rmnka447

For the original hand, I'm passing over 1 ♥. Neither opponent hand is limited ane they've bid my best suit. I'm doubling 4 ♥. They are unlikely to have a better spot to play in. If they did have an alternative, doubling would be wrong as it would allow them to escape from a bad spot. Also, at IMPs, the amount you might lose is a lot less than at match points if it makes. It doesn't appear 4 ♥x can do better than just make. So, you're risking at most giving them an extra +170, which is 5 IMPs. At MPs, doubling a making game contract is a zero. I'm leading ♥ A to see dummy. If dummy has ♥ xxx, then I'm continuing with a low ♥. That will possibly enable dummy to ruff a ♦, but keeps a ♥ tenace over declarer. If dummy instead has ♥ Hxx, then I'll continue with ♥ K and a low ♥ ensuring at least 3 ♥ tricks but eliminating any ♦ ruffs.

Yes, that's the sequence I would think gets things going. miamijd brought up an important point about which bidding sequences are forcing and which are invitational. They are related to how you play 4th suit forcing(FSF). As pointed out, most people play FSF as a game force and a jump in the major is simply invitational. Playing it that way, you have options over opener's 2 ♦ rebid. If East bids 2 ♥, it shows at least 5+ ♥ and often 6 and a game force still applies. A jump to 4 ♥ is a signoff often with long broken ♥. So, a jump to 3 ♥ really sends a couple messages. It says "I have really good ♥ and want to play in ♥" and "I have a good hand with at least some mild slam interest". The East hand fits the 3 ♥ bid even though only having 13 HCP. It is a 4 loser hand because of the long solid ♥ and ♠ Kx. A ♣ control and 2 1/2 to 3 cover cards might make a ♥ slam a reasonable place to be. Now let's swap chairs and look at it from West's perspective. How does this hand look with respect to slam opposite a good hand with strong ♥ and at least mild slam interest? Opposite something like just ♥ AKQxxx, or, even ♥ KQJxxx with extras, there's potential to take a lot of tricks. And, the West hand has controls in all the side suits. So West should cooperate at least in slam exploration at least through 4 ♥. So, I think West's next bid is a 3 ♠ control bid. If you understand that East with any possible interest in NT could rebid 2 ♥ rather than 3 ♥, then you might agree to use 3 NT over 3 ♠ as a waiting bid/serious 3 NT. Then West could bid 4 ♣ showing the ♣ control. If you don't have that agreement, then I think East has to bid 4 ♦ showing a ♦ control. West will know it's shortness but holding ♦ AK means East may be able to make a pitch a loser or two. By bidding 4 ♦, East denies a ♣ control. So West has a choice of actions over 4 ♦. An aggressive West might just bid 6 ♥. A more conservative West might bid 4 ♥. But over 4 ♥, East can make one more push by bidding 4 ♠ and West should continue to 6 ♥.

I would bid 2 ♦ and see what partner has to say. If partner finds a natural 2 ♥ rebid, then you have an easy maximum 3 ♥ raise. If partner finds a 2 NT rebid, you can still show your ♠ suit via a transfer and subsequent NT bid. But I will admit a very strong prejudice toward disciplined responding to 2 ♣ bids. With my partners, a positive M response shows 5+ to 2 honors and 1 1/2 QTs, while a 3 level positive m response shows 5+ to 2 of top 3 honors and 2 QTs. So when we make a positive response, 2 ♣ opener gets some important information about responder's hand. If you don't like 2 ♦, then 3 NT should be your response. Let partner try to figure it out from there. Be true to your agreements whatever they are.

Automatic 2 ♦ overcall for me. Decent suit, opening values, NV, why not? Especially at MPs, it may be important to let partner know where your values are at.

The blame is 100% 0n South, only bidding 2 ♠ is an unconscionable underbid. I'm also torn between simply bidding 4 ♠ after 2 ♥ or bidding 3 ♠ and hoping partner can bid 4 ♠. The 2 ♠ free bid should show the 16-18 strong overcall and South's is a much stronger player than that. It is a 2 loser hand if you use basic LTC. If East had passed, I'd have no problem opening a strong 2 ♣ bid on the hand. To me, a 3 ♠ jump rebid after 2 ♥ says "Partner if you have any card at all that may be useful, don't hesitate to bid game." North with ♣ Kxx and a ♠ should bid game in a flash. OTOH, the South hand is such a big player that even giving partner a chance to pass below game may be a mistake. At MPs, the decision might be a harder one. At IMPs I think I'm probably more apt to make a 4 ♠ game try -- bid game and try to make it. If the bidding were lower on the second round where South could cue 2 ♥ to show a strong 2 ♣ type hand, I'd make that bid. But I think that cueing 3 ♥ over East's 2 ♥ bid isn't right as it takes up too much room and might get us too high before we settle in ♠.

This thread is a good example of a "system fix". The system that OP and partner use did not fit this particular hand and the result was a poor outcome. OP and partner need to evaluate how this hand stacks up versus other hands that they get using their system as is. If they find that the current system works well on enough other hands that they are willing to accept an occasional result like this, then they should stay with what they are using. If they find that hands like this one come up often enough that it is a net negative, then they should change. The point is that every bidding system has problem hands that they don't handle well. Whatever bidding system and agreements a partnership use must reflect what works best with their style, ability to remember agreements and specific sequences, and ability to use their system under duress. In a top tournament, you'll find really good players using systems from fairly basic to extremely detailed and complex. Chances are on most hands they all get to the right spots. What systems they use fit well with who they are. An extremely complex system with hundreds of pages of notes does you no good if you can't remember that much detail. If you can and if you can under duress, then maybe that's the system for you. If not, choose something simpler that works best for you. There is no one right answer when it comes to bidding systems, just what works best for you.

In the US, it's rare for an opening 2 M to be anything but 1 suited. In 1st or 2nd seat, it's almost always a 6 card suit. However, in 3rd seat, anything goes. The only limiting factor in 3rd chair is what players who play a Drury variant would open 1 M on. But beyond suit length, there are differences in how "good" the weak 2s are in terms of quality and strength. At one point, the ACBL had enacted the "Bergen" rule which required at least a 5 card suit with 5 HCP in the hand for a weak 2 M. That was to reign in American expert Marty Bergen who would weak 2 on virtually anything. But different partnerships can have vastly different ways they open 2 M in 1st or 2nd seat that align with their general approach to bidding -- A few still cling to a conservative approach -- 3 honors, top of range, etc., -- Most people probably use a little more aggressive opening with something like KJ9xxx or better and be willing to shade the HCP some with the right hand, and, -- Some will consider a Jxxxxx and 5 HCP a normal weak 2 M.

Technically, pass, double, and redouble are calls. A bid is a number and a strain -- 1 ♣, 2 NT, etc.

Your hand is clearly a 1 ♥ bid initially. Your next bid is a matter of how you bid over reverses and what hands you'd reverse on (soft vs. strong reverses). First of all, your hand is too weak for a positive response. If you and partner have agreed to rebid a hand with a 5 card suit no matter how weak, then 2 ♥ is right. Otherwise, make the potential "drop dead" bid you've decided on. If you've never discussed bidding continuations over reverses with your partner, then maybe just bidding 2 ♥ is right. It, at least, takes up the least bidding space allowing partner to continue telling what the reverse is about. 3 ♣ as a non-forcing weak bid has been passe for years. It's become more common in recent years to use the preference as a positive bid and use some sort of Lebensohl structure for sign off (especially with soft reverses) or just use 2 NT as a potentially weak bid. Most of my partners and I prefer to play strong reverses and use 2 NT or fourth suit whichever is cheaper as the potential drop dead bid. I'd bid 2 ♠ wit these players. I do play with 1 excellent player who likes to play softer reverses and we use Ingbermann as the potential sign off. I'd bid 2 NT Ingbermann with this player. Don't pass a reverse!! Partner's hand is still unlimited.

Pass!! Competitive bidding has progressed from back when what you hold would have been a takeout double to the more modern idea of shaped takeout doubles that promise 3+ cards in all unbid suits. As a result, there are times when you have enough strength for a take out double, but not the right shape. This hand is one of those hands. It's fair to ask how your don't miss something when you hold one of these hands. The answer is the concept called balancing. If you pass and your LHO passes, you partner is in the pass out seat. Your partner can infer that you have values because your LHO was unable to respond showing presumably 5 or less points. So your partner with any values at all can make a call or bid understanding that your side has about the "balance" of the points on the hand. A 1 level suit bid in this position can be made on as little as 5-6 points with length in the suit. A double is the strongest call which usually shows a near opener, but it can be shaded a little if the reopening bidder has good shape (support for the unbid suits). If your LHO opponent responds to the opening bid, then your side usually passes and may back into the auction later if the opponents find a fit and stop at a low level. Generally when they have a fit, your side also has a fit and may be able to compete further. There are lots of articles and books available about competing in the auction that will go over this in detail. I am just trying to give a very broad overview here first to understand how competing has evolved.

Exactly! Typically, I find that if about 2/3 or more scores are pluses, then you've usually have a very good game.

The plus versus minus scores refers to the raw scores on the board, not the match pointed resulted. So if you score +50 for beating the opponents 3 ♠ contract, that's a plus score. If they instead make 3 ♠ that's a minus score, -140. Not all positive scores are going to be good. Not all negative scores are going to be bad. BUT, watching how your scorecard develops in terms of plus versus minus results is a measure of how you're doing. So when mikeh and others talk about MPs being about getting plus scores that is what they a referring to.

At MPs, I'm passing 3 ♥. The hand has 13 HCP, but the ♣ Q is of dubious value and both red suit holdings aren't that good. In a 2/1 auction, responder's hand should be somewhere between 10-12 value. I don't see game as very likely to make oppose 10-11 hands, and might still be iffy opposite many 12s.

Plus scores are good at MP. Or, if you will, the converse -- the lack of minus scores -- is also good. At the end of the session, if you look at your scorecard and see only a few minuses, then you can be pretty sure that you have a good game. It isn't 100% foolproof, but normally it is a very good indicator of success. Think about it this way. In a 24 board session, you'd expect about 12 positive and 12 negative scores if everyone plays to the par. So the more positives you accumulate the more you are likely to be above par. If I play a session and see only 4 or 5 negatives at the end of the session, I'm pretty confident that we've probably won. OTOH, if the scorecard has more negatives than positives, then I'm pretty sure that we're probably below average.

I use a home grown system of responses with my favorite partner. With other members of our team, we use Swedish responses where 3 ♣ shows any minimum. With most other partners, I just use the "standard" Jacoby 2 NT response structure. I think using 3 ♣ as showing any minimum hand has a lot of merit. Whenever responder is simply interested in game, it can be bid directly over 3 ♣ giving the defenders the least information. If responder wants to find out about any shortness, a 3 ♦ relay can be made and opener can show shortness with step responses - 3 ♥ = ♣ shortness, 3 ♠ = ♦ shortness, 3 NT = OM shortness. The other opener rebids are: 3 ♦ = balanced with extras 3 ♥ = ♣ shortness with extras 3 ♠ = ♦ shortness with extras 3 NT = OM shortness with extras 4 level new suits = good 2nd suit Note opener uses the same bids to show where shortness exists whether a minimum or with extras. With my favorite partner, we use a combination of "standard" responses with our own insertions. We do so to try to incorporate some ideas for Jacoby 2 NT outlined by the Granovetters in their book, "Bridge Conventions in Depth: 3 ♣= minor suit shortness. 3 ♦ asks which. Step responses - 3 ♥= ♣, 3 ♠= ♦ 3 ♦ = any 17+ hand 3 OM = OM shortness 3 M = minimum hand. 3 NT by responder asks for more info. Opener rebids 4 M with less than 2 honors in M. Other suit bids show a concentration of values and 2+ honors. 3 NT = 15-16 value 4 level new suits = strong 2nd suit usually 5-5 or better 4 M = minimum with strong trump, typically AKQxx or similar The 3 ♠/3 NT ask and 4 M rebids are straight out of Granovetter. But we especially like using 3 ♦ as showing the strong hand because responder can initiate cueing with a new suit bid or by making a waiting bid (trump suit or NT bids).

The hand is either a pass or 1 ♥ bid. With the major holdings, I'd bid 1 ♥ even though I'm a reasonably conservative opener (12 HCP, 2 QTs).

At MPs and IMPs, I'm bidding 5 ♣ and let them try to sort out which major to bid. At rubber bridge, I'd try 4 ♣. The key is to make them play up a level or 2 from comfortably making a part score to win the rubber. But then again you don't want to get set for much -- since going set still doesn't the below the line score and they are likely to still win the rubber. (They'll still have 40 on below the line toward game if you are set.) 4 ♣ is likely set only one with one useful card in partner's hand. OTOH, they have to bid game in a major to finish the rubber on this hand. With partner's hand still unlimited, any way you can push the opponent's up might be useful.

The result was great, but the hand was bid poorly. Now tell me why South couldn't have ♥ AQ86 ♦ KQ86 instead of the cards actually held in those suits? Bidding Grand Slam on a guess isn't right. You bid Grand only if you can count 13 tricks or if you are sure it is at worst about a 70% chance or better to make. Guessing partner does not hold ♥ A is putting the ♦ A in partner's hand. One cardinal rule of bidding is "Never put cards into partner's hand unless bridge logic tells you they absolutely have to be there."

If the Prez is so much in Putin's pocket, then why did he decide to provide the Ukraine with weapons which counterbalance Russian military strength exerted through their proxies and provide other military support that makes it difficult for Russia to overrun the Ukraine. Those moves were something that King Barack I didn't do for fear of the Russians when such moves might have thwarted the Crimean takeover. He might have bad mouthed the Russians, but couldn't find the cajones to stand up to them. Beside the Ukraine, the Prez has also spent considerable effort to bolster other countries that bear the brunt of the Russian threat -- specifically the Baltic states -- by providing military aid, training, and joint exercises.

If I open 1 ♥ playing 2/1 and partner replies with a forcing NT, than my rebid would be 4 ♥. To me, this hand is a classic for that sort of auction, it should show a distributional hand with a long, broken ♥ suit.

I'm in line with FelicityR -- Trust your partner. Definitely return a ♣. The key question to ask yourself is "Why didn't partner signal for a ♦ return with a void?" The answer should be obvious -- either partner isn't void in ♦ or has a sure trump trick. I think a key lesson from this hand is that you should keep reevaluating what you know about the hand based on how the play, signaling and cards played. In that regard, it's often as important to consider what didn't happen as much as what did happen,

The bidding of this hand has resulted in a system fix for your side. You do have a 12 count with questionable ♠ Qx. Had RHO passed you'd probably bid 3 NT with this hand. Lebensohl or similar would be useful on this hand as you could bid 3 NT and partner would know you don't have a stopper. You'd relay and bid 3 NT with one. Bur given that you play a simple system over competition, you need to use 2 NT as a value showing bid. Just too many hands come up where you have values and can't find a bid the way you play. Partner might have a guess to make in his rebid, but at least knows that your side has the bulk of the points. Partner ought to infer that since you didn't make a negative double that you probably don't have 4 ♥. But given the choices, I'd probably bid 3 ♠ asking for a stopper.

I'd bid 5 ♣ also. But given the lead problem, I'm leading a ♦ 5.

Once opener shows the stronger hand, I don't think you want to compete further. Responder's hand is still unknown, but between yourself and opener you can account for 31-33 points. That leaves 7-9 available for both partner and responder. If responder bid on zero points, you might be close to game depending on opener's count, but the problem is that your ♥ Q and ♦ K have lost some value with opener holding those suits behind you. OTOH, if the outstanding points are split or with responder, you could be stepping into the fire by competing now. Your system prevented competing on the first round, so stay fixed now and pass.

I think you're exactly right. Now that the final contract is 6 ♥, you'll only get a really good score when 6 ♥ makes but 6 NT doesn't. So keep faith with the bidding and make the best play you can to make 6 ♥.