rmnka447

I have a flat, 7 loser hand opposite a 7-9 4 card raise. I'm passing throughout because I can't visualize a hand where responder's hand eliminates enough losers to make game a good bet.

No blame! I don't think the slam is a good one, so rate 4 ♥ as a normal contract. The question isn't so much seeing that partner might have the right cards for slam, but finding any realistic way to find out whether partner has them or not. The tools just aren't there in this instance. This isn't a slam I'd lose much sleep over missing. If someone else playing a strong ♣ system could get all the information and bid the slam, more power to them.

3 NT is egregious without a ♦ stop when West has shown 9+ black cards. It is putting cards (a ♦ stopper) in West's hand -- a bidding no-no if you can't infer they are there by bridge logic, East's bid should be 3 ♥ which shows something in ♥. If West raises to 4 ♥, then East should carry on to 5 ♣.

North's bid the hand correctly. Expecting North to bid slam with that scraggly 10 opposite an unknown but big South hand is not reasonable. It's impossible for North to know even if 5 ♣ will make. South has the hand with all the controls and can see that slam may be possible opposite the right maximum 1 NT call. So South has to be the one to initiate slam exploration. North's 4 ♣ call is positive. Once you get there, it becomes difficult to see how you can get the right information for getting to slam without getting too high. If you are stuck with 4 NT as your RKC bid, then you might get too high if North has 1 or 0 key cards. If you have some other way of asking below 4 NT, then South can ask and go on after 2 keys are shown.

Q1 - I'd raise to 2 ♥ with the given hand. You may get nailed, but the modern tendency is to raise with support. The raise takes up bidding space and may make it more difficult for the opponents to find their best spot. I agree that without interference a forcing 1 NT followed by 2 ♥ is best. After an overcall, you have some other bids (3 ♣ cue) to start showing stronger raises, so most players make direct raises a little more aggressively. Q2 - Systematically, I'd probably make a 3 ♥ with most of my partners as a preemptive raise with 4 ♥ per our agreements. I think the 4 ♥ bid suggested by many of the posters is very imaginative and probably better, don't know I'd find it at the table though. Q3A - I'd be expecting a little more with a 2 level free bid over an overcall -- more like 11-12+. The problem is that you may be driving partner to the 3 level if no fit exists for your suit. No matter what the strength it should show at least a good 5+ card suit. So with the given opening hand, It's right to raise to 3 ♥. Q3B - Your analysis is right, bidding 3 ♥ after making a negative double shows less than the values for a direct free bid of 2 ♥. So here I'd pass expecting partner to have somewhere between 8-10 and probably 6 ♥. Note that responder has another possible call after 2 ♣ -- Pass. Pass followed by a ♥ bid if opener makes a reopening double shows ♥ length and an even weaker hand.

For me, determining the appropriateness of opening a hand at the one level starts with QTs/defensive tricks. Hands with 2 QTs that meet the other requisities for an opening bid will normally be opened. Hands with 3 or more QTs will always be opened. Hands with 1 QT or less are never a 1 bid. For a NT bid, a hand needs the QTs along with the prescribed HCPs for the NT bid. Playing weak NT, as I often do, then 12 HCP and 2 QT in a balanced/semi-balanced hand are enough for 1 NT. The only exception is opening 1 NT with an 11 HCP 3 QT hand (which has to be AK in one suit and an A in another suit.) With 5-4-2-2 semi balanced hands, I'm looking where the points are concentrated. If they are concentrated in the long suits, I treat the hand as unbalanced and open in a suit (xx KQxx xx AKxxx). While if the points are concentrated in the doubletons, I treat it as balanced and open 1 NT (KQ Kxxx Ax Jxxxx). Since 12 HCP is the floor for a weak NT, except for the aforementioned exception, I don't usually open 2 1/2 QT 11 HCP hands 1 NT. Typically, I don't make too many adjustments for flaws/features, such as doubleton honors, but may if other factors in the hand make opening the hand borderline ( Pass - K432 KQ J753 K63, open 1 NT - K1064 KQ 865 KJ82, pass - A64 A85 K754 983, open 1 NT - 86 A108 AQJ109 1062). For 1 of a suit bids, I'm a tad more flexible. I'll open 2 1/2 QT with 11 or 1 1/2 QT hands with 13+. I'll make adjustments for plus/minus evaluation factors. I'll also definitely open any rule of 20 hand with 2 QTs and occasionally some with less ( open 1 C - x x KJ10xx KQ10xxx, open 1 C - Qxx QJx x AQJ109x). My experience has been good with this approach over many years resulting in winning a lot of masterpoints. There's no perfect answer because people do have different bidding styles and sensibilities. However, pick a starting spot and monitor your results from there.

3 QTs are enough to open any hand. So I'll open all hands with 3 As or even a hand with AK in one suit and another A.

I'm an old geezer, so 3 ♠ for me.

I would bid the hand as the Bridge Baron did. Stiff Ks and Doubleton Qs just don't carry full wait. The important thing is not counting them as both HCP and distributional points. I'd probably figure total they are worth 2-3 HCP and would reevaluate if partner's bidding indicated they were more valuable. Often LTC is a good backup evaluation method to help you with a hand. The original hand you cite is a 6 loser hand using basic LTC because the stiff K and doubleton Q just don't count as winners. That makes it more of a better than minimum but not game forcing hand. This would push me toward just a simple 2 ♦ rebid. The modified hand you suggest (x K109xx AKJxx KQ) is a 5 loser hand so definitely very close to a 3 ♦ rebid. Whether you bid 3 ♦ or not depends on your bidding style. With a somewhat weak ♥ suit and KQ tight probably not worth full weight, I'd tend to bid 2 ♦ with this hand and be aggressive over any positive response. And if the hand were x KQ10xx AKJxx Kx, it would be a 4 loser hand and certainly a 3 ♦ rebid. I'm not a Gazilli player, so can't comment on what's right playing it.

Sorry, but most people who play Gambling 3 NTs would have no trouble opening 3 NT in 1st chair with this hand. I'm bidding 4 ♦. If LHO has enough to punish me in 4 ♦, they probably have enough so 3 NT or 4 ♥ are a good bet. If they bid 4 ♥, I want partner to be able to take the ♦ sac if appropriate rather than have it go 3 ♥ - Dbl - 4 ♥ - P - P - ? and guess what to do.

Should you return a ♦? Some analysis might help with an answer. First, let's consider whether partner's 7 ♦ lead could be the top of nothing. Based on the cards held, seen, or played to the first trick, if partner's lead is top of nothing it must be from ♦ 72 as all the other cards lower than the seven have been i'ded. That would leave opener with QJ10985 to start. But with that holding it would be less likely that opener would open 1 NT and the play to the first trick would have been ♦ A to unblock followed by another ♦ to set up 4 more ♦ tricks. So, it appears it can't be top of nothing. So what else can it be? The obvious suggestion is that it's fourth best. The missing cards after the first trick are QJ10982. Three of the cards from Q-8 have to be held if it's a fourth lead. If partner held a sequence (QJ10, J109, 1098) of 4 or more cards, the lead would have been the top honor. If partner held an inner sequence (Q109, Q98), the lead would have the top of the sequence. Also with a near sequence(QJ9, J108) partner might well decide to the top card also. That leaves Q1087, QJ87 or J987 as the holdings (with or without the 2) from which a ♦ 7 would be led. Any other possibilities? It could be that partner decided to lead low or (rarely) middle from 3 to an honor rather than give something away from some other holding. If so, a further ♦ lead will help set up at least 2 additional tricks for declarer no matter what partner's holds. Partner is marked with at least a few HCPs. Dummy has 8, you have 11, and opener 12-14. That totals 31-33 between the three hands so partner has to have 7-9. So it looks like partner may hold anywhere from 4-8 count outside of ♦. So the possibility remains of a trick or two outside of ♦ for partner. Any other considerations? Dummy's ♣ could be a source of tricks. Partner can't hold 4 ♣ else opener would be bidding 1 NT with a stiff ♣. Partner can't hold a stiff ♣ and just 4 ♦ either because if 4-4 in the majors is held opener would be opening 1 NT with a stiff ♥. If partner can have only 3 hearts along with 4 ♦ and a stiff ♣, partner would have to have 5 ♠ and would likely have lead them instead of a ♦. In any case, it may important to knock out one of declarer's entries to dummy to possibly block the set up and cashing of ♣ long suit tricks. So it comes down to a ♥ or a ♦ return. At MPs, I'm returning partner's ♦ with the ♦ 6 . There's no reason to believe partner is not making an attacking lead against 1 NT passed out. It knocks out one of dummy's entries.

I think it depends on your agreements about when you'll bid 1 ♦ or preference bidding a major versus bidding 1 ♦. Walsh which preferences bidding a major over a ♦ with weak hands even has it's limitations. With the responding hand you show, a reverse into 2 ♥ would be appropriate without checkback. But how about if responder's hand was ♠ x ♥ Qxxx ♦ AQ10xxx ♣ xx Opposite your 17 point hand, 4 ♥ looks like a pretty good contract, but may not be so against an ill fitting 15. So, a reverse seems like an overbid. How do you show this hand?

I'm bidding 1 ♥ and passing any suit bid by partner other than 2 ♦ next.

I'm also with the out of your mind crew. IMO, a hand with 1 QT, 6 quacks, and 12 HCP of which 3 are doubleton honors in the opponents suit just isn't a takeout double. That said, I think Phil's auction through 3 ♦ is correct. 2 ♠ is still forcing as advancer has cued 2 ♣ so it can hardly be a landing place. It must be a search for a fit. I agree 3 ♦ shows the 3-3-5-2 hand. With 5 ♦/4 ♥ South might well rebid 3 ♥ rather than 3 ♦ (implying 3-4-5-1). I'd follow up with 3 ♥ looking for 3 NT if South has a ♣ stopper. With South's hand "known", 3 ♥ can hardly be a further search for a fit but shows a stopper and asks about ♣. Note that with something like ♣ Kx instead of ♣ QJ, 3 NT should be a good contract. It looks like if 3 NT is bid then there are 5 ♦ plus the ♣ stop in South's hand and North's 2 side suit As. And South is almost sure to have another K for the double. Without a stopper, I think 3 ♠ is South's reply followed by 4 ♦ by North. But I wouldn't be surprised to see more than a few North's jumping to game because of the double.

Assuming 2/1, Opener has a couple ways to possibly show the hand. After 1 ♠ - 2 ♦ 2 ♥ - 3 ♣ ? the question is whether you show the hand as at least 5-5 or at least 6-4. With ♥ such a terrible suit and responder showing a minor hand, I'd be more apt to opt for a 3 ♠ rebid than rebid the ♥. After the 3 ♠ rebid, I think responder should PASS. With such a terrible misfit hand, the normal game force cannot apply. This is one of the rare hands where 3 of major or 4 of a minor could be the final contract when playing 2/1. Such hands come up very rarely maybe once every 3-4 years but they do come up. They are always the result of badly misfitting hands which are likely to play much worse then the point count indicates.

+1 for Stephen Tu's comment. You don't have to alert 2 ♣ Stayman as not necessarily asking for the majors. Back in the old days, as someone alluded, 2 ♣ Stayman followed by 3 of a minor showed a weak minor hand. 3 of a minor directly was forcing. More recently, people are apt to use some sort of transfer auction for weak hands, bid 3 of a minor directly with an invitational hand, and use 2 ♣ Stayman followed by a 3 of a minor rebid to show a forcing hand. So there always have been and are Stayman bidding sequnces made without a major. But with your agreements, when 2 NT is bid after Stayman, the 1 NT bidder knows that responder may not have a major. That information needs to be available to your opponents, so it is the point where the alert needs to be made.

I'm not particularly enamored of West's 3 ♦ call, but chose not to criticize it not knowing the pair's preempting style. Personally, I wouldn't preempt with an outside 4 card major. Give responder as little as ♠ KQxxx with an outside A and 4 ♠ may be laydown. If one member of a pair wants to "operate" as East did with the 3 NT call, then IMO that person has to take responsibility for whatever follows. Nonetheless, once a player preempts preemptor's partner is in control of the hand. Preemptor's partner has a good idea what preemptor's hand is, but preemptor has no clue about his/her partner's hand. Also, it's better to keep faith with your original assessment of the hand than try to correct it later in the auciton.

East doesn't have the right hand to bid 3 NT. Yes, ♦ will run, but East has no stopper in 2 side suits. Chances of 3 NT making are slim at best. Furthermore, East has maybe 1 trick outside of ♦ and NO ♦ tricks if defending the hand. If East bids anything, it ought to be an immediate 5 ♦. The opponents may still compete, but finding a fit at the 5 level is pretty difficult and you'll avoid the double.

It's definitely a game try, and, as Stephen Tu says, subject to partnership agreement. The 2 ♠ bidder must have extras either in points and/or playing strength to try for game opposite your presumed 5-9 raise with 3+ trump. By far, the most players these days would be bidding the new suit as a natural bid game try or help suit game try. Both are very similar in that they are asking you to give more weigh to a good holding in the "ask" suit in deciding whether to bid on to game or not. If opener just wanted to be in game on the strength of your raise, then a 2 NT rebid could have been made. The difference between a natural game try and help suit game try is that the help suit game try is showing some weakness in the suit and asks you to bid game with a holding that helps reduce losers in the suit. So with ♠ xxx you should sign off in 3 ♥. But with x, Hx or holding a control in the suit, bidding game is usually right. I think you'll find that most of the time, you'll find that your rebid will be the same no matter which of these two types of game try are used. There is another possibility in responding to these game trys. If you don't have "help" in the try suit, then, you can bid a concentration of values in another suit if below three of the agreed suit. With ♠ xxx ♥ Qxxx ♦ xx ♣ KQ10x, 3 ♣ would be right after the 2 ♠ rebid. Opposite a random partner, I'd assume natural/help suit trys and bid accordingly. A few people play short suit game trys. They show shortness and ask you to bid on if your values are OUTSIDE of the suit bid. One other point is that many people using game tries define a reraise as a signoff to play. Here that would be a 3 ♥ rebid instead of 2 ♠.

3 ♥ which forces to game or at least 4 ♦ in a pinch, no reason partner can't have a doubleton ♥ or bid 3 ♠ looking for 3 NT if you have a ♣ stop.

It depends on your agreements for a new suit over an overcall. If you play a new suit is NF, not forward going then certainly East has a tougher bid. However, if you're playing a new suit is NF constructive, then there's less of a problem if West passes. In that situation, if West can't find a call over 2 ♠, then 3 NT probably isn't a good contract. IMO both players have overbid. However, I would give East the lion's share of the blame. East values are more illusory. ♥ AJ62 is less a double stopper than one might think with North raising South. North has enough ♥ to lead through East's hand to render the ♥ J questionable as a second stopper. Also, the stiff ♣ A automatically creates a blockage and may be a problem in terms of setting up and cashing any ♣ tricks West has. Give West a solid if nondescript overcall such as ♠ Kxx ♥ x ♦ Axxx ♣ KQ10xx and 3 NT is no bargain. East's 3 NT very much depends on setting up and running the ♣ suit as East's holdings outside of the ♥ suit don't suggest any other source of tricks (i.e. bad suits).

Pass. Don't want to give declarer any clue that things might be awry.

2 ♠.

Pass. Rather defend with what looks to be 4 sure tricks and no shape. I'm leading a low ♠.

At Trick 2, you've got to play low from ♣ A. BUT it's terribly important to learn to make the play in tempo without any hitches. That puts declarer to a guess as to how the cards lie. This is akin to another common situation where you're in front of dummy with Ax and dummy has KJ tight in the suit. Same situation -- play low in tempo without a hitch. It took me a long time to learn to do this, but once you do, you'll be surprised how often it reaps rewards.