rmnka447

I'm opening this hand 1 ♦ rather than 1 ♣. This auction, IMHO, shows why. After 1 ♦ - (3 ♠) - Dbl - P - ?, you'll have an easy 4 ♣ bid. Whatever partner does next will probably be right. With the actual auction, whatever you do may deceive partner to an extent. 4 ♣ sounds like ♣ length. 4 ♦ sounds like you have longer ♣ than ♦. 4 ♥ may end up getting you to a 4-3 fit. So I opted out because 1 ♦ wasn't opened. If I had to choose a bid in the actual auction, I'd probably choose 4 ♦ also as the least offensive lie.

I'd pass West's 4th seat hand -- an ugly 11 and only 1 1/2 QTs. Once West opens, I agree with a negative double by East.

Once South opens 1 ♥ a probable slam comes into view for North. North should see that with a stiff ♠ and ♣ KQ there is no potential for 2 losers in any side suit. Typically, that will push North towards using the ace/keycard bid. If North's hand were ♠ Jx ♥ K1053 ♦ AKQ9 ♣ KQ6, then before committing to slam North would need to assure there are not 2 ♠ losers. That would push the auction towards cue bidding so that a ♠ control could be identified before getting too high. I agree with Cyberyeti's auction if South would interpret 1 ♥ - 4 NT as RKCB/1430. If not, Stephen Tu's comments are apropro. Just use Jacoby and follow it with RKCB. Perhaps, 1 ♥ - 2 NT 3 ♦ - 4 NT 5 ♠ - 6 ♥

4 ♠ seems like a pretty extreme bid to me. South does have some information available when two passes occur after the 2 ♥ bid. First, RHO (East) didn't raise which implies probably no more than a couple ♥. That would seem to put 4 ♥ in the North hand. Second, North was unable to find a bid over 2 ♥. Holding some ♥ length, the hand may not be suitable for a double with shortness in one of the outside suits, or, just not enough values to bid. The pass also denies a suit and values to overcall. With partner's deduced ♥ length, the pass also denies enough for a NT bid. The one thing that the auction doesn't tell is how the remaining values in the hand are distributed. RHO could have a good hand, but not enough to raise ♥ to game with a doubleton. Depending on how aggressively LHO bid 2 ♥, it seems like anywhere from 19-25 HCP could out there between partner's and RHO's hands. Assuming an even split, partner might have somewhere between 9-13 HCP in hand. 13 might be enough for game with a fit, but 9 certainly isn't. So, 2 ♠ seems like a more prudent bid. If partner makes any noise, then South might consider bidding on. Even being completely shell shocked, redoubling just can't be right.

I'm also bidding 3 ♥ here.

2 ♠ for me also.

Hand #1 - 3 ♥ playing 4th best, else 2 ♥ playing 3rd/5th leads. It sounds like we are going to need to develop whatever tricks we get quickly. ♥ seem like best chance. #2 - ♣ Q - It looks like ♦ A won't go away. Need to develop another trick quickly which will happen if partner has ♣ K. #3 - ♣ K - What else? With ♠ bid by LHO, ♠ lead is dangerous. ♥ might give away something and there's no indication of short trump hand ruffs. #4 - ♣ 7 - If they have 25 HCP, partner would hold 7 HCP so there's no preference for whose suit is set up. Red suit leads may give up more than ♣ lead. With dummy showing major shortness, both declarer and partner may have ♠ length.

It's probably remote, but partner could have something like ♠ QJxx ♥ KQJx ♦ AJx ♣ Jx where slam has no play. So immediately forcing to slam is a bit frisky for me. I think I'd go with the bids Cyberyeti suggested. But first things first, make sure you don't have 2 ♣ losers before you head for slam.

The comment about the erroneous detailed analysis called to mind a long gone player in our local games. He was a reasonably good player probably somewhere between advanced and expert. His bidding and play were a bit uneven partly because of the convoluted bidding and carding agreements he had. Yet, he always had these detailed analyses that inevitably were used to justify why what he did was right even if it got a bad result. But he was a sociable enough person that you sort of blew it away as "Well, that's just ______ doing his thing!" I was lucky to get to go to après cards get togethers with some of the best players in the now defunct local Friday Night duplicate club. We'd convene after the game at a nearby all night diner/restaurant/pancake house to rehash the game, eat, drink, and socialize. The best players were all pretty much able to reconstruct hands from the evening's play. Quite often, someone would have a question about how to bid or play a particular hand. We'd all get to give our opinion. Usually, these questions were to help a player gauge how to do better on that hand. Everyone would freely admit if they made an error or misplayed a particular hand. Even as good as they were, they were using the rehash to identify ways to improve their games or areas that needed work. And all, though fiercely competitive, they were polite and rarely said much at the table. For me, it was a great education about the game. Personally, I'm not able to reconstruct more than a few hands in any session. Usually they're ones that have been particularly successful or dismal failures. My favorite partner is often able to reconstruct hands several days after the fact. The important thing is not whether you remember the hands but whether you find the right bids and plays when playing them.

If you were going to compete, it should have been directly over 1 NT. Competing now gives the opponents a fielder's choice. Against weak opponents, you might get away with it, but a good pair is more likely to make the best decision if you step in now. Certainly you had enough distribution and enough points for a direct bid over 1 NT. Whether it right to bid 2 ♣ or 3 ♣ is up to you. By directly competing, you make the opponents decide what to do without much information. Putting them immediately to a guess is usually a good thing as they may choose the wrong option. One thing to consider is whether the other pairs playing your way are likely to compete over 1 NT. In a weak field, it might be a little more unpredictable, but they'd probably be a bit more unlikely to bid. If most pass, then passing now is likely to get an average or an average- at worst. Playing average against the best pair playing the other direction is likely to gain on the field. If you couple it with beating up on the weak pairs, you're usually following a winning strategy at matchpoints.

The key with Kelsey is to take your time and try to completely think through each hand. It's not about how fast you can get through the book, but about developing the analytical thought process required to find the best defense. You probably won't get a majority of the hands right maybe not even many right. But if you diligently do the work, by the end of the process, you'll be a much better defender.

If South doesn't have ♥ honors, then what kind of hand must be held to make a "serious" slam try? Also, I would think that since a double fit has been found that 4 ♥ must be a preference likely 5-4 in the majors. Holding controls in all the outside suits, I'd be very tempted to simply bid 5 ♥ over 4 ♥ asking about trump quality.

If partner had not slipped, I would see the bidding starting with -- 1 ♦ - 1 ♠ ? Now the question is whether opener rebids 2 ♣ or 1 NT. Although I don't usually do it, I think I'd rebid 1 NT here because of how bad the ♣ are. Now NMF will elicit a 2 ♥ response showing 4 ♥. If you play 4 ♣ as a splinter that would be a logical next bid. It should be at least a mild slam try as with just game going values and a stiff ♣ you could just bid 4 ♥. 1 NT - 2 ♣ (NMF) 2 ♥ - 4 ♣ (Splinter) 4 ♦ - 4 ♠ With responder showing shortness in ♣, slam remains a definite possibility, so opener continues with a cooperative 4 ♦ cue. Responder continues with a 4 ♠ cue. Opener can now use RKCB knowing that there's not likely more than 1 loser each in ♣ and ♠. 4 NT - 6 ♣ (even number and ♣ void) Now opener can invite 7 by bidding 6 ♦ presumably showing ♦ AK. It must also imply holding all the keycards (i.e has to have ♥ A) else opener would simply bid 6 ♥ over 6 ♣. So responder can bid 7 ♥ which is a good contract to be in.

deleted

North has interfered with a double. I assume XX shows values and that pass would be the weakest call. As West, I'm looking at a balanced 23 HCP hand with stoppers in all suits AND the auction hasn't gotten any higher than it would without interference. It seems to me that opener has an easy 2 NT bid showing the big balanced hand (23-24). When you can make a bid that describes your hand, why not make it? Once West makes that bid, life becomes simpler for responder. East can Stayman and then bid 6 NT. When West passes, the auction gets murky because neither player knows exactly what their partner is doing. I'd be much more in favor of responder bidding NT rather than showing ♠ on a 4 card suit. Over 2 ♠, I think opener should bid 2 NT rather than 3 ♣. It's more descriptive. With a 12 count and a ♦ stopper, I don't think that East can simply make a 3 NT call. It could be made on a lot less than 12. If you want to have the auction as up to the 3 NT call by East, how about East bidding 3 ♦ and then bidding NT later? That certainly would show a stronger hand.

Pass. They doubled 1 NT, so the transfer to ♥ is forced on any hand where you're unwilling to play 1 NTx and have a decided preference to play in ♥. It promises nothing else. Once they voluntarily bid 3 NT, partner should know you've got to be virtually without points. So partner's double must be made with some reasonable expectation of beating 3 NT in his own hand. If partner didn't want to let them play 3 NT, then a raise to 4 ♥ could have been made or some other suit bid. It wouldn't be unusual for partner to hold something like ♠ AJx ♥ xxx ♦ Ax ♣ KQJ10x where 3 NT always goes down unless they can score 8 ♦ tricks and a ♣ off the top. As a rule, it's almost never right to save partner when partner does something unusual. Trust partner! They may have a really good reason for doing what they are doing. Finally, if 3 NTx doesn't work out, it's not your problem. You didn't make the double and never promised anything with your bidding. It's much better to discuss the double than try to explain going for a number in 4 ♥ when 3 NT can't make.

I agree with those who play 5 ♥ asks about a ♦ control. So you have to bid on with whatever is your agreements when you have the control. Partner has taken control of the auction, so your main responsibility is to answer partner's question. To fail to do so is a breach of partnership trust which should be strictly verboten. If it turns out that 6 ♥ goes down because you've opened 1 ♥ too aggressively, that's a whole separate discussion. It's better having that discussion than trying to explain not getting to a cold small or grand slam when you have the asset partner is looking for.

The original formulation of bidding systems followed a logical way of doing things. But as time passed, people found that some bids would be more useful as something else because of the low frequency with which they came up and a plausible different way to convey the same information. Witness the double of an overcall becoming takeout (i.e., negative double) instead of penalty, 1 M - 3 M raise as limit raise instead of a strong and forcing raise, etc. In the case of the direct cue bid, making a takeout double then making a cue bid on the next round was found to be a workable way to show the big hand. The direct cue could then be used to show certain 2 suited hands that occurred much more frequently and proved difficult to show by overcalling and then trying to show the second suit.

I've been pondering over this hand for a while and haven't posted 'til now because of it. My first and continuing impression is that this hand is a tough one. West has a big hand -- 16 HCP, 4 QTs, 4 unadjusted losers. But the ♣ suit is a bit anemic -- K high and no spots. I suppose you might adjust the losers for the actual honors held and make it a 5 loser hand (1 1/2 in ♦ and 2 1/2 in ♣). Is the hand good enough to make a jump to 3 ♣? I'm not sure it is. But 2 ♣ looks like an underbid. OTOH, 3 ♣ is forcing on partner and may get you too high especially opposite a non fitting minimum response. If responder has something like xxx KQxxx xx xxx, then 3 ♣ may be the limit of the hand. East barely has a response. IMO, the stiff ♠ Q isn't worth much more than its singleton value unless opener shows something in ♠. So, I'd be bidding 1 ♥ more as protection against ending up in a 4-2 or 3-2 ♦ fit than anything else. When opener rebids 2 ♣, the hand does improve quite a bit. The doubleton ♦ is a plus opposite opener's known length. So is the extra length in ♣. But the value, if any, for the stiff ♠ Q beyond being a singleton is still in doubt. If you reevaluate solely on the ♣ A and distribution points -- 3 for the stiff and 1 for the doubleton, you're at about an 8 value hand. Maybe you make it an 8+ to reflect the possible value for the ♠ Q if opener has something in ♠. I think that puts the hand on the cusp of a 3 ♣ raise. Opposite a minimum opener like Ax xx AJxxx Kxxx, 3 or 4 ♣ might be the limit of the hand. Part of the decisions that either player makes have to do with how forcing 2 ♣ is also. Here in the US, quite a few players will play the 2 ♣ rebid as non-forcing especially at matchpoints. Then a raise to 3 ♣ has to be invitational. OTOH, if the 2 ♣ rebid is absolutely forcing, then opener has to allow for the occasional hand such as East's hand where the raise might be made on less than invitational values. What either player does depends both on their agreements and each player's knowledge of their partner's bidding tendencies.

That's what I thought also as the 2 ♦ explanation is usually the one you get when playing 2 ♥ negative. It's the reason I inserted the comment about the hand not fitting the methods.

I'm bidding 7 ♦ here also. Yes, you have shown a big hand, ♥ control, and ♦ fit with your 4 ♥ bid. But partner can't specifically know that you hold both the other side suit 1st round controls and all the solidifying cards in the trump suit. Partner certainly has to have the ♦ A as otherwise the 6 ♦ bid would have been made on ♦ Jxxx(...) which is illogical. If 7 ♦ perchance goes down, then maybe you need to have a conversation with your partner about the jump to 6 ♦. The key here is the undisclosed values that partner cannot by bridge logic know that you hold. If partner had used RKCB or other key card asking method and bid 6 ♦, then you should pass.

Yeah, you have 8 HCP and 3 ♠. However, you also have 1 1/2 QTs and a potential ruffing value to go along with them. The only "flaw" is not a low honor in ♠. Additionally, after the 3 ♥ bid on your left, your HCP got a bit more valuable as the preempting hand is less likely to hold the As behind your Ks. I don't think the responding hand is worth a GF bid initially. I would rate the hand about on the cusp between a simple 2 ♠ raise and the 2 1/2 ♠ 3 card limit raise started by bidding a forcing/semi-forcing 1 NT. At the table, I'm sure I'd start with a forcing 1 NT response and jump to 3 ♠ on the second round in an uncontested auction. After 3 ♠ is passed around to this hand, 4 ♠ seems right. Partner ought to have at least 6 ♠ for the 3 ♠ free bid. How much else is in the opening hand? You can't really tell. Opener doesn't necessarily have to have extras other than ♠ length. When RHO bids 5 ♥, I'm not sure you have enough to bid 5 ♠ although you have some ♥ distribution. I'd be more inclined to bid 5 if one of the Ks were any A instead. Then it would be less likely that you'd have 3 quick losers. So I'm passing. After 5 ♥ is passed back to opener, I think opener's in a forcing pass situation. With ♣s wide open, 5 ♠ also is tough to bid even with a ♥ stiff. But with the opponents pushing in ♥, it seems likely most of partner's points are in the minors. If so, then 4 ♠ seems like a pretty good bet to make with partner's limited hand, but 5 ♠ doesn't. So I think you've got to double and hope you beat 5 ♥.

4 ♠ also. You seem to have at least 3 1/2 tricks for partner and potential additional tricks in both ♣ and ♥ with plenty of entries. Unless partner has opened super aggressively with some real trash, game ought to have a decent chance of success.

Auction is fine so far. Partner could still have xxx xxx xxx xxxx. You're looking at 21 HCP. Give opener an absolute minimum of as little as 10 HCP and there's still only 9 HCP left for LHO and partner. There's even less if opener has a more decent minimum opener. Unfortunately, opener has opened 1 ♠ which blocks LHO from making a call over your double with lots of flat minimum response hands. About the only thing you know is that LHO either doesn't have enough points to raise ♠ or enough ♠ to raise ♠. But you don't know which of those it is. Partner's minimum rebid in ♣ doesn't tell you anything except partner has at least 4 ♣. If partner had found another rebid, you might have been able to go further. but that's not the case, so pass.

So how happy will partner be if partner holds a 4=4=2=3 and ends up playing 1 ♣? I'll bid 1 ♠ and pass the next round unless forced to bid again. But part of this is knowing if partner jumps to 2 NT, I'd have Wolff to get us out of the auction at 3 D.