rmnka447

Over the last year or so, my favorite partner and I have changed to a new runout scheme over a penalty double of our weak NT (11+-14) openers. Originally, we had played that redouble required 2 ♣ by the 1 NT opener. Over the redouble, responder could pass with 5+ ♣ or bid another 5+ card suit. If responder was willing to play 1 NT XX, responder passed, which was alerted as showing a willingness to play 1 NTxx. After responder passed, opener was required to redouble. If responder was wasn't willing to play 1 NTxx and didn't have a 5+ card suit, he could start to run by bidding his cheapest 4 card suit. Bidding proceeded up the line until a fit was found. Our other KO team members, who also play (11+/12-14) weak NTs, convinced us to move to their runout system. After a penalty double of 1 NT, redouble, 2 ♣, 2 ♦, and 2 ♥ are all transfers (redouble -> transfer to 2 ♣). They promise 5+ cards in the transferred to suit. 2 ♠ is natural and to play. Without a 5 card suit or with a hand willing to play 1 NTx or 1 NTxx, responder passes. After a pass by responder, opener can pass 1 NTx with a hand where he's willing to play it there. Otherwise, opener can bid a 5 card minor or redouble to request responder to start bidding suits (presumably 4 cards) up the line. After the redouble, responder can pass to play 1 NTxx or start bidding suits up the line. The newer method has the advantage of concealing opener's hand and putting the doubler on opening lead when responder has a 5+ card suit. It also makes it easier for opener to run to his 5 card minor suit when holding one.

Tough choice, but I opt for 2 NT.

Playing weak NTs, the opponents are likely equally in a fog about where the values in the hand lie. The problem competing in 4th seat is that the passing responder can have up to a pretty good 10 or 11 and pass. That makes it important for 4th seat to have some pretty good values to come into the auction. So I'd expect that quite a bit of the time, the hand will be passed out. So don't worry about a double until it appears. You have a clear pass. You've rightly assessed that your hand isn't right to jump to a weak 3 ♣.

Well, the preempt worked enough to probably stop you from reaching 7. There's just no way to identify that all the cards are present for 13 tricks to be made. Nonetheless, the North hand has a 1st round ♥ control and fits for whatever South bids next. Even better, North has controls and honor combinations in every suit beside ♥s. So, the hand is well worth a 5 ♥ bid. 5 ♥ should show the 1st round ♥ control, imply a fit in ♦, and show a really good hand because the bid is driving the partnership to slam. After 5 ♥, South should bid 6 ♦, if possible.

I'm bidding 5 ♦. 6 ♦ might be there, but there's no way to know if partner has exactly the right cards. I agree with all that think East is operating. West's 3 ♠ bid might be based more on playing tricks than HCP, maybe something like ♠ AKJ109xx ♥ xxx ♦ - ♣ Kxx.

BTW, my favorite partner and I would have little problem getting to 7 ♠. We play a very structured control bidding methodology that works well on this hand after we get through our modified Jacoby 2 NT responses. It's based on using trump bids and NT bids as waiting bids in the control bidding. We also still adhere to bidding 1st round controls before 2nd round controls. 1 ♠...2 NT 3 ♣...3 ♦ (minor shortness... Which minor?) 3 ♠...4 ♣ (♦ shortness...1st round ♣ control, no 1st round ♦ control) 4 ♦...5 ♥ (1st round ♦ control...Sweep Cue) 7 ♠ The Sweep cue shows in turn all intervening controls. In order, it shows in order -- a 1st round ♥ control, a high trump honor, a 2nd round ♣ control, ♦ K, and a 2nd round ♥ control. With all that information, opener can bid 7 ♠ pretty easily. Just included this post to show there are different ways to skin a cat.

I think the hand is too good to splinter. Normally, a direct splinter would show something 11-16 value unless you have some special agreements. So I agree completely with the thought that a lot depends on one's methods over Jacoby 2 NT. I like the idea of playing a splinter followed by RKCB/1430 as an exclusive RKCB/1430 bid.

I also agree with the hand being closer to 24 than 22 comment. If you make the "Bergin" adjustments for As and 10s vs. Qs and Js, it would suggest the hand is worth about a 2 point increase in value. With the responding hand, I'd Stayman after 2 ♣-2 ♦-2 NT and settle for game in ♠.

North gets the blame on this hand. Why? North knows that their side has more than the balance of the points something South cannot know. As happened here, East's preempt has made it impossible for South to support North's ♠s because it is unknown with exactly how many points North responded. West passed but possibly could hold about opening values and ♦s making it impossible to compete. If South bids 4 ♠ and finds that to be the case (i.e. North responded with just a few points), then it could be a telephone number set for E/W. So South is stuck passing and awaiting further developments. North has to make a card showing double -- showing at least 10 or 11 HCP and no clear direction what to do. Here North with a 2 1/2 QT 11 pointer is on the edge of an opener. South then should bid the VUL game because at IMPs the scoring says you should bid game on anything close to game. Note that if South held a ♣ stack instead of ♠s, the double could be passed and might produce a number set for N/S.

I'll pass this hand.

My gut reaction is to bid on. You're hardly likely to lose more than 2 tricks in their suits. Opener has shown some sort of big fit with responder's weak jump shift. Partner has shown some sort of a good hand with the 3 ♦ cue. Looking at a 16 count and placing partner with a decent 11 or 12 for the cue, the opponents must be bidding on distribution. If I make the wrong decision in bidding on where we're down 1 doubled and 4 ♠ is down 1 doubled, we're giving away 5 IMPs at most. If 5 makes our way, then bidding on was right. If 5 goes down, but 4 ♠ makes, you're ahead of where you would have been from passing. Finally, and the situation that propels me most to make a call, if both 4 ♥ and 4 ♠ both make, you have a potential double game swing situation if your partners don't find the 4 ♠ "sac". Normally -- with my playing partners who play new suit forcing after overcall -- I'd just bid 5 ♥. I f you play new suits NF, then maybe you might consider a 5 ♣ choice of game call unless partner might take it as a move toward slam.

1 ♣ and plan to rebid 2 ♣.

Pass. Although you haven't shown your ♣ control, you have already shown the value of your hand with your 4 ♥ bid. Unless opener has made an unusual weak 2 bid with 5 vulnerable or responder has raised with a doubleton, your A ♥ is probably only useful to provide a pitch from partner's hand. You have no reason to suspect the high card assets in the hand are split any more than evenly between the pairs. Putting specific cards in partner's hand is never a good idea unless bridge logic really tells you they are there. Here you have no idea what partner holds and really never will be able to find out. If partner holds the right values, slam might be lay down. But as likely, if partner holds the wrong cards, 4 ♠ goes down. Making an additional move toward slam at this point is a top or bottom shot in the dark. Partner heard your 4 ♥ and didn't make any further move toward slam. Since bidding is a cooperative process, I think it's right to accept partner's judgment and pass.

3 ♦, like ahydra, bidding what-I've-got. You do have a probable ♥ stop. But unless partner has ♥ help, you may have to run 8 more in a row in 3 NT after a ♥ opening lead or go down.

I'm a passer also, for now. Any bid at this point in the auction is pure speculation on who has what. The hand isn't good enough to bid 4 ♥ directly here. Maybe I'm gun shy, but that's from years of wandering into these auctions and having the corresponding West nail me. So I'll await developments. If pard can make some noise in the pass out seat, it becomes a lot easier to make a call. Since preempter can have a suit headed by no better than KJ10, I'd expect his/her hand to have some extra distribution -- trump length or maybe a second suit.

The preference back to 2 ♥ does not promise any more than 2 ♥. With 3 or more ♥s, it's normal for responder to raise directly, or start a temporizing sequence with a raise on the second round (invitational or better). Here responder has shown a limited hand (6-9), so is very unlikely to hold 3 ♥s. As someone suggested, if they balance in at 2 ♠ in the pass out seat, opener might compete at 3 ♣. That tells opener's whole story (5-5) and gives responder the chance to take a preference. I'd expect more often than not responder would pass 3 ♣. The reason why I'd expect 3 ♣ to played more often is that responder holding 3 ♣s and 2 ♥s will normally preference back to 2 ♥ as in this auction. Opener promised no more than 4 ♣ with the 2 ♣ bid, so it would be normal for responder to prefer to play in the known 5-2 fit rather than a possible 4-3 fit. Responder might pass 2 ♣ if holding a really ratty response and 4 ♣. At IMPs, vulnerable, I'd seriously consider passing out 2 ♠ if the opponents competed to it. The absolute minimum nature of the opening bid and very mediocre, at best, ♣ suit make competing further a bit risky. BTW, I'm in the pass over 2 ♥ camp.

Put me in the 2 ♦ cue bid camp. Since the hand has already passed, it's important to convey to partner that you hold as good a hand as you can hold given the auction so far. It may useful information for partner to have both in terms of moving forward toward game or potentially doubling later in the auction. The hand is right on the cusp of being an opening bid. You have 2 QTs and a potential stopper/trick in opener's ♦ suit. If you simply bid 2 ♠, I don't think doubler will ever be able to envision you holding that much. So you may miss out on game opposite some nice 13/14 counts when partner just can't move for fear of your having an 8 or 9 count.

No, not with a minimum hand. We adopted some parts from Kaplan's update of the K-S system. The germaine change adopted is an interchange of the 2 ♣ and 3 ♣ rebids. A 2 ♣ rebid shows at least reversing values while a 3 ♣ rebid shows a minimum hand presumably 5-5 minors or something close to it. While such a change might sound ridiculous, it actually works out quite well. It gives us a lot more flexibility for opener to describe strong unbalanced hands. Playing weak NTs, minor openers are skewed much more toward strong hands ( about 66% of the time versus 25% of the time playing strong NTs). But the problem hand is the 1-4-4-4 hand where we're pretty much constrained to rebidding a 4 card ♦ suit.

Whatever choice you make for a 2 ♦ bid will have some positives and negatives. Play whatever variant fits best with your overall bidding system and style. I prefer Flannery when playing any 2/1 variant. In my best and longest standing partnership, we've played Kaplan-Sheinwold (2/1 with weak NTs) for a long, long time. Throughout, Flannery has provided a simple, but not perfect, way to handle minimum range 4 ♠/ 5 ♥ hands. It does solve the rebid problem with a 4=5=2=2 hand over a forcing 1 NT. But what's often overlooked is how it makes the 1 ♥ - 1 ♠ auctions a lot simpler and cleaner. Responder has 5 ♠s when responding 1 ♠ and is not forced to bid 1 ♠ with 4 ♠ for fear of missing a 4-4 fit. Opener ability to raise ♠s becomes easier. Of course, rarely, we have a hand come up where opener has a minimum 4 ♠/ 6 ♥ hand where opener rebids hearts and we miss a 4-4 ♠ fit partscore. But the frequency of those hands is so small, we don't see it as a bar to using Flannery. We have discussed from time to time switching to 2 ♦ as Mini Roman. Mini Roman addresses another problematic bidding area for K-S, minimum range 4-4-4-1 hands (especially a 1=4=4=4 hand after a 1 ♠ response). But every time we've gotten in this discussion, several outstanding results with Flannery have occurred and swayed us to stay as we are. Our teammates, who also play K-S, use 2 ♦ somewhat differently. One combination plays both 2 ♣ and 2 ♦ as strong bids a la Rosenkranz's Bid Your Way to the Top. The other combinations use it as either Mini Roman or Flannery. I also play quite a bit locally with a player using essentially a SAYC. We simply play 2 ♦ as a weak 2 ♦ bid.

Great advice so far. I too would bid 2 ♠ with your partner's hand. Others have pointed out the first rule of misfits -- go out of the auction ASAP. Here there's no good bid and any other bid just raises the level of disaster. Your partner should have taken a pessimistic view of the hand. With length in ♥s and ♣s, it's highly likely that your minor is ♦. Since a Michaels bid can be based on less than opening value, until proven otherwise, partner should assume that's the case and seek to get out of the auction. NT is usually not a good place to play holding distributional misfits. The reason is simple -- communication between hands. Even if you are able to set up tricks in one hand, you may not be able to get to them. Those pesky opponents have a habit of stranding you in the wrong hand where you have to concede tricks to them. I really love the comments about partner confidently bidding 2 ♠ and not even thinking about passing 2 ♥ which telegraphs the disaster. Your partner may see the potential disaster but should understand the opponents may be unaware of it. Your opponents, even world class players, can't see through the backs of the cards. If you don't give them a clue, they may not figure it out.

I'm bidding 2 ♣ with this 2 loser hand. As someone said, you'll never convince your partner that the hand is as good as it is if you start 1 ♠. It's unlikely, but opening 1 ♠ may be passed out. If you open 2 ♣ and can rebid 2 ♠, partner can make several potential rebids below where you'd be (opponents passing) after 1 ♠ - 1 NT - 3 ♦. Even if partner shows a bust (cheapest suit rebid for me -> 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ - 2 ♠ - 3 ♣), you can still offer a choice of games by rebidding ♦. I would think jumping to 4 ♦ would show almost this exact hand -- huge 2 suiter pick a game. But if your agreements are that 4 ♦ would show something else, then you'll still get to bid 3 ♦ and make a 4 ♦ rebid over partner's next bid.

The hand makes 6 because of a perfect fit. After a strong NT, it's probably pretty difficult ascertain that all the necessary cards exist to make slam. I would expect a pretty normal auction to be: 1 NT 2 ♣ 2 ♠ 3 ♦ 3 NT At this point, even with a ♣ void, responder can't know whether a ♦ contract is preferable to NT. With the hand shown here, it is. But opener could equally hold a hand with a small doubleton diamond where 3 NT is a rock and 5 ♦ goes down. Missing a 23 HCP point slam based on a perfect fit isn't something I'd worry about too much.

The opponents have a fit, but are going to find a bad break. Nonetheless, you know partner can't have more than 1 ♥. It's likely your side has a fit, and the most likely strain for the fit is ♦. Partner likely doesn't have much if overcaller has a solid overcall and advancer has a max raise. But that's not guaranteed. Unless the opponent's find an inspired trump lead, I'd rate the prospects of making 3 ♦ pretty good. So, at matchpoints, I think it's right to compete with a 3 ♦ bid. It does several things: - gets you to a likely reasonable spot to play, - may push the opponents up a level in ♥, and, - may hinder the opponents from finding a better secondary ♠ fit. I'll take the occasional -300 when an opponent has a ♦ stack. I gladly trade it for the results when partner shows up with a trick and 3 ♥ is off, but 2 ♥ makes or when 3 ♦ buys the contract -- makes or is off one when 2 of a Major makes.

Well, there's at most 1 loser in the trump suit with 11 between the two hands. So, in toto, you have a 5 loser hand. Partner should have about an 8 loser hand. So it looks like you've probably got about 13 total losers -- so it looks like a maximum of about 11 winners between the 2 hands. However, unless you're partner has downgraded on a hand with more than the agreed point count, partner can't hold 2 aces and presumably the ♥ Q. Since you hold only 1 ace, it looks like the opponents probably hold 2 cashable tricks. The only way that might not happen is if partner holds an undisclosed void somewhere. There's probably no reasonable way to find that potential slam making exception though. So just bid 4 ♥.

My best partner and I regularly open 4 loser Major hands and 3 loser Minor hands with a strong and artificial 2 ♣. But we play very disciplined positive responses. 2 ♦ waiting bid. Cheapest suit second negative. So we would have no problem opening this hand 2 ♣.