rmnka447

This comment hits upon a very key point both over reverses and jump shifts that many people miss. With a non-descript hand, it is often right for responder to make the minimum hand rebid and get out of the way of opener, so opener can complete telling the story about their hand. The nature of these strong auctions make it nearly impossible for responder to fully describe his/her hand. So the best option for finding the right spot is to let opener complete clarifying their hand, then have responder cooperate in getting to the right contract.

Then you need to discuss what (3 ♣) - 3 ♦(Fishbein) - (P) - 3 ♥/♠ - (P) - 4 ♦ and (3 ♣) - 4 ♦ show. Since you only get to show ♦ at the four level, I suggest that you've lost the ability to make "normal" 3 ♦ overcalls and should decide what sequence shows the hand actually held and what shows the stronger "I can make 4 ♦ by myself" hand. Otherwise, you're sort of forced to do exactly what you did -- bid 5 ♦ -- because there's just no way to have a clue about what partner holds. If that ambiguity means you occasionally miss a biddable cold slam, that's just the way it is with the methods you're using. You might also want to keep track of how often you make a Fishbein penalty double and how often you lose something because of being forced to make an artificial TO bid. Then you might have some documented results with which to revisit using Fishbein.

With a 5 loser hand, I'm raising to 3 ♠. Partner is likely to have at least 2 ♠, but can't take further action because your hand could be something like ♠ AQxxx xx AJxx xx. So, it's important to invite with this big player you hold and give partner a chance to bid on with useful values. If 1 NT is NF (as seems to be indicated here), partner could have up to a decent 9 count. Partner will know you've got something like a chunky 5-4 or the player you have to invite game, so is well placed to go on with helpful cards.

I think this auction is one of those areas where partnerships need to have some minimal agreements about what is a potential drop dead bid. This is similar to what partnerships need over reverses. If responder doesn't make the potential drop dead bid than it should be a positive and thus be a virtual GF. Logically, I think that the bid should probably be a return to opener's 1st bid suit. Most of the time, jump shift rebids are made in a lower ranking suit, so the "preference" retains bidding space for opener to complete the description of his/her hand.

I couldn't decide what to vote for because of the ambiguity of what 4 ♦ meant. At the table, I'd probably decide to do what you did and simply bid 5 ♦. It's probably worthwhile discussing with your partner what jumps over preempts promise. I think a narrow meaning is necessary because the jump robs your side of so much valuable bidding space. With my partners, I'd take a jump as setting trump and saying "This is what I think I can make." That gives advancer some basis for action. Then any further bids by advancer should be control showing. It may not be perfect, but offers some opportunity to find slams that might otherwise not be bid. Looking at your partner's hand, I think it's more of a double then bid 4 ♦ hand as it has 5 losers.

It doesn't look like you've got more than a part score. So I'm not sure DBL is right here. Any positive is a par result in part score hands at IMPs.

Once 3 NT is bid, it's virtually impossible to get to the ♣ slam. Even without the 3 NT bid, I'm not sure there is an easy route to 6 ♣ as virtually every card in both hands is carrying its weight and then some. From the 50,000 ft. level it's easy to see the slam is there, but maybe not so easy to figure out at the table. But the objective at IMPs is to find the best game not necessarily the highest scoring game. With opener showing 9+ black cards, ♦ have to be concern at NT. As MrAce points out, there are hands where 3 NT doesn't make but 5 ♣ and 6 ♣ do. Not being familiar with your methods, I'm thinking maybe 3 ♦ here instead of 3 NT asks for ♦ help for NT which should get you to look for the ♣ game.

I agree completely with Mr. Ace. If opener had something like -- Void Axx KJ9xxxx Kxx --- where there's not enough for game, then opener has to pass and let partner struggle in 3 ♠. I know that may not be ideal, but on misfit hands you just shouldn't keep on bidding trying to "improve" the contract. Normally all you're doing then is rising the set penalty. So any action over 3 ♠ has to suggest a maxi minimum opener and be an attempt to find game. If opener had 2+ ♠, then raising ♠ would be right. So any other bid denies ♠ tolerance. I like 3 NT as it shows the side suit stoppers and may be the best spot if responder has a broken ♠ suit.

With all the example hands, you make the weakest bid available whatever your agreement is with your partner that should be. Years ago, it was normal to preference back to the reverser's first suit with a weak hand. But normally that pushes your side up to the 3 level. So, it's been normal for a long time now to use some mechanism to keep the bidding lower when showing a weak hand and use the return to reverser's first suit as a fit showing positive. Stephen Tu has done a good job enumerating those methods. The changes were made to free up bidding space for the reverser to further describe his/her hand when responder has a weak hand. It also made it easier to show a fit for reverser's 1st suit and also save some bidding space for exploring for the right contract..

Cyberyeti makes a good point. What these players fail to realize is that opener has a big hand and can envision slam if responder has help usually in the form of a specific control or two. So the cue isn't a request about how responder feels about his hand. It's a request for specific information about controls. I thought Stephen Tu's summary was excellent. I would add that the impetus for cue bidding is often that the person envisioning a possible slam can see that there may be 2 losers in a particular suit. So that person needs to know that a control in that suit exists before pushing on. A slight change to the example hand might illustrate this -- ♠ KQJxxx ♥ Qx ♦ AK10xx Here again you can cue 4 ♣. But the difference is that if responder doesn't cue 4 ♥ indicating a ♥ control, you pass the 4 ♠ bid because you know 2 ♥ losers exist. If responder shows a ♥ control, then you can proceed with RKCB to find if responder has the 2 keycards to make slam a good bet.

Since the bridge playing population is getting older, morning and afternoon game times are preferable as most older people don't like to drive after dark. Years ago, when most bridge players were working, you'd definitely want to have evening games to allow those working to play. Another consideration is exactly where you are going to draw players from for the tournament. If you are in a big city, densely populated area where lots of player are nearby, you may have a little more flexibility in scheduling the sessions. OTOH, if you're in a more sparsely settled area, a little later start for the 1st session in the morning may allow folks from a little further away to attend. It's particularly important in scheduling Saturday game times because you may get people to travel to your tournament from a little further away, stay overnight, and play in the Swiss on Sunday. Start times like 10:30 and 3:30 on Saturday certainly cater to the travel scenario. The play starts late enough that folks as far as a couple hours away can travel, play, and stay over without being overly worn out. Then they can relax in the evening and be refreshed for the Sunday Swiss.

I'm doubling 2 ♥ in the reopening seat and rebidding 3 ♠ over 3 ♥ again in the reopening seat. IMO, this best describes the hand -- strong hand, long good ♠. It doesn't work especially well on this hand. Against the universe of possible hands opposite this hand, I think this bidding will work out best more often. For me, bidding 3 ♣ in the reopening seat over 2 ♥ should shows 5-5 or better distribution. There's too much danger of settling into a bad contract. Give partner something like xx xxxx xxxx xxx and what's partner to do? If a pass is made and you don't guarantee 5-5, you may end up playing in your 4-3 fit. If you preference back to ♠, you may end up in 5-2 ♠ fit when you actually have a 5-3 ♣ fit. I refuse to open 1 ♣ when 5-5 in the blacks. More than a few times, I've seen the auction go something like 1 ♣ - 1/2 ♦ - P - 3 ♦ ? Now do you have enough to bid 3 ♠ and push the contract to the 4 level if no ♠ fit exists? Even over only a 2 ♦ call, it may be difficult reopening 2 ♠ with a minimum range hand. Even if you get the ♠ bid in, it can get murky about just how many ♠ you have.

I sort of like Mel Colchimaro's rule for takeout doubles => minimum of 10 HCP plus 1 more point for each card held in the opponents suit. So a 4-3-3-3 takeout double would be a minimum of 13. I like Mr. Ace's example, too. It has nothing in the opponent's suit. If you have a significant holding in the opponent's suit, but not enough to bid NT, then you're probably better off passing. With a 4-3-3-3 hand, you've 2 chances out of 3 that partner will bid one of your 3 card suits. In that case, having xxx and playing a 7 card fit may not be so good.

The problem with bidding a forcing 1 NT response with 4 ♠ is exactly the problem you encountered on this hand. Openers with a minimum range opening hand, 5 ♥, 4 ♠ have no good way to describe their hand. 1 ♥-1 NT- 2 ♠ is a reverse and promises 17+ so overstates the hand's values. Any other rebid by opener makes it difficult if not impossible to find the ♠ fit. Normally, not being able to find a 4-4 major suit fit is not good bridge. Many years ago (40+ at least), Bill Flannery of Pittsburgh recognized this problem with the forcing NT and devised the Flannery convention. It abandons 2 ♦ as a weak 2 bid and uses an opening 2 ♦ bid to show exactly a hand with 5 ♥ 4 ♠ and minimum opening range values. Flannery is not universally accepted, but is fairly widely used. A smaller number use the Kaplan Interchange where a 1 ♠ response is essentially a forcing NT bid and a 1 NT response shows 4+ ♠. Those that do not use Flannery or KI normally require responder with 4+ ♠ to respond 1 ♠ instead of a forcing NT. There are even some experts who assert that not bidding 1 ♠ absolutely denies 4+ ♠ even with a 2/1 GF hand. Responding 1 ♠ ensures that a potential 4-4 ♠ fit is never missed. Whichever method is used to show ♠ on this hand, you'll get to the right strain -- a ♠ contract. Flannery users open it 2 ♦ and responder would invite with a 3 ♠ bid. After a 1 ♠ response (or 1 NT KI response), opener makes 2 ♠ raise and responder invites. Easy peasy.

Pass! I think anything you bid now is more likely to get you into trouble than not. Partner will never be able scope out that you bid on 0 HCP. At red pockets, that can be disastrous. If things develop where you can find a bid later, then partner won't expect much out of your hand.

You did all you could to sort out ♣. The 12 % score was probably due to going down 2 and some players giving away the Q on the J play.

At the moment of truth, you're in the dummy and know that the probability favors West holding the ♣ Q. But holding ♣ KJx in dummy opposite A109, did you lead the ♣ J and get a chance to gauge East's reaction to it? A lot of more modest players will either hitch holding the ♣ Q or automatically cover with the Q -- both of which can obviate the guess. If you did lead the J, got no reaction or cover, overtook with the ♣ A, finessed the ♣ 10, then you did everything you could to find the Q and took the percentage play. I wouldn't worry about the bad result because in the long run it was the right play.

This seems like a tough call for me. 3 ♥ is a virtual GF after 1NT as partner has to have at least some values to bid NT. Over a lowest level suit reply which could be on absolutely nothing, it would be game invitational to the extent that it suggests "if you have any excuse to do so, please bid game." An A, K, or fit would be enough. Partner has made a choice and bid 3 NT. I'd expect partner to have at most a singleton or void in ♥. With a doubleton ♥ and some positive feature, it would seem normal to bid 4 ♥ or make a cue rather than bid 3 NT. Assuming partner has something like J10xx or Q10x as a minimum stopper, what can opener have for an opening bid? At best, it would seem like opener has ♠ KQ at most. So, opener ought to have something like KQ in one minor and possibly some points in the other. But it could be that opener has some rule of 20 opener like KQxxx xxx KQJx x or a psyche, and slam is still a possibility. OTOH, the more partner has in ♠, the stronger opener is likely to be in the minors. I'm probably passing and sitting for 3 NT as the most likely positive. A duck in hearts will be odds on to yield 8 tricks out of your hand even opposite a void (4-3 break 62%-).

Exactly!! The 1 NT opener lies to the right of declarer, so Kx onside looks to be a considerably less than 50/50 possibility on the distribution of opponents outstanding HCPs alone.

4 ♠ seems right with a 4 loser hand. Slam seems remote as partner needs 3 keycards for it to be right. That seems like a tall order after partner just makes a simple preference.

If you decide to open a limited 1 ♦, then I think you've got to double as you've about the best hand you ever could have. If partner bids 2 ♣, I think you have an easy 2 ♦ rebid showing strength and ♥. There's not much danger in partner bidding 3 ♣ after an initial pass. If partner does somehow cough out a 3 ♣ bid, I think you seat. It certainly looks like you've 4 tricks for partner if not any ♣. Passing out 1 ♠ is unlikely to get you anything at matchpoints.

Great comment! Therein lies the rub. The lighter you open, the stronger your 2/1 GF response needs to be to ensure game is a reasonable place to be. This then means you have to use a forcing NT response for a greater range of hands. This puts a strain on the forcing NT sequences to distinguish between all these hands. So the issue is at what point does your inability to definitively describe these hands after the forcing NT result in worse outcomes than any advantage opening light might gain you. The other issue is the one this thread started to address. As you expand the range of your openers, how does opener define what kind of opener he has to responder. Neither of these issues is trivial. Every pair has to choose some minimum values for openers that yields the best results for them.

I'm an old fashion QT counter as part of my evaluation of opening bids. My standard 12 HCP and 2 QT, but will consider opening 11 HCP 2 1/2 QT hands. So I'm opening AQxxx KQx xxx xx, but passing the other two hands. Qxxxx Kxx Qxx Ax has only 1 1/2 QTs and other flaws (dangling honors). xxxxx Qxx Axx KQ has 2 QTs but again has flaws (no honor in long suit, a dangling honor, doubleton honor).

It's a solid 12 pointer, 2 QTs, 7 losers, so you should take some action. I'm bidding 2 ♦ to show where my values are. I'd do it at any form of scoring, but think it's especially important at MPs as a potential lead director and help to partner on defense. It also has the secondary effect of making it a little more difficult for the opponents to find a possible ♠ fit by taking away 1 ♠ as a bid. Also, LHO may not be strong enough or have the right hand to make a negative double.

There are different approaches to 2/1. First, some people play that 2/1 is an absolute game force. Others play 2/1 as a game force except if responder rebids their suit. If I read your comments right, then your approach is to bid the pattern or features of your hand then try to decide what level you belong at. A potential problem with this approach is determining exactly what the assets between the hands are because no one has limited their hand. I'm sure there are hands where patterning out may allow finding slams on minimum values that are otherwise unbiddable. But I'd bet that there are also some hands where game versus slam gets somewhat murky neither partner has fully defined the total extent of their assets. An alternate approach is to let opener say something about their assets with their rebid. This means having rebids that indicate minimum opening values limiting responder's expectations about opener's hand. These rebids don't show pattern, but do provide some valuable information about the size of the assets in opener's hand. So in that sense, they are starting to define the potential level belonged at rather than pattern. When opener doesn't make the "minimum" rebid, then the rebid shows both extras and a feature. So by the time responder gets to rebid, some estimate of the total assets between the two hands is available. But, of course, less is known about the pattern of the hands. So there may be some minimum value pattern hands where you miss slam, but more certainty of game versus slam on others because of better definition of the total assets held. I'd suspect there might be some other variations that are hybrids between these approaches that others play. Using the "assets" first approach, opener defines the hand as a minimum and let's responder drive the auction from there. What that minimum bid is depends on the pairs bidding agreements but is normally 2 ♠ or 2 NT. If nothing else, it complies with a principle of good bidding that in any auction one should limit one's hand as soon as one is able to do so. For most people, a 2 ♥ rebid promises 4+ ♥ but not necessarily extras. The main problem with bidding 2 ♥ on this hand is that it will be difficult to convince responder that you don't have 4 ♥ when a ♥ fit exists. Sure it lets responder bid 2 ♠ to set ♠ as trump, but what should opener do after that other then bid 4 ♠ as a signoff? I can see some advantage to this approach if responder holds something like ♠ xx ♥ xxx ♦ AKQJx ♣ KJx as it will let responder bid NT.