SteveMoe

4♠ We have a double fit and the green light U/V.

6♥ Trusting partner to have sound overcall with few or no values in ♦. 2As, ♣K and ♠QJ are not too much to ask for. 5♥ seems safe, but partner doesn't know I have a 5 loser with good trumps. AK7 looks like 4-card support. Hoping it plays that way.

Absolutely unfortunate. They led J from QJ..., J10..., Jx, and J!

While I agree that bidding 1♣ and rebidding 1♠ shows what you mention, I would expect the auction at my table to be: 1♣-P-2♣(Inverted)-P 2♠(Concentrated strength & doubt about ♥)-P-3♦(Concentrated strength and doubt about♥)-P 5♣ Were the auction (on a different North hand) to go 1♣-P-1♥-P I rebid 1NT. Pard can look for 3 Hearts and or 4 Spades with NMF.

Well stated and agree completely. Wanted to share one instance where opponent's Rusinow approach created a losing option for them. LGO led a Rusinow J and RHO saw K10xxx while holding A9xx. I held a stiff x and called for low from dummy. Righty flew with the A and a doubled game came home - seems their agreement was that the J was the lowest rusinow card (i.e. 10 would be top of nothing). RHO was "sure" partner was singleton or that I held the Q. :blink: Moral: be clear where the break point is and what the auction implies as to partner's length. I'd add to look into the complete system of Journalist Leads for additional perspective.

Here's an Overcall Structure that offers a 4-14 HCP takeout bid: 1NT. Double shows 14+ usually balanced. Seems in context of this post it is possible to invert the meanings of 1NT and double (full disclosure - not checked all ramifications). What this brings is an ability to have disciplined weaker takeouts without losing the ability to diagnose strong fits in competition.

Agreeing Hanoi5. Adding that any opener who who chooses 3N responder must carry on. 1N-2♣ 2♥-3♦ 3N-4♦ seems clear. Followed by 5♣ - 6♦ (would not bid 5♥ unless confident pard KNOWS this is a control bid). 4♦ should be slammish and imply 4=6. A 5-loser opposite a 1N opener should reach 12 tricks unless pard holds wasted ♥. Some I know allow 4-card major after a ♦ transfer: 1N-2N 3♦*-3♠ (showing 6-4) 4♣-4♥ etc. Here *=super accept - I like ♦s. Those of us playing splinter rebids over minor transfers usually won't have 4♠s, so transferring to ♦ and splintering 3♥ is not available to us (unless we are willing (?) to lose ♠s.

3N oposite partner's minimum rebid on this hand is not a bad prospect. We have more than 1/2 of our strength in their suit and our 6-card suit is thin (think 5-card suit). I'd gamble 3♦ to force and see if partner corrects to ♠ but fear partner will bid 4♣ - just what I don't want to happen. So I will simply bid 3N and trust that when most of my assets are in opponents suits, 9 tricks are easier to make than 10.

Looking at the minimums for an opening bid (12+) and the standard interpretation of redouble (10+), we have at best 45% of the available strength. I bid if I hold a 5 card suit in an unbid strain. I also bid a 4 card major if at the 1 level. I can't see that playing pass as penalty helps, because it will cause me to bid when I really don't want to commit our side. Holding xxx xxx xxx xxxx and the auction is 1♣- Double - Redouble, if pass is penalty I have to manufacture a ♦ bid when it's clearly superior to let partner both choose strain and declare. I like pass to show no clear direction. I think transfers over minor suit redoubles might have a lot going for them.

Echoing Dake50, I would open this hand 1♣ not 1NT. The benefits: 1) more space to diagnose whether we belong in NT or not. 2) were we to play NT, partner should declare. I adjust down 1 trick for 4333 and find this hand too weak for 1NT (15-17).

Can we infer we are talking about MP Pairs? If so the Major suit bias weighs heavily. When the auction starts 1♥-double-pass, I expect partner to hold soemthing like HJxx x HJxx Hxxx. The minimum I look for is 10 WHCP and 4=1=4=4. Let's not have the rare hand AKxx x KJxx AKQx cloud the deliberation ("Resulting Alert"). Opposite partner's expected minimum 7 LTC, we hold 12 LTC and rate to be down 3 tricks in ♦. By bidding 1♠ we are choosing a 7 trick contract over an 8 tricks contract because we are starting with a negative expectancy already. Yes it is uncertain/unlikely that we will ever be allowed to play in 1♠ but there are other benefits: 1♥-double-pass-1♠ Pass-2♥-pass-2♠ is a clear warning to PASS and play 2♠. It is also safer now to introduce ♦. Partner will not expect more than 4=4. -or- 1♥-double-pass-1♠ 2♥-double-pass-2♠ is also a clear warning to pass. -or- 1♥-double-pass-1♠ double-pass-pass we have the option to play 1♠X when they are likely cold for game. With the given hand, partner has a very strong 3.5 loser perfect shape double - a rare holding. We rate to make 8.5 tricks in our 8 card fit. I think 1♠ is a standout call on xxx xxxx xxx xxx and offers a better expectancy opposite partner's likely holdings with xxx xxx xxxx xxx / xxx xxxx

With MrAce and The Hog. 1♠ has the 1 level recommending it - strongly.

Pleading poor vision - I could'a sworn there were 6 ♦ cards, partner, honest! Changing my vote to pass on 3=2=5=3 with too little strength to double immediately. Let's defend.

Suspecting South is 33=2=5, one trump lead might stop a minor suit ruff. Have to admit a ♥Honor is like comfort food. Martens cautions "Don't be a calf.."

Buiding on Mike777 concerns, Kx AJxxx Kxxx xx begins to feel painful too. Here's one time when I want to bid 2♣ then 3♥ using my "Aces first, please partner" bidding card. ;) Devilish that "Italian Style" control bids might get us too high. 1♥ - 2♣ 2♥ - 3♥ hoping partner cannot cue ♠ - we want red suit values not black suit values. if 3♠ - 3N serious, now hoping for 4♦ if 4♦ then 4♥ - hopefully expressing doubt about trump suit strength. Pard can decide to commit RKB... FWIW I do not like 2N and see a splinter understating the power of my hand. Both approaches will likley induce RKB when the 5 level might be too high. FWIW2: I'd like to find a trump suit quality check below RKB - any ideas??? (Am familiar with Ken R's appriach using 2N rebid by opener to deny good trumps. However am not sure how to handle the question in the 1M-2m-2M-3M auction other than the inference above).

2♣ then 3♠ invites control bidding - and we'll learn if partner can contribute anything in ♣. 4♥ splinter at first appears more direct but I lack 2nd round control in ♣ and if partner has ♠Q ♥AK ♦Q ♣K we wouldn't mind being in slam even after a ♦ lead. Partner won't know that hand is good and will likely reply 4♠ (♥ duplication) leaving us short key information.

If an immediate 2N is Lebensohl, that would be my choice - it makes finding a 2-level major contract moot for the opponents. I suspect we have an 8 card ♦ fit so I will bid 3♦ at my next turn. If I pass I let the opponents find their major too easily. The values are slow and too weak to consider doubling.

Opposite a passed partner I like 3♥ over 1♦. Yes, I have a void and a side Ace but this isn't too far off the mark at this vlunerability. With 6 losers, I can afford to offer a 9-trick contract (Rule of 2).

4♠ inviting partner bid RKB or controls. Not interpret 4♠ as Last Train. We are likely safe at 5 level. Risk (tho small) appears partner is ♠K ♥KQ ♦K ♣QJ.

1) It is usually right to balance with 8+ HCP on an auction that begins 1 Suit - P - P. Partner rates to have 19 HCP MAXIMUM: You hold 9, RHO has max 0-4 and LHO opened min 12 = max 19 for partner. Partner's silence means odds are opener is much bigger than 12 HCP (15-18 or more). You want to be sure your side has a chance to win the contract. You do not want to open the door for the opponents to improve their contract unnecessarily. It's always a good thing to have cards in the higher ranking suits. 2) Partner did not overcall 1♠ so if partner has ♠ they will be weak. Who owns the ♠s? It is possible the opponents do. Your hand 3=2=3=5 has limited support for 2 of 3 suits. Since we need partner to hold 5 spades and partner passed, odds are we don't own ♠s. That means the opponents likely own the Majors and can outbid us easily. While raising the level to 2 or 3 might create some challenge for the opponents, they stand to make unless partner is strong. The downside is we reopen when LHO is very strong, allowing the opponents to improve their contract. 3) I think a double should show 3 places to play (or a strong single suited hand). I think 2♣ needs a better suit. My choice would be among double, pass and 1NT (owing partner 1 HCP). I do not like the 3=2=3=5 shape enough to double here (opponents might well own ♠s too) so I pass. I do not like cheating on the 1NT balancing bid. Note 1N does not promise a ♥ stopper. If I held 4=2=34 shape a double is better. The 4th ♠ is important. 4) Possibly. Some find opening 2♣ on very strong 2-suiters difficult to manage. For example 2♣-2♥(immediate negative) what do you do? 2♠ then 4♥ over partner's (say) 3♣ continuation? Are you sure partner will bid over 2♠? That said I would have opened this one 2♣ as my partners know they must bid over my 2♠ rebid. The hand has enough defense and quite a bit of playing strength.

Now look who's being mean... ;) Unlike Romney I at least provided details... :blink: My "advocacy" was hypothetical in an attempt to point out that convicting only West "beyond reasonable doubt" is severe and misguided. I think East has so may assets West cannot expect all of them by the time bidding gets to 4♠. I thank you for correcting my notion that 4♥ was not horribly wrong. I still think the worst sin in bidding is when one partner can count tricks for game or slam and fails to act, often out of pessimism or fear. x KQJxxxx xxx Qx xx KQJxxxx x Qxx xxx KQJxxxx Kx x xx KQJxxxx Kxx x Qx KQJxxxx x xxx only the last appears horrible but not impossible for slam.

I would expect 4♥ to show something like x KQJxxxx xxx Qx. I prefer 3♥ with West's actual hand. I agree West misbid. You've convinced me that West cannot be blameless. We agree East cannot be blameless. I simply hold East more culpable than 25% because of the final pass.

We actually agree here - I was however suggesting that West's not bidding 5♣ is not a reason to fault West and only West. East dropped the ball by forgetting to add to 12.

West bid plausibly under natural methods. What you seem to ignore is that with 4♥ showing 6+ and at most one loser in the suit, East knows slam is likely with no further information. The 5♣ cue bid you propose showing the Queen is not essential to get to 6♥. If West doesn't have the ♥A, then there are cover cards available for the side suits. So a viewpoint that West has bid well within a known paradigm exists. It's East that should have done more. 6♦ on the way to 6♥ is a strong invitation to 7 with useful cover cards. West should expect the ♣Q is valuable, that partner has AKxxx in Clubs, and should bid 7♥ or NT. East can always correct to 7N. If you expect partner to jump to 4♥ on length only and garbage, then I can understand your viewpoint, but then the ♣ cue bid becomes even more risky...and you have no mechanism to show a really good ♥ suit.

The gist here is that West has a perfectly natural description of a solid suit worth game opposite partner's putative balanced weak NT opener (12-14). The cue bid of the ♣ queen is certainly creative but not without risk. (I have used this tactic before). Bridge bidding is about communication. I am simply pointing out that a rational explanation exists in a natural dialect that can avoid certain risks.