rmnka447

+1 for gszes's comments. If partner has only 7-8 with a ♠ stopper, the opponents have about 26. If partner passes to convert to a penalty double, how many tricks do you expect to take with a QJxxx and a K? Maybe 2 on a good day, very often less. Expecting partner to have 3 to 4 tricks on a 10-11 max hand to defeat 3 ♠ seems overly optimistic. You made your aggressive bid. Save the double for a chunkier hand where you'll probably land on your feet no matter what the opponents and partner do. So let sleeping dogs lie and pass.

3 ♠. Partner is marked with ♦ shortness, so may not have more than a minimum opening hand. If so, points are about even between the two sides with the stronger opponent hand behind partner. So I'm making the "normal" response of 3 ♠. I'd only consider passing if I thought we were behind and wanted to take a shot at a top late in the session.

Don't beat yourself up too much for passing. It's close. Most of the time the result is a part score/set one way or the other, but you can't predict which way it'll turn out. All you can do is use your best judgment and realize that if you do so, in the long run, you'll break even on the results.

I'm following up the transfer with 3 ♦ also. It still keeps 3 NT in play, but warns partner about my hand being mostly minor cards. If partner has good major stoppers and wants to bid 3 NT fine. Otherwise, it keeps all alternatives open. If you think bidding the minors gives the opponents too much information, then I'd submit that an immediate 3 NT bid certainly encourages the lead of a major anyway.

1 ♥, I'm an opener also. Without the plethora of intermediates, say, ♠ A5 ♥ Q7632 ♦ K ♣ K7542, I'd pass. I wouldn't criticize anyone who would pass this hand.

I don't see slam being bid either. It's a 27 HCP slam with only ♥ J wasted. The missing honors are ♥ AKQ and ♣ QJ. So, the 4 ♥ bid looks to have been made on ether if East has anywhere near a legit opener. Preempts work.

2 ♥ without any special agreements. If the opponents bid 2 ♠, back to this hand, I'll rollout 3 ♣. Of course, some of us old K-Sers would still play 1 NT as forcing in this situation showing the 9+ hand. If available, that would be my bid intending to bid 3 ♥ the next round. That sequence would be a slight overbid, but with the nice ♣s and ♠ shortness, I'll be a little aggressive.

2 ♠ transfer to 3 ♣ to start.

North has to bid 5 ♦. Even with a passing partner, if he/she can find one useful feature in partner's hand 5 of a red suit looks pretty sure to make. If you have a good 6-6 hands you've got to keep bidding. This hand reminds me of a hand we played some years ago in a KO semi. My partner and I voluntarily bid to 4 ♠ after opening a weak NT, but an opponent with a similar but a little weaker red suit hand kept bidding eventually ending up in 6 ♥ doubled. We couldn't bid 6 ♠ which would go down, but we still couldn't beat it enough to make up for the vulnerable game. Our teammates had competed to the 5 level, but not to 6 so the result was a critical swing for our opponents. It taught us all a valuable lesson which is that you should bid a lot with any decent 6-6 hand.

The holding in the ♦ suit between the 2 hands is key to the slam being able to make. I don't any way either partner can figure out there's only 1 ♦ loser. West should have some sense that East must hold something in ♦ because East can't hold much in the black suits. The most East can hold in ♠ is the ♠ J and the opponents should hold the bulk of the points in ♣. Unfortunately, neither partner can know for sure that there aren't 2 losers. So I don't see much blame to either partner in not bidding slam. Preempts sometimes work.

The Swiss I referred to was in the mid-late '70s as I recall. So, yes, it was way back there.

I'm passing. It might well be that pard won't be able to stand for the double and bid on. Advancer with ♦ and short in ♣ might also be able to ruff out overcaller's ♣ losers.

There may be some miscommunication going on in this brouhaha. I note PhilG007 is listed as being in the UK. So when PhilG007 refers to red points, it's unclear if the reference is to points earned in the UK on a different footing, or, possibly referring to points actually won in the US a very long time ago. Some replies seem geared toward "pigmented" points as awarded here in the US. In the US, way back -- red points were awarded only at regional/national tournaments and all other points (club games, sectionals) were just black points. Then the ACBL decided to add gold points to distinguish high place finishes at regionals/nationals. They also added silver points for points earned at sectional tournaments to encourage attendance there. Gold and silver point requirements were rolled into the requirements for achieving various master rank categories. I can recall finishing a regional Swiss with 6 1/4 wins (predating Victory points) and winning something like 8 or 9 red points. So, at one time, earning red points were a measure of some prowess. Alas, but no more.

I'm bidding 1 ♠ which is an exception to our agreements. But after a 1 ♦ opening, I don't want to potentially have to rebid 2 ♦ on ♦ Jxxx to limit my hand.

3 ♠

I'm starting with 4 NT RKCB. I'm almost sure partner is likely to have the ♠ A, but after 5 ♣ I may be able to glean more info about the hand by asking about the ♠ Q. Otherwise, I'll settle into a 5 level contract. If perchance partner doesn't have the ♠ A, I'll settle into 5 ♠ figuring that at unfavorable vulnerability partner isn't bidding 3 ♠ on QJ9 seventh and out.

Make the cheapest forcing bid if no firm agreement exists about NMF. Playing NMF, make the strongest NMF bid possible. So, if you play 2-way NMF make the GF bid. The hard part may be to decide how to proceed over partner's next rebid.

Hard hand, but I think North needs to act. So I'm sort of thinking along gszes's line about a double. I can't place any blame on South for passing after the 3 ♠ raise. The raise isn't necessarily weak, so rolling out 4 ♥ isn't risk free.

Playing weak NTs, we'd open the West hand 1 NT and thereafter be fixed by the system. Playing strong NTs in Standard or 2/1, the bids would likely be the same through at least 3 ♦ assuming 2 ♣ is a 4th suit forcing GF. Minor openers are much more likely in a strong NT context to be minimum hands, so it's easier to lose ♠ if you don't bid them. So, it's fairly rare to bid 1 NT when holding 4 ♠. IMO, the 3 ♥ temporizing bid was terrific. It sort of implied indecision about where to play and sought partner's opinion. East made the logical choice, but was a bit lucky to find 9 running tricks to go with the protected ♣ stop. Change the ♦ K into the ♥ K and 3 NT is more problematical.

3 ♥ This isn't a good 13. Unsupported honors with bad spots especially ♠ Q732 discourage me on this hand.

I agree with SteveMoe. Bidding is part science, part art. It's not perfect. So the best you can do is to bid to contracts that have a good chance of making. That means that just because a hand makes 12 tricks, it doesn't necessarily mean it ought to have been bid to slam. It also means that sometimes when you're right to bid to slam, you may not make 12 tricks. Hands that require 2 cards onside are somewhere about a 25% chance to make. That isn't very good, so bidding the slam is clearly wrong. Assuming your partner and you show an A or K as a feature, then slam is unlikely after partner rebids 3 ♠ and you should just bid 4 ♥.

The issue is "What does 1 ♠ promise?" If you don't have a clue, then you're better rebidding 2 ♦ planning to raise ♠ if partner rebids a major. BTW, with 3 As and accompanying useful cards, this is a "really good" 13 HCP -- I'd be more apt to treat it more like a 14 HCP hand -- before figuring how much I'd add for the stiff.

Partner is unlikely to have much ♣ wastage, if any. Partner cannot know there's no ♣ losers. So I'm bidding 5 ♠.

Sorry to reply so late, but was out of town. My preferred system (KS) uses 12-14 weak NTs all seats all vulnerabilities. I'm inviting 100% of the time with OP's stated hand. I think OP's partner is all wrong about passing 2 ♠. For Strong NTers, the bidding would go 1 ♣ - 1 ♥ 1 ♠ - ? Would those with OP's hand simply bid 2 ♠? I don't think many will.

I'm in the 3 ♠, then double camp. I believe in this auction, the ♠ cue shows a ♥ fit. With a generally strong hand without a ♥ fit, opener can Double, so the cue should show support.