rmnka447

Double, don't see an alternative as I think 4 NT would be RKCB. Bidding beyond the 4 level is unilateral and not very attractive holding a doubleton ♠. There's no way to know if you have 2 ♠ losers or not. If you do, then you have to take all the remaining tricks to make a 5 level contract. And there's no way to know if you can do that either. If partner is short in ♠ and want's to bid on, you have pretty decent cards for partner. Occasionally, I think you may eat the double, but preempts work sometime.

The problem is that playing 2/1, 1 NT ought to be either forcing or semi-forcing over 1 ♥. Since that makes 1 NT ambiguous about strength, I'd see a double here as a balance of power double telling partner it's our hand and wanting to compete further with no clear direction.

My mentor always told me when playing a hand to ask myself "Which hand is the master hand? Which hand am I trying to set up?" after the opening lead is made and before playing a card from dummy. That's the time you formulate your plan for playing the hand. Those questions can lead to determining what possibilities exist for playing the hand. Typically, the long trump suit hand is the master hand. But, occasionally, there might be a possibility for a short trump hand "dummy" reversal where you set up that hand. Looking between your hand and dummy, those questions lead you to a couple possibilities. One way would be to ruff out your ♣ losers in dummy. Another possibility would be to set up the ♠ suit in dummy. Some follow up questions need to be asked -- especially with slams " What can go wrong (bad distributions, etc.)? What can I do to get around it?" The problems are if ♦ break badly and/or ♠ break badly. But you may reduce your chances of making a great deal if you lose the first ♥ trick. And also, you might ask yourself "Are there any ways to combine chances?" If one plan doesn't work than you might have a fallback. You should see that if ♦ break 2-1 you can draw trump, pitch your ♥ loser on the ♠ A after unblocking, and ruff 2 ♣ in dummy just giving up 1 ♣ trick at the end. But if trump are 3-0, you have to ruff 3 ♣ in dummy and limit yourself to 1 trump loser which may be hard to do. The alternative to ruffing ♣ is getting rid of your losing ♣ on long suit trick winners in ♠. If ♠ are 4-2 or 3-3 you can easily set up 2 pitches in ♠ and still be able to ruff a ♣ in dummy if necessary. Even if 5-1 you'll have some chances if the ♠ honors are favorable placed or have a sure trick way of setting them up if you crash the ♠ 10 or ♠ Q when you play to the ♠ K. So, to keep both plans open you need to play to the ♠ K early. That way you unblock ♠ yet preserve what might be vital entries to dummy in setting up ♠. The risk you take is a ruff if ♠ are 6-0. But that is small compared to the flexibility you'll have if you find a 3-0 trump break. Win the ♥ A, then play a ♠ to the ♠ K. Play a low ♦ to the ♦ A. If both players follow, you can follow your plan to draw trumps and ruff ♣. Alas RHO shows out. Play ♠ A and pitch your ♥ Q. If both follow, you can then ruff a ♠ and have enough entries to set up 2 pitches on ♠ and still have a ♦ to ruff your last ♣. If LHO ruffs, you'll have 3 entries to dummy to set up ♠. If LHO pitches, continue with a high ♠ spot (J98) pitching a ♣ if it's not covered and ruffing if it is. One way or another you'll be able to set up 1 pitch on ♠ and 2 ♣ ruffs, or, 2 pitches on ♠ and 1 ♣ ruff. Note that once LHO ruffs a ♠, the next lead will allow you to get in and draw the last trump with a high trump entry to the dummy.

I pass. Partner has made a unilateral decision and the onus is on him/her. Partner doesn't have much information about opener's hand except that it holds at least 3 ♣ and 4 ♥. The opening hand could be anything from the hand held to a very flat 3-4-3-3 hand. But opener knows even less about responder's hand. So any action that opener takes is a complete shot in the dark. So it becomes a partnership trust situation. Opener should trust that responder had a good reason for taking control and setting the final contract. If 3 NT doesn't work out and responder wants to suggest that opener should have taken some action, then there'll be a discussion about why responder jumped to 3 NT in the first place. That's a better discussion to have than trying to justify taking an action over 3 NT when 3 NT is the last makeable contract.

Since you're playing weak (presume 12-14) NT. It's entirely right to open 1 ♣ with this hand. Having played K-S (Kaplan-Sheinwold -- weak NT, 5 card majors with 2/1, inverted minors) reasonably successfully for 40+ years, there are some accomodations you learn to make to improve your results. You might want to strongly consider some of these if you play in an area (US?) where the majority of your opponents are playing strong NTs. Here are some things to think over: - K-S made some adjustments to the NT response ranges making a 1 NT 5-bad 8 HCP rather than 6-9 HCP. Opener only raises to 2 NT with an absolute maximum 1 NT rebid hand (good 17 HCP). With less, opener passes. The 2 NT response is roughly the same as a hand you'd raise to 2 NT with over a strong NT nominally good 9 - terrible 11. A 3 NT response is better than that, - Since a 1 NT response denies a major, responder should try to respond 1 ♦ whenever possible with an absolute minimum response to allow opener the opportunity to rebid 1 NT with a flat 15-17 hand. So with ♠ Kxx ♥ J10x ♦ xxxx ♣ Qxx bid 1 ♦. But also consider it with with ♠ Kxx ♥ J10x ♦ xxx ♣ Qxxx. Now, if opener rebids 1 NT, you're likely on a par with the strong NTers, - Likewise, when opener knows that a 1 NT rebid will normally be made, opener should try to open 1 ♣ when ever possible. So with ♠ Kx ♥ KJx ♦ AKJx ♣ xxxx or ♠ Kxxx ♥ KJx ♦ AKx ♣ Jxx, prefer 1 ♣ to 1 ♦. That opens up more opportunities for responder to bid 1 ♦ and allow opener a 1 NT rebid, and, - On some hands 4-3-3-3 where you might consider not bidding your 4 card major over a minor in a strong NT system, you should bid the major in this system to again allow opener maximum opportunity to rebid 1 NT. Obviously, if you a balanced 15-17 with a 5 card ♦ suit, you have to bid 1 ♦ and accept that responder will be forced to respond 1 NT on some hands and play 1 NT in the opposite direction as most opponents The only minimum range opener that's opened in a minor is an unbalanced minimum hand. So after 1 m - 1 NT, opener simply rebids the opening minor to get out of NT.

Hand is no more than a 4 loser hand, so able to open strong 2 ♣. 2 ♣ - 2 ♦(waiting) 2 ♠ - 3 ♠ Showing 8+ and Hxx or xxxx in ♠ 3 NT Starts cueing denies 1st round ♣ control ..... 4 ♣ (1st round control) 4 ♥ (1st round ♥ control, no 1st round ♦ control) ..... 4 NT (waiting bid, not RKCB, still interested in slam) 6 ♣ (2nd round controls in ♣, ♦, and ♥, 3rd round ♣ control, no 3rd round ♦ control) Note ♠ must be solid. With a potential ♠ loser and missing ♦ A, opener wouldn't go past 5 ♠. ..... 6 ♦ (1st round ♦ control) 6 ♥ (3rd round ♥ control - focusing attention on potential ♦ loser) ..... 7 ♠ ( Looks like I've got you covered.)

2 ♣ - 2 ♦ 3 ♥ Forcing to game in ♥ -- big heart hand ........3 ♠ (cue) If opener has a big ♥ hand, responder's hand has gotten a lot better, so shows something in ♠ 4 ♣ (cue)....? Here's where the two example hands diverge, with ♦ void, ...... 4 ♦ with ♣ void, ...... 4 ♥ opener has a chance to go on with the 4 ♦ bid, but should be content to sign off with 4 ♥ bid.

You already described your hand. But partner's hand is unknown. Over a weak NT, it could be anywhere from 0 HCP to a good 10/bad 11 count. Why not bring your partner into the decision making process? With partner's actual hand, partner will pass if the double is passed around to him/her. 1 NT doubled with a nice 23 between the two hands looks like a pretty good spot to be. But chances are you won't be there. If RHO has a 13/14 count, LHO has about a 3/4 count and will be under great pressure to run out of 1 NT doubled. And on a not too infrequent basis, the opponents will stumble into a bad place -- like here if LHO bid 2 ♠ and partner doubled for penalties. If partner's hand is only 3 or 4 points, partner can redouble to start your side running from 1 NT. Then you can bid your 4 card suits up the line the try to find a fit. Here, you'd bid 2 ♣ and partner with 4 ♣ would pass leaving you in an 8 card fit. Yes, ♦ are a better 4 card suit, but when running you want to take your best shot at finding a 7 or 8 card fit at as low a level as possible. Bidding ♦ rather than ♣ first may shut you out of a good ♣ fit. If you bid 2 ♣ and partner instead has 4 ♦, partner may bid 2 ♦ and voila you've arrived in a fit. Your partner on this hand isn't without blame either. If I were your partner, I'd pass 2 ♦ figuring you had run out to a 5 card ♦ suit. I have no idea where your partner's 2 ♥ bid came from, very strange. If partner bid anything, it probably should have been 2 ♠. Then over 2 ♠, your right action would be to pass. You've found a 7 card fit and any further bid raises the level of the contract and potentially the level of the penalty incurred. There are some things to be learned from this hand -- o If you've described your hand, then let partner help decide where to play. Partner knows pretty much what you have, you don't know what partner has, o If you side is willing to pass out 1 NT, if you run, try to land in a fit as cheaply as possible, don't bid on hoping for a better fit, o If your side is willing to pass out 1 NT, 3 NT is almost never right to bid, and, o As one expert said many years ago "Pass is one of the most underrated calls in bridge".

If ♣ were flimsy, I'd prefer 1 NT say with something like ♠ A109x ♥ AK ♦ Kx ♣ Kxxxx. But with the actual hand given, I'm definitely in the 1 ♣ opening camp. As for the rebid after a 1 ♣ opener, I'd bid 2 NT. You have a 17 count hand with additional positives -- a good 5 card suit and working intermediates. That should pose no problem for finding a ♠ game if you have the tools to discover it over the 2 NT rebid.

I'm passing this hand after partner bids 6 NT. I am in no position to know what partner has bid 6 NT on. Partner has taken control of the hand and placed the contract. If it's wrong that's on partner. If necessary, it's better to discuss in the post mortem why partner did it and went down than to try to defend why you "saved" partner and pulled defeat from the jaws of victory. When partner does something unusual, it just may be that partner has a really good reason for doing so. Part of being a good partner is to trust and respect your partner's decisions.

If new suit bids are forcing, I'm bidding 3 ♥. If partner doesn't support ♥ and bids 4 ♣, then I'll feel more comfortable bidding 5 ♣. The problem is finding partner with ♥ xxx and having the opponents cash 3 tricks -- either the ♥ honors or some combination ♥ honors and a ruff in a 5 ♣ contract. But if partner doesn't support ♥, then partner probably has a doubleton ♥ at most and 5 ♣ is a bit safer. The downside is that it may enable the opponents to enter the auction in ♦. OTOH, a ♥ bid might deter a ♥ lead. If new suits are not forcing, I'd bid an immediate 5 ♣.

No, at this high level, you just try to get to a good spot versus the perfect spot. Unless the doubler can do so, it's pretty hard to discern whether 5 ♥ is better than 5 ♦ because it also makes and scores more. Tell your story and let partner decide, then accept the result.

I am also fine with 1 ♥. The question is "What is your basic agreement concerning a new suit bid by partner over your overcall?" What ever it is, it's probably best to retain it over interference, especially with a new partner. Assuming it's nfc, then pass seems right with your hand. Partner knowing 2 ♠ could be passed has to have a pretty decent ♠ holding to come in freely at the 2 level. Partner's ♠ holding might or might not be useful at a ♥ contract. However, your HCs should be useful to partner in 2 ♠. So let partner play the hand.

I'm basically in agreement with monikrazy on the auctions. After 1 M - 1 NT 2 ♦ - 3 ♣ opener normally passes unless a maximum as you're showing a hand with just long ♣. So 2 NT by responder becomes sort of a 9-11 catchall invitational bid.

I'm with helene_t on this one. One of the reasons you bid on is the stiff ♠. You know there's only 1 ♠ loser, but partner may well be looking at ♠ xx and be uncertain what to do if the auction is passed back to him/her.

I think 2 ♦ is OK. I agree that South should rise to 3 ♦.

I think North's bidding is way too aggressive. North has shown the hand already with the 2 ♠ jump shift. IMO, a simple 3 NT bid over 2 NT ought to show exactly what North has -- longer ♣ than ♠ and a flattish hand that North didn't want to jump to a 2 NT rebid on or possibly open 2 NT instead. North has a 19 HCP hand with a nice ♣ suit. If slam is to make, it's still a power slam that will require a good 12-13 by South to be a good bet to make. North has no way of knowing exactly what South's hand is, but the hand is still limited by the 2 NT rebid. South didn't jump to 3 NT which ought to show a bigger hand with stoppers. In any case, North ought to trust that with enough to make slam a possibility, South will make a try over 3 NT.

A trump. Opener's hand is limited, responder's hand could be anything. But if responder is preempting, the way they are going to make the most tricks is by ruffing. So it seems right to start cutting down on ruffs by starting with a trump lead.

I'm bidding 6 ♠. Partner has shown ♠ length and invited slam. You have a ♠ honor, all the outside 1st round control, and 5+ cover cards. Since there's no way to know if there's a ♠ loser or not, 6 ♠ seems right. If partner thinks 7 should be bid with your hand then maybe you both can discuss how to get there afterward. For now, just choose the good versus perfect result.

I'd bid 3 ♦ also. With RHO showing both majors, your ♠ Qx ♥ K have lost value -- worth something but not much. Since you have at least an 8 card fit and often a 9 card fit, compete and let the opponents have to start deciding what to do at the 3 level.

It's a solid 3 loser hand, so I'm opening 2 ♣. By opening 2 ♣ and rebidding 2 ♠, partner will know that I hold at least a hand with no more than 4 losers. With good ♠, I see no reason not to rebid 2 ♠ rather than 2 NT. If the hand were ♠ AKxx ♥ A ♦ QJxx ♣ AKQx, then I'd be more amenable to opening 2 NT. In that case, you don't really have a ♠ suit you want to emphasize and have mechanisms (via various Stayman auctions) to find good suit fits.

That's what I was thinking the bidding might be if you used J2N. There's no way to know whether that KC is ♥ A (= 2 probable ♠ losers), ♠ K (missing 2 As), or ♠ A (requiring favorable lie of ♠ K or good guess to drop stiff K behind the A). If you take the other possible route after J2N -- bidding 3 ♥ showing shortness, responder will probably just bid 4 ♠ and your done.

You have a nice hand, but like others I'd expect 3 card support. So, I don't see any way to move beyond 4 ♠. A lot of things come together for 6 to make on this hand -- no ♠ loser, ♦ run, etc. If the opponents bid it, they were lucky this time. Next time the rub of the green might well be different in your side's favor.

No adjustment or penalty. The result stands. E/W had a bidding misunderstanding. Bidding misunderstandings are allowed in bridge without penalty. neither partner did anything that was at odds with their individual understanding of their agreements. So their side is not culpable for the result. South drew inferences from the opponent's and his partner's bidding which is done at his own peril. His inferences might be logical based on what he thought was going on, but he was mistaken. Sorry, but that's the rub of the green and the result stands.

No, it isn't. Opening sub-par hands in fourth seat isn't likely to yield any better results than passing. The positives when you find a good contract/set the opponents are pretty much offset by an equal number of times you go down or have the opponents find a better contract. I've never been embarrassed to pass iffy hands in 4th seat. I'd rather save my bridge playing energy for hands which yield a competitive advantage.