rmnka447

Playing F1NT and 2/1 has always seemed like an advantage to me. The advantage may not be as great today as forty years ago when no one except a few of us played it. As mentioned, the big improvement is the accuracy provided by the 2/1 auctions because you don't have to waste bidding space discriminating between game going and invitational hands. The F1NT has some puts and takes but overall I think is a gain -- -- playing 2 Major on a 5-2 fit is often better than playing 1 NT, -- playing in responder's long suit at the 2 level when it can be bid, -- occasionally finding a better fit in opener's 3 card second suit, and, -- a good way to show an invitational 3 card raise if you don't any special Major raise scheme. Against this, you lose -- -- the ability to play 1 NT when it is right, and, -- the ability to get to a good spot in some F1NT auctions. F1NT nay sayers like to emphasize the latter two points, but they have always been somewhat sham arguments. The number of times 1 NT is superior just isn't that often. The hands that the F1NT has problems with are often just as much a problem for those playing a standard non forcing NT. Because the F1NT covers a much wider range of hands, there is a bit more complexity to F1NT auctions. So, I'd recommend keeping the bidding over 1 NT as simple as possible for a person learning to play it. The only addition I think that is useful at first is adding Flannery to handle the 11-15 4S 5H hands. It helps to keep the bidding over 1 NT simpler to start.

No blame -- this looks like the fortunate hands that come up from time to time. After a ♦ lead, this hand rates to go down in slam about 2/3 of the time. It looks like East has a natural ♦ lead on this hand.

South gets the blame because he didn't make a forcing bid when holding a huge player. As long as partner has 6 cards for the weak two bid, there will be at least an eight card fit somewhere. So 2 NT has to be bid followed by South bidding his suits. North also gets some criticism for opening that hand 2 ♥ red vs. white at IMPs. While it may work sometime, it's the kind of hand that is a -800, -1100, or -1400 waiting to happen.

Neither player is free from blame. It ought to be clear to South that a fit should exist when holding 9 cards in the majors and partner has announced a 3 suiter. In addition, the holdings in the minors are useful opposite any major suit fit. Not knowing the exact response scheme, I can only suggest that a forward going bid showing the 4 ♥ be made after the 3 suited is announced. I certainly agree with the earlier comment that a 5-5-3 hand is a two suiter not a three suiter. But even more importantly North has a 2 loser hand. I think one more try should be made over 4 ♥ towards slam. South needs only one useful card ( ♥ Q, ♦ J, ♣ AJ, or even just 4 ♥) for 5♥ to have a pretty good play. I would proceed with 4 ♠ confirming a ♠ void or stiff A. South can show the ♣ A and you're off to at least 6 ♥. But if this hand is opened a strong 2 ♣, it's child's play to get to slam. 2 ♣ - 2 ♦(waiting) - 2 ♥ - 3 ♥(strong raise Hxx or xxxx minimum support) followed by cue bidding.

I'm in the 1 ♠ camp mostly because it is the cheapest bid available and gives partner the maximum room to respond. If that doesn't work well when pard holds a moose and cues, so be it. Give partner something like ♠ Axx ♥ xx ♦ Ax ♣ AKJxxx and 2 ♦ may have just got us past our last makable contract -- 2 ♣.

The question you've got to ask yourself is "Would you open this hand 3 ♥ in 1st seat vul vs. not?". You've got 7 ♥s but with the poor quality of the suit, this hand ought to be passed when VUL. If you wouldn't open the hand in 1st seat, then why would you try a preempt in 4th seat after the opponents have shown at least game invitational values between them. This hand could easily go set for -500 often and for some big numbers occasionally. Even -200 would be bad if the opponents can't make game.

I would have rebid 4 ♥ instead of 2 ♥. But in the actual auction after responder takes a second bid, I think 4 ♥ is definitely required. West knows where he wants to play the hand (What do you call a 7 card suit? TRUMP). East has shown about 9-11 value, so game has a reasonable chance of success. I agree with others that East has an opener (Rule of 20 with 2 QTs) -- even more so because the hand holds ♠s which are quite often useful when both sides are competing for the contract. I think 1 ♣ is right with this hand because the spades are so anemic.

The hand is more the exception that proves the rule than not. Everyone who balances has run into hands where passing would have been better, but more often failing to balance is a losing action rather than a winning one. 1. Given the right hand you can balance with as little as 5 or 6 HCP. I'm assuming you partnership is only making shapely take out doubles -- that is, hands with shortness in the opponent's suit and at least 3 cards in each unbid. As a result, there will be many hands where partner has opening values but not the right shape for a take out double and therefore can't bid. Balancing is a means of providing your side a chance to compete when both sides have about half the points. 2. No this hand is not an exception. You have 9 HCP and responder probably has no more than 4 HCP for a pass. That leaves 27 HCP held between your partner and opener. Even if opener holds 16 HCP (pard therefore holding 11 HCP), your side holds half the points in the deck which is enough to compete for a part score. And partner's points set behind the strong hand and are more likely to be useful because of it. 3. A pretty standard approach to balancing is as follows. You double with either an opening hand or possibly with a very shapely hand with a little less than opening value (like ♠ Kxxx ♥ x ♦ Axxx ♣ QJxx after 1 ♥ - P - P). With a good stopper in opener's suit and 11- 14 balanced hand, bid 1 NT. Otherwise, a simple nonjump bid in a new suit shows length in the suit and probably less than opening count. A jump in a new suit generally shows 12- 14 HCP and a good 6 card suit. Using this approach, I would bid 2 ♣ with this hand. 4. The hand definitely has enough playing strength to open 2 ♣. But the problem is that it may be difficult to properly describe the hand by doing so. After (opponents passing) 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ - 2 ♥ - 2 ♠/2 NT/3♣ - 3 ♠, responder doesn't know that opener is any more shapely than 4-5 in the majors. So, I think I'd take the chance that the auction won't be passed out and open 1 ♥. After most responses by partner, 2 ♠ can be bid followed by 3 ♠ and responder will know the hand is a strong hand with at least 5-6 in the majors. That may be crucial in finding the right game or slam contract.

I have no problem with opener's jump to game -- just an unfortunate hand. I agree with andy_h's comments -- put the maximum pressure on the opponents now rather than giving them a fielder's choice next round.

1 ♠ and then pass. You owe pard a response just in case he holds a moose even though you know the hand is a misfit. Your hand isn't good enough for a 2 level response. After the 2 ♥ rebid, there's nothing to do with this misfit except get out of the auction as quickly and as low as possible. Although it may not be ideal, partner's 6 card suit may give him a play -- don't get stuck trying to rescue the hand to a better spot and just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Hand #1 - If you believe the opposing bidding partner can't have more than 1 ♠ unless South has raised on 2. I'm bidding 5 ♣. Hand #2 - 2 ♦ followed by 4 ♦. As to the "theoretical" question, the view you suggest that a simple rebid of the major denies extras was the original conception of 2/1. I know Edgar Kaplan/Alfred Sheinwold certainly explained it that way back in their 1960 book "How to Play Winning Bridge" which laid out their Kaplan Sheinwold bidding system [2/1 with weak NTs]. Basically, they said that any new suit or NT bid should show extras. As a practical refinement, you might want to consider one refinement/exception to that rule. The rebid of 2 ♥ after a 1 ♠ opener followed by a 2 m response does not necessarily show extras. That way you don't risk losing a 4-4 ♥ fit. As for a raise of the 2/1 response, they suggested it showed at least 3 to an honor and 15+ in support of responder's suit. So where you are is very close to the original 2/1 concept which is still a very good approach. By using a simple rebid to limit opener's hand, it starts to let the partnership assess the potential of the the hand very quickly -- both when it is used and it isn't used. It adheres to a principle of good bidding that someone has to start limiting their hand at some point in the auction. I think what has happened over the years is that as 2/1 has become more mainstream, people have tried to adapt more "standard" bidding agreements into it. I'm not sure that has been as successful as they believe. I think 2 ♠ is exactly right with the hand with a void in partner's 2/1 suit. Finally, the hand where you rebid 2 NT and partner invites quantitatively with a 4 NT call. As long as you and partner are on the same page bidding, then any move over 4 NT should be viewed as an acceptance and a further description of your hand. So I'd believe 5 ♦ is fine with this hand.

First hand - 2 ♣ Second hand - Pass over 2 ♦ - even in SAYC, opponents are showing 22+ so pard can't have much (even less vs 2/1). And most of your points are quacks. - Pass over 4 ♠ - here pard could have some values, but at the five level, it's too high to try to find out.

3 ♠ seems right at this point. Because you are bidding at the 3 level, it should show about 6 decent ♠/5 really good ♠s and about 10 HCP. Double would show a willingness to compete (i.e. having values) but no clear direction as to where to play.

David Bird gives an excellent discussion of signalling in his book Defensive Signaling at Bridge. He suggests that there is a signaling hierarchy -- most important Attitude, then Count, and finally Suit preference. In this hand, when declarer leads the ♣, Attitude really doesn't matter because of dummy's stiff. So by default, West's signal should be count. A high spot shows even. So West likely has at least 4 or 6 ♣. Additionally, you need to consider any other evidence based on the bidding -- what was bid and what was NOT bid. If West held 4 ♥s, wouldn't a negative double have been made with his hand? If West didn't negative double -- he probably doesn't hold 4 ♥s, then declarer must hold at least 3. Finally, a clue from declarer's play on the hand, if declarer had another ♣ beside the ♣ K when the second ♣ was led, it could have been ruffed in dummy. So the evidence is strong that your ♥ are vital. Feel yourself unlucky if declarer shows up with the ♥ AJx at the end and finesses your Q.

I'll venture 4 ♣ -- hopefully recognized as natural with this hand. It might get you to 4 NT as a settling place -- but you've got 5 sure tricks at NT to offset any problems with the contract. I think it's important to emphasize the black suit nature of the hand so pard can evaluate whether NT is the right place. Yeah, that does help the opponent's defense with more info about what you hold. But better that than find pard with something like Qx in one of the red suits and see them reel off 5, 6 or more tricks. If partner has ♣, then you've made a good first step toward a ♣ slam.

First of all, what's missing? Opponents hold ♠ AQ ♥ K ♦ QJ ♣ AK Your LHO has already been placed with the ♦ K. If you can prevent a ♣ ruff, you can do no worse than go down 1. They probably can make 8 or 9 tricks at a ♦ contract. Win the ♦ A , then proceed with ♥ A and ♥ continuation as previously outlined.

A little arithmetic helps some time. You're looking at 8 HCP, responder doesn't have more than 5. That leaves 27 points between pard and opener. Even if opener has a good 16-17, your side has about half the points. You only lose by getting in the auction on those rare occasions where opener has a 18+ HCP hand and passing responder has full stroke for the pass. Responder IS allowed to have less than a maximum pass. So you bid 1 ♥ which shows less than an opener and some heart length. Pard will have a good idea about what your hand is because you didn't bid 2 ♥ when you had the opportunity to do so.

Pass leaving further competition to partner. Backing in at 3 ♦ must show ♦ length and ♥ shortness. Pard also knows I didn't bid 2 ♦ or 3 ♦ direct, so has some idea of what my hand may be. 4 ♦ is a shot. And if some in the field decide to bid 3 ♦ direct, opener may still bid 3 ♥.

4 ♠

5 ♣ for me. I usually count on pard for 1 helping card when bidding. If you double or bid a lesser number of ♣, the opponents may have room to find out more about their hands and compete. Let them guess at the 5 level.

Partner should be showing 7-10 with a ♣ stopper. Even if partner is void in ♥, you can still contribute 7 tricks at NT by giving up a trick to the ♥ K. The hand might play well in either ♥s or in NT if partner's stoppers are good enough. You can't tell what partner has so maybe the best course is to tell pard more about your hand. So this is the time to describe your hand with a 3 ♥ call. It should show about 16-18 and a good heart suit. Pard can pass with a minimum or chose between 3 NT and 4 ♥ with maximum values.

Your partner's hand has 10 HCP -- all primes -- 2 1/2 QTs and 4 trumps. Partner could raise to 3 ♥ with as little an AJ and 3 trumps. The hand is much too good for a simple raise and partner should bid 2 ♠ -- limit raise or better -- at the least. I could find some sympathy for your partner if opener had bid 1 ♦ instead of 1 ♠. But even if that happened, I think the hand is still worth at least a limit raise. I think 2 ♥ is entirely correct by your hand. If you double and responder raises spades, you'll then have to decide if you want to bid your suit at the 3 level with nothing known about pard's hand. That probably wouldn't be too bad if your hand was something like ♠ xx ♥ AKQ10xx ♦ AJx ♣ Qx. But holding only 5 cards in your suit, it's much riskier. There are ways to advise partner that you have some extras after an overcall.

Traditionally, 4 ♦ asks for shortness. Any number of ♦s beyond that (5 ♦, 6 ♦) is to play. 6 ♦ is what you'd bid with something like ♠ Ax ♥ Kx ♦ xxx ♣ AKQJxx where you want to protect the Kx position from being led through. I'm just bidding 4 ♣ with this hand.

I'm a big fan of using Texas followed by 4 NT as always being RKCB for the transferred suit. It ought to work well here.

One of the big problems over a weak 2 bid is handling strong 2 suited hands. If you try to double and then show the two suits, you often lose one of the suits because of the preemption, especially if the opponents toss in a raise. So, discussing how to compete over weak 2s, our KO team decided to start playing the Roman Jump Overcalls mentioned in an earlier post. It helps the bidding over weak 2s in two ways. First, it allows you to show both suits with one bid and define the strong nature of your hand in one bid. Second, it clarifies the takeout double as either a traditional double with shortness in the opponent's suit or a strong one suited hand. With weaker two suited hands, we bid one suit and hope to get in the other suit if possible. The proper bid with Roman Jump overcalls would be 3 ♠ showing Spades and Clubs. (With Roman Jumps, you show the suit bid and the next higher unbid suit.) If pard raises to 4 ♠, I'll take a chance and jump to 5 NT GSF. If pard preferences to ♣, I'll try 6 ♣ hoping pard can guess the ♠ situation. Lacking any sort of agreement about competing with two suited hands (like Roman Jumps), I think I'll just jump to 5 ♠. That should show an 11 trick hand with ♠s. If pard holds either the ♠ A or ♠ Q, they will know to bid the slam and with both to bid the grand. The bid does lose the ♣ suit, but seems the best choice to get to a makeable slam.