rmnka447

4 NT seems best to me trying for a minor game. Don't think we can beat 3 ♥ enough Dbld if preempter has made any kind of sane Vulnerable preempt. I'd expect something like QJ eighth or longer out of the preempter. If partner has long strong ♠, partner should have bid them.

4 ♠ is such a clear cut call that it is the one action that would not be deemed choosing from a logical alternative in this case. If the Director were asked to rule on the hesitation and asked a panel of "experts" about the hand, I think all of them would say they would bid 4 ♠. But I don't disagree that "doing what you would have done any way" will necessarily keep you from getting an adjusted score. Make the hand, say, have ♦ Kxxxx instead of ♦ AJxxx. Even though you might normally still bid 4 ♠ with the revised hand, it might well be interpreted as choosing a logical alternative because it isn't a clear cut call to a majority of good players. For the actual hand we are discussing, pass would be choosing a logical alternative. Say you did pass and, for whatever reason, 4 ♠ goes down while 4 ♥x also goes down. The score would be adjusted because 4 ♠ is such a clear cut call with the hand that failure to make that call constitutes choosing a logical alternative. Again, I'll agree that the majority of hesitiation cases involve situations where partner takes a long time to pass and you don't pass. Then, making a call that might be suggested by the hesitation constitutes an LA while pass doesn't.

You've got good cards to hold opposite partner's known suits. You also hold an outside A. Vulnerable, at IMPs, it pays to bid any game that makes more than about 30% of the time. So this is a hand to make a try on.

I'm making the same lead as I would if the bidding had gone 1 ♥ - 2 NT(strong raise) - 4 ♥ in a Standard American auction -- 4th best ♣.

The second auction Han covers (using 1 NT - 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ - 2 ♥ as a runout of 1 NT) is often referred to as "Soft Stayman" or "Garbage Stayman" by expert players. I believe that with ♠ A10xx ♥ K10xxx ♦ xxx ♣ x, those playing Soft Stayman transfer to ♥ and then bid 2 ♠ --- 1 NT - 2 ♦ - 2 ♥ - 2 ♠. This would show invitational values, 5 ♥s, and at least 4 ♠s. Since responder might have more than 4 ♠s, opener can still support with 3 ♠s and a max by bidding 3 ♠. Responder can then correct to 3 NT when holding just 4 ♠s or bid 4 ♠ with 5 or more ♠s. When opener holds 4 ♠s and a max, opener simply bids 4 ♠. Transferring the other way -- 1 NT - 2 ♥ - 2 ♠ - 3 ♥ shows a 5-5 game forcing major hand.

Partner could have passed in tempo and you would have bid 4 ♠ as you have an opener. 4 ♠ is the normal bid with this hand. Anything else you do including pass might be interpreted as LA.

Probably, "For example" would have been better. Yes, I a native born American.

I'm bidding 4 ♥ to start. It might just be enough to prevent them from bidding 4 ♠. If not, I take the push to 5 ♥, if partner sits for 4 ♠. I don't want to give the opponents any chance to figure out what their assets are.

I'll DBL. Partner has to have some cards to Michaels R/W at IMPs. Partner heard my raise but may not know if it was based on distribution or values. I think the DBL tells it's on values. If partner is more distributional -- 6-5 or 6-6 -- partner can bid on.

With red pockets at IMPs, I'm passing. Whatever range NT we are playing, partscore seems to be our maximum result. If we are playing weak NTs, it's their hand. Any bid that I make is more likely to get us in trouble than win us IMPs. Worst case would be reopening in a suit that encourages intervener's partner to take a call and they find game. If we are playing strong NTs, partner might just have a ♥ stack. I don't want to be explaining how my reopening bid cost us a sure positive. Certainly, there are hands where a partscore might make, but there are also hands where no fit exists and we go for a number versus a partscore.

Pass, so partner can decide what to do. With a distributional hand, partner might decide to push on. Seems like the cards in this hand woud be useful if partner does. Any rounded suit bid is a pure guess and, with red pockets, might be costly. If we let the opponents play in ♠s, I'm leading ♠ A and probably another spade depending on what dummy looks like. Partner had an opener and this hand has 2 1/2 QTs including good cards in the unbid suit. So it looks like the opponent's tricks will come from ruffs rather than a running suit.

2 NT because it tells partner your approximate values and that you have heart stoppers. Partner can still probe for a 4-4 major fit with a ♥ cue.

If he pulls it, I won't be sitting J KJxxx Jxx Axx because I'm passing with that hand. With the actual hand we're discussing, I'm content if partner partner sits for 3♠x because it certainly looks like it has at least 2 defensive tricks. The hand has significantly increased in value because of the opponent's bidding. Opposite the terrible opener you quoted, Q10xx Q KQx KJxxx, with the actual hand held, 3 ♠ may not fare so well.

How about continuing with a second DBL instead of bidding 4 ♣? You could have as few as 6 value for your original Negative Double. The original Negative Double also pretty much denied ability to penalize a ♠ contract in the first place. So the second double is card showing telling partner your side has the balance of the points. Partner could also still have 4 ♥s but was unable to bid on because of the ambiguousness regarding the strength of your original Neg. Dbl. Partner would undoubtedly bid 4 ♣ and you could continue with a 4 ♠ cue showing the control and agreeing ♣s. After that, it's up to partner to push you further toward slam. Unfortunately, I don't think your partner will move further than game with the hand held. But I think this line of bidding gives you a chance for slam to be bid if partner has a slightly stronger holding -- say maybe ♥ A instead of the ♥ Q.

If 2 NT shows 3-4-3-3 and max, then 3 NT probably plays as well as or better 4 ♥. Opener (the shorter ♥ hand) can get no ruffs to increase the number of tricks taken at a ♥ contract. Responder can also see there's no possibility of more than a single ruff in the long ♥ hand (i.e. a "reversal" type play).

My bad -- meant longer ♣s than ♠.

The problem is that responder doesn't exactly know opener holds AQ109xx in ♣. You need Kx onside to set up the ♣ suit without the loss of a trick. Give responder ♣ Jx and there is much better hope of setting up ♣ as a source of tricks whenever opener's holding is anything reasonable. Ergo, give opener A109xxx and stiff J pretty much dooms you to 2 ♣ losers most of the time, but Jx gives you a reasonable chance to develop 5 ♣ tricks with 1 loser. I can't disagree with opener's bidding. He held 15 with 2 dangling Qs, so it seems right to make a simple 2 ♣ response with this 7 loser hand. Responder's 3 NT can have a wide range of values from a really good 12 up to a 16-17 pointer that wouldn't invite slam opposite opener's presumed 12-14 pointer. So 4 NT is an aggressive, but reasonable try for slam. Everyone scoped it out as a 15-16 hand with a flaw that precluded rebidding 3 ♣.

1. No, partner may be bidding a distributional player. Besides, both opponents have shown red suit fits with the strong hand behind you. Doubling may just be giving too much information about how to play the hand to declarer. Another thing to consider is what your side can make. It certainly doesn't look like you and your partner have anything more than a partscore. So if you beat 4 ♥, there's unlikely to be much of a swing. 2. A hand with longer ♠s than ♣s. The more distributional the hand the less HCP needed to make the bid. Kxxxx x x KQJxxx would be enough. 3. No, there's no reason to believe that 5 ♣ will yield a better result than 4 ♥. This hand is a good advertisement for the Fred Will approach. Fred was a very fine, wise old player from Detroit. When asked about his secret to success, he said "I never do anything that I can be criticized for in the post mortem." Simple, but sage advice. You don't want to be explaining to partner why you pulled the double when partner shows up with ♥ QJ109 and 4 ♥ never makes.

5 loser hand, give it one more try with 3 ♣.

I really can't criticize either player for the bidding. South might consider passing, but at MPs not rebidding that lovely 6 card ♠ suit seems like a sin of the 1st order. I'd certainly be bidding 3 ♠ with that hand. North is sort of stuck for a bid. Unless East is insane, East likely has both missing ♦ honors. So from North's viewpoint, South looks to be holding some ♣ pieces for the 3 ♠ call. I forget if it was Hamman or Wolff who said if 3 NT is among the logical possibilities, then it probably should be bid. Given that South has ♠s and something in ♣s, 3 NT certainly is a possibility from North's viewpoint and should be bid. It's an unfortunate hand because South doen't have better ♣s, but those are the breaks.

West bears the brunt of criticism on this hand. When you bid a grand slam, you have to be able to count 13 tricks or posit that 13 tricks require only a finesse at worst. If you can't do that, then the grand should not be bid. After the RKCB 5 ♠ bid, West knows that East has the ♠ Q, ♥ A, and ♣ A. West also knows East doesn't have 5 ♠s (East didn't open 1 ♠). But what West doesn't know is East's exact distribution. So West can't know if East can get enough ♥ pitches to be able to ruff West's ♥ loser. What West does know is that 12 tricks look pretty solid (requiring maybe a ♦ finesse at worst), so West next needs to find out if there is any other source for a 13th trick. That can be done by using RKCB to ask about the remaining Kings. When East shows no Ks, West should settle for small slam. West has to consider that maybe partner has a minimum hand and has opened with just ♠ Q, ♦ Q, ♥ A, ♣ A, OR EVEN ♠ QJ, ♥ A, ♣ A. 7 ♦ makes because East just happens to have 5 ♦s and 3 ♠s to the queen. Give East something like 4=4=3=2, 3=4=4=2, 4=3=4=2, 4=3=5-1, or 3=4=5=1, then 7 ♦ has no play when East has no K. If West wanted to play some "Matchpointitis", then the right bid to make is 6 NT.

Depending on the partnership's agreements, advancer has to cue ♥ at some time in the auction. If new suits are forcing, the auction should go (1 ♥) - 1 ♠ - (P)- 2 ♦ - (P) - 3 ♣ - (P) - 3 ♥ - (P) - 3 NT. By bidding 3 ♣, overcaller shows at least opening value and advancer's 3 ♥ asks about a ♥ stopper and also shows an opener. If new suits are nonforcing, the auction should go (1 ♥) - 1 ♠ - (P) - 2 ♥ - (P) - 3 ♣ - (P) - 3 ♦ - (P) - 3 NT. Advancer's 2 ♥ cue shows opening values, overcaller's 3 ♣ bid also shows opening values. Advancer's 3 ♦ shows his suit.

2 NT describes your strength and distribution. Since the partnership is playing Puppet Stayman, a 5-3 Spade fit won't be lost. I don't think 1 ♠ is right. If the remaining 20 HCP are split pretty evenly, partner is likely to respond 1 NT wrongsiding the contract versus most of the rest of the field. Even if 2 NT or 3 NT go down, the result rates to be no worse than Ave- as most of the field figure to also open this hand 2 NT. It's also just possible that 1 ♠ might be passed out and does no better trickwise than NT. Opening 1 ♠ might also preclude you from finding a 5-3 ♥ game that would be child's play to find after a 2 NT bid (say partner had something like ♠ xx ♥ Axxxx ♦ Qxxx ♣ x).

There can be at least a couple ways to play Wolff. The traditional way was for the 3 ♣ rebid to absolutely require opener to bid 3 ♦. Then, if responder make a further rebid in the major originally responded in, opener must pass. This allows responder a choice of runout spots -- 3 ♦ or 3 of responder's major. Any responder rebid other than 3 ♣ is forward going. More recently, some players playing Wolff have allowed opener to rebid 3 of responder's major when holding 3 in that suit instead of relaying to 3 ♦. That's OK as long as responder has 5 cards in the major, but precludes potentially stopping in 3 ♦. Because I play Walsh (bypass ♦ to bid a major), I prefer the more traditional approach to Wolff to retain the ability to sometime signoff in 3 ♦. But pay your money and take your choice. The important thing is work through the various bidding sequences with your partner.

Given the auction as presented so far, East should DBL. The double shows extra values and a willingness to compete in the majors. It is not a penalty double because so far West has not shown any values whatsoever. Whether West bids 2 ♥ initially might be a function of the partnership agreements over overcalls. If the agreement is that new suits are forcing, then West doesn't have enough to make a 2 ♥ call. If the agreement is that new suits are non-forcing, then West should bid 2 ♥. West does have a nice 6 card suit and tolerance for East's ♠s. After the DBL, West should have no problem bidding 4 ♥ if South bids 4 ♣. Looking at 3 ♣s with both opponents showing ♣ length, East is unlikely to have many ♣s.