rmnka447

I'd give East the lion's share of the blame. I'd make a limit raise with the East hand. How often do you hold a 9 prime HCP, 2 QT hand with 4 trumps and a ruffing value? The extra trump is big. You'd still make a constructive raise if a ♥ was a ♣. And with that revised hand, you'd bid 3 ♦ over a 3 ♣ help suit game try. The extra trump adds more value, so that adds up to a limit raise IMHO.

I'd bid 4 ♥ at the first opportunity to speak. But on the actual auction, I'm not so sure that I'd take the sac. -1100 is worth about an 8 IMP gain IF our teammates are voluntarily bidding to a makeable slam. If the slam is bid at both tables and doesn't make, -1100 loses us 15 IMPs. If our teammates aren't bidding to slam and it makes, we're saving about 3 IMPs by taking a -1100 instead of -1430. If slam goes down and our teammates are only in game at the other table, -1100 gives away 28 IMPs.

Unless partner's bid is conventional, it is definitely non-forcing. It should be passed. Yes, you do have a singleton in partner's suit and are concerned that 2 ♣ may not be a good place to play. However, partner will not intervene without length in the suit bid. The minimum length is normally 5 cards. The problem is that you can't know how long partner's suit is. If partner's suit is 6 or 7 cards long, 2 ♣ may not play too badly. Since you can't know what partner has, your best choice is to pass. With length in ♣s, partner is less likely to have a fit in any suit you might hold. So bidding on is more likely to dig you into a deeper whole than you might already be in.

Most Standard American players will rebid 1 ♠ holding 4 ♠s, so that a 1 NT rebid denies 4 ♠. Playing a weak NT with most opponents playing strong NTs, it is normal to bypass ♠s to rebid 1 NT and show the 15-17 balanced hand. The opponents aren't bidding 1 ♠ with these hands anyway. It avoids the potential to wrong side NT contracts when you bid 1 ♠. And at times, it resolves bidding issues as to whether opener's initial minor suit bid is a real suit or not. So a 1 ♠ rebid insures opener has equal or longer length in the opening bid suit. Years ago, Checkback bids became a necessary extension to bidding over the 1 NT rebid to avoid missing major suit fits that Strong NTers found via Stayman and Jacoby Transfers. At the time, I recall virtually no Standard American bidders using this tool over their 1 NT rebids. Eventually, a few top notch players started using checkbacks. Then Marty Bergen, in a series of articles in his ongoing column on bidding in the ACBL Bulletin, covered the rationale and methodology of rebidding 1 NT with an unbid major and using checkbacks. The articles were edited and included in his landmark book on constructive bidding. It was only after this publicizing that this approach began to be seen in much use at all among Standard American bidders. Still, many Standard bidders will use checkbacks, but still persist in rebidding 1 ♠ with 4 ♠s. There may be a good rationale for doing so. About 75% of hands opened 1 of a minor when playing Strong NTs are minmum range hands. So there's more concern about part score bidding with these hands.

Sorry, but your assertion that most all writers advocate up the line bidding is wrong. Kaplan-Sheinwold's 1960 groundbreaking book How to Play Winning Bridge advocated bypassing the ♦ suit to bid a major with hands of less than reversing values as responder. It was one of the first to advocate this style of bidding over a 1 ♣ opening. At the time, up the line bidding was a cornerstone of Standard American bidding as codified and popularized by Charles Goren. Just to be clear, in the After a Minor Opening chapter of the K-S book, the following examples were given in the Responding in a Major subsection as cases where the major should be bid instead of ♦s: ♠ xxxx ♥ xx ♦ KQxx ♣ xxx (1) ♠ xx ♥ xxxx ♦ AKxxx ♣ Kx (2) Up the line bidding works well in undisturbed auctions. However, when the opponents intervene, it may not do so well. Consider for hand (1), if after you bid your up the line 1 ♦ response, your LHO bids 2 ♥. You'll lose a ♠ fit unless opener has a hand strong enough to bid them as your hand isn't good enough to reopen.

If I'm South, I'm certainly taking a call over 4 ♣. The 2 ♠ reverse call was based on being a big playing hand rather than HC points. But partner can't know that. If you pass, you are saying you have no clear cut bid. That implies a reverse based more on HC values than distribution. Although I believe in that old adage "What do you call a 7 card suit? Trump!", I think with this hand a 4 ♠ bid is best. Partner is still allowed to have 3 ♠ for the 3 NT bid. More importantly 4 ♠ shows 5+ spades and longer ♦s implying at least 6-5 hand. So partner will have a pretty good picture of what the hand is. Then, any further action partner takes on the hand is more likely to be right.

I'm also treating this as a "balanced" 22 opener. If any other spot card in the hand were a ♣, you bid it that way. So you're off from a true 22 balanced by only one card. Bidding it as balanced also makes it unlikely that lose a major fit when one exists.

ArtK78 has hit the main points. North was too timid over 4 ♥. North holds 12 HCP AND that very valuable 5th trump. Along with the 17-19 that opener has, it puts the hand clearly in the slam exploratory zone. However, North's options to explore for slam have been severely limited by the bidding system which gobbled up so much bidding room to show opener's hand. North also has some concerns about whether slam exploration over 4 ♥ gets the partnership past a last makeable contract of 4 ♠. Yet it would seem very unlucky if South held a hand that didn't have at least some legitimate play for 5 ♠.

2 ♥ I'm in line with OP opening comment that ♥ AQxxxx would make this a minimum opener. In any case, I tend to favor reasonably disciplined weak 2 in 1st and 2nd seat, especially at IMPs.

Pass. mikeh and WesleyC comments are right on point. What was there 3 NT game bid based upon? Much more likely than not, the game has simply been bid on HC strength. That means they probably have plenty of winners to cash against any save you make. If you are going to save, then you are going to need something to offset those winners. That something has to be distribution, so you and partner can ruff out some of their winners. Unfortunately, your hand has a relatively flat distribution. There's no ruffing "protection" in your hand from the opponents cashing side suit winners except your high card holding in ♥. Where you want to consider saving is when you hold shortness in suits especially suits partner is likely to be long in. Hands like ♠ J109x ♥ Axxxx ♦ - ♣ xxxx or even ♠ J109x ♥ Axx ♦ Jxxxx ♣ x are much more conducive to saving. With partner marked with 9+ cards in ♠ and a minor, ♥ would seem to be the suit partner is most likely to be short in. So shortness outside of ♥ would seem to be better than shortness in ♥. Likewise, length in one minor and shortness in the other will likely complement partner's holding. If you both have length in the same minor, it may limit the winners and potential ruffs in that suit. If you neither holds the other's minor, then a potential crossruff may be available.

Put me in the 3 NT rebid camp on this hand. Rebidding 3 ♠ would imply that you have a good spade holding. It might be embarrassing if partner raises on ♠ xx or decides to take a view with a ♠ x.

Double, for a few reasons. 1. A takeout double promises 3+ cards in every unbid suit and opening values. That's exactly what you have. Sure, you'd like to have 4 ♠, but it's not absolutely required. If one of your small ♣ was a small ♦, you'd have no problem calling a double. 2. You'd like to have a better suit for a 2 level overcall. A decent hand with a ♣ stack behind you could add up to a set for a number. 3. Even with 15 HCP, the scattered Ks and Js without many intermediates, just don't seem like a 1 NT overcall

3 ♠. While divulging information to help the defense may be an issue, the first and foremost consideration in bridge is to get to the right places. This is a hand that requires partner's input and cooperation to make the best informed decision. So invite. At MPs, another consideration is what the rest of the field will do. If you play weak NTs in a field of primarily strong NTers, the Strong NT pair bidding will almost assuredly go 1 m - 1 ♠ - 2 ♠ followed by a game try. If the game try (SSGT, HSGT, etc.) let's them make a better decisions, that's the breaks. Not inviting by passing or bidding game rates to be antifield any time they don't make the same decision you do. If the field is primarily weak NTers, then a similar invite to game is likely by most if not all the field. Any other action than an invite again rates to be antifield. Antifield actions can get you spectacularly good results when you guess right and spectacularly bad results when you guess wrong. It's top and bottom bridge.

A 2 ♥ reverse for me, too. The hand is just too good for a simple jump in ♦. If partner raises ♥, then partner must have 5+ ♠. If partner simply makes the weakness/waiting bid, then the ♠ support can be shown. Partner might picture the hand as KQx KQxx AKxxx x, but that's only off by 1 card. If partner has 4 ♠ and ♣s, it may also enable us to find a good 3 NT contract. Although it's normal to have 4+ cards in the reverse suit, sometimes making a "hasty" reverse into a 3 card makes a lot of sense in conveying the strength of a hand (like maybe Ax AQx AKJxxxx x which is just short of a strong 2 ♣). Responder just needs to keep in mind that it will occasionally happen.

Pass. If 4 ♥ makes, I'll tip my hat to the 4 ♥ bidder and get on to the next board. I don't like holding so many ♠ in front of the 2 ♠ bidder. Partner and the 4 ♥ bidder both rate to be short. Unfortunately, the ♥ bidder gets to ruff after partner when both are out. At unfavorable vulnerability, the 2 ♠ bidder might also hold some additional asset, especially if holding only ♠ AJ10xxx. I wouldn't be surprised at seeing 7 ♠ to the A in dummy either. Partner has been unable to act over 2 ♠ with likely short ♠. Is a double for takeout or just card showing? Only the most experienced pairs might have a chance at discerning what the bid shows. If partner chooses to bid, holding a doubleton, even doubleton honors, in the only other suit partner is likely to bid doesn't seem good. Exchange the ♠ and ♦, then double makes much more sense. Bidding 5 ♣ unilaterally seems more like a wild stab at a top then anything else. Pass may not the most colorful action, but everything else seems fraught with a good chance of spectacular disasters.

I also favor making an overcall with the "Michaels" hand -- bid 1 ♠, then keep bidding clubs and pard will eventually get the picture. Over a double or 2 m bid by responder, you, as advancer, can make a 2 ♥ cue to start showing your values. Also, even if partner still chooses to Michaels, how about telling partner you have at least a game and a ♠ fit by bidding 3 ♥. If partner has the less than opener Michaels hand, they can still bid 3 ♠ and you can simply settle for game.

Partner should raise to 4 ♠. Partner can't know how many ♥s you have. The only clue is that you didn't raise ♥ immediately which would tend to deny 3+ ♥. If you hold 2 ♥, it may not matter which suit you play in. But anytime you hold less, ♠ will probably play better. So it's normally better to bid game in the known 8+ card fit, then speculate on the possible other fit.

Pass! It looks like the opponents are in a bad spot. You know it, but they don't necessarily know it. I'd expect the pro will probably bid on, but if you speak, you give up the chance to have the pro make a mistake by passing.

Pass!!! Are the opponent's in a bad spot? Yes! Might a double give the opponent's a clue how to play the hand? Yes Might a double let the opponent's find a better place to play? Probably not, but 6 NT might be an alternative. As the cards sit, you want to defend 6 ♣. If a double may allow the opponents to find a better contract or give potential information on how to play the hand, as here, then pass.

East has announced a ♦ stack against you. It could be something like ♦ KQJxx or KQxxxx, so you want to run. If XX is SOS, then this is the time to use it and pass whatever partner bids.

I'm a blaster also, especially at teams. Non vulnerable, the scoring methodology says it's about even whether to bid game vs. part score at IMPs. But making thin games is one of the keys to winning at IMPs. If, as one previous poster stated, you add points for the void, you've got enough to bid game. By LTC, you have a 7 loser hand opposite approximately a 7 loser opener, so you figure to make about 10 tricks ([7+7 actual losers] - 24 possible losers = -10 losers or 10 winners).

I don't have any problem with either 2 ♠ or 2 NT. I would prefer 2 NT because the ♠ suit isn't that good and there is a potential double stopper in ♥s.

I normally play Woolf, so all 3 level bids other than 3 ♣ are forward going after a jump rebid of 2 NT. But here I think I prefer 1 ♦ - 1 ♠ - 2 NT - 4 ♦ sequence. This should be slammish with 5+ ♦ as 3 ♦ would still show a fit and be forward going. It should be easy to get to the slam from there.

Yes, the hand is a monster opposite a negative double where responder has 4+ ♠. But when contemplating slam, stop and ask yourself what you need to ensure slam makes. Here it's pretty plain to see that slam is a good bet if responder has a ♥ control and at least 4 ♠ including the ♠ Q. Responder had the opportunity to bid 1 ♠ over 1 ♥ to show 5+ ♠s. So it seems pretty likely that responder probably has only 4 ♠s when holding ♠s. Responder's 3 NT bid after your 2 ♥ seems to provide the ♥ control, but the issue of whether responder has the ♠ Q is still up in the air. The 3 NT bid suggests there are enough HCP that it might be there, but it doesn't guarantee it. Unless you can find a way to find out if it's there, you shouldn't bid slam. (I'm sure we all have fallen in love with hands and bid too much at times. I know I have.) About the only way I can see to be sure that it's there would be a bidding sequence with a ♠ agreement, cues where responder could show the ♥ control, and RKCB with a queen ask. I'm not sure I can come up with such a sequence.

Pass, not 2 ♥, too much chance of missing a cold game when partner holds a decent hand with ♠.