rmnka447

I agree with the general consensus that the auction quickly derailed. Instead of a T/O double, I would be very likely to make a "Lawrence" overcall of 1 ♠ with the South hand. The genesis for this type of overcall apparently comes from Mike Lawrence's Overcall book. Basically, if you have length and honors in opener's suit and another good 4 card, it's often right to overcall in the 4 card suit because partner is much more likely to have a fit with you. One of my KO teammates first brought this to our attention. It has come up a number of times and seems to really work well. After the overcall, North has no problem making an immediate 4 ♠ bid despite whatever call West makes (Dbl?).

Based on your agreements, the bidding looks fine to me. It seems like West just made the matchpoint judgement to bid the higher scoring slam. At IMPS, it would be 100% right to bid 6 ♦ instead which rates to be the safer slam.

This is 4 loser hand with good intermediates in the long suits. I'm bidding 3 ♦ to tell partner I have a big pointed suit 2 suiter. It'll give partner a really good picture of my hand - a powerful hand 5-5 or better. Whatever partner holds, partner will have a good handle on what to do. P. S. - Even after seeing the full hand I think 3 ♦ is still right. It didn't work out on this particular hand, but if partner had a ♣ switched for a ♦, you'd be making 5.

4 ♦ - I'll show pard the fit, but with everyone bidding and holding a rather flat hand, I'm not so sure how many tricks we can take. Partner needs an unusual hand for game to make.

I'm bidding 4 ♥ as pard has shown something with the XX. If pard can't sit for 2 ♠, then I want to be in 4 ♥ at IMPs. P.S. just read through rest of thread after posting first (above) comment. You do have a 6 loser hand (3 ♠s, 1 ♥, 1 ♦, 1 ♣). I bid 4 ♥ because at IMPs I'm aggressive about bidding VUL games. So once pard keeps bidding, I'm taking a positive view and going on. After 2 ♥ by pard, you passed and were interested in what others might do. With your hand, I think you're on the knife edge between passing and inviting. Pard has presumably about 9 loser hand which would leave you just a tad short at game. (24-[9+6]=9) I don't think either action is clear cut and would imagine some days I might make a try and some I might not. So I wouldn't beat yourself up too much for passing over 2 ♥. Partner's hand looks to some like more than a 2 ♥ bid. But it's just possible that partner also looked at the hand's loser count besides his point count. Qxx(xx) counts out as 2 1/2 losers. (With QJx(x..) or Q10x(x..), it would be 2 losers because of the supporting card.) That makes the hand an 8 1/2 loser hand -- again on the cusp between a straight 2 ♥ raise and a 1 NT/3 ♥ limit raise. Again, pard looks to have made a close judgement.

Pard showed something like 0-7 by bidding 1 ♠. After a 4 ♦ splinter, partner has bid 4 ♥. It has to be some sort of positive call. Most of the time, I'd expect partner to simply bid 4 ♠. 4 ♥ could be a number of things, but whatever it is, it has to be slam positive. So, I'd just bid 4 NT and go to slam if pard shows an A.

I'm a passer at IMPs with red pockets.

Partner has at least 4 ♣, but is very unlikely to have more than 1 ♥. From your hand, it looks like a ♥ loser, a ♠ loser, and possible a ♣ loser at most. So even VUL vs not, I'd bid 5 ♣ at any kind of scoring. I'm also DBLing 5 ♥ if the opponents bid it.

Given the actual auction, I think doubler has to bid 3 ♦ over the 2 ♦ bid. The hand hasn't decreased in value because of anything the opponents have bid. Opener hasn't redoubled to show extras, so partner rates to have values. Over the 1 ♠ bid, I think a DBL is better than 2 ♣.

I passed both hands. There is nothing that says partner doesn't hold an outside honor or two. As far as I am aware, a 4 NT response to a gambling 3 NT asks if opener has an extra trick. The 3 NT bidder signs off in 5 of his suit without the extra trick, and bids 6 of his suit with one. A 5 NT response aks if opener can play opposite a void in opener's suit. Opener bids 6 if not or bids 7 if the suit is good enough to have no losers opposite a void. So, for your first question, after the 3NT opener, you bid 4 NT and follow up opener's 5 or 6 bid with 6 NT or 7 NT respectively. For your second question, simply bid 6 NT. Even if 3 NT opener has an extra trick, the 6 NT bid should be passed as you had the opportunity to ask about it with a 4 NT bid and didn't.

Playing 20+ 2 NT bids, I would have opened the hand 2 NT anyhow. Aces are undervalued so holding all 4 the hand is worth more than the 19 point straight HC point count. That said, given the auction, I would raise to 4 ♠ for a couple of reasons. First, you have the point count and number of ♠s for the bid. Second, your hand has NO intermediates that often prove so vital at NT contracts. So, the hand is more likely to play better at a suit contract than at NT.

Thanks for your very good questions. Everyone struggles to some extent with part score contracts. Probably that's because declarer has much less control of the hand. Because you have fewer winners, part scores are more about recognizing your opportunities for developing winners and also recognizing how to avoid or prevent the defenders for setting you before you do so. Advanced/expert players have generally had much more experience at recognizing the opportunities and dangers in part score hands. But you haven't as yet. So, it's completely natural that you would have more anxiety about them. Nonetheless, everyone has to develop a plan of attack for the hand at trick 1 just like you do for game or slam contracts. Often it's less certain than at game and you may have to switch your plan as the hand progresses. But you need to start somewhere on the hand. Having a bad plan is better than having no plan. Some questions you might think about on part score hands are: Which hand or suit am I trying to set up? Which hand is the master hand? Where or how could the opponents get enough tricks to set the hand? Is there a way to prevent that? What lie of the cards do I need in the suit I'm trying to set up? Do I need to take ruffs with the shorter trump suit holding? How can I ensure that happens? In the suit combination you posed, Q764 A832 not only should you understand what you hold, but also what's missing. In this case, you don't the KJ109 in the suit. So even if the suit breaks 3-2 they hold enough to score a second trick in the suit unless you can find a favorable lie of the cards. As a previous poster pointed out, that has to be the K located in front of the Q or possibly the K doubleton behind the Q. The normal play is to lead toward the Q, but you have two options in doing so. The first is to lead a low card toward the Q immediately. The second is to cash the A before leading a low card toward the Q. Which you do may depend on other factors in the hand. For instance, you may want to retain the A to prevent the opponents immediately scoring a second trick in the suit. You would play for a doubleton K behind the Q only if you had good reason to believe the K was behind the Q. As a novice, your objective should be to get well schooled in the fundamentals of the game (declarer play, defending and signaling, bidding, and basic counting). Part of that should be study and part of that is just gaining experience by playing. If you take the time and effort to do that, you will become a much better player. Two books that help, at least, with the card play aspects of the game are: Watson's Classic Book on the Play of the Hand at Bridge By Louis H. Watson Modern Bridge Defense by Eddie Kantar Neither book specifically addresses part scores, but they are excellent guides to the fundamentals. The first part of Watson is as good a start on all the card play fundamentals as there is. Kantar's book is the first of two books on defense. It comprehensively covers basic defense and signalling. The second Kantar book is more oriented toward an intermediate level player, so is best left til a little later.

1) This hand has lots of distribution, so you really can't assess the defensive prospects well. But based on the opponents bidding they have to have 10+ ♣s. Partner has shown at least something including length in ♥s and has preferenced to ♠. 6-6 hands with any decent holdings usually play quite well. You've got the distributional control in ♣s. Who's making and who's sacrificing? Don't know, so bid on with 5 ♠ rather than make a forcing pass. If you make the forcing pass, partner might be looking at ♣ xx and won't compete further fro fear of ♣ losers. 2) People who play a disciplined strong 2 ♣ structure have an easy time with this hand - 2 ♣ - 2 ♠ (5+, 1 1/2 Qts and suit with 2 honors) - 3 ♦ - 3 ♠ (6+ cards) and off to the races. The thing to realize is that their are 2 possible game plus contracts in play -- ♦ or ♠. A doubleton ♠ honor can be a very good holding even opposite only a decent 5 card suit. There's plenty of time to bid 5 ♦ later. The problem with the 5 ♦ bid is that partner has no idea how his/her ♠ holding fits with your hand. I'm assuming that 3 ♠ is some sort of forward going response. If it shows a decent 5 + suit, you might consider a 4 ♠ raise. The other possibility is to manufacture a 4 ♣ in order to let partner more fully describe his/her hand. 3) South has bid the 3 other suits, so can hardly have more than 1 ♠ and probably has none. In addition, the opponents have a 2 suited fit. South has also bid ♦, so ♦ KJ9 has lost some value. So on the actual auction, I think the choice is between passing 4 ♥ and bidding 4 ♠. You could go down a couple, but you do know partner doesn't have many ♥s. Red vs. White, I'm a bidder just in case 4 ♠ is a make. This could be a double swing board. 4) Win ♣ A and lead ♦ 9. I'll try to set up ♦s by ruffing with ♠ 108. If that isn't successful there may still be a ♦/♥ squeeze against North. 5) Pass and bid 4 NT over the Double.

I'd have a long conversation with my partner if he bid 7 NT like that. A look at the missing honors by the big hand tells the story. They are ♠ QJ ♥ K ♦ KQ ♣ KQJ. Now, it's just possible the 1 ♠ bidder might hold all those honors. But it's much more likely that opener has a hand with a lot of black cards. Until responder can get a better fix on what opener does hold, it's sheer lunacy to jump to 7 NT. After 1 ♠ - 2 ♥ 3 ♣ - 3 ♦ I think opener should bid 4 ♠ which should show something like a 7-4 hand. Then it's pretty easy to get to 7 ♠.

Put me down as a 4 ♠ bidder.

I lead the ♥. If pard has a ♠ entry, there's a good chance we can beat 5 ♣ down 2. If not, I still get a shot a diamond entry or possible ruff by pard.

Hand 1 - definitely make a maximal double (game try). Unless RHO has been very aggressive, partner is likely not to have more than a stiff ♥. double protects you if partner has made an extremely agressive spade raise. Hand 2 - Partner didn't raise ♣, so chances of there being enough for a light HCP slam based on a big 2 suited fit are diminished. So I think direct 4 ♥ is right. Hand 3 - Opener could still have a really good hand that may make exploration for slam feasible. So I'd take a positive view of the hand and show a limit plus raise (I think you were indicating this was a 2 NT bid.) If the ♦ A had been in ♥ or ♣, I would have splintered.

I'd expect to stop below slam any number of ways -- 1 ♥ - 2 NT(Jacoby) 3 NT - 4 ♦ 4 ♥ - 4 ♠ 4 NT(waiting) - 5 ♦ 5 ♥ or 1 ♥ - 4 ♦(splinter) 4 ♥ - 4 ♠ 4 NT(waiting) - 5 ♦ 5 ♥ or 1 ♥ - 1 ♠ 2 ♦(extras) - 3 ♥(GF, slammish) 3 NT(waiting) - 4 ♦ 4 ♥ - 4 ♠ 4 NT(waiting) - 5 ♦ 5 ♥ Yes, cyberyeti, all of these, of course, pinpoint the lack of a ♣ control, but that's just the breaks. In a really good field, I'd expect this might get a below average MP result. But in an average MP field, I'd expect it wouldn't be any worse than slightly below average at worst. It'll score better than the bashers who are in 6 ♥s off 1, match the score of anyone else in 4 ♥ or 5 ♥ who get a ♣ lead, and lose to those making 6.

What Art said!!

Normally, I'd reserve a reopening double for a hand of about opening value. But in this auction, I've already had the chance to make a takeout double and haven't done so. So partner is likely to understand I have less than that. Even so, 8 points is even a little light, so I'd want near perfect hand pattern for it. Hand A comes close -- it has 4 ♥s which partner will expect, so I would double with it. Hand B isn't as close. If partner will take 2 NT as the minors, then that would be the bid. If not, I'd simply bid 3 ♦.

Pass. The problem is that you don't know who has what. All you do know is that pard didn't have enough to overcall or make a takeout Double. Bidding to a 4 level contract is a complete shot in the dark.

I'm bidding 5 ♥ asking partner about the quality of his trump suit. If partner has someting like AKJxxx or AK109xx, 6 ♥ should make. If partner has KJ10xxx, passes, and 6 ♥s makes, we're still getting points for game. If partner has made a weak 2 ♥ bid on dregs vulnerable at rubber bridge, then, if possible, I'm finding a new rubber bridge partner ASAP.

The first thing to do is consider the auction the opponents have had and gleen any information you can about the likely strength and holdings the opponents have. In Hand #1, the opponents have bid game without hesitation. Generally, this suggests making an attacking lead rather than a passive lead. Additionally, your LHO has bid 2 ♥ over 1 ♠. After a 1 ♠ opener, a 2 ♥ bid is much more likely to be made on a 5+ card suit. With two 4 card suits including ♥s, responder usually bids the minor opening the way for opener to cheaply rebid a 4 card ♥ suit if opener has it. Your ♥ K is badly placed versus dummy's long suit. Dummy's ♥ suit seems like a likely dumping place for any of opener's losers in the minors. At either form of scoring (playing Standard 4 best leads), I'm putting ♣ 4 on the table. Hand #2 is somewhat different. An invitation to game has been made and accepted. So the opponent's aren't likely to have much extra that suggest game will be easy to make. This points to a more passive lead because you don't want to gift any tricks to declarer. The only other information you have is that declarer has a ♣ fragment of some sort. You can think of it as maybe something like your ♣ holding in hand 1. It certainly seems like you'd be helping declarer if you led that suit. You don't want to lead a ♠ because unless the lie of the ♠s is unfortunate you'll get a trick in that suit. So the choice falls between a ♦ or a ♥. You hold 2 non touching honors and an intermediate card in ♦. You hold just one unsupported honor in ♥s. So there are fewer possible useful cards that partner can hold in ♦s than ♥s that will help prevent giving away anything. At either form of scoring, I'm putting the ♥ 3 on the table. Occasionally, we might find declarer holds ♥ A10x opposite K9x and give away a trick when declarer plays us for split ♥ honors. That's just bad luck. Please note for Hand #2, that, if the bidding had gone 1 ♠ - 2 ♠ - 4 ♠, an attacking ♦ 5 lead would be preferred.

Rule #1 at IMPS - Do whatever is necessary to make your contract!!! You did it exactly right. I wonder what your partner would have said had you ducked and a ♦ return been ruffed. Risking a +620 for a +650 makes no sense at all especially since the IMP difference between the scores is a big fat ZERO.

I think 2 ♣ is right with the 3 loser hand. If you open the hand with 1 ♠, there's just no way for the strong hand to ever convince the responding hand that it's as good as it is. However, I do have some big quibbles with the auction after the strong hand's 2 ♠ rebid. Responder, at that point, only knows that opener has a near game ♠ hand. From what responder holds, there's no way to know what is needed to make a slam viable or not. Consider the following possibility (a slight but important modification of the actual hand held) -- ♠ AKQxxx ♥ KQxx ♦ J10 ♣ A This hand has the same number of losers as the actual hand held, but slam can easily be defeated with a ♦ lead. If the auction progressed as it actually occurred -- RKCB after the 2 ♠ bid, all the bids would be the same. The point is that usually in auctions where one hand is much stronger than another, it's usually right for the big hand to captain the auction and solicit the needed information from the weaker hand. The big hand can usually see what's needed for slam and move the auction in a direction to see if partner has it. So, like other posters have suggested, it's good to have responder simply define how good the responding hand with the rebid. A 3 ♠ rebid to me says more than enough for game with an Hxx or xxxx holding in the trump suit. 4 ♠ is a sign off -- 3+ trump and just enough for game. Here's how the auction might proceed with the original hands -- using a disciplined rebidding approach and old fashioned As first cueing -- 2♣ - 2 ♦ - 2 ♠ then 3 ♠ (Hxx or xxxx more than minimum game going values) [Opener can envision slam if responder holds ♥ A)] 4 ♣ (1st round ♣ control) [Opener initiates slam investigation for specific controls] 4 ♥ (1st round ♥ control, denies a 1st in ♦) [Responder shows the control he has, but this is enough for Opener to keep going] 5 ♣ (2nd round ♣ control, implies high ♠ honors) [ Opener can see that if responder has a 2nd in ♦, grand may be apossibility] 5 ♠ Responder has nothing more to say 6 ♠ Opener has already heard enough from responder Now if the modified hand was held, the auction would proceed the same through 5 ♠, but opener would pass knowing there were 2 losers in ♦. Those using cueing to show either a 1st or 2nd round control can produce something similar to get to the proper decision for slam or not.