rmnka447

At IMPs with red pockets, you have to be more careful because of the higher penalties if you go set. There are lots of times you'll just have to pass with indifferent hands that you might intervene with at matchpoints. Save the balancing for hands that offer something pretty positive if your side gets to play the hand. Here your values are all in the suits the opponents have bid. That should tell you that the hand is probably best defended. Consider opener's hand. If opener has a real ♣ suit, your hand has some defensive prospects. If opener is short in ♣, then it likely has 4 cards in a red suit. That may not bode well for any red suit contract you get to. Finally, the last reason you want to have something good to balance on is that the opposing 2 ♠ bid forces your side to come in at the three level which will be a level higher and that much easier to defeat. So this hand is a clear pass.

2 ♠. Not enough QTs for a 1 level opener, although it is only a 6 loser hand.

The standard way to play over preeempts is for all new suit bids to be forcing. So 3 ♥ would be the choice for this hand. If preemptor has 3+ cards in your suit, then a raise of your suit is made. If not, preemptor can bid 3 NT with a solid running suit. Otherwise, preemptor bids 4 in his suit.

6 ♠. With equal holdings or shorter ♠s, I'd expect pard to bid ♥s.

If 4 ♣ wouldn't be forcing, then I'll bid 5 ♣. If it's forcing than I'll bid 4 ♣. I'd like to be able to bid 4 ♠ to show the ♠ control, but we haven't agreed on a suit yet. I agree the hand may be headed toward 6 ♣ if pard makes the slightest move in that direction. All of your cards are working.

Partner must be showing cards. If partner had a ♥ fit, and ♠ shortness, 5 ♥ could have been bid. Since that didn't happen, I'll pass and take a pretty sure positive. If that doesn't produce a good result, that's life.

Pard must have one heck of a hand to cue ♦ -- i.e. make move toward slam. Pard can't have enough values in the majors alone to make such a move. So pard must have ♣ values beside the ♦ control to even contemplate a move toward slam. Since pard's hand is still unlimited, I think it's right to cooperate and show your outside control, so I'll bid 6 ♣. With the right cards, that may help pard bid the grand if it's there. As to whether a hand is too strong for Flannery or not, one must decide if the hand is strong enough to bid 2 ♠ after a forcing 1 NT response to a 1 ♥ opening. If so, then bid 1 ♥. If not, use Flannery. This hand is on the cusp of that decision. It has 15 HCP, 18+ value, 4 losers, etc. I think I'd still Flannery it, but wouldn't have a problem with those that would open 1 ♥ and rebid 2 ♠.

Bidding with red pockets at IMPs, North must raise to 4 ♠ once South bids 3 ♠. The scoring at IMPs is such that you should bid even games with less than even chances of making vulnerable. North is on the edge of an opener, but I think initially passing is fine with the dangling ♥ J and only decent looking ♣. So, once South shows 6 ♠s and there is a known 8 card fit, it's imperative for North to go on. South should also strongly consider bidding 2 ♦ for a rebid rather than 2 ♠. He has minimum values in terms of points, but only a 5 loser hand. Because of the basic agreements -- 2 NT rebid after a 2/1 bid shows 15+ -- opener will often have to rebid 2 ♠ with nondescript 5-3-3-2 hands or bad distributional hands -- say AKJxx Kx xxxx xx. As is the case here, that puts North into a quandary as to what to do next because South's hand is still a complete mystery other than being an opener. So even with any reasonably good minimum -- even AKJxx xx K10xx xx (2 ♦) -- opener ought to make some other forward going bid, if available, to keep the auction going. That being said, I think North as responder owes opener another bid after 2 ♠. North has told opener that they're at least in a game invitational situation by bidding 2 ♣. Not knowing exactly what opener holds, it still needs to be determined if game is possible. So it's rather unilateral for North to pass. 3 ♣ is unattractive with North's modest ♣ holding. So I think the choice is between 2 NT and 3 ♦ -- I'd opt for 2 NT. If North is unwilling to take a second call after a 2 ♠ rebid maybe 1 NT should have been bid initially.

Vacant places only strictly applies when using the suit or suits for which the distribution is COMPLETELY known to determine the vacant places remaining in the unseen hands. From the bidding, play and Declarer/Dummy holdings, the only suit you know completely at the moment of decision in Clubs is Spades. East started with 5 and West with 3. So, that leaves East with 8 vacant places and West with 10 vacant places. So the odds are 10 to 8 (56% probabilty) that West holds any particular card -- in this case -- the Club 10. So it seems as if UAC has made the best play to make the contract.

Clear pass.

Making a game try would make more sense at IMPs than at matchpoints. That's because of the IMP big swing normally associated with making a thin VUL game. At matchpoints, being positive on the board is probably going to get you somewhere near an average. Partner should be showing 5-8 with 2 ♠s unless you play a direct 2 ♠ raise as constructive. Then pard could have 3 ♠s and an absolute minimum response. At IMPs, I think you make a game try of 3 ♠ almost automatically. At matchpoints, it much less clear. I think I'd make a try if I thought we needed a top or two to do really well. I think I'd also make a game try playing if playing constructive raises. But if pard can only have 2 ♠s, pass ought to get some MPs, so I'll sit.

I think 4 ♥ after 4 ♣ is right rather than 4 ♦. Responder has an 11 point 6 loser hand based more on a broken but playable 7 card ♥ suit than anything else. The hand was worth a game force because of the ♥s. 4 ♥ over 4 ♣ tells opener despite opener being at least 5-5 in the black suits responder prefers to play in ♥s. That's exactly the message needed.

I don't see any way to get there no matter what either player does. After 2 ♦, responder could try to get more information about opener's hand by making a forcing bid. The choices are basically some form of 2 NT (feature ask or Ogust) or a new suit bid if played as forcing. After, say, 2 ♥ forcing, opener will simply bid 3 ♦ because of no fit with partner. Responder won't have any better idea of what opener holds and is stuck into raising Diamonds at this point. After 2 NT Ogust, opener will likely show poor hand, good suit or good hand, good suit depending on how the partnership defines good hand vs. bad hand. The problem is that most pairs have no agreement about the follow up auction over the Ogust response. Even if responder could somehow learn that opener had a stiff ♥, there's no way to find out whether there is only 1 ♣ loser. After 2 NT for a feature, opener simply returns to 3 ♦ if a feature is limited to an A or K. Opener would bid 3 ♥ if shortness is OK to show. In any case, responder faces the same problem as before -- there is just not enough information for responder to be sure that there aren't 2 tricks to be lost. After a weak 2 bid, slam usually depends on responder being able to see that 12 tricks are at worst probable, if not certain. Responder's hand just isn't good enough to see that here even with the info opener can provide. If weak 2 bidder passes initially, responder will bid 1 ♥ and the partnership might be taxed to bid game let alone slam. This is one of those perfect hands where 6 can be made on 21 points but is unbiddable.

Opening 1 NT with a stiff might be a practical solution to a tough bidding problem. So, learning existing bidding techniques better might not be a reasonable way to avoid it. I was just reading the intro to Roy Hughes' new book The Contested Auction on the Barclay Baron site and he used such a hand as an example. It was something like --- ♠ K ♥ AQxx ♦ A8xxx ♣ Qxx If you open 1 ♦, you have a terrible rebid problem. 2 ♦ understates the hand. The hand isn't good enough to reverse at 2 ♥ or jump to 3 ♦. 2 ♣ doesn't look right with 3 poor ♣s. Opening 1 ♥ on the hand has the obvious flaw that partner would never figure out you have just 4 ♥. So, he says, the latest tendency is to open the hand 1 NT as the least odius lie and at least get the approximate strength right.

Pass. Your partner has expressed an opinion on whether to bid on and you should respect it. If pard had any doubts whether to defend or play, it could have been passed back to you. You've got a defensive trick outside the ♠ suit. The only reason to pull partner's double is because you have a defenceless hand, a highly distributional hand, or a hand where you expect to make 5 ♠.

It's definitely a 1 ♠ call. It's true that if partner has a big hand you might get too high. But partner might fare far worst when playing 1 ♣ holding a 3-1 ♣ suit. So with some points and shortness in a partner's possible short minor opening suit, you should tend to try to make a response if at all possible. Here you have a 5 card major with good intermediate cards backing an honor in the suit. That partially offsets that you hold only 3 HCP because you can tolerate playing in a ♠ contract. If there is a ♠ fit with partner, your side might be able to find a decent contract to play, or make it difficult for the opponents to find the right spot.

1 NT seems right because you don't have any honors beyond the 10 in your long suit. If you open 1 ♦, then you've got a rebid problem over pard's major suit response. 2 ♦ understates the value of the hand. Your suit isn't good enough for jump rebid of 3 ♦.

It depends on vulenerability, especially at MP. Against vulnerable opponent's, I'd definitely bid 4 ♠. Against Non Vulnerable opponents, I'd probably just bid 3 ♠.

Hand 1 - Since you don't preempt over preempts (and a weak 2 is a preempt), bidding 4 ♠, North should have a GOOD hand that expects to make or have a good play for 4 ♠. South is looking at two tricks/outside controls and ♠ Q [which should solidify North's suit or give a play in it]. South has to make a move toward slam. From South's perspective, the issue is the ♥ control. If North has one, slam should have a good play. There are a couple ways to proceed. South might bid 5 ♠ if there is agreement that this would ask about a ♥ control. If South is unsure that this would be the way North would interpret the bid, a cue of a control can be made. Any suit bid past 4 ♠ should be a cue because North has already set the suit. North should cooperate over a cue in either minor by showing the heart control. Hand 2 - When the opponents bid 5 ♥, I think North/South are in a forcing pass situation because South has shown a good hand. North's DBL says "we will defend against 5 ♥". I don't think that's the hand held. North should see that no matter which minor South holds, he has a good hand opposite it for a ♠ contract. North's options are passing or bidding 5 ♠. If North passes, South certainly will bid 5 ♠ with a raising partner. Hand 3 - Sorry, but South's hand is a one loser hand, so I'm making whatever you're ultrastrong bid is and continuing to bid suits. If we can find any 4-4 fit, slam ought to have a play. Playing a disciplined good old fashioned strong and artificial 2 ♣ opener, a major rebid by opener would show no more than 4 losers and a minor rebid by opener shows no more than 3 loser hand. The bidding could go: 2 ♣ - 2 ♠ (1 1/2+ QTs, 5+ ♠ headed by 2 honors) 3 ♦ - 4 ♥ (splinter) 4 NT (1430)- 5 ♣ 5 NT - 6 ♦ 7 ♦

Over a weak NT, the two situations game going hand versus invitational hand are slightly different. Normally, it's better to play in the 8 card major fit. However, there is one exception -- when both hands are 4-3-3-3 it's usually better to play 3 NT. That's because neither hand has a short suit that would allow ruffing a card from the other hand. With a game going hand, you are sort of stuck because you can't find that this is the situation without distorting the NT opener's understanding of what you hold. So the best plan is probably just bid 4 of the major. If you have a 4-3-3-3 with good intermediate cards in the 3 card suits, you probably should just bid 3 NT initially rather than Stayman. With an invitational hand, after, say, 1 NT - 2 ♣ - 2 ♠ - 3 ♠, opener has an additional response available -- 3 NT. If you use this to show a 4-3-3-3 hand accepting the invitation to go to game, then responder has the chance to pass holding a 4-3-3-3 hand.

Playing transfers over the weak (12-14) point NT in the USA provides one major disadvantage. Since the majority of players are playing strong NTs (15-17), they are opening 12-14 point balanced hands in one of a minor. As a result, the person responding to the weak NT is normally responding 1 of the major at most other tables. By playing transfers over a weak NT, you end up playing the contract from the opposite side of the table than most other pairs. On many hands, it doesn't make much difference. But on some hands, it does. So it makes for more variable results, especially at matchpoints. One of the big reasons for using transfers is to ensure the opening lead comes into the strong hand and not through it. When you bid game after the weak NT, both hands are at least 12-14 points so there's no big incentive for ensuring the lead comes into either hand.

I think 2 ♠ is a tad optimistic, but all's fair in love and matchpoints. Just be prepared to receive a lot of grief from partner if it doesn't work out. You also might not want to do it if partner would get disoriented with a terrible result from the hand. Consider that if you want to make such extraordinary weak jump shifts regularly, partner may not be able to discern what to do when you make a WJS or may get gun shy about taking action -- because it isn't known if you are operating or making a more normal WJS. Generally, you want to have some decent honor cards and intermediate cards in the suit if you make a WJS -- something like AJ10xxx, KQ10xxx, or KJ98xx. At favorable vulnerability (Not Vul vs. Vul), you might push suit quality a little -- K109xxx, A109xxx, etc. And at unfavorable vulnerability (Vul. vs. Not Vul.), you probably won't do it without a really good 6 card (KQJ10xx) or decent 7 card suit (KQ10xxxx). As for the situation where partner is in 2 ♠ doubled which comes around to you in the passout seat and you hold ♠ - ♥ A109xxx ♦ AJxx ♣ xxx. Your only acceptable action is to PASS. First of all, you have no idea what exactly partner has except that you have a misfit. A good principle to follow is that when the hand is a misfit is to get out of the auction as fast and as low as you can. If you make a bid at this point, you're going to raise the level of the contract without any idea if it will improve the contract -- partner might be void in your suit. Second, your 2 As are likely to provide 2 tricks for partner. You have no idea if partner's ♠s will provide any tricks for you in another contract -- or even if you can get to them if they can. Finally, you don't want to be in the position of trying to save partner when partner didn't need to be saved. I can't count the number of times over the years that I've seen one opponent feel that the other opponent had done something stupid, tried to save the situation, and saved defeat from the jaws of victory -- doing nothing would have produced a really good result, saving partner produced a zero!!!!

The ♣ hand is based solely on the extraordinary ♣ suit, so why not just tell partner what you hold with a 4 ♣ bid. 3 ♦ either shows just some general strength without another good bid, asks about a ♦ control for NT or shows some ♦ control. There's no annotation that it's the latter two, so I'm assuming it's the former. As such, there's no reason to assume responder has anymore than 4 ♠s. I also think 3 ♥ showing a stopper stands out as responder's rebid because responder's spades are so poor. Opener can still bid 3 ♠ with 3 decent ones, so you won't lose a possible spade game. With the hand Rainier quoted, you'd like to be able to bid 3 sp-arts and show both the heart stopper and nice 5 card spade holding. You can't do that, so I'd probably lean toward bidding 3 ♠ hoping opener might still be able to find a 3 NT bid with a ♦ stopper and no spade fit.

Pass, it's really tough to come in at this position unless you've very solid holdings or lots of distribution. The problems with intervening now are -- 1. Your tenaces are in front of the player with most of the opponent's points. 2. Pard rates to hold at least a doubleton in their suit, so no reason to believe you can cut down on losers in their suit. 3. You can't be sure that pard has anything at all. If pard gets to bid and chocks out a call in pass out seat, you'll be glad to compete.

4 ♠ on the first hand and I'd be ready to apologize, if it doesn't work out. 2 ♥ on the second, the hand is definitely worth a game try.