rmnka447

I don't disagree with your point that once North raises ♠, 4 ♠ is pretty inevitable. However, some players may not raise with just 3 ♠ and a ratty ♦ suit where possibly declarer could be forced if in a 4-3 fit. Now, the auction I suggest becomes a real possibility. If, say, North for whatever reason then bids 3 ♥ instead of 3 ♠, you might end up in 3 NT. If North bids 3 ♠, 4 ♠ looks inevitable.

This hand is definitely a 1 ♠ opener. As eagles123 says, too much defense for a preempt, not enough tricks for 2 ♣. Make the hand ♠ AKJ109xx ♥ Ax ♦ AQx ♣ x, worth 1 track more, so 2 ♣ would be then be appropriate. So assuming you open 1 ♠, the main issue is "what do you rebid?" If partner makes a 1 NT response, or a simple raise, I'd probably just bid 4 ♠. But if partner makes a forcing bid such as a 2/1 response, forcing raise, or splinter, slam could be a possibility. So you need to keep the bidding open and, if possible, show partner some slam interest when you can. Logically, you'll rebid 3 ♠ over a 2/1 as the playing strength dictates more than a minimum rebid. Over a Jacoby 2 NT forcing raise, show your singleton with 3 ♣, then hope to cue ♦ next.

The down 3 result is more a result of an extremely bad lie of the cards then anything else. Maybe in Acol it's different, but IMO the South hand isn't an opening hand. 12 HCP only 1 1/2 QTs and a lousy suit would tip me to passing this hand. Once South opens the hand, I think North bidding 4 ♠ is inevitable. If instead the hand is passed to North, you may still get to 4 ♠, but possibly some people are passing short of game or getting to 3 NT which is a make. P - 1 ♦ 1 ♠ - 2 ♦ 2 NT - ?

2 ♠ is absurd with the West hand. If West would bid anything, it might be a very aggressive T/O double. The revaluation of opener's hand should take into account any information that is available from the auction. Here with the West hand bidding 2 ♠, the ♠ Q76 has to be devalued considerably because they sit under the honors West is sure to have.

Interesting question from OP. Opener has the opportunity to show his/her values with a bid over the double. So 2 ♦ should show 5 ♦ no 4 card major, 2 ♥ 4+ ♥, 2 ♠ 4+ ♠. Pass and XX suggest some sort of ♣ holding, but I'm not sure that I agree with Phil. If pass is made intending to pass responder's redouble reask about the majors, then NT bidder puts himself in the position of possible playing 2 ♣xx opposite a void or stiff. Wouldn't it be better to redouble to show 5+ ♣ and let responder make the decision whether to play 2 ♣xx? Then pass would show either 3-3-4-3, 3-3-3-4, or some holding with 4-4 in the minors. After 2 ♥ in the actual auction, a lot depends on whether you use transfers or not. If you use transfers, then 2 ♠ is an undefined bid as with 5 ♠ and not 4 ♥ a transfer would be used instead of Stayman. If you don't use transfers, then 2 ♠ should be 5+ invitational. So with transfers, you could redefine 2 ♠ and use it perhaps to show invitational values without a stop. Then 2 NT could be an invite with a stopper. Undiscussed I would think responder's 2 NT just shows invitational values and not a ♥ fit. It might be that 2 NT without a ♣ stop is the last makeable contract. 3 ♣ and 3 NT by responder would show game going values without and with a ♣ stopper. Similarly, 3 ♣ and 3 NT by opener after responder's 2 NT would show similar holdings.

A cow flew by in my first response which I've deleted. I was pretty discombobulated and thinking the auction was something else. Getting old. In reopening seat, 1 ♦ could be anything. 2 ♦ should show something like 6 good ♦ and 12-15 count. So the choice comes down to possibly bidding 3 ♦ initially or doubling then rebidding/jump rebidding ♦. I'm probably bidding 3 ♦ because it keeps 3 NT in play and makes it difficult for the opponents to compete in the majors.

South can't know that North has ♥ Kx on this bidding. That's putting cards in partner's hand that it's not possible to know by bridge logic. That's a violation of good bidding principles.

I think South should pass 6 ♣. South has already bid what's in the hand. A transfer to ♥ followed by 4 ♦ must show slam interest and 5 ♥/4+ ♦. If North wanted to suggest or play a slam in ♥ then certainly 5 ♥ or 6 ♥ are available. And by bidding both red suits, South implies shortness in the black suits. North's bid of 6 ♣ isn't asking, it's telling. It says "I've heard the description on your hand and I want to play 6 ♣." If North goes down because South has a singleton ♣, that's North's problem. The moral is that when partner does something unusual, don't "save" partner. There may be good reason for partner doing what they did. Since you don't know for sure what's in partner's hand, you must trust that partner made the right decision.

delete

You should pass in a flash.

2 NT for me. When one bid can describe your hand, why not use it?

Lots of viewers (some are me looking at it several times), but no replies so this isn't an easy problem. Guess I'll take the plunge. Ok, it doesn't hurt to do a little analysis first. You have 10 high card points and dummy has 5. If declarer has an absolute minimum, say 11 HCP, that adds up to 26 total outside of partner's hand. So partner could have at most 14 HCP. Opener's hand is limited by the failure to make a game try so is likely to have no more than a bad 15 count which leaves partner with at least 10 HCP. Also, it would be usual for partner to cover and win the ♠ K with the ♠ A. So, we can place the ♠ A in opener's hand. If partner held the ♥ J10 the normal play would be the ♥ 10 from that holding, so it's likely opener has that card, too. Partner signaled an odd number of ♠. Partner cannot hold 5, else opener would duck and win the stiff ♠ A. Declarer is also unlikely to hold 5 ♠ (and partner 1) as the auction likely would have been different. (Opener would have to have 6 ♥ to bid ♥ first holding 5 ♠ and the auction surely wouldn't have ended in 2 ♥.) So partner likely holds 3 ♠ and declarer is placed with ♠ A and ♥ A10. This is IMPs so our objective is to beat the hand if at all possible. Looking at the cards and what we know - it looks like we potentially have 1 ♠ trick, 1 ♦ trick, and 1 ♣ trick in your hand. We'll also get at least 1 ♥ trick, if we make the right ♥ play. So we need to find 2 more tricks from partner to beat the contract. With all 4 As or 3 As and ♥ K declarer might invite. If declarer has a stiff minor card then one of the tricks in your hand may go away. If declarer holds ♦ Axx there's always an entry to dummy. If declarer is missing 2 As, then opener has surely opened with ♠ A and ♥ AK as there are hardly enough other cards to open with missing ♥ K. So it seems more likely partner has an A and ♥ K. Does the ♥ J play at trick 2 jibe with holding ♥ KJ or ♥ KJx? Partner might well play the J hoping declarer holds only the A. If declarer hold AQ(x..) or Qx(x..), the play of the J doesn't matter. But if declarer holds Ax(x..), the J forcing the A may alert partner that the K may be in partner's hand. If declarer is good enough to win the first trump trick with ♥ A and underlead ♥ K10x(x..), then I'm paying off. I'm ducking.

1 ♠ - Way too much defense to preempt. If you had only one A, then a preempt would be fine. If you preempt with this hand and similar hands as well as true preempt hands, then partner will never know when it's right to sac or double the opponents. Then there'll be a real problem.

Double. Your high cards make up for a lack of shortness in the opponent's suit. You got at least 3 cards in every other suit the prime requirement for a T/O double. So, you are not lying about your holdings.

I'm passing. If you do decide to step in with this hand, then you've got to bid 1 ♠ rather than 2 ♠. Give partner as little as ♠ x ♥ Axxxx ♦ xx ♣ xxxxx and 4 ♥ is virtually lay down. If you open 2 ♠, partner may never be able to explore for a ♥ fit.

I'm passing. If RHO had passed originally, you would have passed also. You have virtually nothing, so partner has to have a big hand to get to half the points in the deck. If you had 5-6 points you might contest figuring both had about half the deck, but with nothing best to let things lie.

I'm adding an additional post because I wanted to limit the previous one to cover the basic bidding mechanisms. One bid that was left undefined was a direct 3 NT bid by opener over the NMF bid. I don't know that there is any agreement about what this should mean. However, one possible use might be to use it for any 4-3-3-3 hand. Especially at matchpoints, responder knowing that opener has a flat hand without short trump ruffing possibilities might swing responder to play 3 NT with certain hands.

3 ♠ in this auction can be a number of things depending on what your priority is in responding to the NMF. You can either "show support first" or "show other major first". My sense is that most people (in the US at least) play "show support first". But one expert I play with insists we play "show other major first". In any case, when you play NMF with someone, you need to make sure which responding scheme you're using. If you use "support first" then 3 ♠ should show 4 ♠ but not 3 ♥. If responder started out with 4 ♠, responder can now bid 4 ♠. If responder just has 5 ♥, normally responder bids 3 NT over 3 ♠. If opener had held 3 ♥, opener would have bid 3 ♥. Over a 3 ♥ rebid, responder with 4-4 in the majors bids 3 NT. Opener knows responder doesn't have 5 ♥ so must be 4-4 and carries on to 4 ♠ when holding 4 ♠. If you use "show other major first" then 3 ♠ shows 4 spades but does not deny 3 ♥. With 4 ♠ responder can again bid 4 ♠. With 5 ♥ and less than 4 ♠, responder bids 3 NT. Over this 3 NT continuation when opener has 3 ♥, opener bids 4 ♥ knowing responder was bidding to find 3 card ♥ support. Whatever your response priority is, typically 3 ♦ denies either 3 cards in the first bid (♥ here) or 4 cards in the unbid major (♠ here).

Certainly that will work for a GF hand. What about a similar invitational hand? Same sequence? I don't disagree, but part of the decision to use or not use it may be the extent you're willing to use Walsh (bypass longer ♦ suit with weaker hands). Also, in some cases, doing everything one way may be easier to absorb and remember. Take your choice. Right about 2 ♣ so you'd have to jump to 3 ♣ to force. As for jumps being invitational, I'm thinking back to Bergen's articles in the Bridge Bulletin back in the late '70s when he explained NMF and a lot of other modern bidding innovations to the wide ACBL audience. I believe by that time jumps were being played as invitational. But you hit on the important point that there was no easy way to show both invitational and game forcing. I just thought this was a good point to bring up to make a newer player aware of and to consider.

Well, what about a hand where responder has both majors? With something like ♠ KQxx ♥ K10xx ♦ AKxxx ♣ -, you can bid a major but then potentially lose the other major. So, NMF would be very useful here. The other big advantage for NMF is that it gives you a second way to show length and strength in a major you do hold. How do you differentiate between ♠ xx ♥ AKJxxx ♦ xx ♣ Kxx and ♠ xx ♥ AKJxxx ♦ Kx ♣ Kxx. The auction 1 ♦ - 1 ♥ 1 NT- 3 ♥ can only be used for one of them. Before NMF, in the US, a jump rebid was invitational and with the GF hand responder would have to make a forcing bid -- usually a "hasty" ♣ bid on 3 -- to force partner, then make the jump rebid if opener rebid 2 ♦. NMF gives you a cleaner option 1 ♦ - 1 ♥ 1 NT- 2 ♣ 2 ♦/♠- 3 ♥ shows 6+ ♥. You can take your choice as to which is the GF auction and which is the invitational.

I'm rebidding 2 ♦. I don't know that this hand is worth a game force unless partner has 5+ ♠. 2 ♦ keeps all options open and still allows partner space to show 5+ ♠ with a 2 ♠ bid.

There are two ways to play NMF. One is always to support first and the other is to show any unbid 4 card major first. Whichever way you play changes the meaning of the 3 ♠ bid. If you play "support first", then 3 ♠ shows 4 ♠ and less than 3 ♥. If you play "show the other major first", then 3 ♠ shows 4 ♠ but doesn't necessarily deny 3 ♥. So it's important to be sure that you are aligned on how you'll respond to the NMF bid over 1 NT. And it's probably smart to play the same way over 2 NT to eliminate any possible confusion. Here in the US, most people will always bid 1 ♠ over a 1 m - 1 ♥ auction when holding 4 ♠. So after a 1 NT rebid, a NMF bid after an initial 1 ♥ response is virtually always asking about support. I think that's probably why it seems like most people play "support first" here rather than "bid the other major" first. I don't see any problem with playing NMF over 1 ♣ - 1 ♦ - 1 NT either. It just takes time to work out the bidding sequences and what they mean.

I'm bidding 2 ♣ (natural)and am prepared to take full responsibility if it turns out badly at this vulnerability. At even or reverse vulnerability, I think bidding 2 ♣ (natural) should be almost certain for everyone. Over a strong and forcing 1 ♣, eliminating the 1 level makes life more difficult for the opponents. They essentially then have to figure out what to do with a much larger subset of hands than those where more conventional bidders start with 2 ♣. And they have to do it in essentially the same bidding space. If RHO has a strong balanced hand, LHO is very unlikely to have a ♣ stack. If LHO does have a stack, then RHO will likely have a distributional hand and be more likely to bid. In any case, neither opponent can see through the backs of your cards and will be under pressure to bid. That's not such a bad thing.

2 NT for the same reasons as Cyberyeti stated. You have a "good" 10 with good fitting cards in pard's suits and stoppers in the other suits.

I'm passing this hand, but will get interested if partner finds a reopening bid.