SteveMoe

Get them doing - fast and long. Avoid lectures and passive classroom type learning as much as possible. Play "Mini-Bridge" for 75% of time then introduce a play topic. Discuss. Repeat. Introduce scoring and keep track for daily champions. Foster competitiveness. Once their excitement and confidence is shown, introduce bidding. Show how bidding relates to their experience with playing Mini-bridge. Then get them into the free programs from this site. Finally let them play BBO 4-hand bridge if feasible.

Win ♣K and small ♥ to K. If taken by West you have 3 ♥ tricks and 12 by 1=3=1=7. Assume East wins and switches to ♦x. Win A and play ♥QJ perhaps the 4th ♥ is good. If not, then run ♣ looking for simple or double played as simple. If you are allowed to win 2♥ tricks, then run ♣ and decide by discards whether to attempt a ♥ endplay or to set up your 4th ♥ or to finesse in a pointed suit based on your count of West's hand. If West led from a 4-card ♣ suit you have some guessing to do. If they led form a 3-card suit, they probably hold the missing honors in the two 4-card suits they didn't lead. This hand lends itself to counting both opponents so that will work in our favor. Hopefully, West isn't good enough to come down to K - Kxx - or vice versa in the 4-card ending.

Following Phil's reply above, if my hand is strong enough to rebid the major at the 3-level [1m-2M-3M sequence] then I open 1m. This depends not on GF reverse strength but a decided trust that the minor suit deserves focus. If the hand is very weak (Rule of 20 or so), then I open the M all the time. So, it depends on how comfortable I am bidding either way at the 3-level. In general a good working 13 is usually enough for me to open the minor. x AKxxx KQJxxx xx

Even with all the aforementioned issues with opening 2♣, I have no trouble doing so. 2♣ - 2♦ 3♥ tells partner to show where their values lie. ♥ are trump and opener has 4 or fewer losers. The auction can procede naturally from there and partner knows now the value of their cover cards. Note: this is not so different from a Precision auction albeit one level lower: 1♣ - 1♦ 2♥(Zeta Ask) and so on... Even with black suit interference from opponents, we will bid at least to 4♥ and responder will know that 3 working cover cards means slam.

Most play a 1NT overcall to show a balanced hand 15-18 HCP and 1.5+ stoppers in the opener's suit. You could treat this hand as a maximum 1NT overcall with a flawed stopper. Doubling is fine if you are prepared to rebid NT. (Since you are off-shape, if partner bids ♣ you will have to make a decision how to continue. Also consider partner might jump to 4♥ with only 4 trumps, ending in a 4-3 fit). The (3) NT rebid shows 19-21 or so and a solid ♠ stop (your flaw). Finally, you could consider bidding 3N outright. When RHO open with a Weak 2, Give them 8 HCP (I know this one had 10). That means there are 13 HCP between partner and LHO. 19 opposite 7 could yield a game in the right strain. There's an old axiom that you should put 7 HCP in partner's hand on auctions like these and bid accordingly. (Likewise partner should know you "credited" them with 7 HCP and raise if they hold significantly more). Since my hand is not particularly suited to play in the round suits, I bid 3N and hope to make. That fails here.

Easy pass. More bidding expected. Better placed to act next round.

Otoh, 4♠ by N seems prudent.

Defense out to lunch.

Defense out to lunch.

What Zel said.

3♣ Noting this is an excellent hand for XYZ, 1♣ - 1♥ 1♠/NT - 3♣....

Not quite. If W holds the K, then we see that Kx is 13.57% and Kxxx is 11.3% a priori. Not so close to equal. 13.57/11.3 = 1.2, a 20% advantage for Kx over Kxxx.

I agree with your matchpoint sentiment. However when we hold AK in their suit, then they will have cards we need in other suits to make a contract viable for us. AK2 is too heavy in their suit for me to act here, IMHO.

So if we imagine West and north as our pair, then we have 8 cards and want to surmise a priori what the likelihood is each split occurs. Since the 3 signals and ODD number of cards, only 1,3, and 5 are in the relevant set. Wehn South plays the 2, only 1 and 3 remain. Now we know that 3-2 is 68% and 4-1 is 28% when the cards were dealt. True half of the symmetrical cases are eliminated because partner must have 3, not 2 or 1 not 4. However the relative probabilities still apply. Se we expect (absent any other information (not inference)that partner is 68/96 or about 71% while partner holding a singleton is 29%. However if there is solid information from the bidding (vacant spaces because partner preempted and has a 7-card side suit), or the play (a count on known cards) that affect the odds then we must adjust the estimate. As for whether there's a restricted choice on the 2345 spots - definitely no. They are not significant cards and as a class can be represented by xxxx, meaning we attach no significance to the order of their play because they are not winning cards. As for the relative probability of individual cases, we can estimate: 3-2 / 2-3 has 10 + 10 cases (count them) and therefore 68/20 or 3.4% each 1-4 / 4-1 has 5 + 5 cases (count them) and therefore 28/10 = 2.8% each. Go to Richard Pavlicek's site to convince yourself. http://www.rpbridge.net/cgi-bin/xcc1.pl

With a 4=4=3=2 13 count, bid 2♥ - partner should correct to 2♠ if not ♥ tolerance. Correction does not promise 5 here because partner only promises one 4-card major. 2♠ by opener denies 4 ♥ cards. If responder is some 1-4-(53) with no ♠ tolerance, they will return to 3m or 3om, neither of which is forcing. You land is no worse than a 5-2 ♣ fit worst case. With 18+, 3♣ is available to opener.

Neg Double (South) followed by 3♠ (North)

Two passes.

1♦-(2♣)-X shows at least one 4-card major. It should also show a tolerance for ♦. Yes, bidding 2♣ over 1♦ carries a higher nuisance value than many non-preempts. Recommend Marty Bergen's book/pamphlet on Negative doubles. Very useful IMHO Reviewing the bidding: 1♣ - (1♦) - 1M shows 4+ cards. Double shows 4-4 M's, and is the only instance where double shows both majors. 1♦ - (2♣) - 1M shows 5+ cards. Double shows one 4M, and constructive + values. 1♦ - (3♣) - 3M shows 5+ cards and is GF. Double here shows one 4-card major and denies ability to bid 3N. In teams, opener's rebid of 3M tends to deny a ♣ stop for NT. Responsder needs near opening values for the double. 1 any - (3♠) - free bids are GF, double does not promise 4 ♥ cards but does promise values for game. GF with no clear direction. Opener tends to pass with balanced hands. So from 3♠ up, negative doubles show values for game and no clear direction. The assumption is doubler cannot bid NT.

So I'm looking at 5 or 6 tricks and we need to take 8 for a top board (+500)? Almost 60% of our strength is in their suit and those [He} honors will not serve a ♠ contract well? If partner has Axxx x Axxx Axxx, we make 3N, but set 2♥ by 9 (with breaks). 400 vs 800. With xxxx x KQxx KQxx, we might make 140 in ♠ but gain +300 defending 2♥X. Pass. In tempo.

Double 2♦ then double 3♥. The first double shows values and no clear direction. I trust partner to have a near opening bid so we own Balance of Power. All of RHO's finesses are losing...

Nope-creature of habit :rolleyes:

Premptive jump raises are common over doubles and simple overcalls. Pros We take opponent's decision space away with relative safety at favorable and equal vulnerabilities. 4♠ is reasonable because your side has 10 trumps. They have at least 7 and might have 9-10 trumps (♥). Over 4♠ it will be difficult for them to reach the right strain, especially if other than ♥. Cons Risk of a bad score rises at unfavorable vulnerability. Your hand has one clear risk for the jump to 4♠ - you hold 3 small ♥ and they've bid the suit. This is where you might have 3 losers off the top in ♥, and 4 if they can score a trump or trump promotion. If partner is short in ♥ then that shortness and your ♣ shortness is very valuable - you will have fewer losers and might make 4♠. At the point 2♥ is bid to your right, you can't know which is true. I would have bid 4♠ needing a good result on this one board. Otherwise I'd dial it back at this vulnerability and bid 3, representing this hand as a mixed or constructive raise rather than a preempt. (I disprefer preemptive raises when vulnerable, playing the 3-bid as mixed instead). Yes - a preemptive bid by me limits my hand. (Some play that a future double means you have more defense than expected (and partner has shown values) - usually saying I'm doubling in case you want to defend partner, otherwise let's sacrifice).

I've found with proper vulnerability defenders don't interfere enough. Don't underestimate the pressure eliminating the 4-level has on the opponents. Even a 5-card suit can be enough at the 2-level (lead director). Often a bid helps guide the defense - more than just getting in the way off their constructive bidding. CRaSh is GOOD!

Pass, with little thought or doubt. Partner only rebid 2♠, denying a maximum, and for some, 4-card ♠. Responder's ♠ suit is not very strong, neither is the ♦ suit. While you might want to consider what hands allow 4♠ and a less likely 5♦ to make, it is very likely partner has strength in the black suits, somewhere we can't help and that doesn't help us.

Here's a Gem everyone should read (of course the entire resource is spectacular). See Eddie Mansfield's Award Winning Article "I've Got a Secret" on page 147 (of 250) IBPA Handbook 2015