rmnka447

When your right hand opponent opens the bidding, there are two basic tools available for you to compete -- the takeout double and the overcall. An overcall is simply a bid of a suit or NT. In the case of a suit bid, it shows length in that suit and some values although it doesn't promise opening values. So over the 1 ♦ opener something like ♠ AQxxx ♥ Kxx ♦ xx ♣ xxx would be a perfectly fine 1 ♠ overcall. A 1 NT overcall usually promises 15-17/18 high card points, a balanced hand, AND a stopper in the opponent's suit. A takeout double promises 3+ card support for all unbid suits and presumably opening values. Originally, takeout doubles were more of a way of showing opening values and didn't require support for every suit. But as bridge has evolved over the last 50 years or so, "shapely" takeout doubles promising 3+ support for all suits have emerged as just a better way to use takeout doubles. Shapely takeout double avoided some disastrous results that were inherent with doing it the other way. Since the requirement to have 3+ cards in all unbid suits takes up so many cards in the hand, it usually implies shortness in the opponent's suit. So for the hand you asked about, let's look at its attributes and decide what to bid. It has 16 HCP and balanced distribution which fits in with the 1 NT overcall, but, alas, ♦ Qx is not a stopper so the 1 NT overcall is out. The hand doesn't have a long (5 card +) suit so isn't suitable for an overcall in a suit. Does it have 3+ card support for all unbid suits and opening values? Bingo, it does, so a takeout double is the right bid for this hand. Please be aware that because of modern competitive bidding style/agreements there are some other specific hands where you would start with a presumed takeout double then show those specific hands with your rebid. But that's a lesson for another day. Here the important thing to take away is that with a long suit you tend to overcall and with no long suit, but support for all the unbid suits and values you make a takeout double.

I'm always doubling with this hand too rather than bidding 1 NT.

Once partner doubled, you were headed towards a bad board no matter what you did. (2 ♥x=2%, 3 ♣=22%, 3 ♣x=3%) Your partner's correct bid is PASS. Partner's hand is an A-less 18, but ♥ KQJ is only worth 2 tricks, and 4-3-3-3 isn't likely to be helpful to you if you pull the double. Looking at the tricks the hand can generate then 2 in ♥, 1 in ♦, and then everything else depends on finding values in your hand to generate additional defensive tricks. If partner has to defend solely out of hand, all those Ks look susceptible to possible endplay(s). Change partner's hand slightly, and, IMO, a double would be more reasonable -- ♠ Kxx ♥ KQJx ♦ KQxx ♣ Ax (making dummy ♠ QJ10x ♥ 10x ♦ J10x ♣ K10xx). This revised hand looks to have at least 5 sure tricks, so defeating the contract is a lot closer.

Your pass over 1 NT promised anywhere from 0-7 HCP. It also denied a 5 ♠ spade suit or a longer minor as you would likely run from 1 NT with such a holding. So, you have so far accurately described you hand. Partner has taken an unusual action in doubling. Partner knows that there are between 26-32 HCP held between the 1 NT hand and opener's hand (11 opener+15 NT to 15 opener+ 17 NT). That means there aren't a lot of points to split between your hand and opener's partner. It hardly makes sense to force your side to compete further without some move by your hand indicating that you hold some values. So, it's very likely partner has a ♥ stack and is doubling for penalty. One valuable thing I learned a long time ago is "When partner does something strange, don't try to save partner." If partner is reasonable player, there may be a good reason for doing what they did. So sit and pass. If the double doesn't work out, than you and partner can discuss it after the session. But the onus remains with partner for making the double. You haven't misrepresented your values in the bidding. Where you don't want to be is "saving" partner by bidding 3 ♣ and finding 2 ♥x was going for a number or was your side's last positive result.

North is looking at an 11 count opposite a 2nd seat opener. Now, if you very aggressively open so that opener can hold complete slop, it's a harder decision. But if opener opens on decent values, you've got more than the balance of the points. It looks like you've got enough, likely 23-24 count, to probably make a 3 level part score. So this looks like an "ornery" double situation at MPs. You double in this situation not because you are sure that you can beat 4 ♥ but because you are ornery enough to believe most of the time they won't when you have the majority of the points. Holding the North hand, I'm doubling in a flash. I think the claim that 4 ♥x gives the opponents a top is a bit of red herring. Do you expect every other pair to be in 4 ♥ when you hold more than the balance of the points? If not, you're looking at least at a below average result by passing. So 4 ♥x may be trading a bottom for a below average result. Big deal. If you don't give up an occasional -590 or -790, you're not doubling enough. But here +300 is likely to be a top versus any other result.

I would cue and show a control. You hold controls in both other side suits. So, it looks like there are not 2 quick losers in any one suit. Partner has the big hand and is in control, so let him/her make the decision. I'd be more apt to bid 4 ♠ if the hand was something like ♠ xx ♥ AJxx ♦ Q10xx ♣ KQx.

5 is at the cusp of being an opener for me. It's a 12 count and 2 QT. I suppose if I used Bergen's adjustments for Q/Js versus A/10s, I reevaluate down it to an 11 count and pass. In answering, I did ponder the longest about this hand and what to do with it. 4 is a solid 12 count, but with only 1 QT. True, you might be able to develop 4 tricks from it given enough time by the opponents. But if partner was sitting so as to be first to speak and had an opener, I'd see this hand as only an invitational hand opposite that opener. So this looks to me like a hand where passing and bidding vigorously should partner open might work out better.

I'm a passer also. The hand sounds like a misfit and your ♠ Q and 3 other sure tricks are useful at a ♠ contract. A ♠ game may be problematic as partner may have ♣ losers that you can't help with after your ♠ is removed.

As dealer, I'm opening 1,2 & 5, never opening 3, 4 regardless of which natural based bidding system I'm playing. (Don't play ACOL) In 3rd seat, I would add opening 4 and still not open 3. In 4th seat, I'd revert to the same as 1st seat. BTW, playing strong NTs, I'd probably open 5 with 1 ♣ and rebid 1 NT over any 1 level suit response by partner.

Exactly! When you try to use the principles, techniques or plays you learn from reading/lessons actually at the table, it's about increasingly recognizing when they apply and how to execute them. That works for both fundamental plays and even highly advanced plays. But in either case, it tends to follow a similar progression. First, you learn the technique or play from study. Then, you'll play some hands and fail to see when it applies. It's not uncommon to recognize that it would have applied some time after the fact. As in, "Oh Gee, I should have ...". That recognition could 2 or 3 seconds after you've done something else or several hours later in the post mortem. Then, as you play more (and maybe restudy), you'll start to recognize a hand here and there where it applies in time to be able to execute it. Then you have to think through how to execute it. Sometimes you may get the execution wrong, but you'll learn from that, too. Eventually, recognizing the number of hands where it applies increases to where you virtually never miss one. At the same time, the amount of time to execute the play goes down and executing it properly almost becomes second nature. It's now firmly in your arsenal of tools to use. Then you should get the feeling of making progress.

I said I'd lead a ♠, But when I averred that, I was thinking that with a fairly high spot, I'd consider long and hard about leading it rather than low from three. You know LHO opponent has the big hand, so the ♠ A is more likely to be in that hand. So the high spot might be more likely to make declarer believe partner has the ♠ K and disdain any working ♠ finesse.

Your sort of stuck by your agreements. Whatever partner bids you have no idea what's in his/her hand. Because of this, I think you just have to make the rebid you were planning to make in the first place, namely 3 ♥. If partner has positive values for the 2 NT call, then partner can carry on to 3 NT. 3 ♥ also implies some concern about ♠ else you pass or make a 3 NT call. It would probably be good to discuss with partner what a "natural" 2 NT call should be over a weak 2 bid. Since NT contracts depend more on total high card strength, bidding 2 NT on 4 HCP even with all the 10s just can't be right, especially so when Red. Your hand could be a lot less, maybe like ♠ x ♥ A732 ♦ KQ63 ♣ A642 and 2 NT is a horrendous contract. I'm with ggwhiz on this one and bidding 3 ♣ with partner's hand and your agreements.

I'm also in the ♠ lead camp.

If you're a newer bridge player, it does get tough to absorb the material. There definitely is a lot you have to pick up to get minimally competent. Chances are you're going to make a lot of errors or miss a lot of stuff. That's OK, you're a newer player. If you think of yourself as a "baby" bridge player, it may be helpful. A baby has to first learn to crawl, then stand upright, then take a few unsteady steps, and ultimately learn to walk. But learning to walk doesn't happen in a day and is a process that must be gone through. It isn't easy because it requires lots of learning and lots of repetition. Likewise, when learning bridge, you go through a similar process. It requires both a learning element and a repetition element. You learn concepts through books, lessons, or asking questions. But it also takes playing to cement the concepts in your mind and incorporate them into your play. You'll probably find that at first you'll miss opportunities to apply them. But eventually you'll find yourself starting to recognize when they apply and start to use them. Don't be surprised if there isn't an "aha" moment either but more of a gradual increase in recalling and recognizing when things apply. That's entirely normal. As a newer player, you first need to know what to focus on. Your first objective should be getting the fundamentals of bidding and play down rock solid. That means learning basic bidding, basic declaring, and basic defending well. So the simpler you keep things at first, the better. A player who can do the fundamental things consistently well is a formidable player and a winning player. Let me repeat that. A player who can do the fundamental things consistently well is a formidable player and a winning player. Also, understand that improving as a bridge player is this same constant process of learning more about the game and repetitively working to incorporate that knowledge into your play. Reading a bridge book isn't about how fast you read, but more about trying to get the principles being taught firmly in mind. So I think the advice about learning one thing at a time is very good. And nothing prevents you from going back and rereading if you have questions or something doesn't seem clear. When newer players ask me about how to play better, I usually recommend a book on play that has two sections - fundamentals and advanced play. I tell those players to methodically work their way through the fundamentals section only and not even worry about the advanced section. I tell them they should play a lot and try to apply what you've learned. Then I advise them to go back and completely reread the fundamentals section again. If they do so, they'll find there was lot more they pick up that wasn't apparent the first time through. I also tell them that only once they are thoroughly proficient in the fundamentals should they move on the Advanced section. I might add that even after 40+ years of playing, I still go back and reread that book. It always reveals something new and gets me back to making sure I'm completely solid on my fundamentals. Even when I'm working on incorporating more advanced concepts and principles into my play, I'm not adverse to following this process reading, playing, and rereading the material covering those advanced concepts to get them down cold. It works.

If you play Gambling 3 NT, you should know the response structure. - ♣ bids at any level are pass or correct, - ♦ bids of 5 ♦ or higher are to play - "I know your suit and want to play the hand from my side." Usually it's to protect a stopper, - 4 ♦ asks for a singleton - 4 M= singleton or void in M, 4 NT= no singleton or void, 5 m= opener's suit with singleton void in other m. - 4 NT - Do you have an extra trick? (8 card suit?) - 5 m= no, 6 m=yes - 5 NT - Can you play opposite a void? 6 m=no, 7 m= yes Unfortunately in an individual tournament, it's probably a very mixed bag whether one's partners know what to do opposite a Gambling NT. So I can understand the reluctance to use the bid there. As for the responses, the occasional hands do come up that make them useful. Opposite a Gambling 3 NT, I held ♠ AKQJ ♥ xxx ♦ xx ♣ AKxx and ventured a slightly risky 4 ♦ versus a top team in a regional KO (5 ♦ could go down if partner held ♥ xxx). Partner had a momentary brain cramp and passed, but we were NV and the damage wasn't too severe as the (real) expert opponents sitting our way at the other table only reached 5 ♦. Partner's hand was ♠ xx ♥ x ♦ AKQJ10xx ♣ xxx. If partner finds the proper 4 ♥ bid, we would have landed a NV small slam swing which would have been enough to win.

I'm leading a ♠. I don't like either a ♥ lead or a trump lead. A ♥ has too much danger of giving up a trick when declarer has something like Axxx opposite Qx. A trump lead may give up a tempo and especially holding an honor may enable declarer to pickup the trump suit. If you decide to lead a ♦, then maybe ♦ 9 is better than ♦ 6 to protect against dummy holding something like ♦ J107 or ♦ K107 where declarer could use the rule of 11 to realize that the play of the ♦ 7 will force partner's honor.

All posts so far are correct. Major suit contracts are normally preferred to 3 NT when you have at least an 8 card fit. So it's most normal to use Stayman after a 1 NT opening to try to find a 4-4 major fit if you have a 4 card Major suit. You probably wonder why when a Major suit game requires 10 tricks and a NT game only requires 9 tricks. Normally, hands with a Major fit of at least 8 cards usually play a trick better than NT because of "short trump hand" ruffs. In a 5-3 fit, that would mean being able to trump a trick in the hand with 3 trump. In a 4-4 fit, either hand can act as the "short trump" hand for this purpose. So you have a little more flexibility in deciding how to play the hand. The idea of "short trump" ruffs is especially important for newer players to master. As long as declarer can draw the opponents trump, the trumps in the long trump hand will still take tricks whether you trump with them or not. But too often good players will see newer players rushing to try to make ruffs with the small trumps in the long suit hand to disastrous results. Having a trump suit can provide a greater measure of control to prevent opponents from running long suit tricks in suits where they have control. At a NT contract, declarer must have high cards to prevent that from happening. In deed, most NT contracts are a race between the declarer and defenders to set up long suit tricks to either make the contract or set the contract respectively. OTOH, in suit contracts, the defenders may be able to find ruffs or the trumps break badly which makes the contract more difficult to make. But, for now, I'd recommend preferring a Major suit contract with a 4-4 or better fit. Someone pointed out that NT might be better when you hold any 4-3-3-3 hand with a 4 card Major. The above helps explain why this may be. If both hands are 4-3-3-3 with the 4 card suit being the same major, all the side suits in both hands are the same length and neither hand can be the "short trump" hand. So the Major suit contract is unable to make any more tricks than a NT contract because of no "short trump" ruffs.

One of my local partners still insists on opening 1 ♣ with a 5-5 black suit hand. He would open the hand as you did, but would continue over 2 ♥ with 2 ♠ to clarify his holding as at least 5-5. That's what you should do if you've agreed on opening these hands 1 ♣. Once you do so, responder's hand gets a lot better. It's got high honor 3rd in both black suits and is well worth an invitational 3 ♠ bid. Whether opener bids game or not, you'll be in the right strain making 4 when ♥ looks like making 3 is the limit. I've told my partner that I refuse to open 5-5 black hands with 1 ♣ and will open them 1 ♠ instead. nige1 is right that sometimes you lose the ♣ suit when you do this. However, because major suit fits are so important, you don't want to be shut out of them if the opponents intervene. After 1 ♣ - (3 ♦) - P - (P) - ?, are you going to bid 3 ♠?

Exactly. The lead of ♠ 10 would seem to deny the ♠ J as it's usual to lead J from J109(...). If West held ♠ AJ2, it would be proper to return the J to unblock ♠. Besides if ♠ break 5-3 you can't make the hand anyhow (4 ♠, ♣ A cash]. So assume 4-4 ♠ with West holding AJ?2. If ♣ A is with East, you can't make 3 NT either as the ♣ spots are poor and the opponents can produce 2+ ♣ tricks unless somehow you can scope out a very, very unlikely stiff ♣ A with East and duck the first lead of a ♣ toward dummy. Then the rest of your logic follows perfectly. BTW, if East holds 4 ♦ to the Q, you can still make if West holds the stiff ♦ 9, that ♦ A8 in the South isn't insignificant and gives that small extra chance.

Pass, if you take a call now you're just raising the contract level. There's no assurance that your suits will play better than partners. There's also no assurance that partner has anything in your suits. If partner has solid or near solid ♥, what does that say about the likelihood opener has minor suit pieces? If you have a hand where you can clearly see that 5 of a minor has a better chance to make, then you can think about acting. If not, sit.

I agree with the 3 ♦ invitational, 3 ♣ forcing folks. East should realize that West is highly likely to have a 4+ card ♦ suit. East was unable to raise ♠ so likely doesn't have 4 ♠. The hands where East would be unable to do so besides hands with 4+ ♦ would be 3=4=3=3 hands where West chose to open 1 ♦ instead of 1 ♣. And if you are playing Support Doubles the likelihood of that hand is even less. So the extraordinary trump support and shortness in suits opener is likely to have length in are all positive. I'd rate East's hand at the top end of a minimum opening bid, so with an opener opposite, I think you need to make a forcing bid versus an invitational bid. West should also like his/her hand better after the 3 ♦ invitational raise. With East showing a fit and holding at least 8+ cards in the pointed suits, it looks like East has no more than 5 cards in the rounded suits providing some shortness afford the opportunity to ruff some of West's losers.

Opening 1 (1 ♠) and 2 (1NT), passing the rest.

No problem, it's definitely a 1 ♠ opener. It's an unfortunate hand, but getting too focused on any individual hand isn't good. The bidding to 3 ♣ was fine. Bidding is an art not a complete science and the best you can hope to do is get to reasonable contracts. Given that has happened, you shouldn't get too concerned about any individual result. Otherwise, you'll start taking views and doing convoluted things with your bidding that will degrade your overall results in the end.

Which hand will be the master hand that you will set up in a ♣ contract? Likely, it will be responder's hand, not opener's hand. What you need are honors in the trump suit and cards to cover responder's major losers. So, yes, you want to be asking the questions, to find that out, but shouldn't be worried too much about opener expecting a 5th diamond for an additional pitch. A jump rebid in ♣ by responder after the SJS, if possible, shows extraordinary trump support and should get opener thinking along the right lines.

SJSs take up so much bidding room that it becomes very difficult if not impossible to find a fit in a 3rd or 4th suit. So, a SJS usually implies -- - a big hand where slam is possible if opener holds the right cards, and, - the contract will be in opener's suit, responder's suit, or no trump. So, yes, responder's rebid defines the type of hand it is and a ♣ rebid would be normal to set trump. With this hand I'd strongly consider not rebidding 3 ♣, but rebidding 4 ♣ which would show not only a fit but extraordinary trump support (5+ good trumps).