rmnka447

Bid 2 ♣ for a very good tactical reason. Presumably partner has 12+ HCP, say 13 on average. You have 6 HCP. Doubler should have about the same as opener. That leaves advancer (Doubler's partner) with about the same points as you. The 2 ♣ raise may be just high enough to preclude advancer from making a free bid of a major. At worst, partner might end up playing a 4-3 fit. But that's typically something like 18% of the time.

I'm not sure game is there. Opener has advertised 12-13 points and can't have more than 5 HCP in ♣s. Partner probably has something like ♥ Jxxxxx for the overcall. But after 2 bidding opponents, I'd expect partner to have some decent outside values for the overcall. sounds to me like responder scraped up a response with hardly anything and ♣ shortness. So I'm going to DBl 2 ♣ first, then raise ♥s if they compete further.

Marty Bergen talks about point count system discrepancies in the point values assigned to honors versus their actual value in his book on Slam Bidding. Basically, he says As and 10s are undervalued while Qs and Js (or quacks as he calls them) are overvalued. So he recommends comparing the number of As and 10s to the number of "quacks". If they are close, there is no adjustment, but if there is a large difference a point adjustment should be made. So Hand #1 has 3 As and no quacks and is worth about a point more than actual point count. Hand #2 has 6 quacks and 1 A (no 10s)-- a difference of 5, and is worth about 2 points less value than actual point count. By that light, Hand 1 is Ok to open 1 NT and hand 2 is not.

It's hard to know how to answer your question without knowing what your specific agreements are over a strong 2 ♣ opener. After the 2 ♦ waiting bid, I would be tempted to bid 3 ♦ with your hand. It would be useful should partner need to decide if 3 NT is a viable contract. That being said, on the actual auction, after partner bids 3 ♠, I think you have to preference back to 4 ♥.

East is looking at 10 HCP opposite a partner with presumably an opening bid. That adds up to about 23-24 HCPs, so it's definitely E/W's hand. I think East has to take some action over the 2 ♥ bid. If a double would be responsive, then that's probably the clearest call to make. Otherwise, I think East should bid 3 ♣. It's not a perfect bid, but East does have 4 ♣ honors and the appropriate values to go with the bid. Since West doubled, East knows West is unlikely to have 5 ♠ unless the West hand is a double and bid your suit hand. So there's only at best a 4-3 spade fit. East could also end up playing 3 ♣ in a 4-3 fit, but with West advertising ♦ shortness that's OK as the short hand will be able to take the ♦ ruffs. Once East passes, West is an impossible position to know whether to compete further.

With a pickup partner that would pass 3 ♦ after you cue bid ♠s, I'd simply bid 3 NT. If partner has as little as a stiff ♦, you're likely to be able to produce 6 or 7 ♦ tricks from your suit.

Thanks, interesting hand. I'd be sorely tempted to bid 6 ♥, but don't know if I would do it in actuality at the table. Getting to slam is good bidding on this hand. Yeah, we'd all like to get to the perfect contract, but the opponent's competitive bidding has had its effect. So getting to a good place -- small slam -- is likely to be very profitable in the long run.

I'll double and bid 5 ♣ if partner bids ♠s.

I have no problem with bidding 3 ♣ after 1 NT. The hand is a 3 loser hand. You can't tell the whole story, but partner will at least know you have a powerhouse or a player or both. The problem with 2 ♣ is that partner can pass it with ♣s minimum values and a stiff ♠. 2 ♣ making 5 or more isn't going to be a very good result. If partner bids 3 NT after 3 ♣, I see no problem with bidding 4 ♠. It has to show good ♠s because with 7 non descript ♠s, 4 ♠ could be directly bid over 1 NT.

Bidding game or not non vulnerable is much more of a 50/50 situation. So if I'm making a partscore and they make 3 NT, it's only costs 7 imps. The ♠ Jx looks pretty worthless, so I'll just opt to Lebensohl and play 3 ♣. Pass is clear after 3 ♠ undoubled comes back to me.

Double seems right. Your first bid denied ♣s, so it must be card showing. Partner's 2 ♥ bid was discouraging as far as major fits are concerned. But partner could still hold some minor cards and just not have any other bid. Double tells your story and gives partner some choices. At worst, you could end up playing 3 ♥ in a 5-2 fit.

4 ♥ -- you have an 11+ card fit. Partner shouldn't be making a 2 level red vs. white overcall without some pretty decent values.

What does the 3 ♠ bid show? If it's invitational, then I think pass is correct. If it's preemptive (say 5-8 with 4 ♠s), then it's a matter of style. I tend to believe a DBl would show something 15+ HCP and no clear cut direction, so I'd probably pass hoping partner could find a way to reopen over 3 ♠ in passout seat. If you play a DBL could be somewhat lighter, then that would be the right call. If partner finds a reopening double, then 4 ♦ looks right to me.

Hand 1 is clearly a 2 ♣ opener. It may be awkward to bid, but at least partner will know you have a big hand. The problem with opening with a 1 bid is that it could be passed out. If partner responds, partner may never ever be able to envision that your hand is as strong as it is and slam may still be missed. The second hand I would also open 2 ♣. You have 3 losers outside of ♣s. So the question becomes whether ♣ AKJ ninth has a loser or not. I think the percentages of someone holding ♣ Qxx is low enough to make the hand much closer to a 3 loser hand tham 4 loser hand.

I assume 2 ♥ is non forcing competitive as it seems a tad weak for 2 ♥ forcing. 2 ♥ non-forcing seems OK to me. After overcaller bids 2 ♠, West should simply preference back to 3 ♣. East has not used Michaels and is unlikely to hold a 5-5 or better hand.

With a passed partner, prospects for game are not good especially since you might expect reasonable values for opponent's weak 2 with red pockets. If partner can balance, then you will probably get to a decent partscore. But partner is allowed to have very few points for the initial pass, so there needs to be a little caution about competing at IMPs lest you walk into a bloodbath.

I pass. You can't really know if partner has the right cards for 6. AND it might just be possible that partner is making the save. If 6 makes and the bidding is at all reasonable, I'm sure we'll have some company so the MP result should be decent at worst. If it's going down, I've just turned an average into a near bottom or bottom. I'll take my shots elsewhere.

At the table, I'd probably be pretty confused as to what 5 NT meant. Certainly, it's forcing to slam, but there's nothing that's been bid so far that indicates advancer has ♦s. So, it's unclear which choice is being offered. To avoid confusion, it's probably better for advancer to bid 6 ♦ and show the ♦ fit. Then overcaller can make the decision whether to return to the better matchpoint scoring contract of 6 ♥ with the appropriate ♥ holding.

Whether to bid 5 ♥ or not seems less of a problem than determining if game or slam is right. At the very least, partner is aware that responder has some values.

With a second psyche of 4 ♦, there probably isn't a director anywhere who wouldn't adjust the result. Unless bridge logic tells you that a psyche has occurred, psycher's partner can't make any call that could be interpreted as fielding the psyche. With with opener's hand, a more aggressive move toward slam would be almost certain -- bidding slam directly or possibly using RKCB. The burden of proof that a psyche hasn't been fielded lies with psycher and psycher's partner. In the US, this result would be adjusted. If the director decided the psyching was egregious enough, a further penalty might be made. That's because fielding a psyche without bridge logic to tell you a psyche has occurred is a tacit illegal partnership agreement. In this hand, opener has no reason to believe his partner's bids aren't real. Based on the bidding, slam is almost certain.

The issue now is damage control -- you're going for a number. 1 ♠ or 1 NT look to be the best options to minimize the carnage. I don't see what's so wrong with bidding a weak 1 NT in 3rd seat with this hand. If partner uses Stayman, you'll get to the right strain. If partner makes an invitational bid, you'll decline. And if partner decides to push to 3 NT with a 12 count that it just didn't seem right to open, you may have a decent play for it.

How many times out of a 100 weak 2 ♠ hands by South would it be wrong to bid 6 ♠ given that you find South with 2 keycards? Not very many. It's unfortunate that the mirroring distribution dooms the hand, but the percentages strongly favor bidding 6 ♠. Some slams that go down should be bid and some that make shouldn't be bid. That's because bidding is an imperfect art. Just chalk this hand up as one of these hands.

Even if North is psyching the 4 ♥ bid, double is right because it tells partner about your hand. If North is trying for a rat tailed Double hand -- DBL Pass Pass 4 ♠ DBL Pass Pass 5 ♣ where ♣ is the real suit, you'll pass and partner will be able to judge better what to do.

With the second psyche of 4 ♦, I don't think any director would let the result stand. If 4 ♦ were a legitimate bid, it would certainly be reasonable for opener to take more aggressive action than simply bidding 4 ♥. Opener might use RKCB or even bid slam directly. So 4 ♥ could be viewed as fielding the psyche. Unless bridge logic has uncovered the psyche, psycher's partner can't take any action that can be construed as fielding the psyche. Therefore, in the US, the director would at the minimum assign an adjusted score for the hand. Additional penalties might follow if the nature of the psyche was deemed egregious enough. The burden of proof that the psyche was not fielded lies with psycher and his partner because fielding a psyche really constitutes a tacit illegal partnership agreement.

Frankly, South should bid 3 NT with the opening hand after the 3 ♣ bid by North. Holding ♥ KJ108 certainly makes NT seem like the right strain. Additionally, the stiff ♣ Q seems like a flaw opposite partner's known ♣s. North is also unlikely to hold 4 ♠s because no negative double was made. In this hand, North happens to hold the ♥ A. But most of the time, North is unlikely to hold a ♥ stopper, so if South doesn't bid NT, how will the partnership get to NT? North should take into consideration that South might need to bid 3 NT with a wide range of values holding a ♥ stopper or stoppers. So, North ought to invite slam by raising 3 NT to 4 NT. South, of course, with 17, will be more than happy to accept. On the actual hand, after North's 3 NT bid after South's reverse, South would return to ♦ if the hand was an unbalanced hand with longer ♦s. So North should simply pass or bid 6 NT.