rmnka447

5 ♣ down 2 looks to be about as good a result as you can achieve at that contract. Let's talk about the bidding a little. North actually made a terrible bid on the hand. His hand is nowhere near good enough for a double. East 1 ♥ bid is normal. South underbid his hand by bidding 2 ♦. Normally, with an opening hand opposite a T/O double, you would cue the opener's suit to show a strong hand. It might be that the opponents were playing new suits forcing in response to an overcall. In that case, advancer (overcaller's partner) knew that overcaller would have to bid again if you passed, so he'd always have the opportunity to bid again and show his strength later. Normally, if you have minimum or nondescript values over a competitive bid by your RHO, you pass. If your hand were something like ♠ xx ♥ Kxx ♦ xxx ♣ AKJ109, that would be your proper call. But instead you have the ♦ K behind the ♦ bidder making it worth a little more because of where it sits positionally. You also have 6 nice ♣ -- AKJ109x. Some previous posters thought you might need a little more to bid 3 ♣. However, 3 ♣ is a bid you want to make to alert partner that your side can possibly compete further in ♣, if need be. So, I think 3 ♣ is reasonable with your hand. If your hand had scattered opening values and a 6 card scraggly club suit, you should pass not bid 3 ♣. But, it's important to understand that whenever RHO makes a competitive bid, if you make a free bid or call other than pass, you are showing something extra in values or distribution. North now finds a 2nd bid that's from outer space. Your partner and South now make reasonable calls. So, the auction is back to you at 4 ♠. The question is "Should you bid on?" The first question to ask yourself -- "Have you already shown/bid the extent of values and distribution of your hand in your previous bids?" The answer is yes you have pretty much completely done that by bidding 3 ♣. Then ask yourself -- "Do I have any extra distribution or values that might suggest we can make the contract at the next level?" The first place you look is at your holding in the opponent's suit. Here you have a doubleton which means you'll lose 2 tricks there unless your partner has a singleton or void. But there's no way for you to know if that exists. Likewise, your hand is fairly flat and devoid any other feature to suggest that 5 ♣ would make. So, your proper action is to pass and leave the decision to compete further to partner. If partner has something like ♠ A ♥ A10xxxx ♦ xx ♣ Qxxx, partner may bid on when 4 ♠ is a make. But with the actual hand, partner will pass or double leading to a positive result. Another important point -- once you've shown the values existing in your hand, don't keep bidding them over again. I've seen countless great results over the years from players doing exactly that. Even recently, my partner in the last half of a KO match bid to 4 ♥ after I raised. The opponents were competing in ♠ and competed further to 4 ♠. Partner took the push to 5 ♥ and went down several tricks. After the session, the team was discussing the results and partner, who is a very good player, identified his hand. The consensus was that partner had already bid his hand by bidding game and shouldn't have pushed on. So we all are guilty from time to time of falling overly in love with our hands, but it's something that it's important to minimize.

I'm bidding 4 ♥. I'm applying the Fred Will principle -- "I never do anything in the bidding or play of the hand that I can be criticized for in the post mortem." Passing here can hurt you in a couple ways. The opponents might scramble and take 9 tricks, or we might beat 3 ♠ down 1 when 4 ♥/5 of a minor is a rock. Pushing for a thin vulnerable game is not too difficult to explain, but taking a view and have passing result in a large swing will be painful to justify. The real question is "What do you do if the opponents bid 4 ♠?" If partner doubles 4 ♠, I sit. If 4 ♠ undoubled is passed around to me, I'm not so sure what I'd do but would probably bid 4 NT and get partner's input on where to play.

As long as you're going with Kantar, I'd urge you to strongly consider purchasing Kantar's two books on defense. They are: Modern Bridge Defense Advanced Bridge Defense Modern Bridge Defense is the first volume and covers most of the fundamentals of defense. These include leading, second and third hand play, signaling, and discarding. Advanced Bridge Defense gets more into planning the overall defense and working out the layout of the hand. Both are excellent. IMO, they should be mandatory reading for every developing bridge player. Kantar does such a terrific job explaining the hows and whys of defending that you can't help but become a better defender. Since you defend more often than you declare and defense is the most difficult part of the game, becoming a good defender ultimately gives you a big edge. If you can't get both, then concentrate on Modern Bridge Defense. Getting the fundamentals rock solid is just so importamt. As for quiz books, Kantar's Test Your Bridge Play books are excellent. I can't tell you how many times I've been browsing through the bridge books at a regional when a newer player will come, pick up Test Your Bridge Play, and say to their friend "Get this book, it's really good!" They must have something to get that endorsement.

It's hard to answer your question without knowing exactly where you are in your development as a bridge player. So, I will start at the beginning. If you wish to develop as a bridge player, you have to both study the game and play the game. They go together. You can't do one to the exclusion of the other and expect to become a good bridge player. The study exposes you to new ways of thinking about bridge hands. The play helps you apply those new ways of thinking. If you're a newer player, sort of been playing by "the seat of your pants", and never done any study, then the place to start is with a good fundamental book on card play. Your first and most important task as a developing player is to get a good grounding in the fundamentals of card play. Ultimately, you want to be where executing the fundamentals of card play are second nature for you. When you become a player who rarely makes a fundamental card play error, you become a tough player to beat. Fortunately, there are some excellent books available on the fundamentals of card play. Two of the oldest and best are: Watson's Classic Book on the Play of the Hand at Bridge by Louis Watson Card Play Technique by Victor Mollo and Nicola Gardener Watson's book was written in 1934 for a US audience and remains a steadfast part of a player's education here. Mollo/Gardener was written primarily for a Great Britain audience, but also brings up some good and different points about card play. Both cover the fundamentals excellently. I'll speak about Watson's book. The book is broken down into a Fundamentals section and an Advanced section. Newer players should concentrate on the Fundamentals section. Take your time. Work your way through each chapter and make sure you understand the concepts presented. Then go out and play for several months. Then come back and reread the Fundamentals section again. It will be well worth the effort and you sure to gain an even better understanding of the fundamentals. (I'll admit to still going back and rereading Watson from time to time after fifty years. It's always worthwhile.) A digression for an example. Several years ago, I had the opportunity to play with a lady from a slightly distant town in a Pro/Am event at a local regional. ("Pro" was being loosely used to designate a good player. "Am" were basically novices/newer players.) While I was able to provide a couple tips, it wasn't anything earthshaking that would change her arc of development as a bridge player. Two years ago, I noticed she was playing at a regional I was at and she was carrying a copy of Watson around with her. I remember thinking that she's getting it right if she's studying Watson. Sure enough, over the past two years, she's been among the leading masterpoint winners in her ACBL unit among players of her masterpoint level. Occasionally, I play with my local partner at a club where she plays. She rarely makes a fundamental error when playing against us and is tough to beat. More to follow in other posts.

1 - I'm another 3 ♠ bidder with this hand. 2 - No, it's not a reverse.

4 ♠, you have shown your hand and partner has chosen to bid again. At this point all you can do is show your preference by going back to partner's first bid (and presumably longer suit). Trust that partner had a good reason for his bidding.

Just about any hand with 3 QTs is an opener in my opinion, so I'm making a game forcing raise. If I play a 3 NT response as a flat game raise that is the bid I would prefer. Otherwise, I'd use a Jacoby 2 NT raise. IMP scoring dictates that you should bid game with anything that's at all close to making. So, you ought to be there with this hand.

I think the hand calls for action. Your RHO has already passed, so can't hold a good hand that just isn't quite good to bid game opposite a preempt. Preemptor isn't likely to be taking too many risks with red pockets. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the preempt be something like ♠ xx ♥xx ♦ KQJxxx ♣ Kxx especially if a weak 2 ♦ is unavailable due to other bidding agreements. This may be a little more risky than normal, but the opportunity to obstruct the opponents from finding a major fit is too great a temptation not to speak. Double might be right if partner has a ♦ stack or ♥s. 3 ♠ would be better if not. Pay your money and take your choice. My gut tells me, I'd probably bid 3 ♠.

If you are playing K-S, partner is correct. The raise shows 10+ points, at least 4+ cards in the minor, and no 4 card major. After the raise, partner can limit his hand by bidding 3 of the minor. 2 NT shows the strong NT hand. A new suit simply shows a stopper and it implies that the agreed minor is a real suit (4+ in opener's hand). The idea is to explore for 3 NT before settling in the minor. Give opener something like ♠ AQx ♥ xxxx ♦ KQxxx ♣ A and responder ♠ x ♥ AJ10x ♦ Axxx ♣ KJxx. If you raise the minor, the bidding would proceed: 1 ♦ - 2 ♦ 2 ♠ - ? Now if responder bids 3 NT directly, you lose the ♥ fit. If, instead, responder bids 3 ♣, opener will bid 3 ♦ essentially asking about a ♥ stopper. Then responder must either bid 3 NT losing the heart suit again, or, bid 3 ♥. Most bidders would take this 3 ♥ as asking opener about a partial ♥ stopper. Finallly, if responder bids 3 ♥ over 2 ♠, opener will never take it for a 4 card ♥ suit just a stopper. So opener will bid either 3 NT or 4 ♦.

I lead ♦ A. RHO may or may not have a ♥ loser. A look at dummy will give some clue as to whether a ♥ continuation is right. It seems like opener's 4 ♣ bid was useful to declarer. The danger is declarer pitching losers on opener's ♣s. Partner has not made a Lightner double, so probably doesn't have a ♣ void.

Using a 3 NT response as a flat 12-14 point raise, our bidding would probably be: 1 ♥ 3 NT 4 ♥ P If Jacoby was used instead, then our bidding would be: 1 ♥ 2 NT 3 NT 4 ♦ (♦ 1st, no ♣ 1st) 4 ♠ (♠ 1st) ......4 NT (waiting bid - no ♣ 1st) 5 ♥ (no ♣ 2nd, no ♦ 2nd) Pass

If a ♠ is not returned, you come down to this end position, Dummy: ♠ AK5 ♥ - ♦ - ♣ - Declarer: ♠ 7 ♥ - ♦ 7 ♣ 2 So long as each opponent stops only one minor, neither can hold their minor stop and 3 ♠s. In getting to this end position, you can find if 4-2 ♣ exist. Once the spade is returned, the defenders have converted a type B2/C2 double squeeze into the more restrictive type B1/C1 double squeeze. The order of play necessary to execute that double squeeze, as you saw, forces declarer to chose between lines of play. In some cases on other hands, declarer may not be able to execute the B1/C1 squeeze because of entry problems or may not be sure which suits are guarded by each defender. The theme of Defenders forcing Declarer into a B1/C1 double squeeze is one which resonates throughout Love's book and is important to remember.

I'm bidding 5 ♣. Partner has advertised shortness in ♦. With my doubleton, it sure looks like the opponents have at least a 9 card secondary ♦ fit. Defensive prospects don't look too good with my ♦ KJ sitting in front of opener. Unless partner has made a funny T/O double, there is at least a 9 card ♣ fit between our hands. If doubler has the big ♥ overcall hand and can't stand ♣, we'll be OK if 5 ♥ is bid. If I bid 5 ♥, it could get gruesome if doubler shows up with 3 ♥ and the opponents play a forcing defense by continually leading ♠s.

It's never a T/O double. A partnership needs to have some reasonable expectations about what partner has in competitive situations in order to be successful. As others have pointed out, this hand has no where near the defensive values required should partner pass. Worse yet, should doubler's partner make a minimum advancing bid something like 3 ♦, doubler can't show the ♥ suit and could miss a 9 or 10 card ♥ fit. My guess would be that this double was made by a novice player. If not, I'd rate the call H for Hopeless.

The initial question of whether to bid on with the 6-5 hand is easy, opener should bid 5 ♣. Responder's quandary about what to do after 5 ♠ - P - P seems difficult, but a little thought about what's been bid and the implications thereof should help. Opener's 5 ♣ bid has to show some sort of big rounded suited player. Opener isn't likely to roll out a 5 ♣ bid with more than a stiff ♠. In that case, the opponents are almost certainly looking at least a 10 card ♠ fit. Likewise, preemptor is also showing a player in the pointed suits by competing to 5 ♦. That bid seems to suggest at least 11 or 12 pointed suit cards. Preemptor is very unlikely to roll out a 4 card long ♦ second suit holding much longer ♠s. Preemptor almost surely has the ♦ A as it's unlikely that he'd be rolling out a Jxxxx suit at the 5 level With advancer taking a preference back to 5 ♠, defending 5 ♠ doubled can hardly feel like a "sure" positive. There's a real danger that a doubleton in advancer's hand may limit the defender's to a single ♦ trick by ruffing out the second ♦ loser. That means in order to beat 5 ♠, you have to score 2 tricks in the rounded suits. Also, if advancer holds 3 ♦s so you can defeat 5 ♠, then it looks like opener has to have no more than stiff/stiff in the pointed suits. Responder does have fitting cards for both opener's suits. So it looks like their side have the pointed suits and responder's side has the rounded suits. But who can make what? Nothing's certain, but the previous discussion makes it look like doubling 5 ♠ isn't a good choice. The decision comes down to passing out 5 ♠ or bidding on. Bidding on risks possibly pushing them to a makeable slam, but it also makes it much more likely you can defeat the slam by scoring a ♦ trick and a rounded suit trick. If partner holds the right cards, 6 may make your way. So on balance, I think bidding 6 ♣ is best. If 6 ♣ is -1 and 5 ♠ is -1, that's life.

I assume that 3 ♥ must confirm at least opening values and ♥. If overcaller is less than an opener, it would seem a pass would be in order after LHO has competed to 3 ♦. I'm with rhm, I'm making the RKCB bid whatever you agreed bid for that is. Since the cue doesn't necessarily show ♠ support, the RKC bid ought to be for ♥ -- last bid suit.

+1 for the hog's comments!

Partner has chosen not to bid over 1 NT, so has somewhere between 0-10 HCPs. With 11 or more, partner would surely take some invitational or stronger action over the 1 NT bid. Partner also probably doesn't have 5 C ♠ suit or long minor either as it would be normal to sign off in them, if weak, or make a forward going bid with a better hand. Partner also had a second chance to compete over the 2 ♥ bid and didn't do so. So the best we can hope for is MAYBE a 4-4 black suit fit and about 22 HCP. No thanks, I'm passing. I'll accept that we may be yielding an occasional 6-7 IMP part score swing by doing so. BUT, I won't be going for a number like I would if I wander in and find partner with very little. I also may be getting a swing by not giving the opponents a second chance to figure out they have game when we are relatively weak. (One of the most difficult games to bid for the opponents is often 3 NT.) I'm also doing Ok when nobody can make anything.

I agree with those who don't think the slam is a good one. South overbid and got lucky to find a very favorable combination of cards in dummy and fortunate lie of the opponents cards as well. South has no way on knowing that North is void in ♣s and has the very useful ♠ K. With something like ♠ AQ10x ♥ AQxx ♦ 8762 ♣ x, would North have bid any differently? Yet with that hand as dummy, slam has no play. Others have already pointed out the best play in ♦ once ♥s have come in without a loser.

I don't think the West hand is an opening bid -- 12 HCP, only 1 1/2 QTs, and 5 quacks. Playing SAYC, my auction would start with South bidding 1 NT and would match the one tedlevy posted ending up in a sensible 2 ♠.

With partner holding as little as ♦ Qxx and a doubleton ♠, your just about gin for making 6 ♦. Sorry, but when I hold a monster 2 loser player like this, I open 2 ♣. But I could see a problem doing so if your bidding agreements include the negative 2 ♥ response. The problem is how do you force partner to bid again after responding 2 ♥, so you can describe your hand. Playing 2 ♦ waiting/cheapest suit 2nd negative, partner with a bad hand would respond 2 ♦, then bid 3 ♥ over your 3 ♦ rebid. That allows you to bid 3 ♠ followed by 4 ♠ to give partner a choice where to play. If you do open 1 ♦, you follow it up with a jump in ♠ next round and a second ♠ bid after that.

1) With a 6-6 hand, the opponents aren't playing the hand. I'm bidding on to 5 ♠. If I could bid 5 ♥ and not have partner take it for a control, I would make that call. 2) I'm making whatever KC bid is available. If partner shows 2, I'll bid 6 or 7 depending on whether the Q is also held. If partner has 1 and the Q, I'll bid 6. Otherwise, we'll stop in game. If partner is super aggressively preempting 2nd seat vulnerable at IMPs with a 6 card suit or bad trump holding that's their problem.

Playing weak NTs, I'm bidding 1 NT.

Double seems right. 3 ♣ would have shown limit raise plus, 3 ♦ shows ♠ and values with presumably tolerance for ♥s. So 3 ♥ shows some competitive values and a fit, but what? Since responder isn't marked with a lot, I don't think double at this point is mandating that they defend. Rather I think it's more informatory that the responder's "constructive" values include some defense. It's important for responder to tell opener this because opener's 4 ♥ bid is somewhat ambiguous. Responder can't know whether opener's 4 ♥ was pushing to a thin game, bidding to make, or bidding on with a monster. Double simply tells responder's story and leaves the decision to opener. If instead of 3 ♥, responder had bid 3 ♣ showing values, a double in this situation would demand defending.

Partner is weak, but found a double over their 5 ♦ bid. Normally, you'd expect partner to just pass or perhaps bid on with distribution. Partner must have a reason for doubling. So, it's best to trust partner and pass.