rmnka447

I'll bid a non-forcing 3 ♣. Despite the "probable" misfit, you do have a lot of distribution. If pard persists to 3 ♥, pard's bought the contract and should not expect to see many ♥s in this hand.

It's a clear pass. Ques.: From your hand, how certain can you be that 13 tricks are there if you bid on? Ans.: You really can't very certain at all. So it's right to take the pretty sure small slam positive rather than guess on the grand. If you bid the grand and it makes, you're gaining 12 IMPs. If you bid the grand and it goes down, you're losing 17 IMPs. The break even point is at about a 60% chance that the grand will make. With this hand, there's just no way to know if the chance of making the grand is that good.

4 ♣ cue bid on the way to 4 ♥ which suggests at least mild slam interest and sets ♥s as trump. Your hand has controls in both the outside suits and great fitting cards in both of partner's suits. You have a lot of the prerequisites for a slam with the 2 suited fit you know exists.

Whether a new suit is forcing or ont after a weak 2 bid is a matter of partnership agreement. But as most other posters have said, the default is that new suits are forcing.

Both jumps by responder 1 ♦ - 3 ♦ and 1 ♥ - 3 ♥ are invitational. Typically, these bids would imply 6 or 5 very good cards in the suit. With a 5 card suit and invitational values, responder would normally raise 1 NT to 2 NT. Opener, after a 1 ♥ response and raise of NT, could then show 3 card ♥ support by bidding 3 ♥ on the way to 3 NT. The third auction where responder forces with a 2 ♦ bid after responding 1 ♥ and rebids 3 ♥ over 2 NT is game forcing. It should also show 6 ♥ because opener had an opportunity to show 3 card ♥ support by bidding 2 ♥ over 2 ♦.

I'm bidding 6 ♥. Partner had a chance to sign off in 5 ♥ after 4 ♠ and didn't. I've already limited my hand with my 3 ♥ rebid. So 6 ♥ ought to show almost exactly what I hold. I've got good ♥s, no quick losers and nothing else to show.

If you are playing support doubles, a double here would show 3 spades. In that case, the choice is between 3 ♣ and a pass. Since this hand is a very light, but solid opener I think pass is right. The hand isn't strong enough to bid 3 ♣ freely and the ♣ suit is terrible. If partner finds a reopening double, you can compete further. If you are not playing support doubles, then a double here would normally show extra values and a willingness to compete without a clear cut bid. It can't be a penalty double because responder's 1 ♠ is ambiguous and could be anything from 5 to 20 points. So again because you are so light, I think pass is correct. If you double this light, partner might decide to make a disastrous pass for penalties with modest values and a heart stack.

I would take 3 ♣ as a strength showing cue. That's because there needs to be some way that advancer can tell that he has a very good fitting hand opposite the Unusual NTers hand. The Unusual NT hand (and similarly Michaels cue hands) can be either weakish or extra strong distributional hands. So if advancer has a good hand opposite the extra strong hand, a slam is often quite possible. Advancer simply putting the hand into game does no good because the Unusual NT hand can't tell whether advancer is doing so out of strength or is just preempting.

4 S seems right. You're lucky to make 7 on the hand. D K has to set right and the opponents never cashed the H A.

3 NT, the only thing that might give me pause to think about more would be a superaccept.

I think most players preference these days is to bid ♠ first with a 5-5 hand, but starting the bidding with 1 ♣ was more popular many years ago. So at this point, it's more a matter of style than anything else. BTW, the 4 ♣ bid probably showed a really big hand with a great club fit. It allowed opener with a rather minimum hand to make a move toward slam.

Double would be responsive in this position for me. The question here is how aggressive is your partner in overcalling with red pockets at IMPs. The best ♠ holding pard can have is a suit headed by QJ. So I'd be pretty sure any partner I play with is likely to have something like QJ sixth. So my plan is to make a responsive double then over 3 ♥ to bid 3 ♠ showing 2 card support. If I pass, it might be difficult for pard to take another call because of suit quality. If pard strongly supports one of the minors, then game comes into the picture.

4 ♠ showing long spades and little else. Partner's ♥ cards will be useful at your ♠ contract, but there is no way to know if your ♠ cards will be useful to pard at all.

This is a classic negative double hand. Negative doubles are normally used to show a hand with length in the unbid suits especially 4 cards in an unbid major, lack of much fit with partner's suit and inability to penalize the opponents. However, a direct bid of 2 ♠ isn't possible with the hand you've cited. That would 5+ ♠s and presumably opening/game forcing values. So the normal practice has been to make a negative double and then bid your suit when you rebid. By doing so, you alert your partner that your hand wasn't good enough to make the direct free bid in the suit. Had your hand been a bit weaker you could consider passing initially and then trying to back in with your suit later. That would be a hand say with something like ♠ KJxxxx ♥ xx ♦ Qxx ♣ xx. One earlier poster noted that they had had good success playing negative free bids with the hand you quoted. So you would bid a direct 2 ♠ with the hand cited. The downside to that style of bidding is that with a good hand say ♠ AKQxx ♥ xx ♦ xx ♣ Axxx, you have to make a negative double and then bid your suit to show the strength of the hand. It's OK if the opponents don't compete too aggressively. But if they immediately raise to say 4 ♦, you will have a very difficult rebid. Both approaches have their plusses and minuses. Both are playable. So you have to decide which you prefer. The important thing is for you and your partner agree about the meaning of your bids.

I'd also fall in with the 2 NT bidders and settle for 4 ♥.

I really hate reversing into such a terrible suit. I'd rebid 3 ♣.

Your point is well taken. Opening 1 ♣ also may just let the opponents compete, exchange enough information, and find a good sac against your game whereas 2 ♣ might be high enough to prevent that from happening. And of course, pard might also just have x xxxxx xxxxxx x and after 4 ♠ over 4 ♥ you're still out to lunch. In the end, you pay your money and take your choice.

With a 2 loser hand, I'm opening 2 ♣ on this hand. If I ever chose to open 1 ♣, then I think 2 ♠ followed by 3 ♠ would be right. There's no reason not to show the 6-5 nature of the hand. After 3 ♠ if partner bids 4 ♥ and gets doubled, you can sit for it knowing you pretty much have told your story. After the actual auction, I'm sitting for 4 ♥x. Partner has heard me bid the other 3 suits and still chose to bid 4 ♥.

Partner has to have something as the Michaels bid forces your side to the 3 level. But the hand may play terribly at 3 NT because of potential transport problems. So, I'm in the camp that will show ♦, and try to sign off there via 3 ♦ or 2 NT-3♣-3♦ according to whatever your agreements are.

Easy decision at this point -- pass. Partner's hand isn't much and whatever values partner holds are in ♠. Furthermore, unless the opponents have an exorbitant heart fit partner doesn't rate to have many minor cards. Yeah, you might get lucky and find a big minor fit if pard holds a 6-4 spade/minor hand. But you may also be walking into a -500 or -800, if not.

The only question occurs if you are playing some type of game tries where bidding 3 ♠ by opener now is preemptive. It's then a tactical judgement whether you want to try and shut them out with 3 ♠. Even so, with the minor suit hand behind you, the hand that was opened has lost value, so I feel pass is right. It seems with 4 ♠s, responder would be more likely to bid 3 ♠ (preempt) or make an invitation with a good 9+. So, responder is more likely to have 3 ♠ and 6-9. You've done what you could on this hand. They've got to make a decision whether to compete at the 3 level. If they make the right decision, fine they deserve the result. But sometimes it's right to give the opponents a chance to go wrong.

At matchpoints, I think 3 NT is right. If pard can't stop ♠s, c'est la vie. At IMPS, I'm going to bid 3 ♦ which should be forcing. If pard bids 3 NT, we're good. If pard bids 3 ♠, I'll bid 3 NT. But if pard bids 3 ♥ asking about a ♠ stopper, I'll bid 4 ♣ and look for the minor suit game.

No violation, but 2 ♣ for distributional hands ought to be reserved for those within a trick of game. I would think a 4 ♥ rebid would be more likely to lead to a director call.

Redouble says it's our hand and doubler is in trouble. I'm sitting for the redouble. I agree that this hand is a 1 ♥ opener.

You have too much to ever contemplate any preempt. If you preempt, partner will never be able to picture you hold all the values you hold. As a result, you're likely to miss quite makeable games or slams. For instance, holding ♠ Axx ♥ Axxx ♦ xx ♣ KJxx after a 3 ♦ preempt, partner would pass but the hand is laydown for 6 ♦. Partner can't even bid 3 NT because you will often open 3 ♦ with KQ10xxxx, KJ10xxxx, or possibly worse in ♦ -- there's no assurance ♦s will run. A strong 2 ♣ is out because you have too many losers -- you want to reserve that bid for hands where you are within a trick of game (i.e. 3 loser hands). 2 NT just plain misdescribes the hand -- both in point count and distribution. You have 17 HCP and a 5 loser hand. So you should open 1 ♦ with this hand. It's true that the ♥ K and ♣ Q probably aren't worth full value as a singleton and doubleton respectively. Even so, you should strongly bid this hand because it has so many playing tricks. After a 1 ♥ reply by partner, I also like a 3 NT rebid. Over any other response, I'd probably make a jump response of 3 ♦.