rmnka447

I'd also bid 5 ♦ and pass thereafter. It looks like you have 4 losers without any help from partner. You might have 5 losers if the opponents can somehow find a ♣ ruff. If the opponents bid at the 5 level, I sit because I don't want to push them into a makeable slam that they wouldn't bid on their own.

Thanks for the clarification concerning ACOL. Prior to Jacoby 2 NT, a Standard American 2 NT response promised no more than a doubleton in opener's major and a balanced 13 or more. 3 NT was a stronger 4-3-3-3 -- 16-18. After integrating Jacoby 2 NT, it's a matter of partnership agreement what 3 NT shows. My sense is that most Standard pairs simply shift what was the forcing flat 2 NT response to 3 NT.

I'm opening 1 ♦ and rebidding 5 ♣. The 5 ♣ bid shows a very distributional 2 suiter, so a ♦ lead isn't necessarily automatic if opener makes that bid.

3 NT will probably work out a decent percentage of the time, but be prepared to accept bad results when the 3 NT bid handcuffs opener from bidding further. If partner holds something like ♠ Kx ♥ KQxxx ♦ KQxx ♣ xx, it's difficult to make a move over 3 NT.

I'm also a 3 ♥ bidder with the North hand. With a working 17 HCP, I think North must make some call. 4 ♣ is too high not knowing if partner has ♣s or not. Partner isn't likely to have 4 ♥ as with most 4-4 or 5-4 major hands, I'd expect a double. The 3 ♥ call though starts to paint a picture of the hand for partner. IMHO, it shows 4 ♥s, longer ♣, and some extra values. I would take a Dbl by North as showing extras and not as a penalty double. But it really doesn't give South any clue as to what North holds other than extra HCP. The reason that the double isn't penalty is that South's 1 ♠ bid is ambiguous. It can be made on anything from 6 to 20 HCP. If near the minimum for the 1 ♠ bid, it's hard to expect South to compete further without some indication as to which side hold the balance of the points.

One consideration about using transfer or not over the weak NT is what the opponent's are doing. For example, here in the US with probably 80-90% of the players playing strong NTs and 5 card majors, playing transfers opposite sides contracts vs. the majority of the field. That's because the hands that you are opening a weak NT on, the rest of the field is opening in one of a minor. Responder then responds in the 5+ card major and becomes declarer. Personally, with my favorite partner, we haven't used transfers in nearly 40 years of playing weak NTs (Kaplan-Sheinwold). During all that time, we've never seen any compelling reason to use them. Part of that may be our preference to use a 2 ♦ bid to initiate a normally two suited runout of 1 NT (August 2 ♦ bid).

Pass. I don't see any thing special in this hand to upgrade it to a 1 NT opening initially.

In one of the ACBL Bulletins a couple years, there was an article addressing how often a short ♣ was actually short. As I recall, the article said that it occurred only about 18% of the time. So lacking a far better lead, not leading a ♣ for partner is an anti-percentage play.

Pass without hesitation. Over 1 ♠, responder's hand is almost a complete unknown -- just about any hand not good enough for a 2 level response. About the only thing you know about responder's hand is that there are probably not 3+ ♠ in it. If opener is opening a 5+ card ♠ suit, it can be any opener from a scrawny 11 to just below a 2 ♣ opener. However, if the opener has only a 4 card ♠ suit, then it would seem that 4 ♥s must also be held else one of a minor would have been opened. If opener has a balanced 4-4 major hand, then it must be equal or greater in value to your hand else a weak NT would have been opened. So stepping into this auction is a huge risk. You're looking at a 15 count. Give opener 12 and responder 6, then partner can have maybe a 7 count at most which makes it a part score hand. Down 1 doubled or down 2 vulnerable (-200) is the kiss of death in matchpoint part score hands. +50 may not be a great result, but you'll likely have plenty of company making it an average/average - at worst.

♦ J It's basically a guess, but holding 5 ♦ between the 2 hands some opponent (or both [4-4]) has ♦ length. Like others I suspect LHO would be slightly more likely to lead from Qxxx than Axxx. If they are 5-3, then I don't think LHO would have an issue leading from either Axxxx or Qxxxx. But when they are 3-5, I suspect that LHO would have a lot more trouble leading from Axx than Qxx. So the J seems marginally better than the K to me.

Add another seconding the Hog's comments.

Double. Typically, I play these as higher end equal plus value hands or, if playing Cappelletti, penalty. So here my double would show a good 14 or decent 15 exactly what this hand is. A bit more caution is needed when competing over a weak NT. But at some point if you don't compete, you'll find yourself getting stolen blind from the weak NTers. If partner has a good 9 or 10, game may be in the works -- even 3 NT. But if you pass this hand now, you may never get there, even if partner backs into the auction. With a max of 13 points in the remaining hands, there's a good possibility partner might not have enough to bid even though the par result would be a part score your way. The danger is that NTer's partner might hold the 9 or 10 and you'd be stepping into big trouble. C'est la guerre. In any case, the ♠ AKQJ are good leads versus NT and can provide a resting place and tricks if you get into trouble.

It's close, but I wouldn't open this hand. Change the ♣ to KJ10xxx and I would open it. Passing the double is masterminding the hand. Partner's hand can be anything from a hand with a long suit and not quite enough to bid at the 2/3 level directly to a rock crusher with 4 ♠s. Beating 2 ♥x for +100 may not be enough if you're making a part score. If you've got a game on, you've got to beat it 4 to get a better score. Anytime 2 ♥ makes, you're probably getting a bad result. You win big time when you beat it 2 or more versus a part score your way or 4 or more versus a game your way. Since you can't know which cards partner holds, passing is a big time top or bottom gamble. I'm bidding 3 ♣ and letting partner take the next step, if any.

West should bid 4 NT. It's an 18 count. Partner who has chosen to play 3 NT opposite what could be a distributional 12 or 13. The 18 count includes giving full value to the ♥ J. Some might discount it, but opposite partner's ♥ stopper, it can be a useful card.

When I first saw the auction, I was thinking that this might be another Gerber or not problem, too. A simple solution, from Matt Granovetter's book on conventions, is to use Texas Transfers. Then a Texas transfer followed by 4 NT is always RKCB or whatever your ace asking bid is. Using that artifice resolves a whole lot of possible confusion in other auctions. Assuming something like that is in place, then the 4 ♣ bid is a cue versus suit problem. Without any prior discussion, I would assume it's a suit. First, there may be other routes available to responder, likely via Stayman/Smolen, to set the major and provide room for cueing. Second, it would seem to be important for responder to be able to show two suiters in order to get to the right game/slam opposite a huge NT hand.

I think the right bid over 2 NT is 3 NT. Some counting puts the combined assets of the hand at 28-29 points normally not quite enough to be in the slam zone with somewhat flat hands. I can see where South got excited holding ♣ AKxx, thought he knew North's problem, and carried on to 6. But I think an inference was missed when North bid 5 ♣. If North had held ♠ Kx or ♠ x, wouldn't North have cued 4 ♠? The inability of North to cue in ♠, then seems to indicate that at least 1 ♠ loser exists. Holding ♦ Qx, South can't be sure a second loser doesn't exist because North's 4 ♦ bid doesn't promise more than a 2nd round control. Without some assurance a second loser doesn't exist, then South must pass. Bidding 6 is speculating that North holds the ♦ AK, the ♦ AJ (where the slam might be on a finesse), or the ♦ A with other cards where you can pitch the potential ♦ loser (♥ KQ maybe).

Bid 4 ♥ at IMPs. IMP scoring says you should bid vulnerable games anytime it's about a 35% or more chance to make. Partner has shown ♣ shortness, presumably 3 ♥s, and longer ♦ than ♠. You hold honors with intermediates in partner's suits and ♥s. They should mesh well with whatever partner holds in these suits. Partner could be as much as 18+ value, but certainly should have at last 16 to jump in ♥. Finally, you are behind and this looks like a good hand to try to create a swing on.

When partner bids ♥ twice he has to be showing at least 5 ♥. If it's intended to be some sort of a control showing or other bid, it's just too cryptic for me. Since partner has bid ♣ first, it should mean ♣s are longer. So the hand is likely to be 6-5. What strength is that hand? Without long experience as partners or some firm agreement, it's just too tough to know. Your hand is an absolute minimum response. Your values are quacks in the suits partner doesn't have. But you do have a decided preference to play in a 9 card fit versus a 6 card fit. So, in my view, the proper action is to bid 4 ♣. It says "Partner I've heard that you have 5 ♥, but playing in ♣ is preferable." The other message that 4 ♣ sends is that opposite partner's 6-5 hand, nothing in your hand has improved to suggest game is possible. If 4 ♣ turns out to be wrong because partner has bid unusually, that's not your problem.

I certainly do understand the distinction between the auctions you suggest. My answer was pointed toward the auction OP gave, namely 1 NT-3 NT. When the opponents bid strongly to a game, normally an attacking lead is best. Then the approach I outlined is a very useful way to think about how to start defending the hand. It certainly has worked well for me for many, many years. If the opponents bearly stumble into game, then that is a different situation. The focus then should generally be on not trying to give anything away. So you look for a passive lead that's unlikely to help declarer. I thought about including a comment to this effect in my original post, but decided against it to keep focused on the original situation OP was asking about.

Do you know what the defensive objective is when defending 3 NT? Normally, it's very similar to what declarer is trying to do, namely, to set up and cash your side's long suit tricks. It's a race, but the good news is that you get the first shot. The prime considerations are how easy will it be to set up the suit and are there entries to allow cashing the suit when it's set up. Start out with some counting. You're looking at 6 HCP and the declaring side has at least 25. That leaves about 9 HCP maximum for partner. There's no reason to believe that partner is in a substantially better position to set up his long suit than you are with your long suit. If partner holds an honor in ♦s, it may take only one lead to set up the suit or at least a couple tricks. The ♥ Q might be a potential entry, also. So, if you ask yourself the key question -- "Whose suit are we trying to set up?", a reasonably good answer is "My suit." Leading a low ♦ according to your lead conventions seems right.

In the first set of hands shown, my choices would be: - East's 1 ♥ is OK, - I'd never bid 2 ♦ nor double with the South hand. I'd pass hoping to back in later on, - Over the 2 ♦ bid, I don't think West has quite enough for a 2 level negative double, - After the negative double, I think North has a clear 3 ♦ raise. It precludes E/W from finding a ♠ fit at the 2 level, and, - Bidding 2 ♥ seems a bit wimpy to me. If opener held ♠ x ♥ AQJ109x ♦ AQx ♣ Axx, a 3 ♥ bid would be easy. Here opener has an equivalent trick taking player in ♥s, so I'd be inclined to bid 3 ♥ with the hand and insist on playing ♥s. My ideal auction wouid be: 1 ♥ (P) 1 ♠ (P) 3 ♥ (P) 4 ♥ If South gets off to a ♣ lead, then 4 ♥ goes down. Any other lead lets East pitch a loser on the ♦ K. On the second (true) set of hands shown, my choices would be: - East's hand is either a 1 ♥ or 2 ♥ bid. Even though it has 2 QTs, it's 11 disjointed points, so I'd opt for 2 ♥, - As before, I'd never bid 2 ♦ nor double with the South hand, - After a 2 ♦ overcall, I'd never negative double with the West hand. It has length with the ♦ bidder and a void in partner's 5+ card suit. The hand has misfit written all over it. Pass seems best, - Over the negative double, this time pass seems right. With advancer's heart holding and an absence of a ♥ raise from West, both South and West seem to be short in ♥s. So the hand may not play well in ♦, - With the negative double, 2 ♥ is pretty much forced on East after the negative double, and, - I don't know anyone who'd treat the double of 2 ♥ as penalty. My ideal auction would be: 2 ♥ (P) P (P)

I'm leading the ♣ K. If you lead ♣ 5, partner knows you hold a ♣ honor, but which one? ♣ K clarifies the situation for partner, so a losing defense option won't likely be chosen. Kelsey covered this in type of play in depth in his short book (OOP) "Improve your Partner's Defence". It's an easy play to miss if you just mechanically lead the suit.

I'm bidding 4 ♠. It tells the story of my limit raise best -- namely no red suit controls. Partner ought to be able to infer that I must hold ♠ values if I can't cue anything.

I voted for the "impossible" 2 ♠ bid showing a good ♣ raise. If you are not using that bid, then my vote would be for 3 ♣. I'd expect partner with a minimum opener to simply rebid 3 ♣. If partner has something extra and tries a NT game by bidding 3 ♠ showing a stopper, you have an easy 3 NT call. If partner shows a ♦ stopper via 3 ♦, you can ask about ♠ help with a 3 ♠ bid. 2 NT might be an alternative. You do have stoppers in each suit. However, partner has presumably already showed 8+ cards in the rounded suits. A NT contract might not be a good spot without some ♠ help. I view the hand as a 10 pointer and wouldn't add the distribution points unless we were surely headed toward a suit contract.

I sure have and tried to make useful and thoughtful comments. OP is obviously a fairly new player who's looking for some help/direction in how to improve. While OP asked about the play on the hand, the real issue was getting too high. So, hopefully, some constructive comments on the auction and the thought processes involved in the bidding decisions would be useful to OP.