rmnka447

I'm bidding 5 ♣ also. I agree with gszes's thinking even at MPs. 3 NT is a huge gamble with a void. It could get really ugly if the opponents rattle off 5 or 6 ♦ tricks. A highly competent LHO with a running ♦ suit might well pass 3 NT knowing you are in a bad spot rather than Double and give you a chance to escape. Partner has ♠s, RHO has ♥s, so LHO is likely to have the ♦s. Also, with 8 ♣, there's no guarantee partner has any ♣s either.

My auction would be the same as mike777, but with disciplined positives it becomes child's play. 2 ♠ promises 5+ to 2 honors and 1 1/2 QTs. After the raise to 4 ♦, opener knows the whole story and can bid 7 NT.

Fair enough, but responder can always elect to accept the possibility of a playing 5-2 fit by simply bidding 2 ♥ instead of using August if possibly being pushed to the 3 level seems too risky. Part of playing the weak NT is to be adroit at getting to reasonable spots to play when weak. In this context, getting to a decent spot is usually better than getting to the perfect spot. If opener holds a 4252 (semibalanced) shape and opens 1 NT, then it is likely that opener holds some values in the short suits anyhow. With, say, something like xx AQxx AKxxx xx opening 1 ♦, then rebidding 2 ♦ would be Ok and limit the hand after a 1 ♠ or 2 ♣ response. However, with something like Kx KJxx Ax Jxxxx opening 1 NT is better then having to rebid 2 ♣ when responder bids 1 ♠. The choice is often a judgement, but treating the hand as balanced when strength is held in the short suits with weakish long suits is usually right.

With 4252, your options are to sign off in 3 ♦ weak, pass 1 NT to play, or pass 1 NT then use your 1 NT runout structure should 1 NT get doubled. Of course, you can use August on hands that you would "garbage" Stayman on. They may not be 5-5, such as Jxxx Qxxx x xxxx where you want to get out of NT before the Doubling starts. That let's you retain 1 NT - 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ - 2 ♥ as strictly invitational. Also, by responder rebidding 2 NT over opener's major response to August, responder shows a minor two suiter eliminating the need to designate a different response to show that type of hand. (Responder's rebid of a minor over opener's major response shows that minor and the unbid major as responder's suits.)

Sorry, but having played Kaplan-Sheinwold for about 40 years (weak NT in all positions, all vulnerabilities), I couldn't disagree more about 3rd/4th weak NTs. The preemptive value of 1 NT makes it really difficult for the opponents to compete. If you open these hands with 1 of a minor (which is usual in the US because of 5cM), you're conceding the opponents easy entry into the auction to compete especially with the majors. But in a 4cM opening environment that might not be as distinct an advantage. I don't rate transfers over weak NTs very highly either. Again in the US, with minimum balanced hands being opened 1 of a minor by strong NTers, responder is bidding a 5cM in response to 1 m anyhow. So transfers opposite side contracts versus most other pairs. Additionally, if the hands produce game, both hands are about equal value so there is no lead into the stronger hand advantage. If there is a potential slam, responder's hand will be the "big" hand, so transfers expose the big hand and provide for lead through it. Our structure over the weak NT is fairly simple. 2 ♣ is NF Stayman with potential game forcing continuations. 2 ♦ is the August 2 ♦ allowing for run outs with two suited hands. It asks for the NT bidder to bid his longest major regardless of number of cards (♥ with equal length). The response is virtually always at least 3 cards, so you'll get to a decent fit if holding both majors. Depending on any further rebids by responder, you can find a fit with any 2 suiter. We can also use it with game going or invitational 5-5 major hands by raising or jumping to game in opener's major response suit. Our KO teammates, who also play K-S, play 2 way Stayman by an unpassed responding hand. But after a 3rd or 4th seat 1 NT opener, 2 ♦ switches to being the August 2 ♦ bid.

I'm passing also. Bidding ♦ on A empty fifth is a huge leap of faith. Double has no answer for a ♥ bid from partner. NT is another step into the unknown. In 1st seat Vulnerable, I'd expect the preempt to be on a pretty decent suit. Preemptor has to be cognizant of the phone number potential of wild preempts when vulnerable. If they duck the first ♣ to you, you'd better be ready to run 8 additional tricks or it could get gruesome. Expecting responder to have a stiff ♣ so that clubs can't be run is a bit dicey. But the biggest problem is the unknown about what the person behind you holds. If it goes, 3 ♣ - P - P - ? and partner can find a call, your in a good position to compete.

I'm also a 2 ♦ bidder for the same reasons as the others suggest.

Hand # 1 - 3 ♠ with an 8 card suit - 6 loser hand. Some slight risk, but I don't want to have to figure out after LHO raises to 5 ♣ whether it was to make or a sac. Partner might not have a bid over a ♣ raise if I pass, but might if I bid my suit before the raise. Hand # 2 - 3 ♣ -- sort of the same reasoning as the previous hand. Partner isn't likely to have more than a doubleton ♠ and might not be able to bid after 1-2-3 to play auction. Making my ♣ bid now avoids the decision about bidding 4 ♣ unilaterally after 1-2-3 to play. 3 ♣ also might drive them to 3 ♠ down 1 while 2 ♠ passed out still makes. You have to reasonably fight for part scores at IMPs. I wouldn't bid 3 ♣ on much less though.

Hand #1 - I'm playing in 3 ♣. Your pal might have the last laugh this time, but next time when 1 NT goes down 150 or 200 and 3 ♣ still makes on a similar hand, you'll get the last guffaw. It can't be too wrong to play in your 9+ card fit unless you're absolutely sure NT makes. Hand # 2 - I'm passing 2 ♠ or 3 ♠. The high cards in my hand will be of use to partner in ♠s, but partner's ♠ may not be of any use to me in any contract I bid. With a known misfit, I'm out of the auction as quickly as possible anyhow. There's no guarantee pard has any thing at all in the suits I hold and bidding 1 level higher stands a good chance of increasing the set or turning a decent result (2 ♠ making?) into a bad result. If partner passes, I'm bidding 1 ♥, so I can bid ♦ on the second round. so I'm treating the weak ♦ suit more like a 5 card suit rather than a 6 card suit. If partner gives me grief about it, I'm ready to run out the old "sorry pard, I had a ♦ in wit the ♥s" ploy.

Double squeezes can be confusing. Love didn't help matters with the way he chose to use his terminology. Love assigns the singly guarded threats (L,R) their designation from the point of view of the single threat hand. That's in the first few sentences of his introduction to the double squeeze chapter, but it's not particularly emphasized. It's easy to see as he discusses type R double squeezes. The R threat is usually in declarer's hand so LHO has the L suit, RHO has the R suit. But when he discusses type B double squeezes, dummy still usually has the B suit but its the single threat hand. What can trip you up is that L and R are now assigned from the B suit hand from its point of view (as if you were sitting there.) The place to start is the single threat hand. It either has to be the R threat or the B threat. If it's possibly the B threat, it has to be accompanied by one or more winners. In your example hand, declarer's hand is the single threat hand. The ♠ 6 is a threat against the remaining ♠ 9 after trick 7. So if a double squeeze exists, it has to be a type R double squeeze. If LHO has ♠ 9, your ♠ 6 would be the L threat. If RHO opponent guards ♣ and ♥, no double squeeze exists for lack of a threat behind RHO (i.e. upper hand -- declarer). So if a double squeeze exists, RHO has to have ♠ 9. Assume it's so. But after trick 7, you're looking at ♥ A986 ♣ K10 remaining in dummy. What squeezes can exist yet? There can possibly be a type R double squeeze with ♠ 6 as the R threat. There could also be a spade/heart or spade/club simple squeeze against RHO. If RHO solely guards ♥ too, then a triple squeeze might exist. There could also remotely be a heart/club squeeze if LHO held say ♣ AJx and the heart guard. Look at the possible double squeeze first. It looks like either ♣ or ♥ could be the B suit. But there's a problem, dummy still has an L winner and it has to be cashed before the squeeze occurs. With ♥ as the B suit, as a previous poster points out, you can't cash the ♣ winner and get back to your hand. The only way to get back after cashing the winner is to ruff your ♣ threat or cash your ♥ winner and ruff a ♥ eliminating your entry to the board. Both kill the squeeze. So if a double squeeze exists, it has to be with ♣ as the B suit and ♥ as the L threat suit. You hold ♣ K10 and ♣ AQ have already been played, so only one opponent can guard ♣ with the J. If you play for the type R double squeeze, you're really playing a simple squeeze played as a double. .

Partner looks to have a hand where if you can respond in ♥, partner wants to be in game. So it sounds like a good 19-20, maybe flattish, or for some reason not biddable by another method (splinter, reverse, etc.). You're looking at controls in the outside suits, 11 HCP, trump honors, and fitting cards in both suits partner has bid. Certainly that is enough to put you in the slam exploratory zone. So some preliminary move toward slam should be made. Can you learn enough from partner to tell if slam is a good bet? NO!!! It'll be a good guess at best. So it's probably better and easier if you start to tell partner where your values are and let partner make the decision. If you cue any 1st or 2nd round control, I'd start with 4 ♠.

As others have suggested 3 NT would be OK with a very flat hand. You do have a potential ruffing value in ♥, so Stayman would seem proper in this case. Partner has presumably shown a balanced 20-21 HCP hand with the 2 NT bid. With your 6 HCP, you seem to hold at least 26 HCP so the HC muscle is there for a 3 NT or 4 of a major game. Your partner should rebid 3 ♥, not 3 ♠. After partner's 3 ♠ bid, 4 ♠ is right. You have enough values to make game a decent shot and you have found an 8 card fit. After that, the responsibility for what went wrong lies with your partner. First, you know a lot more about partner's hand than partner knows about your hand. When you use Stayman, you become the captain of the auction. If you think slam may be a possibility, then it's up to you to initiate slam investigation. Instead, your partner decided to try for slam by asking for As. Unfortunately, that's the wrong tool if partner's hand is as shown. It's wrong because the biggest concern about a slam is the possibility of 2 quick ♣ losers. If you reply 1 ace, partner has no way of knowing whether it's the ♠ A or ♣ A. In any case, once you show NO ACES, partner should settle for 5 ♠ because there are 2 proven losers. (Note: Could partner have had ♠ Kxxx ♥ AQJ10x ♦ AK ♣ K10? That would resolve the ♥ K in both hands you showed. Using an A ask would be more understandable as there are not 2 quick losers anywhere. But even so, once 2 losers are found, then partner should settle for a 5 level contract.) Partner's bid of 5 ♦ should suggest he holds at least 3 aces, further slam interest, and asks about the ♠ Q. So your 5 ♥ bid is right. But your partner should put you back in 5 ♠ where the running ♥ might be used to pitch losers from your hand. You might like playing 5 ♥ even less if you had something like ♠ Qxxx ♥ K ♦ Qxxx ♣ xxxx. 3 rounds of ♣ to start and partner's hand gets tapped in the trump suit. Now, you couldn't draw trump completely before playing on the other suits as it would exhaust trump and potentially set up an additional ♣ winner. Unless you were playing in some place where the rules are relaxed, partner's explanation of the 4 NT bid is improper (unauthorized information). Normally, it's not right to use that information. So, I can understand Zel's comment about passing 4 NT. I'd probably do the same, but only because of the UI. Ironically, without any prompting from partner, you should figure out that the 4 NT bid is an Ace ask. If anyone is going to make a quantitative move toward slam, it should be you as responder. You can't have enough to bid a quantitative slam if you simply sign off in game (your 4 ♠ bid). With ♠s agreed upon as a suit, therefore it should be an Ace ask. In that context, without any UI, I'd respond to partner's request for Aces. I might have a hard time coming up with a hand that partner might have to make the request, but since bidding is a cooperative effort, I'd answer. If we got too high that would be on partner for asking. It's just possible that partner might have taken an unusual action by bidding 2 NT where it makes perfect sense to go on and request Aces. With partner's actual hand, I don't think any move toward slam is justified. There's just too much needed in your hand for slam to be there. If you hold those values, you would be making a move toward slam. As it is, it looks like you need to find ♠ 3-2 and locate the ♠ A doubleton to make even 4.

You make a valid point in that sense. Yet there are still times when table presence leads you to bids or plays that are entirely divorced from anything that the other people at the table do or don't do.

What the doctors had wasn't table presence, it was cheating. One advantages of a long time partnership is that you've probably seen and discussed just about every situation that comes up at the table. For example, I recall reading someplace that Meckwell have several hundred pages of bidding system notes. That kind of in depth understanding and agreement is priceless. Additionally, you develop a good sense of how your partner thinks or will react when something new comes up. The term often used is that the players "were reading off the same page". Those advantages are still there screens or no screens. I think barmar's follow up post is very interesting and might be a part explanation. Part may also be that you are perceiving a lot more than you consciously realize that is processed through your intuitive side. The Bermuda Bowls are replete with examples of brilliant bids and plays that go beyond simple logic. The one that comes most readily to mind is the Italian who bid slam in the last few hands of the final versus the US and then dropped a stiff K behind him to make the hand and win. If I recall correctly, no one had a good explanation for how he was able to make the play. But as a many time world champ, it would seem like he would have an acutely developed sense of table presence that would be a factor.

First, no one player is usually responsible for the result of a team match. So don't beat yourself up too much for the result. There are usually several boards in a match where your teammates might have done much better and have significantly altered the results. I'm more focused on the comment that you knew a heart should be lead, but found some attraction in a spade lead. That sounds suspiciously like the battles I've had over the years with "table presence" or "table instinct". It's my belief that as you acquire experience, you also acquire a feeling or instinct for what's happening at the table beyond all the conscious bridge logic and mental acuity you acquire. At times, this table presence pops up as a gut feel about the lay of the cards or about what to do on a hand. This doesn't occur on every hand, but does come up occasionally. The problem is that your conscious mind often finds reasons to ignore those feelings and do something else. My experience has been that the instincts have been right substantially more often than the alternative. The hard part is recognizing when the feelings are really table presence and then getting in line with them. I think what I'm describing is very akin to something from "Zen and the Art of Archery". They describe the process of shooting an arrow which hits the bull's eye on the target. At some point, it is pointed out one has to get one's conscious mind out of the way so it doesn't prevent one's body from shooting the arrow so it hits the target. Similarly, pro golfers often have a terrible time playing well when trying to rework their swing to improve. When that happens, knowledgeable pundits will usually say that the golfer needs to get back to just playing golf rather than thinking about the mechanics of their swing. I'm not suggesting that you throw logic completely aside, engage entirely in wishful thinking or play solely by intuition. I'm just saying that these moments do occur. If you can recognize them and take advantage of them so much the better for you.

I agree with your initial pass over 2 ♥. You don't really know much about partner's hand. If partner has a very minimum opener, even 2 ♠ may be too high despite your distribution. If partner has more, partner may bid on thinking you have some points and again get too high. By passing, you allow yourself to potentially raise later in the auction and know partner will not expect much in your hand beyond the fit. At your second chance to bid, the situation is entirely different. Partner has bid ♦ and RHO has bid 3 ♥. Several things follow from these actions. So it's never wrong to think through the implications of the auction so far -- both the things bid and not bid. First of all, partner by bidding 3 ♦ has shown at least 4 ♦s and 5 ♠s. You have a double fit of at least 8 ♠s and 11 ♦s. If your side has at least 19 cards in two suits, it follows that your side can't have more than 7 cards in the other two suits. That leaves the opponents to have 19+ cards in those two suits. Even if those two suits break as evenly as possible, the opponents have to have at least a 10 card fit in one of them. It also tells you that the hand is likely very distributional. Distributional hands tend to have more total tricks in them than flat hands. Additionally, double fit hands also tend to take a lot of tricks. Second, RHO has bid 3 all by himself/herself. That should indicate either a solid 6 card or very good 7 card or longer suit minimum probably with some extra feature that makes 3 ♥ close to making. RHO's partner hasn't raised and your hand hasn't bid. There's no sense of where all the values in the hand lie. So RHO has to be looking at something that assures that the bid isn't stepping into a pile of bad stuff, especially at IMPs. Finally, if you apply the LOTT based on the above, it says that there are at least 21 total tricks in this hand. Even if it's off a trick or so, it still favors bidding 5 ♦. I heartily agree with your rethink that 5 ♦ might have been a better bid at your second opportunity to speak. Part of good IMP play is to put the opponents to the test of whether to bid on or defend. But with the actual auction, after partner doubles 4 ♥, you shouldn't sit for it. Partner doesn't know much about your hand other than you have a ♦ fit and some values. OTOH, you know a lot about the hand that partner doesn't know. By having an 11 card fit, the opponents have at most 2 cards in the suit. They are at best 1-1 in ♦, so you have no more than 1 ♦ trick on defense. Likewise, in ♠s, the opponents have no more than 5 of them. Again, the best break that could be expected is 3-2, so the most tricks that you can get in ♠s are 2. That still requires an additional trick in ♣s or ♥s to beat the contract. But that's only with assuming the best possible breaks. If partner has extra cards in either suit or the opponent's cards don't break as well, 4 ♥ is likely to make even with a trick in one of their suits. Here the ability to beat 4 ♥ is enough in doubt to follow the old IMP adage: "When in doubt, bid one more." So, bidding 5 ♦ is right, even if it doesn't work out.

2 ♠ if you're playing SAYC. Playing 2/1, I'd agree with a forcing NT followed by 2 ♠.

I'm with Mr. Ace and Rainer. If West has a limit raise, then East has enough to bid game. He who knows goes. 4 ♠ over Drury.

Situation 2 was 1 ♥-(P)- 2 ♥-? Coming in with a 3 ♣ pre-balance after BOTH opponents have bid and partner passed seems OK with this hand. But directly over 1 ♥ - ?, certainly a 2 ♣ bid would be right.

In situation 1, you are in pass out sit and sitting behind the opponent's strong hand. By passing out 2 ♥, the opponents are limiting their strength. This marks partner with some values and both sides with nearly equal shares of the HCP. Since they have a fit, you and your partner likely have a fit also. So reopening the auction with a 3 ♣ bid is a reasonable risk. It might buy the contract or push the opponents to a 1 level higher contract which might be defeated. Situation 2 is different. Your LHO's strength is still unknown and your values are sitting in front of the strong hand. So pre-balancing is more dangerous unless you have solid values. Additionally, if the opponents buy the contract, your partner will make the opening lead. If you pre-balance, your partner should be more likely to lead your suit. KJ9xxx is not necessarily something that you want partner to lead. I'd like something stronger like ♠ Ax ♥ x ♦ 10xxx ♣ KQJxxx to pre-balance here. This improved hand looks like you'll have 6 or 7 tricks no matter what the opponents hold. It's also something you don't mind partner leading and has good defensive values in case you defend. So with the actual hand you posed, the best course is to pass and hope partner can find a reopening double. You've posed a good example for the BBO posters opinions. Part of the art of good matchpoints is learning when and how to compete.

I'm bidding 3 ♣ as a force showing a good hand. My hand is a full opener and the first priority is to let partner know the ballpark we are playing in -- minimum of game invitational between the two hands. We can figure out where to play next. I don't like a responsive double because it advertises 4-4 in the majors which is exactly what I don't have. When you start drawing the wrong picture of your hand, it gets near impossible for partner to change that image in their mind. One thing to consider -- even if partner has a minimum T/O double, partner's cards rate to be a little more than normal. Any tenaces partner has are behind the hand with the bulk of opponent's points. Also, I just don't make off shape doubles nor expect that my partner's will.

I'm in line with a lot of the other comments here. I wouldn't open the West hand in third seat. 2 ♠ is the least of all evils once East doubles. 3 ♦ stands out as East rebid over 2 ♠. I agree with Mr. Ace and mikeh about 3 ♦ showing more than ♦ and showing invitational values. As one now gone expert player used to say "Bid when you've got." Here bidding 3 ♦ tells partner about the double "fit" and invitational values of your hand. Whatever partner does next is more likely to be right because of that information.

Put me down as a doubler also. This time it didn't work out. But I'll accept that result rather than have to explain to our teammates why we're going down in 3 NT when partner has 4 ♠s and 4 ♠ is cold.

I'm a 1 ♠ bidder also. Although you've got extras, the ♦ suit is just too poor to Michaels IMO.