rmnka447

Double, it looks like there is at least three tricks in my hand. I might reconsider if partner is apt to open real dross as a weak 2 equivalent in first chair at favorable vulnerability. Yeah, 4 ♠ doubled making isn't going to be a good result. But 4 ♠ doubled off 1 will take all the match points when our side doesn't compete past 3 ♠. If the double's wrong, it's only one board. ♦ Q opening lead from me (playing Q from AKQ).

I think everyone has the right idea preferring a 2 ♣ bid to 2 ♥. The big problem with 2 ♥ IMO is when partner has a bad hand with a stiff small ♥ where you might be playing 2 ♥. You could lose as many as 3 or 4 heart tricks. So in this rare instance, it seems right to treat the 6 card suit more like a 5 card suit. After 2 ♣, it's fairly easy to rebid at least 3 ♠ with the responding hand. After 2 ♥, the hand offers a great deal more probability of a misfit which makes it more difficult to bid 3 ♠. The fear of playing opposite a stiff ♠ is a concern. I think if partner opens very lightly on a consistent basis then maybe 2 ♠ is a consideration. However, opener likely holds some values outside of ♥s that would be useful. So I agree with a 3 ♠ invitational rebid by responder. But I think responder still has a chance when opener competes to 3 ♠ over the opponents 3 ♦ bid. Opener must have something like ♠ honor doubleton for that bid because opener has no idea what responder's 2 ♠ rebid spade suit is like. Opposite that holding, 4 ♠ is aggressive, but not reasonable. Note that South behind the 3 ♦ bidder also should count a little extra for his ♦ K.

As far as the defense is concerned, East needed to do a little counting and thinking. First the counting. Looking at 8 ♥s and seeing 3 ♥ in dummy with both partner and declarer following, that adds up to 13 cards. So, both partner AND declarer are out of trump. With the remaining winning ♥ cards in dummy, East should see that declarer has the option of a loser on loser play if a ♥ is returned immediately. Now let's consider the thinking part. What can partner have for his double of 4 ♠? How are we going to beat 4 ♠? First, let's consider partner's holding based on his bidding and his double. Partner has raised to 4 ♥ with 1 trump. That surely suggests that partner's raise is based on high card tricks rather than on fit. However, looking at dummy, you see both the minor suit Ks. So, the best partner can have in those suits are AQx(x...) holdings. Holding AQs in the minors, a stiff ♥, and some indeterminate ♠ looks like a pretty slender reed to be basing a double on or even to be a holding to positively raise to game on. Therefore, it appears partner must hold some winning ♠ honor(s) as well to justify the bidding so far. With only one outside AQ in a minor and ♠ Ax(x...), a double depending on you winning the opening lead and giving partner a ♥ ruff to defeat the contract is extremely risky. So, the most sensible combination to play for is for partner to hold BOTH outside As and a ♠ trick. To minimize the possibility of dummy providing a pitch for declarer, it would seem to lead the shorter of dummy's outside suits. So I believe ♦ J is the right return at trick 2. A heart return at trick 2 would be OK if your heart holding was good enough to force declarer to ruff or lose the trick without partner ruffing. Then at worst you'd be trading one defensive trick for another.

#1 - Your hand is worth a raise to 2 ♥. You have 5 HCP, 3 trumps and a potential ruffing value in ♠s. On the downside, 2 of your 5 points are in ♣s which has been bid behind you and your trumps are all small ones. Everything balances out and you have an absolute minimum raise, but a raise nonetheless. #2 - Sign off in 3 ♥. Just not enough to go on despite having the doubleton ♠. Make the hand something like ♠ Kx ♥ 1096 ♦ Kxxxx ♣ xxx and you might consider going on despite being a minimum. In this case, all your high cards are useful to partner with something in ♠ and a heart suit.

2 NT for me. It gets the values right although the shape isn't ideal. At a Northern Illinois regional earlier this year, Dick Bruno, a top Chicago player, discussed how to handle in between hands like this. He advocated what he called a "one card more/one card less, one point more/one point less" approach. He said that with hands that don't comfortably fit any bid, it sometimes helps to consider what to do if a card or point was differently placed. With this hand, the thinking would be that if a ♣ were instead a ♥ or ♠, then there'd be virtually no problem opening 2 NT. So by bidding 2 NT with this hand, you're not describing it right by at most one card. Likewise, he advocates opening a hand such as ♠ Kx ♥ AKx ♦ Kx ♣ Q10xxxx -- 1 NT. Normally, a jump rebid in ♣s show a good ♣ suit, but here you don't have that. Again, if a ♣ were a card in any other suit, then you'd have no trouble opening the hand 1 NT. So 1 NT would be a less deceiving and better bid than a jump 3 ♣ rebid. It's a useful concept.

I'm passing. My concern isn't so much 5 ♦ as the opponents retreating to a makeable 4 NT. (Above comment made in response to original bidding sequence but applies even more so to revised sequence.)

Without looking, I voted for Dbl. Like some others, I don't think 8 points with 4 jacks is enough for game. There's also a concern that we may hold only 1 ♥ stopper between us. That means we'll likely have to run off 8 more tricks in NT after winning our ♥ trick. In any case, we have 23 HCP minimum with our strong hand behind opener. The ♥ Jxx insures at least one heart trick opposite partner's presumed doubleton honor. There is some prospect for a ♠ ruff. Bidding to 3 ♦ holds no assurance that that's right. The vulnerability is right also for doubling (i.e. a possible -200 looms big). So, this seems to be the time to risk a close matchpoint double. If it's wrong, it's only one board.

mikeh's comments +1

I pass. Yeah, partner has ♥. But bidding on with a poor fitting 4-3-3-3 hand isn't usually a winning proposition. If they have the points, you need distribution to off set the tricks they'll take with their HCs. Without some compensating distribution, you offer no trick taking help to partner except for maybe saving a trick or so in the trump suit. All partner's losers outside the trump suit are likely to remain losers.

Playing Standard American, I reply 1 ♠. Playing 2/1 with Flannery, I'd bid 1 NT and plan to pass partner's next bid unless it's forcing.

Yeah, you've got only 9 working HCP (stiff ♠ Q doesn't seem to be worth much in front of a vul 1st seat weak 2). But the hand is 5-5, so I'm bidding 3 ♦. Partner should take into consideration that 3 ♦ may be bid more on distribution than strength.

Pass. You've bid your hand and the opponents have competed to 3 ♠. Partner hasn't supported or made a negative double, so it may be the opponent's hand. At MPs/BAM, -140 may not be great, but blindly bidding on is more likely to get you the kiss of death -200 or more in 4 something doubled. OTOH, partner may hold a smattering of cards that allow you to go plus. Doubling at this point is a bit of a crap shoot. It's right if your partners don't compete past 3 ♦ and 3 ♠ goes down only 1. But it costs you big time whenever 3 ♠ makes. Without any evidence to feel that there is a chance to beat 3 ♠, I think just sitting for 3 ♠ is right.

It's just an unlucky hand. Swap the ♣ A in advancer's hand for the ♠ K in opener's hand and 6 ♦ never makes. 3 NT then is the premier spot. Dbler can't know advancer has the magic hand to make 6 with 28-29 total points. Advancer could just have the 6 point hand and slam never makes. Bidding isn't a perfect art where you can bid slam on every hand that makes 6 or stay out of slam on every hand that doesn't.

Pass, for now. Any bid that I would make directly now takes a view of the hand which might or might not be right. If partner has cards, partner may play me for a much better hand and get us too high. If partner finds a double, I can bid 4 ♠ knowing it's probably right. OTOH, if partner has the minors and bids 4 NT, I have an easy 5 ♦ bid.

Passing in tempo and without a hitch. Consider this. Opener is sitting behind all your Ks with opening values. So your hand in going to play like it's less actual point count value. And your longest suit is opener's suit.

I play new suits over overcalls different with different partners. Some play it forcing, some play it non forcing constructive. Either way this is a pass for me. As billw55 suggests, if it goes x-p-p, I bid 1 ♠ and partner will not have any reason to play me for anything other than ♠ length and no fit for ♥s. At MP, I'd very surprised if 1 ♥ was passed out.

ATB -- 100% East. East's second double can never be interpreted by West as a penalty double. East's first double shows extras and a willingness to compete. It tends to deny cards in the ♠ suit because East had the option to bid 2 NT to show them with extras. Therefore, West will take the second double as showing distribution as well as extras -- something like 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4. So West will never sit for 3 ♠ Dbld. East should know West can't have much because South made a vulnerable overcall missing 3 ♠ honors and North raised. Give them something like 10 HCP and 5 HCP respectively and West has maybe 5 HCP at most and often will have less. Playing 20-21 HCP opening 2 NTs, that's how I'd open the 4-3-3-3 East hand. If that isn't your system, then bid a suit and plan to rebid in NT. If that's the way you go, then I think a 2 NT rebid is right rather than the double. Finally, after the opponent's reach 3 ♠, East should realize that West might not be able to sit for a Dbl because West's hand is so poor -- even if the Dbl is presumably a penalty double. At that point, it's just better to take your pretty sure positive by passing rather than giving partner the chance to bid again by Dbling.

Double is fine. You have decent ♦s, but not so great that you want to emphasize them versus the majors. It's always a judgment call on these type of hands (4-3 majors, 5 card minor) whether to double or overcall. I'm probably passing the 4 ♠ bid, but not without some squirming. You have controls in all the outside suits, but not quite enough to be sure 5 ♠ is a reasonable contract. Partner's 4 ♠ promises ♠s and little else -- wouldn't be surprised to see partner with ♠ Axxxxxx and out. Another issue if you do proceed is what does a new suit bid mean, 5 ♦ here, after the 4 ♠ call. Is it a control bid in support of ♠ or showing the big ♦ overcall hand? My take is that it should show the control. With the big ♦ hand you have to accept that partner's spade bid has preempted you out of showing the hand. Partner's long ♠s will still be worth something at a ♠ contract, but may not contribute anything at a ♦ contract. In any case, it one of those things that need some partnership discussion.

Partner knows within 1 card what my major suit holding is. Partner has summarily made a decision on where to play the contract, so I'll respect partner's decision. I pass. If 3 NT turns out to be wrong, then partner and I might have discussion about a better way to bid the hand. That's better than trying to explain why I bid 4 ♥ when playing 3 NT is right.

Pass. Despite the shortness, you still have a seven loser hand. Opposite partner's probable nine loser raise, you just don't have enough tricks even to invite. If you go on and partner has a minimum raise, you could be looking at a -200 or more. So let partner make the decision to compete to 3 ♥ or not.

You have a big playing hand opposite a big hand so slam should be in sight. When that's the case, you should ask yourself: "What's necessary to make slam?" With a small doubleton ♣, your first concern is whether or not you have 2 quick ♣ losers. So, you need to know whether partner has a ♣ control. (It's just possible that partner might hold something like ♠ AQJx ♥ AQJx ♦ AQx ♣ xx and slam might not be there.) Normally, when you need to know about a specific control, cue bidding is the way to go. Unless you have some specific agreements, the simplest way to initiate cue bidding is to bid your cheapest control -- 4 ♦. Without a ♣ control (like the example above), partner can sign off in 4 ♥ and you'll be well placed. If partner cooperates with a further cue, it implies a ♣ control. Your auction might be something like -- 2 NT 3 ♦ 3 ♠ 4 ♦ 4 ♠ 4 NT (1430) 5 ♣ 6 ♥ I agree with previous posters that 7 isn't a really good deal although it happens to make. Normally, when you bid a grand slam you can count out 13 tricks or be pretty sure it's at least 66% or greater chance. Here, as others said, you have to find the ♠ Q which is more or less a 50-50 guess. Transferring to ♥, then bidding spades is the right way to bid this hand. In a normal field at MPs, any slam is normally an about average result. The time to consider NT versus a suit is when you judge that virtually everyone in the field will be there. Then the additional 10 points for playing in NT are important. But with distributional hands, playing in the suit is normally right.

I'm also a ♦ A leader. With partner supporting ♦s, you're unlikely to get more than 1 ♦ trick. Leading a ♣ may result in ruffing with trump winners you'd get anyway. Leading from the other tenaced suits has more risk of giving the opponents a trick. Sure, the A lead may give the opponents a trick too. However, looking at dummy may provide a clue toward the killing continuation or allow partner to show a suit preference.

I'm bidding 2 ♥ here for a couple reasons. You have 7 HCP -- quacks to be sure -- but 6 of the 7 are working together in honor combinations. Partner is an unpassed hand and has doubled, so the points ought to be fairly evenly distributed. You've got 2 honors and an intermediate in ♥s -- something good to tell partner about, so tell pard. Partner should consider that you might be bidding on a 4 card suit in any further bidding. Second, if don't mention ♥s now, you may not find a ♥ fit later. Say you pass and LHO bids 2 ♠ followed by two passes. Now you'd have to bid 3 ♥ to probe for a ♥ fit. So you'll likely pass and let them play 2 ♠.

Like the other posters, I think the 4 ♣ bid is terrible. The opponents are in a game invitational auction which means they probably have the majority of the HCP. The overcall hand is a semi-balanced very vanilla overcall. If East does a little math -- 14 HCP in hand, give the opponents say 22-23 HCP, then West (advancer) can't have more than a few points. Also, advancer has not raised East's ♣. So there's no assurance of a big ♣ fit. A direct 4 ♣ free bid over the invitation tends to show increased values and/or distribution which give a chance to make or limit the loss. I might do it with a hand like ♠ x ♥ x ♦ AQxx ♣ KQJxxxx. West also gets a large chunk of blame for sacrificing at 5 ♣ despite East's 4 ♣ bid. Again, West needs to consider what undisclosed values are held to help cut down on losers in East's hand. First, and foremost, is a good trump fit (4+ cards). A 3 card trump holding is not usually good. If the opponents decide to lead trump dummy's value as a source of ruffs will be greatly reduced. Shortness in the opponent's suit is much less desirable than complementary shortness in a suit that the overcaller is likely to hold. Even a holding of honors and intermediates in a side suit that might limit trick losses there is useful. Make West's hand something like ♠ x ♥ xxx ♦ QJ10xx ♣ xxxx and it's a much better sacrifice. Finally, at IMPS, losing a NV game swing is not a big deal. It's about 7 IMPs which is nearly the same as most part score swings. So there's a bit less need to sacrifice.

Pass. A simple rule for misfits is to get out of the auction as quickly as you can. Your hand is a marginal response hand at best, so passing isn't likely to make you miss any game. 1 ♥ may not be a great contract, but bidding might well prompt partner to bid 2 ♥ which would be worse.