rmnka447

2 NT. You do have a ♣ stopper and an "opening" hand. The first responsibility is to let partner that you have an opener with a descriptive bid other than 2 ♦. If you held something like ♠ AQx ♥ KQ10 ♦ Kxxxx ♣ xx, then 3 ♣ could be used to show the opening values. Take away the ♠ A or otherwise weaken the hand to below an opener and your rebid would be 2 ♦. Not ideal to be sure on Kxxxx, but certainly defines your values. By bidding 2 NT, you keep a potential ♥ contract in play when partner cued to show a forcing hand with ♥s.

I also use it as a factor to consider in those high level situations as well. Going through the thought process can sometimes save you from a bad sacrifice. But fit and distribution are a big factor, too. The other situation where I find it useful is in reopening/balancing position. Sometimes, sifting through the information from the bidding along with the likely total fit in your best suit when to reopen or not.

ArtK78's explanation of the thought process to use with the LOTT is excellent. I've got just a couple of comments to make. He presented the worst case scenario in assuming your side was vulnerable. But it was important to do so to bring home the things you need to consider. On the other side of the coin, if you are not vulnerable, going through the same thought process will lead you conclude that competing to the 3 level is almost always right. When they are making 10 tricks and you are making 8, you'll be at -100 down one doubled playing at the 3 level. If they play 3 making 4, it will be -170 against you. When you're making 9 or 10 tricks, it's obviously right to compete. That analysis assumes both sides have 9 card trump fits. Sometime the exact trump holdings for both sides isn't completely clear. For example, LHO opens a 5+ card major and the bidding proceeds - 1 ♥- (1 ♠) - 2 ♥ - ?. Now holding 4 ♠s, you know your side has 9+ ♠s, but the opponents could have anywhere from an 8 to 11 card fit. It's probably best in these circumstances to assume the minimum known fit for the opponents -- here 8 cards -- and proceed with the analysis on that basis. Also, as the auction proceeds, you can update your thinking as the opponents show additional trumps. The main caveat with the LOTT is that it only considers trump lengths. The degree to which your hands fit and the trick taking ability of the cards in your hand also matter in the number of tricks you take. Consider 2 hands --♠ Kxxx ♥ xxx ♦ Axxxx ♣ x and ♠ Qxxx ♥ xxx ♦ Qxx ♣ QJx in the above auction. Both have the same length in your suit and the opponent's suit. Both have the same point count. But the first hand is far better for competing to the 3 level than the second. It has high cards which can be fast winners (As, Ks) versus cards that are usually slow winners (Qs,Js). It also has some distributional features which will mesh well with partner's hand. (Partner probably has no more than a doubleton ♥. Your cards in the other side suits will be generally useful whatever partner holds in them.) So those factors are also something to consider in using the LOTT.

1 NT wtp. I'm normally opening 1 NT on just about any 5332 hand in range. Some players who play 2/1 will prefer to open 1 M versus 1 NT with a doubleton in the other major. That prevents being transferred into the doubleton suit and playing in a 5-2 fit when a 5-3 fit exists in the other major. But that isn't applicable here as a transfer to ♠ will be to a 5-3 fit.

I really like 2 ♦ waiting, cheapest suit as 2nd negative, and very disciplined positive responses. The very disciplined positives are 2 M 5+ suit to 2+ honors and at least 1 1/2 QTs and 3 m 5+ suit with 2+ of 3 top honors and at least 2 QTs. After a 2 M rebid by opener over 2 ♦, a raise to 3 M shows Qxx or better if holding 3 or xxxx(x..) and 8+ points. 4 M is to play. A 2 NT rebid by responder becomes a forward going bid showing 5-20 and inability to make another forward going bid. Non cheapest suit 3 level rebids are forward going showing something positive in suit bid, but not generally enough for the immediate positive response to 2 ♣. 2 ♣ openers have no more than 3 losers if the main suit is a minor or 4 losers if the suit is a major. I feel we're way ahead of most when immediate positive responses occur. A 2 NT responder rebid becomes a GF, in effect, but saves bidding space for opener to continue describing his hand. Being thrifty in how you use bidding space is sometimes very useful in finding secondary fits and providing room to identify controls for game vs. slam decisions.

1 ♣ -- no rebid problems as others have expounded upon.

What has the auction told you? Auction doesn't yield much except ♥s are likely 5-2. Also, responder doesn't have 4 ♠s, else, Stayman would have been used. OTOH, it was an invite and accept so the opponents don't rate to hold anymore than 25-26 points. Do some arithmetic. Your hand (5 HCP) plus 25-26 HCP for the opponents equals 30-31 for everyone but partner. So, partner rates to have 9-10 HCP. Normally, when the opponents bid strongly to a NT game, you make an attacking lead trying to find and set up defenders' long suit tricks before declarer can set up tricks and cash 9 tricks. There are couple considerations to make. First, whose long suit? Second, are there entries to be able to cash the long suit tricks once they are set up? Finally, when the opponents have had an invitational auction and reached game, you may want to be more passive in leading and try not to give an extra trick to the opponents. Look at your suits. ♦ need a significant holding in partner's hand to ever be set up. Likewise, ♠ also need a lot to be set up. Additionally, if you underlead the ♠ A, you may give away a trick if declarer has something like ♠ Kxx opposite ♠ Qxx. Since you have 2 ♥s, partner ought to have 4 ♥s. But leading dummy's long suit doesn't rate to be right. You may be helping Declarer set up that suit while an entry still exists to it. Additionally with partner holding about 10 HCP, he's more likely to hold enough in some suit to let it be set up AND an outside entry. One additional piece of evidence -- partner didn't double the 2 ♦ transfer for a D lead. So, by process of elimination, you come to a potential ♣ lead. There is a danger that partner might hold ♣ Qxx and a ♣ lead gives away the suit. I'd probably lead the ♣ 6.

It's not complete madness, but it's not something I'd do very often. If you bid on hands such as this one with any frequency, then you're broadening the definition of your TODs. At some point, that broadening poses a problem for your partner. For instance, what do you bid with this hand if partner makes a 2 ♣ cue showing a good hand? Would you also make that same bid with a similar TOD with say 12+ HCP and 2 QTs? If so, how can partner ever distinguish between the two holdings? If you propose different bids for this "light" double and a normal opening value TOD, then how do you accommodate even stronger TODS (16+) or strong overcalls (16+ and good suit) which also start with a double? Ultimately, it becomes difficult to distinguish between various holdings because of limited bidding space. Then, you will lose some accuracy on constructive auctions. It may seem attractive to bid on hands like this one, especially when partner can find a call and you talk the opponents out of game or their best contract. However, that advantage may be short lived when partner drives to game with opening values and finds your hand too light. Or, partner fails to invite or bid game for fear you're bidding light only to find you with a full opening TOD. That being said, an occasional tactical variance from normal is OK, especially at MPs. The idea is to keep the opponents from being completely sure of what you're doing -- as in, say, "xxxx always makes completely solid opening TODs." BUT be prepared to take the heat when it goes wrong ("Sorry, partner I got a bit rambunctious!") and don't do it often enough that it will affect how partner responds.

Since we play Flannery, a weak 2 ♦ is unavailable as a bid. Also, we play old fashioned 2/1 where if responder rebids his suit it's passable. So after P-P-1 ♠-P- ? 2 ♦ Since the hand has already passed, a better description than a forcing NT. With worst ♦ and 9-11, I think a forcing NT is right. 4 ♦ Minorwood. 3 ♦ would have been a raise with extras. 4 NT 2 keys without the Q. 6 ♦

Both get a share of the blame. North's 3 ♥ bid is more than a bit pushy. Like others, I'd probably pass it, but I can understand that North may feel that if 3 ♥ is not bid now that the suit might be lost. Certainly over something like East bidding 3 ♠ - P -P, North isn't going to back in at 4 ♥. South has ♥ KQx and elects to double rather than support which is the major error. In my mind, it's just another example of why you must support with support. Yes, South would like to be able to say to North, I have a great hand opposite your overcall. But preempts do work, so the first priority should be to let partner know that at least game in ♥s should be the minimum playing field they should be on. South might argue that with all the values in his hand slam might be in view. But I think a couple considerations should be made. After the weak two, North (as here) might push a little to make an overcall and game might be a great spot. Also, with the flattish hand that South holds, slam would need to be a power slam based on overall HC values whenever partner holds some run of the mill semi-balanced distribution. Since hasn't started to make a "strong" overcall, that seems less likely. If North holds some distributional hand where slam makes and can't bid over South's game raise, c'est la vie. North would have a tougher time following South's double of 4 ♠ after South's initial double of 3 ♠ than if South had supported ♥. After ♥s are supported, 5 ♥ should be an easy call. Yet even without the raise, I think North should bid on to 5 ♥. A prime consideration in taking the push is whether some distributional feature is held which offsets possible opponents tricks. Here the stiff ♠ A is just such a feature and huge. So, going on seems right.

I entirely agree with your comments. I've also noticed that either hiding your fit or "under-preempting" can sometimes be an effective tool to muddy the waters enough for the opponents to be unsure what to do. It's something to at least consider when these situations come up.

I'm taking the other tack. 2 ♣ for me because you have a very solid 4 loser hand. Slam could be there on as little as Qxx Kxx xxx QJxx. Game looks pretty good opposite as little as Qxx xxx xxx xxxx or xxxx xxx xxx Qxx.

Pass. You're hand is IMO an absolute minimum opener. Partner has shown a minimum, too. But there's no reason to believe that bidding 2 ♣ will lead to any better contract. Since you mention that RHO has hesitated twice, if you pass, you may be able to ask for protection should LHO reopen the auction.

Pass, not even close at IMPs.

I'm bidding 3 NT. If partner persists to 4 ♣, I'll raise to 5 ♣.

I'm bidding 2 ♠ for a couple reasons. First, I don't want to lose a ♠ fit if one's there. Sure, opener might be bidding a 4 card ♥ suit from 4-4 in the majors. But it's also quite possible opener just has a 5 card ♥ suit. It also provides some inferences when opener bids 3 ♥ and partner fails to raise ♠. Likewise, if partner retreats to 3 ♣ over a pass by opener. Second, if we defend, partner is unlikely to be able to lead a ♣ looking at ♣ AJxxx or ♣ AQxxx. The ♠ bid provides partner with a potentially safe ♠ lead rather than a blind choice between ♦ and ♠.

I'm not a big fan of 2 ♥ immediate 2nd negative. Opener may not be in position to set the final contract after this bid especially with 2 suited hands. What's a 2nd negative is subject to partnership agreement. I think one of the most workable solutions is making the cheapest suit a 2nd negative. We use that with playing 2 ♦ as waiting (i.e. anything not a disciplined positive). The only drawback is that it occasionally precludes responder from showing a positive holding in the cheapest suit. OTOH, it takes up the least bidding space, so gives opener the most bidding room to tell his story. Using this scheme, Over a 3 ♣ rebid by opener, 3 ♦ is the 2nd negative. Opener still has room to show a major holding at the 3 level, and, Over a 3 ♦ rebid by opener, 3 ♥ is the 2nd negative. Opener still has room to show ♠.

1. 3 ♦ - shows a minimum hand with ♦ and no fit for partner's suits. Your 1 loser almost solid ♦ suit will be good at a ♦ contract, but may not be worth much to partner in a major contract. Conversely, honors in partner's suits can be useful to you in a ♦ contract. Raising partner's 2nd suit is rarely right with 3 card support. 2. A weak 2 ♦ if available, otherwise 1 ♦. If the ♦ suit were a major, I'd always open 1 of the major with a guarded K outside.

Yes, you normally make one bid with a bad hand. But bidding the higher suit is preparing for the possibility that you might forced to bid again. Say, for instance, in this auction that partner doubled again over 2 ♠ showing extras while you held the given hand albeit with only 2 points. Now you can 3 ♣ and let partner decide where to play. In this revised case, Partner's hand might be something like ♠ x ♥ AKx ♦ K6543 ♣ AJxx where partner elected to make a TOX rather than make a 2 level overcall on a terrible ♦ holding.

I agree with Fluffy. When responding to a TOX with a minimum hand, it's often better to bid the higher ranking suit first so that you can rebid in the lower ranking suit and let partner still have a chance to preference between the suits without raising the level of the contract. That's especially so here where you 're already forced to bid at the 2 level. If advancer bids 2 ♣ initially, then the ♥ suit will be lost if opener rebids 2 ♠. Advancer's hand is just not good enough to introduce ♥s at the 3 level. A second call by advancer should indicate top of range if 4-4 or 5-4. It could also be slightly less if very shapely 5-5 or better. With 5 ♥s, advancer would simply rebid ♥s as doubler guarantees at least 3. Doubler does have a great 14, but it's still a 7 loser hand, so I'm passing 3 ♣.

I'd pass and bid 2 ♥ if partner doubles. The ♥ suit is terrible. Opposite a small doubleton in partner's hand, you could lose 3 or 4 tricks in it.

The scoring makes it about breakeven whether you bid game or not NV at IMPs. I hear that the bulk of your points aren't in partner's suits, you don't have many intermediates, etc. Nonetheless, you do have prime cards in 2 Ks and an A. IMO, they are worth a little more than 10 value especially with the A paired with a 10. So I'm bidding 3 NT. Winning IMPs includes bidding and making some thin games. This seems to be the occasion when I take that risk.

I'm a 1 ♠ bidder also. Partner must have a little something, especially in this day and age when opening light in 3rd seat is so prevalent. You have the high ground with the ♠ suit anyhow.

South's 5 ♦ bid just isn't right. One thing I harp about when a player is considering slam is for each player to ask "What do I need to know to insure slam has a reasonable play?". Here, South's answer to that question is simple -- "I need to know at a minimum that we don't have two ♣ losers." By bidding 5 ♦, South makes it impossible for North to show a 2nd round ♣ control below slam. Indeed, a case could be made that 5 ♦ shows a ♣ control along with the ♦ A. I think that's what the robot took the bid as meaning. If 4 NT wouldn't be taken as a form of Blackwood, then that would be the best bid. Years back we called it DI (Declarative Interogatory) 4 NT. It shows interest in slam and asks if partner has anything else to show. In this case, it denies the ♣ A. With that card, South could simply continue cueing by bidding 5 ♣. If 4 NT would be a form of a Blackwood, then South is constrained to bidding some number of ♠s. In any case, South can't use Blackwood with the actual hand because it doesn't get the right info from North. 4 ♠ can't completely be a signoff. From what North can see, even if South held ♥ KQJ and ♦ AKQJ, a black suit A must be held to get to the normal 20-21 for the 2 NT bid. If South bids 5 ♠ would North necessarily recognize that it asks about a ♣ control? Even North if does, could North's hand be something like ♠ J109xx ♥ AQxx ♦ x ♣ QJx where 5 ♠ isn't completely assured. 4 ♠ also might let North use Blackwood when its right to do so. One little wrinkle might be considered once ♠s are set by the 3 ♠ call after Smolen. 3 NT shouldn't be a logical contract anymore. So 3 NT could be used to begin cueing and deny a ♣ 1st round control. Continuing with 4 ♦ (1st in ♦, no 1st in ♣), 4 ♥ (1st in ♥), the ♣ control issue comes more clearly into view while saving some bidding space.

100% North!!! With a plain vanilla 12-14 TOX hand, South would simply Pass and let North make the next move. So the second Double has to show extras. So North has to cooperate and show that the Lebensohl bid WAS the game force hand by bidding 4 ♠. With 4+ ♠s and the 0-7 hand, North would bid 2 ♠ initially, so the 4 ♠ bid now MUST be the game force. Looking at the South hand, the missing honors are ♠ AQ ♥ AKQJ ♦ Q ♣ Q. Taking a clue from the bidding, it's hardly likely that East is going to bid 4 ♥ all alone without a decent heart holding. So it would seem pretty hard for North to have a game forcing hand without at least one high ♠ honor. So South might consider simply bidding a 5 NT Grand Slam Force.