rmnka447

I'm also pulling to 3 ♦. Double is penalty oriented -- probably a 4 or 5 card ♣ stack, but you have far less than partner has a right to expect -- virtually no defense against 3 ♣. Doubled part scores making are the kiss of death at IMPs, so you've got to pull it. There's too much risk of that happening to sit. At best, your side can have up to 20 points, but will often be less. Also, the ♣ void is a problem because it's often necessary for doubler's partner to lead a trump through declarer's hand to help set up tricks in partner's stack in order to beat the contract.

I'm laying ♣ A on the table at trick 2 and trying to decipher partner's card. The ♦ Q could be a stiff in which case it may be imperative to get our ♣ tricks in before Declarer gets a pitch on the ♦. If partner discourages, I'll return ♦ 3 at trick 3.

If I can't make a generic strength showing cue of 2 ♣, I'm certainly not bidding a Jxxx suit even at the 1 level. I'm bidding 2 ♦. Partner will have a chance to rebid 2 ♠ with a good hand and 4 ♠. If opener bids 3 ♣ and partner passes (light overcall), we're likely to get off to the right defense instead of a possibly disastrous ♠ lead. Once you bid 1 ♠, partner will almost always raise on 3 and everything gets muddled. But to the actual auction, now that pard has raised, I'd now bid 3 ♦. With the right cards maybe partner can find a 3 NT bid. If partner returns to ♠, I sit and am prepared to apologize if it doesn't work out.

I'm passing and leading ♦ A not that I think it will stand up.

4 ♠ Typically, partner will invite with a 6 loser hand or less. You've 3 pretty sure winners, so even though you don't have ♣ help you should go.

Definitely a hand where you want to hit partner's suit as partner can have up to 13 HCP. I'm trying either ♠ 8 or ♠ 6 based on lead agreements especially if opponents are playing 5 card major openers.

3 ♣ for me, too. Invitational, it also keeps all contracts in play.

3 ♦ to start.

3 ♠ in a flash. What's outstanding feature of your hand? ♠. It would be nice to find a ♥ fit if one exists, but tell you partner the main feature of your hand. If the ♠ are bad, say ♠ Axxxx ♥ KQxx ♦ Kxx ♣ x, then you might consider doubling rather than bidding ♠. Like one late great player I knew always said, "Bid what you've got!!"

Welcome to the boards! It depends on the quality of the 11 HCP (i.e. QTs) and the minor suits for me. If I'm looking at ♠ - ♥ KJ42 ♦ KJ63 ♣ QJ543, I'm passing. But with ♠ - ♥ 8642 ♦ KQxx ♣ KQJ75, I'm always opening. Generally, I'm not opening hands with 1 QT or less, using my judgment on 1 1/2 QT hands and normally opening most 2+ QT hands. Another consideration that impacts the above is "What will your rebid be if a 1 ♠ (your void) is bid?" The answer to this question can affect both whether you open and what suit you open. With a good ♣ suit, you can rebid 2 ♣ over 1 ♠, so may be a tad more aggressive in opening -- say ♠ - ♥ Kxxx ♦ Qxxx ♣ KQJxx. Holding something like ♠ - ♥ Kxxx ♦ KQJx ♣ Qxxxx, you could open 1 ♦ and rebid 2 ♣. But with something ♠ - ♥ KQJx ♦ Kxxx ♣ Qxxxx, you may pass because opening 1 ♣ and rebidding 2 ♣ is onerous on such a poor suit. And if you opening 1 ♦ instead and rebidding 2 ♣, a preference by partner to 2 ♦ may prove horrendous.

I'm bidding 4 ♥ on the second round followed by 5 ♦ the next round, if possible. Hopefully, partner will figure out that the hand must be something like 6-6 to bid that much.

12 HCP and 2 QTs are enough to open this hand. ♣ are a bit scrawny, but both ♦ and ♥ are decent holdings. Playing Standard American or 2/1 this hand is no problem. You'd open 1 ♦ and rebid 2 ♣. Bidding the 4 card ♦ suit first isn't that big a problem, as with something like ♠ x ♥ AJx ♦ KQJx ♣ Jxxxx you'd open 1 ♦ to avoid having to rebid 2 ♣ over a 1 ♠ response on Jxxxx. My favorite partner and I play our version of updated Kaplan-Sheinwold. This is our big problem hand as we reserve a 1 ♦ opening followed by a 2 ♣ rebid for hands with reversing values. One possible solution is to play Mini-Roman which some of our K-S teammates do. But we have had so many good results reserving a 2 ♦ opening for Flannery that we just never find enough incentive to switch. Our solution is simply to rebid 2 ♦ over 1 ♠ which defines the hand as a minimum range unbalanced hand with ♦.

Once West opens 2 ♥, I think it's virtually impossible to bid slam. The tools are just not available for East to get enough information to visualize 12 tricks are possible. If East uses a forcing 2 NT, West would reply 3 ♥ (good hand, bad suit) playing Ogust or 3 ♦ playing rebids show a feature. Now what? There's just not enough to do anything but for East to bid 4 ♥. So, the slams probably are being bid after a 1 ♥ opening. One thing that will do is make it harder for East to envision that West has as minimum values as are held. After a basic Jacoby 2 NT, it could go something like this: 1 ♥ - 2 NT(Jacoby) 3 ♠(shortness) - 4 ♣* 4 ♦* - 4 ♥(waiting) 4 ♠*(void) * - cues and now East may will push toward slam figuring West has to have something more in ♣ to open. For me, it would be a close call, but I'd probably open 1 ♥ as it satisfies Rule of 20 and has 2 QTs. I don't have a problem if my partner held the hand and opens 2 ♥ though.

This looks to me like a make up double. You know -- "I've underbid my hand the first time and now I'll try to make up for it on the second round." If bidding 2 NT the first round was right, then I think you've got to "stay fixed" and pass the second round. The problem with bidding on is that you don't know if partner has anything. Contracting at the 3 or 4 level may be quite dangerous without a known fit or source of tricks. One big problem with a really big hand is that partner may not be able to enter their hand to lead toward dummy. I think in the actual auction, the double is take out. If you had a 2 NT hand with enough to defeat 3 ♥, then you'd sit and take your positive.

6 ♦ This is a momentum auction. Holding 6 cover cards and the top ♦ is huge. Partner's bidding is insane if 5 ♦ was bid having 2 ♣ losers and missing ♦ AK. Partner might well be able to posit that you hold at least one of the top honors but not both. So if partner has a legitimate 5 ♦ bid, then you have a raise to 6 ♦. I will make the caveat that if your partner is known to be a super aggressive bidder, you might take pause and pass.

I'm with gszes and bidding 4 ♣ next.

+1 for ArtK78's comments.

I'm sorry but on the actual auction I'm giving North a huge share of the blame for the final pass. North is looking at all 4 Ks. It seems likely that at worst South has opened on at least 2 As and has long ♦ after the 3 ♦ bid. Since the pair are playing weak NTs, free bids by opener show extras in distribution or values. A pass would show the minimum unbalanced ♦ hand. So with something like ♠ xxx ♥ AJxx ♦ AQxxx ♣ x, opener has to pass. But with ♠ xx ♥ AJx ♦ AQxxxx ♣ xx or the actual hand held, 3 ♦ can be bid. In either case, 3 NT looks to have a good play by North and should be bid.

AMEN!!! Earlier this year, my favorite partner and I played against a young pair in a regional 2nd bracket KO semi-final. They played some variation of a strong club system with 2 level bids showing strong majors hands. They provided pre-alert materials to explain what they played. They appeared nervous. I'd bet it was their first time in a semi-final. My partner and I recorded several solid results and the pressure mounted. Then the wheels came off when they had trouble finding the right bids according to their system. I think this is a good example of the importance of being completely comfortable with what you play under any conditions. OTOH, my local partner, who has had several strokes, and I play a very simplified card far simpler than SAYC. There are certainly times when those who have more tools have an advantage. Yet, we win more than our share of masterpoints at club games and tournaments including a couple 2nd overall finishes in recent years at Chicago summer regional A/AX (Unlimited/0-3000 MP) Open Pair events. In the end, it's developing good judgment and card playing skills that make you a winner. Certainly, it's OK to add tools if you can use them effectively in any situation. But, ultimately, you want to be comfortable with what you play so that your judgment and skill can come to the fore.

I'm a 4 ♠ bidder also. If partner wants to preempt on that dross, he deserves to find me with something like ♠ Qxx ♥ AKxx ♦ xx ♣ Kxxx.

It's important to review and be sure you have a thorough understanding of the possible bidding sequences for the things you already play. It's one of the real advantages of a long term partnership. This depth and detail of understanding gives you a huge leg up on most opponents. Even when you get into unfamiliar territory, knowing how your partner thinks and bids can help you figure out what's going on. I'm sure this "being on the same page" is at the heart of what world class pairs like Meckwell mean when they say they have hundreds of pages of bidding agreements. It's more important to be able to use the tools you have well than to have lots of tools that you are less certain how to use. Also, every new tool has an overhead in memory associated with it. That burden can have a cost especially when under pressure. So, be judicious in what you add. I think your partner's one thing at a time approach is a good one. One way to do that is to review where you have the most problems with the way you currently play, then find the tool that helps solve that problem. That's good in several ways. First, you won't be adding tools just to add tools. Second, you'll have a real reason and understanding of why you are adding the tool. Finally, you'll be able to evaluate if the tool has helped and how much it has helped. If it proves a dud, you have good reason to jettison it. I also agree with recommending Lebensohl. The place I'd start is with the Lebensohl 2 NT response to the double of a weak 2 bid. It does a lot to clarify what the advancer responding to the double has.

I also would start with 1 ♠ and rebid 3 ♦ playing 2/1 without full knowledge of any bidding agreements over 1 ♠. Over 3 ♥, however, I'm going to bid 5 ♥. There may some risk in doing so, but it the best I can do to suggest slam. Partner ought to be able envision that my hand is at least something like 4=3=5=1 or 5=3=4=1. If I were sure that 4 ♦ over 3 ♥ weren't passable, then I'd prefer that bid planning to raise ♥ over partner's next bid. IMO, that should show exactly the hand I have. Some might disagree because they insist 1 ♠ must be bid over 1 ♥ anytime you have 4 ♠. But if I've got a GF hand with a 5 card ♦ suit and 4 ♠, I'm bidding 2 ♦ and reversing into the 4 card ♠ suit on the second round.

One big problem with 2 ♥ as an immediate second negative is that it sometimes gives opener a difficult rebid decision especially with 2 suited hands. This is not a trivial issue. I've seen more than my share of great results from opener guessing wrong on the rebid knowing partner was likely to pass whatever was bid, or, from opener being unable to complete describing his hand resulting in a missed fit. So, it's pretty important to be clear about how the auction can proceed after a 2 ♥ response. The alternative is to play 2 ♦ as a awaiting bid and then have an agreement on a 2nd negative bid. Typically, these are either cheapest minor or cheapest suit. The only drawback is that sometimes you can't show a feature in the 2nd negative suit. I'm sure either a 2 ♦ waiting scheme or a 2 ♥ negative scheme can work so long as you've got clear agreements on the bidding. One other thing that's important is to define exactly what a "positive" response shows. I've also seen a lot of good results from misunderstandings about what they promise.

1) The hand should have reversing values and shows longer ♣ than ♥. The strength is needed in case "responder" has to preference back to ♣ with nothing. 2a) 2 ♥ at this vulnerability (NV), would pass V. Typically, wjs's show less than 6 HCP, otherwise would bid 1 ♥. If partner has a strong hand with a fit opposite a "6 and 6" hand, you may make too much. 2 ♥ should be a shutout bid. 2b) Pass unless 1 ♣ could be only 2, then you might consider a 1 ♥ bid. If partner ends up playing a 3-3 ♣ fit that may not be the end of the world. 3a) Pass, big fit but no distribution, would bid on with stiff ♠. 3b) Pass, same reason. I also think North doesn't have a 2 ♥ bid.

I'm starting with 2 ♣ also. I'll follow up with 3 ♥ over 3 ♣ to show the 2 suited fit. After cueing and key card showing 2 without the ♥ Q, I'm signing off in 5 ♥. If the answer had been 2 with the Q, then I'd have carried on to slam.