FelicityR

Yes, I agree. Given that less-experienced players jump to 4NT far too often, it's not as bad as first seems especially if you are using RKCB Blackwood where you can establish if partner has two aces and the queen of trumps, or three aces, in one bid. However, it's a mighty ask to be able to control the hand with the (potential) lack of entries after drawing trumps, even taking account of a favourable 3-2 trump split. So bidding 4♥ is as good as it gets in the absence of any gadgets or conventions.

Yes, that's how I would have interpreted it, too. Thanks for confirming what I felt about this.

Bidding after a weak 2♥ opener and a 2♠ overcall, with opener's partner then raising to 3♥ is based on The Law of Total Tricks. Occasionally opener's partner will raise to 3♥ on only 2 card support. It's an interesting question, and I am actually unsure myself. I would have taken it as competitive but the logic of having a competitive double here doesn't quite sit comfortably. Thankfully, I have a range of bridge books covering a range of subjects. Please give me a day or two to see if it is covered in one of them. I am at least honest enough to admit there's a hole in my bidding knowledge here...I'll be interested what others (more advanced than me) say here.

This interesting hand turned up at rubber bridge last night. Love all. It provoked a lot of heated discussion afterwards so much so that it was a good 15 minutes before we played the next hand. Down four doubled - we managed to get the defence perfect - wasn't a good start for the opponents. I must admit I was going to pass as South myself, but I decided to open 1♥ as I thought we could pinch a small part score. The only player who seemed to have both bids at the table was North, but were East/West unlucky or reckless here? [hv=pc=n&s=s982hakt94dq632c6&w=saqthj3dkt74cj975&n=s643h87652dajca42&e=skj75hqd985ckqt83&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=ppp1hd4h4sppdppp]399|300[/hv]

I couldn't agree more. 2♦ looks a terrible bid here: the ♣ suit could well be lost in the subsequent auction. I acknowledge that the poster, Cyberyeti, says that an unusual 2NT can be weak or strong, but I'd rather be showing partner my shape here than bidding a poor suit vulnerable. In terms of playing strength the hand is strong, especially if a minor suit fit is found, but it is hardly super strong, and it all depends what you define as weak at unfavourable vulnerability here, and what you are prepared to bid 2NT on. From what I have read in books, weak here is 12 HCPs or less (others may bid differently), but I rather downgrade slightly so partner knows immediately. The two minor suits are hardly solid, and half the points of the hand are in ♠s. Just my humble opinion...

When I was playing Crowhurst many years ago... https://www.ccfworld.com/Card/Pegasus/Crowhurst.html ...we always alerted a 1NT rebid (as per comment KingCovert), and so did the other partnership who I remember were also using it on a club evening. However, it never came with a 'yes sir, no sir, three bags full, or it may not be full (depending on how we interpret it as a partnership explanation.)" It was always 12-16. With no difference whether responder bid 1♥ or 1♠. I agree that if there are two different sequences that can either be 12-14 or 15-16 then the partnership need to alert 1NT, and not to generalise that it is 12-16 per se when by definition it is not. One for the director to sort out :rolleyes:

My apologies. I should have given a link to the online sources I double-checked with. Here's another one I found quickly, though it looks a bit dated as it expects opener to have a minimum of 13HCPs (!) Though it clearly states the separate types of hand and action to take playing SAYC. Given it's from the ACBL site, it's pretty clear on how you treat the three types of hand rebidding as opener. https://cdn.acbl.org/assets/documents/teachers/Teacher-Manuals/Bidding-in-the-21st-Century-Lesson-5.pdf

Sometimes I trust the opponents to bid properly, even when pre-empting us. Pass. The hand isn't even worth a weak 1NT opener so getting involved, especially vulnerable, looks decidedly the wrong decision.

(Un)educated guess(timate) ♠Qxxxxx ♥xxxx (xx/x x/xx) Reluctantly passed on the first two rounds but now thinks that they have a fit for partner who has 14 to 15 points and was unable to bid or make a takeout double on round one. (Yes, it's ludicrous, I know :))

Playing SAYC - as per your profile - after a 2 level response by your partner (2♦ shows 9+ good points/soft 10 count), a rebid of 3♣ shows 16+ points, and is forcing to game. Opener with 11-15 is expected to rebid at the lowest level, either rebidding their original suit or bidding 2NT, and is not supposed to introduce a new suit at the three level. Maybe with good intermediate cards and good suits you can lower this requirement to a good 15 count. A 5431 hand with two suits and three card support for partner's suit would be preferable to a 5422. I have checked a few sources and they effectively all say similar. The hand strength is described as medium to intermediate (16-18 HCPs), as opposed to minimum, but it could be strong (19HCP+), too.

Just when you needed Gerber...yes, that old-fangled gadget for checking aces.

I have sympathy. Finding 4-4 minor suit slam fits is difficult enough at the best of times, especially in the ♣ suit which is also reserved for other gadgets like Bergen, Drury, etc. But finding them after establishing a 5-3 fit in a major suit is sometimes impossible except if you are using some form of relay system where bidding will establish the exact layout of each hand. But realistically, pushing towards slam with the West hand knowing there could be a minimum of just 8 HCPs opposite is asking too much. Partner could have ♠KJx xxx ♦KJxx xxx. Even 4♠ is in doubt here.

West also seems a member of the "I don't like a takeout double" club too. :)

I'd open 2♥ here even at this vulnerability, to warn partner immediately what sort of hand I have. With anything distributional I'd rather get the 'first shot' in, and you're not overstating your values here. If the ♦Q were the ♣Q I'll rather open 1♥. The only problem that will probably arise is how to respond to a 2NT Ogust enquiry. But that may never happen.

I'm always leading a ♠ (attacking) against a contract bid this way, GIB or no GIB. Even though you say that Mr Ginsberg says bridge [bidding] is a problem in (integer) mathematics, it is a lot more besides. That's when personal judgement comes to the fore. I have Kx in a suit: bid on the right of me by an opponent it is probably an asset; on the left probably a liability. I have absolutely no idea how bridge computers are programmed, but given that chess computers can beat the top players in the world now but bridge computers cannot just proves that 'number-crunching' is no match for understanding the subtleties of this beautiful game.

I've been using negative free bids with my regular partner for many years. The simple answer to the query is that they crop up far more often than hands where you need to force for one round. They define a hand quickly without having to go 'around the houses' by using a negative double or bid a hand with 11+ good points. They are especially useful where you need to bid at the two level. We bid them up to the level of 3♦. Approximate point count 6 to a soft 11, depending on vulnerability 5+ cards at two level. 6+ cards at three level.

If you're not using splinters, and admittedly the South hand looks a tad strong to use a splinter, then you need to compromise with another bid. Given the level of your partner, I doubt that she would have even considered a temporising bid of 2♣ here - this seems better than 2♥, in my humble opinion. North will probably bid 3♠ in reply to 2♣, and South should then be able to visualise the slam potential. The reason why I suggest 2♣ here is a) If partner raises ♣s your hand increases in value enormously b) It might deter the opponents from finding a killing lead c) It keeps the strength of your ♥ suit hidden d) 2♥ should show a 5+ card suit e) There is less danger if partner raises the ♣ suit as you then bid ♠s showing a delayed game raise in ♠s - this is standard Acol. f) It also gives you the opportunity if partner bids 2♦ next of bidding 2♥ as fourth suit forcing, if necessary.

I think 4♦ is reasonable as North, even at this vulnerability. That singleton ♠K is more likely an asset than a liability, especially as one opponent has pre-empted suggesting lack of offence in the other suits. Still, I agree it is not without its dangers and is a 'shot in the dark'. If the major suits were swapped and North had a singleton ♥K, then I wouldn't bid 4♦.

I would hope that a director would automatically rule in your favour as the first violation - bidding 5♦ quickly after 3 seconds ignoring the stop card - was made by the opponents. Since the 5♦ bidder chose to ignore the rules, your partner (as opener) has every right to break tempo as he expecting a 10 second hiatus after the 4♥ bid, and the immediate 5♦ bid caught him unawares. Glad you as dummy, gwnn, gave the condescending player a piece of your mind :angry:

Pre-emptive action is pre-emptive action so bidding 2♠ to transfer to a minor essentially means that the opponents have to bid or guess at the three level (except where a double of 2♠ shows ♠s, or 2NT has some conventional sense here.) I'd rather play in a suit contract at IMPs than MPs. Obviously being in 1NT at MPs where 8 or 9 tricks are available in both NTs or a minor is a better score. Other than that, forget about 2♠ being just a weak takeout: It can be used with hands that are strong, too. The opponents are not going to know that until you pass or correct or bid a new suit, and then again they will have to make a decision or a guess at the three level.

Double by West seems wrong, it's the wrong shape forget about its over a 16+ count. I'd rather bid a top heavy 1NT here - if that is available as a balanced 16-18 as opposed a conventional bid - if you're not going to bid 2NT after partner's 2♦ bid. It's more likely partner is going to bid 2♦ than 2♣ in response to your X. It's a matter of planning ahead. After 1NT by West here, 3NT can be reached by East/West. As for North/South missing game, well that's fairytale bridge.

Bad hands shouldn't re-open vulnerable, especially at teams. Both hands are quite mediocre. In both scenarios probably the best judge of where the hidden high card points lie is East. In #1 East could have passed 3♥ with an opening hand. In #2 if you protect with 1NT (10-14 - that's how I play it) the ♥K is technically a potential useless card if partner retreats to a suit contract, so it's worse than a 10 count. Pass on both won't get you into trouble with your partner or teammates.

A few commentators have suggested opening 1♥ here, but even I disagree with that because what do you then bid over a 2♦ response by your partner? The high card points could be evenly distributed around the board as they (to some extent) actually are. Over partner's 2♦ response do you bid 2♥? So you're back to square one. I'm the first to make an aggressive pre-empt in third at favourable or equal vulnerability, or a light level opening one bid, but you should always plan ahead. If the major suits were swapped 5♠/4♥ I would open 1♠.

Never open a pre-empt with four cards in a side suit major is a rule that has gone out of fashion. But... ...with two aces I would pass as North. North's hand has a bit too much about it to even consider a pre-empt, especially one in a poor suit.

I don't know whether you have access to the BBC where you live, but our most respected and renowned natural historian David Attenborough made a special documentary about climate change. It certainly had an impact on me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_–_The_Facts