rmnka447

Augie Boehm pointed out (in DEMON DOUBLES I think), one has to be careful about reopening with a double when void in the opponent's suit. An often vital feature of the defense of a doubled contract when partner has a trump stack behind declarer is to have a trump lead through declarer. It may allow partner to take advantage of a tenace position that otherwise might be compromised by an endplay later in the hand. If you are unable to do that because of a void, it may make the defense very awkward.

I agree with 2 ♦. ♦ are the dominant feature of the hand. Your hand isn't strong enough to double and then bid ♦. With the ♥ Q stiff and the opponents bidding them, it really is difficult to view it as any different than ♥ x. So to me the hand would be more like a 14 HCP unless partner makes a bid that indicates the queen might be of some value. Since many people play weak jump overcalls, doubling then bidding your suit has become the normal way to show more than minimum range overcalls -- typically 16+ HCP and a good suit. But there's another reason for bidding 2 ♦ first. It may let you compete further later on in the auction. For example, if the auction went -- (1 ♥) - 2 ♦ - (2 ♥) - P - (P), you could now double and you'd be showing just about exactly the hand that you have. Partner would know your ♦ must be decent because the double may force a preference to ♦ at the 3 level. If your hand were a little different -- say -- ♠ A10xx ♥ Q ♦ AJxxx ♣ KJx, double would be preferable as your diamonds aren't very strong and you'd like to avoid losing the potential 8 card ♠ fit. If you have something like ♠ AKxx ♥ Q ♦ AQ9xxx ♣ xx, I think you might consider bidding 2 ♠ instead of doubling after 2 ♥ is passed back to you. If you were 5-5 or 6-5 in these two suits, you could start with Michaels instead. So I'm thinking that 2 ♠ would show a good hand with probably 4 ♠ and 6 ♦ (Anyone else want to comment?) But more than anything else, think ahead about what second bids you might make to describe your hand to your partner and finding the right competitive bid will be easier.

If you think about it, with a 6 card suit, there's a continuum that starts with pass, continues on to a weak 2, then to an opening one bid. This hand falls just about on the cusp between the two. So you need to decide if the hand is an opening 1 bid or not. If the hand were ♠ xxx ♥ KQJ10xx ♦ x ♣ Axx, would you open 1 ♥ or 2 ♥? I'd guess most good players would choose 1 ♥ even only with 10 HCP and 2 QTs. I'd have no problem opening 1 ♥ with this hand. The actual hand has 6 ♥ to 2 honors but not a particularly good suit. OTOH, it does have 2 QTs. Is it a 1 level opener? If not, then logically, it ought to fall into the range of a weak 2 bid. If you say it has too much defense for a weak 2, then does that mean you wouldn't open 2 ♥ with something like ♠ Axx ♥ Q10xxxx ♦ x ♣ Axx -- again 10 HCP and 2 QTs? Pay your money and take your choice!!

As it turns out, North has a second ♥ stop with the ♥ 8 holding ♥ A8xxx. So only 4 ♥ tricks are available and you need a ♦ trick to make. The timing is such that a ♠ trick can be set up to cash before both ♥ A and ♦ A can be driven out. Practically, 5 NT will make most of the time as divining a ♠ lead from ♠ Q106 with RHO the ♠ bidder is very difficult. I know I probably wouldn't find it on this bidding.

deleted

West needs to bid again at some point on hand # 1. Think about the bidding! East has competed twice over 2 ♠ and 3 ♥ so must have a big ♦ fit. As someone pointed out, with a good hand and big fit, East might have jumped to 4 ♦ instead on bidding 3. But East doesn't know whether West really has ♦ or not. Additionally, North sat for South's 2 ♠, so is not likely to be stiff or void in ♠. That means that East should be short in ♠ and be ruffing behind North if they both are short (if, maybe 2-2). West can see that East/West have complimentary shortness. West also knows East is unaware of it. When it's there, the hands rate to take a lot of tricks in a ♦ contract on a crossruff. West might bid 4 ♦ over 3 ♥, but I could possibly see a pass not knowing for sure what East bid 3 ♦ on. But once East competes to 4 ♦, I'd find it hard not to bid at least 5 ♦ with West's hand. In an uncontested auction, I think it would be difficult to reach slam. The second hand looks more like a fix to me. It seems like every time you pass these hands, you'll find partner ♠ K10xxx(..) and 4 ♠ is lay down.

I'm looking at a 4 loser hand, so will open a strong 2 ♣ in a flash. I play a 2 ♦ response is waiting and cheapest suit rebid by responder is 2nd negative. Thus, 2 NT is 5-20 unspecified positive. Other suit rebids by responder show a suit feature and are forward going. They are limited by immediate positive suit responses over 2 ♣ -- 2 M = 5+ with 2 honors, 1 1/2+ QTs, 3 m = 5+ with 2 of top 3 honors and 2+ QTs. Single raise of opener's rebid promises Hxx or xxxx and 8+ points. Raise to game is a shutout. With other fitting hands, responder makes the 2 NT positive then raises. So, 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ 2 ♠ - 3 ♣ 3 ♠ could be passed. I'm not a big fan of immediate 2 ♥ response as an immediate negative. There are quite a few hands ( like two suiters ) where opener faces a difficult rebid problem realizing it will probably be passed.

I'm leading a trump. My tricks are in the minors so I want to reduce potential ruffs in dummy.

I'm not playing in a part score when vulnerable at IMPs with at least an 8 card ♠ fit and 23-24 points minimum. 4 ♠ for me.

There are hands where partner might rebid 1 NT with a stiff ♠, but those aren't that common. So you're probably sitting opposite a doubleton minimum which means at least a 9 card spade fit. You also only have a 4 loser hand. There are just too many hands where slam will make to not at least explore for slam. (♥ A, 3 small spades, and another A are enough to make 6 ♠ a good contract.)

I'd certainly start cueing with a 3 ♠ bid. In the structured cueing approach, I normally play, the 3 ♠ bid would be a 1st round control. Opener could then continuing cueing by bidding 3 NT which is a waiting bid that denies a ♣ 1st round control. Responder would cue 4 ♣ showing the 1st round control. Opener could then bid 5 ♣, a sweep cue bid. It shows in turn the ♦ A, a high ♥ honor, ♠ K, ♣ K, and denies the ♦ K. Responder then bids 5 ♥ denying a ♦ 2nd. Both partners know there is a ♦ loser. Opener can infer that responder probably doesn't have both missing high ♥ honors else he might have bid 6 ♥ even with a ♦ loser and sits for 5 ♥. It just happens this hand fits this methodology well. I know most of the BBO forum posters will cue any control not necessarily 1sts first. But I'm wondering if some of the techniques wouldn't be useful anyhow. Say opener didn't have a ♣ control, would it be useful to use 3 NT as a waiting bid to let responder show a 1st or 2nd in ♣? Also, with the actual hand, what would a 4 ♠ cue by opener show? Would it similarly show controls (1st or 2nds) in all the suits? If so, then RKCB by responder would give a really clear picture of what opener held and where the hand should be placed.

3 ♠ I disagree this hand is not worth a 3 ♠ bid. If we change ♦ J to ♦ Q, we'd have a 3 loser hand and enough for a strong 2 ♣ opening IMO. This is about as good a hand that you could have and only open 1 ♦.

You'd like to pull 1 NTx if you think it's going to make. But you need to ask yourself "Do I have a better place to play the hand?" and "If so, do I have a way to get there?" 1 NTx making is usually a bad result at MPs. But without a hand that yields a better landing place, you may just find it better to take your "bad" result rather than run to a worse result. If you're looking at something like xxx xxx xxxx xxx, anything you do might get you in more trouble. If you hold K10xxx xxx xxx xx, then 2 ♠ looks better than 1 NTx, so run if possible. Another thing to remember is that partner may be doubling on a holding that may not have as many HCP but has a chance to beat 1 NT no matter what you hold -- something like xx AKQJxxx xx xx or xx Axx Ax KQJ10xx.

Pass. If it goes 1 ♥ - P - P - ?, I'm depending on partner to balance with any reasonable bid. If not, we probably haven't missed much. If responder makes a call, we are probably better off out of the auction with this K oriented hand.

There was a different threshold way back then. "Bridge Master: The Best of Edgar Kaplan" had some of his articles from the '50s (?) advocating scientific bidding. If I recall correctly, there was some mention of tacit agreement among experts that how you raised partner or doubled held some implications about what you held. Old is remembering when people looked at you askew if you alerted a 1 NT response to a major as forcing, inverted minors, and new minor bids after a 1 NT rebid as a checkback. Older is when people were shocked that 2 ♦, 2 ♥, and 2 ♠ openers were preemptive not strong and forcing. Bidding boxes, transfers -- what are they? Ancient is remembering when you dressed up in suits/jackets and ties for the Sunday team game in tournaments. And the team game was always BAM.

The higher you force the auction with a negative double, then the more assets you need to make the double. The rationale is that as you raise the level of the possible contract, you need more assets to make the contract. At the 2 level, 20-21 total HCP would probably be enough to make. But at the 3 level, you need more like 23-24 total HCP to make with relatively nondescript hands. Typically, if partner can respond at the 1 level, a mere 6 HCP would be OK to make a negative double especially when holding 4 cards in an unbid major. But if partner is forced to reply at the 2 level, then you need enough HCP to ensure you have about the 20-21 HCP needed to make at that level. Assuming partner has something like 12 HCP to open, then a good 8-9 HCPs minimum looks like enough to double. Likewise, as partner must reply at higher levels, you need that much more to double. I'd be looking for at least 10+ HCP if I'm driving partner to the 3 level with a negative double. So a negative double with the hand your partner had is definitely pushy. The exception is when responder holds a good suit that can't be directly bid over the overcall. At least in the US, holding something like ♠ xx ♥ Kx ♦ KQ10xxx ♣ xxx, you don't have enough to directly bid 3 ♦ over 1 ♠ - (2♥) - ? That would require something more like ♠ xx ♥ Ax ♦ KQ10xxx ♣ Kxx. But passing with the first example is onerous as a 3 level ♦ contract should have a good play opposite most openers. So you make a negative double and hope to bid your suit on the next round. After aggressively making the double, partner should not make a further call over your 3 ♦ bid unless it promised extras. Partner does hold a stopper, but your total HCP when you hold a minimum hand isn't enough to make 3 NT. Partner should also be aware that the stopper can quickly be removed and your side will be in a position of having to immediately cash enough tricks off the top to make 3 NT or go down. Not knowing ACOL, I'm wondering what a 2 ♠ rebid by your hand would show. If it has to show 6 ♠, then how can you find 5-3 ♠ fits in this and similar auctions?

Maybe South should think about using Stayman rather than ramming the contract into 3 NT. Any time you have a stiff, it would be prudent to explore by whatever means possible whether partner can stop the suit. Unfortunately, there are only limited options for doing so after 1 NT. If partner bids 2 ♠ over 2 ♣, then NT is OK. Even if partner has ♠ xxxx, with split honors, the opponents may find it difficult to lead ♠. If partner bids 2 ♦, you can bid 3 ♦ and explore for a potential minor suit game. Or, possibly, if you have the agreement, bid 3 ♣ as a minor suit Stayman continuation. If partner bids 2 ♥, South can consider raising ♥ and playing in a Moysian fit. The hand looks right for it as South holds controls in the hand's long suits which should help prevent opener from being forced in them quickly.

If partner can't handle a 6 ♠ response showing 3 Ks, then partner asked the wrong question. Trust your partner and answer the question asked truthfully. The problem with not doing so is that it erodes partnership confidence and trust. You don't know with which hand partner is asking the questions, so have no reason to assume that you will get too high if you answer correctly. If you fudge now, will partner have any reason to believe your answers in the future? It can become a big partnership issue. As billw55 says, if you answer truthfully whatever happens isn't your problem. But if you go down, it might enable you and your partner to analyze how to bid the hand better and avoid future problems with similar hands.

4 ♠ If your hand were something like ♠ Axxxxx ♥ x ♦ AKx ♣ xxx, would you bid it any differently? Looking at a 5 loser hand, I think you've got to do something more sooner in the auction. My choice would be to bid 3 ♠ as my initial rebid, then repeat spades to show the hand based on a long strong ♠ suit. If that's too rich for you, then jumping to 4 ♠ on the 3rd round of bidding would seem reasonable. Given the actual auction, it could be that partner has a mirror hand in ♥ -- ♠ x ♥ AKQxxxx ♦ xxx ♣ Kx. But you can't know that for sure. It's also possible that partner has 6 fairly solid ♥, a stiff ♠ and concerns that ♠ won't play as well as ♥, especially if you don't have good ♠. It might be something like ♠ x ♥ AKJ10xx ♦ xxx ♣ Axx. If the former hand, either major is OK, but if the latter, 4 ♠ is preferable.

Hardy does say that a voluntary 2 M rebid by opener shows 6 of the major. However, at least some of his examples (in "Standard Bidding in the 21st Century") contain hands where a 2 M rebid is made on 5 as no other bid seems right. The ACBL Bulletin did have some articles a couple years ago about 2/1. One of the major differences they highlighted was that Hardy advocated a 2 NT rebid didn't necessarily show stoppers while Lawrence's approach does require stoppers. Another issue to be aware of is which opener rebids show minimum hands versus which imply extras in distribution or HCP. Not sure how much difference there is between Hardy and Lawrence on this. In the original KS version only 2 M showed a minimum range hand everything else showed extras. (In KS, 2 NT rebid had to show extras because 15-17 balanced 5 card major hands had to be opened 1 M instead of 1 NT.) The only exception was a 2 ♥ rebid after 1 ♠ opening which could still be minimum range.

The first version of 2/1 of which I am aware was presented as part of the Kaplan-Sheinwold (KS) bidding system created back in late '50s. The 1960 book "How to Play Winning Bridge" explained KS to the public. It covered the basic concepts of 2/1 in the chapter of the book on bidding after a (5+ card) major opening. In that version, the auction could be passed out if responder made a minimum rebid of his 2/1 response suit. (Note: KS is based on weak NTs, 5 card majors) That feature of 2/1 was probably retained in the Standard American version of 2/1 that Lawrence played with the Aces in the '70s. It's only been in more recent years that some experts have preferred that a 2/1 response should always be a game force. I believe Marty Bergen belongs to that camp. At present, both versions coexist and have their adherents in the US bridge playing community. So, there is no one definitive way of playing 2/1.

3 ♣ isn't forcing. Bidding 2 NT advertises that you don't have 4 cards in either major else you'd bid it at the one level. So opener will often rebid a minor when having a big concern about a major suit. Billw55's example hand is a good one. With a stiff ♥, opener knows that 3 NT will not make unless you can run 8 more tricks off the top after they drive out your ♥ stopper. If opener has game going values, there are other bids beside 3 ♣ that opener can make to explore game possibilities. So, unless you have a highly unusual invitational hand, it would be normal to pass.

I'm with the others that the hand is worth an invite. RHO ♦ overcall reduces some the chance that responder has wasted values in ♦. It is a 6 loser hand, so a 3 ♣ invite seems indicated.

Pass at this point. You've showed your hand. It's up to partner to compete further now if we are to compete.

A 5-4-2-2 is referred to as a semi-balanced hand. Sometimes such a hand is treated as balanced and sometimes as unbalanced. Here with most of the points concentrated in the long suits, there's no problem treating the hand as more "unbalanced" and opening 1 ♦. Had the hand been something like ♠ K10xx ♥ AJ ♦ Kxxxx ♣ AQ, North should strongly consider treating it as balanced and opening with a strong 1NT. There is no problem with the rest of the North/South auction through the opponent's second double. Note that the 1 ♠ rebid by North can be on a hand up to about 18 HCP. However, it could also still be on minimum opening values. At this point there's just no way for South to know. If North holds only 4 ♠, which is very likely, then there is a possibility that the second double might be passed out and converted to a penalty double. That can be disastrous holding only 5 trump total between the two hands. With a stiff ♦, preferencing back to 2 ♦ doesn't look any more attractive. Let's consider South's hand. It does have two suits, but the hand is a minimum response in terms of HCP. From the bidding so far, the hand appears to be a misfit with the North hand. Since passing is not an option, South should simply rebid 2 ♥ which shows long ♥ and not much else. With 2 ♥ honors and extra points, North might raise to 3 ♥. Then South would bid on to 4 ♥.