 ♣ 2 ♦ - 3 ♣* 3 ♠ - 4 ♣ 4 ♦ - 4 ♥ 4 NT - 5 ♣ 6 ♣ * = clubs or minor suit stayman. 3 ♠ by opener confirms 4+ ♣ and shows stopper else without 4+ ♣ opener must bid 3 ♦.

If the 5 ♠ response is 2 or 5 plus the queen, it shouldn't be passed. If responder figures out the missing honors besides the As and ♠ K (i.e. keycards), it will be found these are ♠ Q ♥ J ♦ J ♣ KQJ which total up to 10 points. Of these, the ♠ Q is known because of the response. But adding any 2 key cards to these points only gets you to a maximum 18 HCP not enough for a 2 NT opener. So logic tells you opener must have at least 3 keycards to open 2 NT and, therefore, must have 5 plus the Queen.

It may seem a scraggly hand, but is a 9 count. Opposite a typical 11-12 opener, you should have at least half the HCP. So, a double here shows about 9-10 and a willingness to compete. If partner takes the proper inference -- no 4 card major -- then you shouldn't get into too much trouble. If partner bids 2 ♠, you sit. I have no problem with bidding 1 NT on this hand. You make it harder for the opponents to compete in the majors than over 1 D. And in an opponent major part score, you wouldn't be particularly enamored by a ♦ lead from partner.

As long as you're playing strong NTs, there isn't any reason not to open 1 NT. From the looks of the hand, it appears the opponents probably opened a ♦ and ran 6 tricks on you. That happens sometimes because bidding isn't an exact science. It's designed to get you to a "good" spot not necessarily the perfect spot. So there will be times when you get to a "good" spot, but it doesn't work out as here. Then you have to take the long view that most of the time getting to the "good" spot pays off a lot more often than not. The hand has a 16 count with a 5 card ♥ suit. ♦ Q doubleton might be a little suspect, but there's no way to know what partner holds. Something like ♦ 109xx might be enough to provide a stopper. Unless you know your partner makes very aggressive invitations, bidding on is probably right. If you're playing with a regular partner, you might agree that any bid over 2 NT is forward going so that 3 ♥ would show the 5 card suit and allow you play in ♥ or NT. But with an unknown/pick up partner, just bid 3 NT.

I see no problem with the 3 ♦ bid in this auction. Opponents have shown a fit and advancer has a feature to show and reason to believe a fit exists because the opponents have one. If you evaluate the South hand as worth a "strong" overcall, then maybe you should keep faith with that evaluation and just bid 4 ♣ over 3 ♦. As others have said, there's no absolute guarantee that North has 5 ♦, but has shown towards the top end of at least a minimum reply (decent 6-8). If North rebids 4 ♦, it must show 5+ ♦ and no good ♣ fit. If you don't think the South hand quite meets the values for a double followed by a suit bid, then you should just make a 2 ♣ overcall. Part of that consideration may be thinking about possible rebids especially since any competitive bidding to the 3 level push South to 4 ♣ to show the ♣ suit. 5 of a minor isn't a gilt edged contract. It depends on the ♠ A being onside AND being able to hold ♦ losers to one trick.

The hand you cite is more than just an invitational hand to me. You have a 3 QT hand plus look to be able to cover at least 1 ♦ loser with a ruff. That looks like being able to cover 4 losers in partner's hand. If partner has a typical 7 loser opener, that should be enough to make game. I'd be inclined to bid 2 ♣ over 1 ♠ and jump to 4 ♠ next. However, with a more mundane 10-12 hand with 3 card support, then 1 NT followed by 3 ♠ would be the way to show it playing 2/1.

Where you want to lead passively is when the opponents have a "tortured" auction and settle into a spot. Something like 1 ♦ - 1 ♥ 1 ♠ - 1 NT 2 ♥ - 2 ♠ 2 NT or 1 ♠ - 2 ♠ 3 ♦ - 3 ♠ They are unlikely to have much extra to make the contract. The idea is make declarer do all the heavy lifting to make the contract by not giving anything away. So you lead passively looking to make the lead least likely to give anything away. Normally, against 1 NT, you just make your normal attacking leads. But don't forget to listen to and analyze the bidding. 1 ♦ - 1 NT Opener may have some 4 card majors, but responder certainly doesn't, but has some minor suit length with 6 or less cards in the majors. 1 ♣ - 1 ♥ 1 ♠ - 1 NT See my comments in your other thread asking about an opening lead versus 1 NT. Similar logic applies here. 1 ♣ - 1 ♠ 1 NT Since a 2 ♥ rebid over 1 ♠ is a reverse and shows a strong hand, be aware that in this auction is sort of a default with a minimum hand, opener will often have a 4 card ♥ suit.

Think a little about the auction. Opener has bid 1 ♦, then 1 ♠, but did not support ♥. 1 ♦ implies ♦ are equal in length or longer than ♣. If opener is opening a 3 card ♦ suit, then opener's major holding is usually 4-4. But opener didn't support ♥ which would be natural if 4-4 in the majors. So it's very likely that opener has at least 4 ♦ and, of course, bid 1 ♠ so has 4 ♠. Responder has bid 1 ♥, then 1 NT. Responder does not have 4 ♠ else a raise to 2 ♠ would be normal. Responder also has not bid 2 ♥ which might well be bid holding 5 ♥ (no surprise). Responder has also not preferenced back to 2 ♦ which might occur if holding 4 ♦. Finally over 1 NT, opener passed, so is unlikely to hold 4 ♣ as 2 ♣ would be normal with a 4-1-4-4 or 4-0-5-4 hand. Partner didn't overcall 1 ♠ which might occur if partner has a modicum of points and 5+ decent ♠. Since you hold 2 ♠ and responder has less than 4, partner has at least 4 ♠. Lacking that overcall by partner, they may pretty puny if holding 5 of them. Partner seems more likely to hold 4 ♠, giving responder 3 ♠. So responder is likely to hold 6 minor cards but not 4 ♦ and the hand could be could be 3-4-3-3 or 3-4-2-4. Occasionally, responder might bid 1 NT with a 3-4-1-5 hand with nothing better to bid. Leading low from 5 ♥ into RHO known 4 card suit doesn't look particularly attractive as it is more likely to give something away. With the lack of a ♠ overcall, ♠ aren't too attractive either. A ♦ lead might be disastrous if opener has 5 ♦. So sort of by default, we come to a ♣ lead. It might be a terrific start if we catch opener and responder with 6 or fewer ♣ between them. I'd be leading ♣ 3. But the important thing is to listen to the bidding especially the bids not made and you can start to form a picture of the opponent's hands.

I put most of the blame with your partner for jumping to 6 ♥ over your 5 ♦ bid. Your 5 ♦ bid has an inference that your partner missed even if you're playing 1 ♣ can show as few as 2 ♣. It would be natural for you to bid your ♣ control over 4 ♠ if you had one. So your failure to do so essentially denies the ♣ K. That means there is a real possibility of a loser in the ♣ suit even possibly 2 losers if you hold 3 or more. Tied in with the potential for a ♠ loser, bidding 6 ♥ is a big gamble. It essentially puts cards in your hand that partner has no way of knowing whether they are there or not. If you don't have the ♣ K, then you almost have to have the ♥ Q and the ♠ K for the slam to have a good chance to make. That's just not good bidding.

Showing at least 5-5, responder knows there's likely to be shortness somewhere as only 3 or less other cards need to be defined in the hand. A shortness bid shows the shortness, but that potentially just defines 6 cards in opener's hand -- a stiff and 5 trumps. In regular Jacoby you show ♣ shortness with a 3 ♣ bid over the 2 NT bid and that's the path you'd take with a poorer ♦ suit.

Holding a 4 QT, 4 loser hand opposite a forcing game raise, there's no reason not to show your second suit. 1 ♠ - 2 NT(Jacoby) 4 ♦ - 4 ♥ (cue) 5 ♣ - 5 ♦ 5 NT - 7 ♠ 5 NT= GSF After the 4 ♦ bid, responder knows all his/her pointed suit points are golden because opener has shown at least a good 5-5 hand. Those cards are likely solidifying the suits for 10 pretty sure tricks. At worst, the ♥ K might need to be onside to ensure 11 tricks in 5 ♥. After the 2 cues by responder, 7 simply depends on high trump honors in responder's hand.

Partner owns all his actions. If 6 NT goes down, it's either a very painful learning experience for partner or a partner shedding moment for you. But once in a while partner may have the magic hand and 6 NT rolls. Any further action on this hand, means you're going to own the result no matter how egregious partner has been. And the worst is pulling and going down in 7 ♣ when 6 NT makes. So I'm with ggwhiz on this one. Win the post mortem.

The hand is an A-less 6 loser hand. That means bidder's partner has to cover 4+ losers for the hand to make. Not a good prospect. This hand is a pass, unless you have some extraordinary ESP premonition.

You never gave partner any clue that 6 NT is preferable to 6 ♣, so partner owns bidding 6 NT. All you did was show lots of ♣. There were plenty of other actions you could have taken holding ♣ in a better hand. So 5 ♣ is a sign off. "When partner does something unusual, don't save partner." is an old bridge adage that rings true. You've done your part by showing your hand, but you really don't know much about partner's hand except it was opened 1 ♦. So trust partner's judgment, there may be a very good reason for partner doing what they did.

The term I see used for the 1 NT bid on any auction like this is "sandwich NT" rather than unusual NT. In any case, it does show the other 2 suits but not as strong a hand as a double which would still be takeout. Most people who play this usually discuss this use of 1 NT before playing it. So, perhaps your partner was just confused when you made the bid. If partner recognized you made a bid showing the 2 unbid suits, then why is partner passing here? Partner has an opening bid behind opening bidder and should know you have at least an 8 card ♠ fit and likely an 8+ card in ♣ fit as well. Partner's hand being behind opener make the high cards in it a bit more valuable as they are more likely to be well placed. With everyone but partner bidding, it's highly likely that the points are distributed fairly evenly between the two sides. So at duplicate, it's imperative that partner use the high ground of the ♠ suit to compete further. Fighting for part scores is an essential part of being successful at all forms of duplicate although you might rein things in a tad when vulnerable. You'll either get to a good part score OR possibly push the opponents 1 level higher where you might be able to defeat them. Personally, I'd just bid 1 ♠ with your hand rather than 1 NT. As other suggested, it helps point to your defensive values. But the main problem for me is showing a ratty 5 card ♣ headed by the 10. If partner preferences to ♣, it can lead to some terrible results from time to time when things don't break or lie right. But pay your money, take your choice.

Thanks for the follow up because it's interesting to hear the opinions of world class players. Our team is currently adjusting to now consistently playing against top level players and trying to figure out how to change our thinking. So any information that sheds light on their approach is useful. My sense is that there is a level of aggressiveness that we never saw playing against really good solid players a level down.

3 ♠ in this auction would show the 3=4=5=1 or 3=4=6=0 hands.

1. Pass Whose hand is it? I don't think you can make a call not knowing. So, pass so with the balance of points, partner can make a move. 2. 3 ♣ Shows length and doesn't promise much else. Like others have said, bid what you've got.

Well, part of what you do on this hand depends on how aggressive partner's "aggressive" preempting style is. If partner is apt to preempt at favorable vulnerability in 2nd seat with ♥ K109xxxx, then any ♥ contract beyond 4 ♥ could be in question. In any case, I think you start with 3 ♠. If partner happens to raise ♠ like they should with 3, then I think 6 ♠ should have a reasonable play by drawing 2 rounds of trump and trying to ruff a ♣ in dummy if necessary. If partner rebids 4 ♥, then the next question is "How would partner interpret either 4 NT or 5 ♥?" If 4 NT would be interpreted as RKBC/1430 for ♥, then that might be a possibility. Clearly, 5 ♥ over 4 ♥ has to be a how good are your ♥ question. But what will partner consider as good hearts? ♥ KQJ10xxx, ♥ AKQxxxx or ♥ KQ109xxx? I think I'd more apt to use 5 ♥ after 4 ♥ and depend on partner to read that as requesting slam if partner can handle ♥ without more than 1 loser. (So partner would pass with ♥ KQ109xxx.) BTW, I don't think it's clear that an immediate 5 ♥ is a ♥ ask rather than a further preempt. Where a 4 NT keycard bid might help is if partner answers 5 ♠ (2+Q) and a further bid such as 6 ♣ invites 7 (with something like AKQJxxx.) But other responses to the ask are difficult to interpret what to do. Finally, IMP scoring is such that not bidding a NV slam is less of an issue. If you don't bid it, but they do and it makes, you're down -500. If you don't bid it, but they do and it is set, you're +500. So bidding it or not is a wash.

I'd probably bid it the same as you. By patterning out with a reverse, you spotlighted the problem and avoided the slam. By bidding 4 ♠ immediately, it makes responder's hand look pretty good for slam. If you still use splinters, then you can almost reserve them for hands with flaws in the suit you hold -- maybe something like ♠ KQJx ♥ QJx ♦ J ♣ AKxxx.

I'm with ggwhiz on this one. I like reversing with this hand, then jumping, if possible, in partner's suit. It should show a hand with ♣ shortness that is just too good to splinter. Give responder something like ♠ KQxxx ♥ Qxx ♦ Qx ♣ xx and it's hard to move over a direct 4 S (or 4 H if you flip the majors). Neither will this hand move over a splinter which can be made on a decent 16-17. But after something like 1 ♦ - 1 ♠ 2 ♥ - 2 ♠ 4 ♠ responder will know opener's hand is either 4=3=5=1. 4=4=4=1, or 4=4=5=0 and very strong and might make a move.