rmnka447

You really have 3 options available over 2 ♠ when holding a long ♥ suit: Bid 3 ♥, Negative Double then bid ♥, and, Pass then bid ♥ if partner reopens the auction. The direct bid of 3 ♥ should pretty much shows a game forcing hand. Negative Double shows less values when you show a long suit, typically 8-11. Passing shows even less. The given hand looks to fall in the Negative Double then bid category. If partner finds a 2 NT bid, then you can bid 3 ♥ and partner will picture your hand as almost exactly what you have. Understand that the Negative Double is still unlimited without a long suit, but with the 2 unbid suits something like ♠ Jx ♥ KJxx ♦ AKxx ♣ Qxx. But then over 3 ♣ or 3 ♦ by partner you could try for 3 NT by bidding 3 ♠ for a stopper.

The double of 4 ♠ has to be a business double for penalties. The given hand rates to have at least 2 tricks toward that set, and, maybe even 3 tricks on a good day. So, pass rates to get you a positive result. The only reason to bid on would be if you felt that a 400 point game would get you a better result. But there's no way to know that from this hand. So this looks like a trust your partner and take your positive hand.

I'm with cyberyeti. 2 ♦ unless we'd agreed a direct 3 ♣ asks for a stopper. After 4 ♠ is doubled, I'm sitting. After 4 NT is doubled, I'm running to 5 ♦.

It seems like your methods are: Pass - strongest action XX - runout with 5 card suit 2 of a suit - runout with that suit and another - both likely 4 card suits. In that case: Q1: I'm redoubling to show the 5 card suit. A 5-2 fit is likely to play better than any 4-3 fit we might find. If South was just short of a double and passed, you'd transfer with this hand if you had 5 baby cards in a major instead of ♣. So redoubling here is just a variation of that. Q2: 2 ♠ - partner has run from ♣, so should have a doubleton ♣ and likely 3+ in the other suits. 2 ♠ on a 4-3 fit might not ideal, but bidding 2 ♥ and playing in a 3-3 fit isn't likely to be better especially if partner actually has 4 ♠.

If you believe partner is 5-5 ♠ and a minor, how about bidding 5 NT -- two places to play. If partner bids 6 ♦, you can try 6 ♠. But if partner bids 6 ♣ you pass choosing to play in your probable 10+ card fit rather than your 9+ card fit. However, I have no sympathy for your partner's bidding. 4 ♥ is likely to push your side to the 5 level unless you have a ♠ fit. If you bid 4 ♠, there's no guarantee you have any more than 4 of them in a hand of unknown strength. IMO, the right bid with partner's hand is 4 ♣.

Cyberyeti -- You sure can. You could very adequately bid the West hand by bidding 1 ♦ and reversing into 2 ♥ if available on the 2nd round. BTW, one consideration in choosing a ♣ versus a ♦ lead is that a ♦ lead may give away the whole suit. If partner has the ♦ A, it's unlikely to go away.

Yep, I agree that sometimes in defense it can be right to underlead an A. Most previous posters have listed the most common times when you can do that. What I want to focus on is HOW you underlead the A. Say you are defending a contract and KJ is in dummy behind your Axx. Further, you recognize the probable only way to beat the contract is to have declarer misguess the lay of the cards in the suit. Then if you want to underlead the A, you must do so in normal tempo without flinching or hesitation, but also without undue speed or snapping of the card. This is very much akin to making a smooth duck in tempo if declarer had led a small card toward the KJ. It is a skill that is essential to good defense. Larry Cohen spent a whole chapter in his book Tricks of the Trade discussing ducking in tempo as an essential skill.

I'm leading ♣ 7. I'm asking myself "What kind of hand can opener have that bids slam after responder shows a ♦ suit and raises ♥". If opener had a short ♣ hand, I don't think there's a hand that would fit that bidding scenario. So, I'm giving opener ♣ length. Secondly, I'm expecting a "good partner" to know what a Lightner double is. So I'm leading a ♣ expecting partner to ruff. I'm not leading a low ♣ which partner might interpret as a suit preference for ♦. A ♦ return might give away the whole ♦ suit. I'm also keeping ♣ Q10 which might yield a second trick if partner is void.

I'm passing. While the hand has distribution, there's just not enough quality there to step in at this point.

1. Agree with the double. 2. If the bidding had progressed where a 1 NT rebid was available (not in this case), that would show a 15-17 NT hand. Then double followed by 2 NT would show the hand you have 18-20 NT. Unfortunately that couldn't happen. I think the best you can do is simply bid 2 NT which is less distinctly defined. If opener has an 11 HCP count, that would account for 30 HCP between your hand and opener. That leaves about 10 points to be split between partner's and opener's partner. If those split evenly, then game isn't exactly assured. If partner somehow finds a 3 NT call, you won't be displeased, but you don't want to bid 3 NT and find partner with a yarborough. 3. 11-14 is pretty standard here. 4. Double followed by 1 NT bid.

♥ Q is unlikely to be a loser when opener makes a jump rebid in ♥. Usually a jump rebid shows a pretty decent suit -- something like ♥ AKxxxx or ♥ AJ10xxx. I counted the doubleton ♥ Q as only 1 loser. Your thinking on covers is right. Definitely ♠ KQ should provide at least one cover card. They may provide a second cover card if opener has a complementary holding in ♠. So maybe it's most accurate to say, the hand has 2 pretty sure cover cards and possibly 3. If it turns out to be 3, then 10 tricks are likely. But if it's only 2, then 9 tricks are probably the limit. Clearly, that puts the hand at least on the line between 3 ♥ and 4 ♥

The auction to the point of your question is entirely normal. The North hand has 7 HCP, is an 8 loser hand with 3 possible cover cards. Opener should have 16-18 with decent ♥ and likely a 6 loser hand. So, on point count, it looks like about 23-25 between the 2 hands. By LTC, an 8 loser and 6 loser hand yield 14 losers which implies 10 winners. Likewise, if your cards provide 3 cover cards for opener's probable 6 loser hand, then they'll only be 3 losers. Since you can't be sure exactly how your hand meshes with opener's hand, you're on the cusp between playing in a part score or in game. At MPS, it's a pick'um. Do what you think is right given the field you're playing in. At IMPS, I think you should clearly bid 4 ♥. Bidding and making "thin" games is winning IMPs even Non Vulnerable. Vulnerable, where you should bid any game with a 35% or better chance of making, bidding game is mandatory.

I had the same problem. It's quite possible that East would stretch to respond to 1 ♣ in order to let opener bid 1 NT with the strong NT hand. But then how is East bidding game and doubling 4 ♠? I'd guess it was either a fix by someone who was overly aggressive, or, somehow they were wired on the board.

I think this result is more rub of the green than anything else.

1. No, I'm starting with a 2 ♣ overcall. 2. No, the ♣ are so much longer and better than the ♥, you want to bid them first. 3. No, it takes up too much bidding space and shows a better hand. 1 ♠ would show something like 0-7 but is usually just a courtesy bid to keep the auction alive. 2 ♠ usually shows 8-10/11, is at least positive, but limited to less than a good hand you'd cue 2 ♦ on. You do have enough ♦ suit quality to sit for 1 ♦x, but with 5 decent ♠ I think a ♠ bid is better. The other possibility would be 1 NT, but again with 5 decent ♠ opposite a double. I'd prefer 2 ♠ with your hand. 4. No, I don't think 4 ♣ is forcing. 5. If South overcalls 2 ♣, it could be passed out. Your hand should pass with a void in partner's suit -- trying to get out of the auction as cheaply as possible with a misfit.

Sorry, but we can disagree about a 2/1 GF being absolutely cast in stone and unchangeable. There are always exceptions. In the case of 2/1, they are very rare and usually involve misfit hands where neither player can bid NT or support partner's suits. Hands like this come up maybe once every couple of years. Opener's hand is limited by the failure to make other possible bids. Opener has shown 6 ♠ and didn't jump rebid 3 ♠ showing 16-18 or make a jump shift which shows an even stronger hand. If you play 2 ♠ must be a 6 card suit, then 3 ♠ must be a limiting bid. If you play 2 ♠ as a default with minimum hands, then the 3 ♠ must a 6 card suit in a minimum hand. So, being limited, opener is unlikely to have better than a 7 loser hand. I criticized East's opener and said I'd bid 2 ♠ with it. But given the auction through 3 ♠, West has several things to consider. First of all, the ♠ stiff is a problem because it may add an extra loser into opener's hand unless opener has solid ♠. Even then, if opener holds something like ♠ AKQ543, odds are there is a loser increase. In the remaining suits, West has maybe 3 and a fraction cover cards (♥ A, ♣ KQ plus the fraction for ♦ Qx). Opposite a 7+ loser hand, bidding 4 ♠ doesn't look like a winning continuation. Oddly, I agree with your 4 ♣ continuation as West's proper continuation. But then East has some considerations to make. First of all, it would be foolish to bid 4 ♠ with a stiff ♠ or less in West's hand as you can no longer pick up the ♠ suit with one loser. Second, since there is a ♣ fit, 5 ♣ might be a continuation, but opposite West's hand, East has only 2 cover cards possibly 3 if East can ruff a heart, that isn't enough to bid 5 ♣ unless responder's hand has 5 or less losers. So, at this point pass seems right.

3 NT might not play so good if the ♦ Q and ♣ Q were switched.

1 ♥ seems normal with only 4 ♦. But then again, I don't usually make inverted bids with 4cM. And if partner bids 1 NT you can jump to 3 NT and often discourage a killing ♥ lead. BTW, for those who play you can bid 2 ♦ with a 4 card major what does 2 ♥ show? Stopper? Suit?

REVISED Since you're playing SAYC, a 1 NT response is limited to approximately 6-10 value. It can be any shape because there is no other response that limits responder's hand to that point range that isn't a raise. You're hand is a 17 HCP 4 loser hand. For slam to be right, responder has to have cards that will cover 3 of your losers plus you have to have a fit somewhere. It's possible, but highly unlikely that partner has cards to cover those losers. So, game looks like a more realistic maximum on this hand. As for Gerber, no, it isn't the right tool to use in this instance. If partner's response is 4 ♥ showing one (♥ A), that still doesn't give you any clue about if partner could cover the other losers in your hand. Ace/Keycard asking conventions (Gerber, Blackwood, RKCB, etc.) are for making sure you're not missing two top losers once you determined the assets for slam are there. If partner held ♥ Axxxxx instead of ♥ Kxxxxx and recognized your "Gerber" bid, the response would have been 4 ♥ showing one A. But you should be about to see that bidding slam wouldn't good. In any case, you need to find a fit before even thinking of slam. So how about completing the description of your hand first by simply bidding 4 ♦. Partner can then bid game if it looks right, pass 4 ♦ or make some move toward slam if that seems right. With the actual hand your partner had, passing 4 ♦ leaves you in a reasonably good spot. But just maybe partner had something like ♠ x ♥ A10xx ♦ Kxxx ♣ K10xx and decided to be conservative with an initial 1 NT response because of the known ♠ misfit. After the 3 ♦ jump shift, partner decides to offer 3 NT as a game instead of raising ♦. But when you bid 4 ♦, partner should get real excited about slam prospects knowing you are 5-5. His/her hand has suddenly gained immensely in value. It has a big ♦ fit with an honor that likely consolidates the suit, controls in the side suits, and a stiff in ♠ that will allow for ruffing ♠ losers in your hand. Partner should now show slam interest by bidding 4 ♥ which shows a ♥ control and agrees ♦. (If partner had a real ♥ suit, it would have been right to bid it over 3 ♦, so 4 ♥ can't be to play.) After the 4 ♥ control bid, you have reason to believe slam is possible, and have several ways to continue.

Amen to "result merchanting". Good, even great bidding gets you to reasonable contracts and tends to avoid bad contracts. It's not so completely scientific that you can always get to a place that makes. So sometimes you end up in a good contract and it makes more. Sometimes you end up in a great contract and it goes down. The bidding was right, but the lay of the cards just happened to be favorable or unfavorable. A couple examples. I got rambunctious on a hand in a KO and bid us up to slam. It only took two finesses onside and a favorable break in a side suit to make, but it did. In the comparison at the end of the set, our partners were thrilled we bid and made the slam. But my partner and I simply said "We didn't bid it well. We definitely overbid and got lucky." Another hand from a KO, my partner opened a weak NT and we got to a slam missing one A that was about an 80-85% chance to make. Unfortunately, opening leader held Axxxx in the suit I held KQJ10x. He played the A and confidently gave his partner a ruff to beat the slam. We felt bad the slam went down, but knew it was right to bid it. So the questions if a hand makes 6 should be -- Is this a good slam to be in? If so, how can you bid it? mikeh answered the first question well. No, it isn't. So, maybe the second question becomes, "How do we stay out of slam?" After the auction given, the only ways to bid slam is for responder South to blast into it. RKC over 4 ♠ doesn't answer the critical question of whether their might be 2 losers in the ♥ suit. So, South should use discretion and just pass. If North had bid 3 ♠ instead of 4 ♠, then South can at least start slam investigation. Again the critical issue is whether 2 losers exist in ♥, so South can continue as ahydra suggests cueing 4 ♦, then RKC over North's 4 ♥ cue and stop missing 2 keycards. In both cases, the bidding is right because you got to the best percentage spot. The result just happened to be better.

The redouble has to be for business to make. Opener has presumably shown a decent 6 card suit in a one suited hand. Even if responder is void in ♠, pass is probably right as it's unlikely any other suit will play better. Opener likely holds no more than three in a second suit and often a doubleton or less. Opener's ♠ values are also unlikely to be useful to a contract in another suit. So, Redouble as a "rescue" bid to escape ♠ makes no sense. Advancer (doubler's partner) needs to assist doubler in getting out of 2 ♠xx. So a pass of the Redouble really suggests no suit preference. So when the Redouble is passed back to Doubler, Doubler has to start scrambling and bid something.

It's usually right to make attacking leads against small slams. Here, there was no hesitation about bidding the slam, so we shouldn't worry too much about giving something away with the opening lead and giving them the slam. Chances are that unless we develop a second winner quickly, they'll make 12 tricks. The only suit they haven't bid is ♥, so it looks like the best chance for that defeating trick. I'd be inclined to make the "regular" lead of the ♥ 7. But I think mikeh's and nige1's preferred lead of the ♥ J is intriguing. With responder (the 2 ♣ bidder) seeming the stronger hand, the ♥ J might really put declarer to the test if dummy ♥ AQ and the declaring side faces a guess in the trump suit.

I'm opening 2 ♠ with the East hand. If you just count points ,it adds up to a 10 pointer. The doubleton J may have a little value, but nowhere near a full point. So I'm looking at a 9 point 2 QT hand and thinking that opposite a minimum range 2/1 response there's probably not enough for game unless a big fit is found. I don't subscribe that the 2 ♠ rebid must necessarily showing 6 ♠, but am in the 2 ♠ as a default minimum hand. So, 3 ♠ in this auction, does now show 6. However, it also denies a ♥ fit plus didn't bid NT or make a move toward it by asking for a part ♦ stopper with 3 ♦. With a minimum 2/1 GF response and no apparent fit, especially at MPs, this might be one of those very rare 2/1 auction hands where you choose to pass 3 of a major -- in this case 3 ♠. This may seem like heresy, but how many cover cards do you have for partner's hand 7 loser hand with 6 ♠. Even with AKQxxx, there's more chance of having a trump loser than not and not enough in the responding hand to cover enough losers for game.

Well, there you go. You took Hrothgar's opinions about what the Special Counsel said as fact and tried to assert it was true. Sad. The MSM did an awful lot of backtracking on Sunday after running with the Buzzfeed story even with the qualification "If it's true." When the report first came out, they spent lots of time opining how this was an impeachable offense and would mean the end of the Trump Presidency. The problem is that the opining is wrong unless you have corroboration that the story is true. It crosses over into the realm of propagandizing an allegation without proof. The Buzzfeed story asserted that the Special Counsel had documentation that corroborated the allegation by an unnamed source. The Special Counsel has said the report is inaccurate. If they had the documentation, they certainly wouldn't say the report is inaccurate. They would likely remain silent. So the story is just one more allegation made by an unnamed source. The equivalent would be if some poster said "An unnamed person said that (pick a progressive) is a pedophile." Then a whole slew of other posters said "If true, this is terrible. This (progressive person) should be banned from the Water Cooler." At that point, if it comes out that the allegation was wrong, the damage is still done and the (progressive person)'s reputation is still besmirched. And those with animus towards (progressive person), can start saying "There are all kinds of allegations being made about (progressive person)." It's political propaganda pure and simple. That kind of stuff is something I'd expect to see in a Socialist/Communist or Fascist dictatorship, not the US.

♥ K based on the following --- I'd take a couple inferences from the auction. Opener probably has no more than 2 ♠ and 3 ♥. The 2 NT bid says it shows 4 ♦ and 5 ♣ accounting for presumably 9 cards. It would seem like opener with 4 ♥ or 3 ♠ would probably bid them over 2 ♦ in order to not lose a potential major suit fit. The auction is also one of those tortured invitational auctions suggesting a passive lead because the declaring side probably doesn't have extra values with which to make game. With 11 cards between opener and me, there's too much chance a ♣ lead gives away something, partner has to have a ♣ honor to prevent that. A ♦ lead into opener's known 4 card suit also isn't very appetizing. So it looks like the choice is between the 2 majors. But often when the response is 1 ♠, responder is on 5+ ♠ and leading from Qx is more likely to give something away. So it looks like a ♥ lead is best. The proper card to lead in that case is the ♥ K.