rmnka447

The question is if you still play Texas transfers over interference? If you do, this hand is easy. 1 NT - (3 ♦) - 4 ♥ 4 ♠ - ( P ) - 4 NT (1430) 5 ♦ - ( P ) - 7 NT as 5 ♦ must show 3 keys because there aren't enough points left if opener has zero to bid 1 NT. If you don't, then you must start with 3 ♠ which should be absolutely forcing. You'll need follow up agreements on the bidding that follows after 3 ♠, specifically what rebid by responder is the key card ask for ♠.

Maybe you should think seriously about redefining the bidding structure over one of a minor. The only minimum hands that occur are unbalanced minor hands. Most of those can be handled by a simple rebid in the minor 1 m - 1 M 2 m always shows the minimum minor hand. This is the scheme adopted by Edgar Kaplan way back when for the Kaplan-Sheinwold bidding system. All the other rebids imply stronger hands. This makes sense since something like 65 % of the hands that are opened 1 m when playing weak NTs are more than minimum range openers. In K-S, the major raises are upgrade to reflect the following ranges - 2 M 15-17 and 4 trump 3 M 18-19 and 4 trump 4 M flattish 20 and 4 trump that you decide not to open 2 NT. If you have 4 card support in a minimum unbalanced minor hand, you can still raise to 2 M as likely you have distributional values that get you up to 15-17 value. The number of hands where you get too high is infrequent enough as to be not much of an issue.

I'd do very similar to cyberyeti. At rubber bridge, I'm bidding 4 ♠. The consideration at competitive forms of bridge is to interfere enough to make it difficult for the opponents to find their best spot. Since it appears that the opponents are headed to slam anyway, I think 5 ♠ is the bid to make at both IMPs and MPs. It takes away virtually all of their bidding space leaving them not much room to decide both strain and level. The worst case scenario for 5 ♠x is down 5 which is -1400. Where I would differ from cy would be that after making the 5 ♠ bid, I'd remain silent. If the opponents get to 7 whatever and the contract makes, I'd tip my hat to them and move on to the next board. What I don't want to do is go for -1700 or -2000 in 7 ♠x and find that their best possible score was +1370, +1430, or + 1440.

Genuine discussion? Are you kidding? Most of the posters on this thread are such progressive zealots that any sensible discussion will never happen. I happen to be toward the other end of the political spectrum. I didn't like President Obama because I thought his policies and agenda were wrong headed. But I would never in my wildest dreams engage in the name calling and vitriol toward him that more than a few of you engage in toward our current President. If that's your idea of moral superiority, I pity you. I laugh at the incestuous way that you engage in trying to prove that everything you think is true. You proffer tons and tons of BS analyses by people who obviously dislike President Trump to prove how deplorable he is. Gee, those conclusions are no surprise. What would be a surprise would be if some of those experts didn't come to those conclusions some time. It's too much Quiggian logic. (Think -Wouk's The Caine Mutiny) Yes, I still consider AG Barr a straight shooter. I think he has legitimate concerns about how the investigation of the Trump campaign got started. I think he did exactly the right thing in appointing Connecticut US Atty Jon Durham to look into it. He has an impeccable reputation for investigating and prosecuting political corruption cases. He also operates in a state that is not exactly right-wing. There's been enough information coming out through FOIA lawsuits to at least justify an inquiry into what happened. Ultimately, I'd like to see that the DOJ/FBI are perceived to be completely free from bias in the investigation, prosecution, and administering of our laws. With the information that has come out over the last 2 years, there is at least a cloud of uncertainty about that now. Unfortunately, I'm going to be dealing with some serious health issues over the next 6-8 months, so I probably won't be available to toss an occasional grenade into this thread and attempt to wake you up. It might be an impossible task, but I keep hoping. Prospects are pretty good that following that period I'll be back better than ever. See you then.

Da Nang Dick?

The electorate want the Congress to work at solving the nation's problems, but the 2018 "replacements" seem to be faring no better. Maybe, there's another flip of the House in 2020. We shall see.

If 7 ♣ is cold, then why are doubling 2 ♦ in the first place? Shouldn't you be bidding ♣ first? Besides you can't know what's in partner's hand. Maybe, the hand only makes 5 ♣ and 3 NT makes more than 3. Whoops!! One long gone real "expert" player I knew used to say "Bid what you've got." It's sage bidding advice. Trying to make an opening hand with a strong 7 card ♣ suit fit into a negative double because you have a 4 card ♠ isn't doing that. How are you ever going to convince partner that a ♣ slam, let alone a ♣ grand slam, is possible after negative doubling? Chances are, you'll never do it. The double makes it extremely difficult for partner to envision your hand. Good bidding is a matter pf partners working together to find the best contracts. When partner can envision what your hand looks like, partner may be able to see that the cards in their hand mesh well and slam could be on. Then you'll be in position to bid to slams when they're there.

We all recall how ACA was passed and it was ugly -- back room deals, sweetheart arrangements, etc. -- to keep the required Senate 60 votes. And, of course, the iconic comment by Speaker Pelosi on the ACA "Pass it, so we can find out what's in it." It was a kluge from the start pushed through without any bipartisanship. It was not a shining moment for our democracy. The demise of Dem majorities was the result of the electorate recognizing how opposed they were to what the Dems/Obama administration was pushing. Simple answer, throw the bums out. And, they did.

3 NT, what else?

I'm also in the 3 ♣ camp and with those who would bid 3 ♠ over a red suit response. 3 ♣ shows opening values and 5+ ♣. For those who would double because you hold 4 ♠, how do you continue over a 2 level red suit response by partner? If you continue 3 ♣, partner will think maybe you have something like Qxx xx x AKJ10xxx or similar.

You should know if ♣ J lead denies any higher honors or not. If the opponents are playing coded 10s and 9s, J would deny a higher honor. If not, the lead could be an inner sequence lead from KJ10x(…). In any case, I agree with cyber and nige1, duck at MPs and rise at IMPs. The only exception might be if you feel you've had a very, very MP game and don't want to risk a zero when the cards lie wrong. Then rising probably won't get you worse than an average minus MP result.

If you eschew transfers, then an alternative is to use 2 ♦ to ask opener to bid their longest major or ♥ with equal lengths.

It depends on your agreements. It isn't uncommon for strong NTer's to agree the 1 NT- 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ - 2 ♥ is "garbage" Stayman and not invitational. Then 1 NT bidder with 3+ ♥ passes 2 ♥, but with 2 ♥ opener must bid 2 ♠. Also, if you view this hand as invitational, you can transfer to ♥ and bid 2 ♠. With a GF 5-5 , you would transfer to ♠ and then bid ♥.

All replies have some good advice. Bidding again after preempting is often referred to as a "fielder's choice". You give the opponent's a choice whether to double you or bid on. That usually isn't good, so should be avoided. Keep in mind that preempting is intended to make it as difficult for the opponent's to bid. So, normally you should go as high as you are willing to go with your initial preemptive bid or raise of a preempt as preemptor's partner. The idea is to give the opponent's the next tough decision.

IMO, 3 ♥ doesn't necessarily show ♦, but conveys the following message "I've got a good hand with a fit in one of your suits." 4+ card support in one of partner's suit coupled with shortness in the other means you are going to be able to set up partner's hand to take a lot of tricks. Add in the 2 major suit As and slam may be a possibility opposite a lot of decent unusual NT hands. As advancer, you need to convey that information to the Unusual NT bidder in case a chunky Unusual NT bid was made ( ♠ x ♥ x ♦ AKxxxx ♣ AQJxx?)

I don't see how North can bid 3 NT without a ♦ stop, especially with the advance to 3 ♥ over 2 ♠ undiscussed. 3 NT, in essence, assumes that South has ♦ stoppers which North has no way of knowing. That's putting cards into partner's hand which is not good bidding. I'm not sure I'd get to game on this hand, although double dummy game looks reasonable. Such is the fog created by weak NTs. 3 ♥ ought to show a reasonably good hand with good ♥ because of bidding ♥ at the 3 level. But I'm not sure North can move with pretty much a black hand opposite.

Would you pass with something like ♠ AKxxx ♥ KJ10xx ♦ x ♣ xx? If not, then how do you show the actual hand held?

I think South's pass over 2 NT is reasonable. With a little more, say 10-11 HCP, I'd make a double showing the ability to penalize one of their suits. That would ensure the balance of the points. Opener could be on a minimum for all responder knows. A lot of good players play unusual versus unusual, so South's cue bids of 3 ♣ and 3 ♦ would show ♥ (with tolerance for ♠) and ♠ with values. That leaves direct bids of 3 ♥ and 3 ♠ as non-forcing competitive bids. After South's pass followed by (3 ♣), North can double to show extras. 3 ♥ should show a distributional, minimum hand.

You have 4 points. Opener has 15-17. LHO likely has no more than 8. That accounts for 27-29 points, so partner likely has 11-13 HCP. None of your suit holdings are likely to be set up easily. Even if you can set up ♦, you have no entry to cash the trick. So, you effort to beat 1 NT, should be keyed towards taking your best shot at setting up long suit tricks in partner's hand. Lead the ♥ J as it requires only 1 honor and length in partner's hand to set up long suit tricks.

Unless some very fortunate lie of the cards exists, the opponents should cash at least 5 tricks if they are let in. I'm with mikeh and just cashing out. If +400 is below average, so be it. OTOH, there's about a 40% chance of dropping the ♣ Qx when ♣ break 3-2. If so, you are taking 12 tricks which will beat any minor contract. Cashing a ♣ honor will also ensure + 430 when the ♣ Q is singleton and that again beats any minor game.

As always, the first thing to ask yourself if thinking slam is possible is "What do we need to know before we bid slam?" The obvious first issue is whether there are 2 possible ♦ losers. That should push you toward cue bidding to identify if the control exists. So I support a Jacoby transfer followed by 4 ♣. 4 ♣ should be a cue bid in this sequence. If you have a real ♣ suit along with ♥, the proper sequence would be to transfer and then bid 3 ♣. Texas transfers are usually just game oriented. But many good players now use Texas followed by 4 NT as the keycard ask. So Jacoby followed by 4 NT is always quantitative. It also eases the possible confusion about what 4 ♣ means in Jacoby sequences. 4 ♣ can't be Gerber with the keycard ask available through Texas. If you use Texas as strictly game interest outside of the keycard ask sequence, then a Jacoby transfer followed by jump to game ought to show at least some mild slam interest. I know lots of players like to use 3 M over 1 NT to describe various hands. I guess I'm the dinosaur in that I like to play 1 NT - 3 M as slammish bids so that responder can play the hand. Make the hand something like ♠ Kxx ♥ AKQ10xx ♦ xx ♣ Ax and this would be a good candidate for this bid as you want to protect the ♠ control.

Partner had enough value for a negative double but lacked the 4 ♥ necessary for the double with a balanced hand. In any case, if a ♥ contract turns out to be poor because of partner's lack of a 4th ♥, then that's on him/her. Bid 3 ♥. Your LHO has shown values which makes your three AJ's lose a little value. So I don't see upgrading this 15 count and making a stronger bid.

Opener doesn't know if there's a ♣ fit or not, so bidding 5 ♣ is a shot. Responder could just as easily have ♠ xxx ♥ J9xxx ♦ AJxx ♣ x and 5 ♣ x is no bargain. Of course, with opener showing ♦ shortness and responder likely short in ♠, opening leader might also just find a ♣ opening lead. 5 ♣x might be a lucky make, but it might also be going down several tricks more than 4 ♥x. 5 ♣ requires making one trick more than 4 ♥. Had responder shown a ♣ fit, then doubling 4 ♥ might encourage bidding to a 5 ♣ contract. But without any apparent club fit, bidding 5 ♣ can turn a bad IMP board into an IMP disaster.

Doesn't opener have other bids available to check for a further ♣ control? 4 NT might be available as DI 4 NT to show further slam interest asking for any additional feature and act as a waiting bid. Also, a further ♦ cue could do the same thing if 4 NT would be some A asking bid. The original response showed 3 controls, that is, an A and K or 3 Ks. Certainly, that doesn't preclude black suit shortness somewhere. Maybe opener needs to allow for that possibility.

I'm bidding 3 ♥ even though as others point out it's ambiguous. I agree 4 ♥ is a sign off with a fit and not much else. It appears you've hit on one of the problems with Kokish. When you actually have ♥ and not enough to insist on a ♥ game with 3 ♥ over 2 ♦, it gets hard to distinguish between a preference and a fit with values. And, you're doing so at the 3 level, too. In this particular case, you might want to consider some ways to take advantage of the opponent's double of the 2 ♠ relay. You might want to take advantage by designating RDBL shows the big NT hand and pass shows a ♥ based hand. That would leave space for responder to further clarify their hand. For example, 3 ♣ over pass could be a 2nd negative (cheapest suit, cheapest minor), 2 NT undefined positive 5+, 3 ♥ a good raise, and other bids natural. But without the double, you still face the same problem deciding what 3 ♥ and 4 ♥ mean.