FelicityR

Even though it's a potential misfit, 2♦ followed by 3♦ if partner rebids 2♠ shows exactly this hand in my system. 2♦ is a free bid showing an 8-11 count. 3♦ says 'my ♦s are better than your ♠s: stop.' [Occasionally partner has the cards to bid on] Double is confusing as partner's going to take you (most of the time) for a ♥ suit, and if he then bids 2♥ and you follow with 3♦ that, in my system, would be seen as a forward move and forcing. You have a good ♦ suit, and temporising with a Dbl. instead of bidding ♦s immediately is suggesting a different hand than the one you have.

I agree. It doesn't matter if you are playing a 12-14 or a 15-17 NT or whatever NT here. Partner has defined his/her hand, and if Dbl. isn't for penalties at this stage of the auction - on the third round against vulnerable opponents second-guessing their best contract - then having it as balancing/competitive action (even though the vulnerability is favourable to you) seems mightily strange. At the rubber bridge table - that's what I play mainly these days - it would be penalty, penalty, penalty.

Split honours? Why? If partner has produced a ♠ on the first round of trumps, declarer is hardly going to take a deep finesse. That is just not the percentage play.

The key here is that your partner has already passed. That means there is potentially less likelihood that you will have game your way, BUT, it isn't beyond the realms of probability that may have enough between you to make game. Therefore I am inclined to Double, but you are entirely right all bids have their weaknesses. The one bid I least like is 3NT.

Nothing unlucky at all. Just looks normal at this vulnerability. South could have a lot less high card points for the X. Then 3NT probably would not make. But who cares about 3NT when you have 6 trumps headed by the KT9. Take the money and run. Three down at this vulnerability will always outweigh the points for a 3NT contract. Let the opponents squirm horribly :)

Since you are using Acol there's no harm bidding 2♦ after 2♣. The 4th suit has set up the game force. Rebidding 2NT or 3NT here will always present problems with borderline hands. When partner supports ♦s, you have a great chance of finding 6♦ or even 6NT.

At this vulnerability, I can only surmise that the auction might go P - P - 1♠ - 3♥ 3♠ - 4♥ - 5♣ - P 5♦ - P - 5♥… ...then East-West have to decide whether a small slam is on the cards, or whether to stop in 5♠. This might depend on whether South doubles 5♥ - a bad decision as he/she is on lead anyway, and allows an extra round of bidding, or whether West feels lucky with his/her limit raise. The auction from where I am sitting looks quite standard. South vulnerable is not worth more than 3♥. North even at this vulnerability by the Law of Total tricks feels obliged to bid 4♥ then East/West cue bid towards slam.. I think at this point West has to take the bull by the horns and recognise that his/her partner would not have made a move towards slam without some top controls in the black suits, and a ♥ void - this is not guaranteed but any good partnership should have some understanding of slam bidding against obstruction. With both the ♦ AK and the ♠Q West should then bid 6♠. Am I being too ambitious here? Please enlighten me!

The double is bad to awful! Partner has already passed and there are 13 ♠s outstanding. It's unlikely that the auction is going to die after P - 1♦ - 1♥. It's a very good hand but not in support of ♠s, the highest ranking suit. There's nothing wrong with off shape takeout doubles with strong hands, as long as you can cover every eventuality. This is an exception to the rule.

Whilst I entirely agree with Mr Tu's (and ahydra's) excellent comments, we are venturing into Advanced bridge player territory with some of the responses available. The post is in the Novice and Beginner Forum, and whilst the only way to learn about constructive bidding is reading about it, I expect sometimes it is a little too much to take in all at once. However, if you can divide it into bitesize chunks it will make an excellent template.

You are entirely right in respect of 2/1 sequences after a 1♣ opening, as noted by Mr Bengtsson (above) too. But Acol bidding (for some club players) is a bit more constrained generally, and I cannot see many at my former club opening this hand. I e-mailed my son - who can play several systems and is a far better and more experienced player than me - and he felt opening as dealer was borderline noting "that 2/1 bidding is a tad more aggressive than Acol." He plays a 10-15 Precision system so would open 2♣ as standard.

Opening 1♣ 1. Including distribution points easily an opening bid (but see 2 below) 2. Honours in longest suits 3. Two honour tricks 4. Easy rebid 5. You've already bid, whereas overcalling might not be possible 6. Possible entry to long suit (♥A) outside long suit. 7. Lead directional 8. Meets rule of 19 Not opening 1♣ 1. You are likely to be outbid 2. Distributional points should not be counted before a fit is established 3. The hand 'looks' more an overcall hand than an opening bid 4. Partner might disapprove :( 5. You are playing the rule of 20 Opening 3♣ 1. Too much outside strength 2. Partner may seriously disapprove :( :( 3. Why pre-empt your partner when you have a semi-respectable 1♣ opener I think the problem here generally is arriving in a game contract - more likely 3NT - with 22-24 points between the hands and finding it doesn't play well. It all depends whether your partner can see you with a 10-11 point hand opposite and six clubs, and whether you are playing 2/1, SAYC or Acol. With 2/1 there's probably no way you can put on the brakes without annoying partner (who may be unlimited) by leaving the contract below game level. With SAYC and Acol there's a chance that partner with a 11 to a bad 13 point hand can leave you in a part score.

3♥ an invitation would be my bid with 12 'dummy' points. Most limit raises to the three level, showing 3+ trump support for opener's suit, are based around a 10-12 range or thereabouts. If you are new to bridge, this might help. Remember that game in a major suit needs a trump fit (8 or more cards) and a combined 25-26 high card points minimum. Opener may have opened on a minimum 11-12 possibly, and you have 10-12, so if opener is slightly stronger you should be in game. But if opener has opened on a minimum hand, you only have a combined count of anywhere between 21-24, slightly short of game values. That is why 3♥ is an invitation to game. As you get more experienced you will be able to evaluate differently, recognising that length and shortness in suits can also contribute to the total overall point count in your hand, and that high card points are not the only factor taken into consideration.

Whilst I agree with the other commentators that a conventional bid of 2♠ showing good ♦ support is the preferred action, partner needs so little for a contract of 5♦ to be viable if partner has a genuine ♦ suit. The ♥K looks well-placed, and you have first round controls in the other suits. I assume that the OP listed this hand as the opponents next bid was 4♠, which partner passed and then responder had to make a decision whether to bid 5♦ or not, not knowing about partner's hand or the length of his/her ♦ suit.

I think you have to accept that West's 3♣ bid was diabolical and you and your partner got stuffed (pardon the phraseology). This does happen at bridge...

On this auction specifically, I would expect partner to have anything between 7-11 high card points without another constructive bid at his/her disposal. That is, partner does not have a 4 or longer ♠ suit as a 1♠ bid could be made, partner hasn't got a ♥ stopper as a 1NT bid could be made, and partner hasn't got ♦ support as ♦s could be raised. A hand such as ♠Qxx ♥xxx ♦Axx ♣Kxxx would be my interpretation of Dbl in this position. However, some players may have an agreement that a 1♠ bid here could be a 5 card suit, so then Dbl could indicate precisely a 4 card ♠ suit with the same hcp count.

How I would look at this is simply if you have a void in one suit, the opponents are probably likely to have an eight, nine or ten card fit in it so I would want to make it as difficult for them to find by pre-empting. Admittedly, that's not always the case, as partner might have length in the void suit himself. It's not always the void that is the problem, but missing a fit yourself as if you open a weak two bid (six card suit) with a void you will always have a four (or greater) card side suit. Obviously, I always think the best thing is to always agree with partner how you pre-empt, void or no void, and the minimum suit quality depending on the vulnerability and table position.

I don't like using the abbreviation 'Lol' but I did chuckle to myself. Short circuit somewhere?

Beyond partner's inexplicable error of failing to give you a ♠ ruff, doubling 5♣ is so unnecessary as it's unlikely they are going to arrive in a ♦ or NT contract on the bidding, and it's unlikely you will be on lead anyway. With a very experienced pair you have not only given them information about the distribution of the hand, but provided them with a potential extra bid of 'redouble' to use to convey information. But the X of 5♣ is a miniscule error compared to partner's failure of reading your lead as a singleton.

I thought of this when I wrote my initial post. But who's holding all the ♠s then? If partner has a five card suit opposite a passed partner I'd rather him/her overcall 1♠ than 1NT even with 15-17 - others commentators may not agree with this.

I can't exactly believe the opponents' bidding. What is the opener's partner doubling on? We have the majority of the points. There's a temptation to pass and see if we can scramble 7 or more tricks, but realistically the hand should be played in anywhere between 3 and 5 of a minor depending on what partner exactly holds. Although I acknowledge 5 of a minor may be a trick too far. If 2NT now shows the minors, I'd bid that and pass partner's response. Maybe... Opener might have opened light with shape, and partner may have upgraded his 14 count hand with ♥ honours over opener, and opener's partner doubled with holdings in the other three suits. The hand could be quite distributional except for your partner, so I'll content myself with 3 of a minor for a plus score, though there is a case for making one last try after partner bids 3♣/3♦ over 2NT by splintering one of the major suit singletons. Partner needs very little for 5 of a minor to be a realistic contract. Yes, it is difficult

The rule is usually to open your longer suit first BUT rules are there to be broken. I assume many players these days look upon a 5 card major as preferable to a 6 card minor. The three factors I would consider is 1) Can you rebid sensibly whatever partner responds. 2) The high card points in the hands 3) Suit quality There are two types of big bicolour hands: Ones that just look good distributionally, and ones that look good distributionally and have enough high card points/or good controls to reverse. "To reverse" simply put effectively means that you are showing partner a better hand by bidding a certain way. (This post is the Novice and Beginner forum so I am unaware whether you are familiar with 'reverses')

As far as I am aware, MUD (Middle Up Down) leads are not made holding any card higher than and including the ten. It's some time since I played them so criteria might have changed, and when I played them it was xxx not H(T)xx. Though I agree with your other analysis, and I am too leading a small ♣ against this contract. With QTxx, partner can turn up with three cards that can help you (A,K,J) and its even-stevens that he/she is likely to have one.

Without playing the hand through in all its variations, the danger here is to try to draw trumps before setting up a potential ♥ and ♣ crossruff. There is a common theme here where you have eight trumps between the two hands headed by the AK and you know that the opponents will have a master trump after drawing two rounds, of playing off winners in side suits while the master trump is still outstanding. On this hand, I believe it doesn't work as West will gain the lead at some point and then take out two crossruff tricks with the master trump. If you run the ♦ suit, instead of trumping West discards a ♣ while you discard a ♥. You then play a ♥ to the Q, West takes his/her A and plays the master trump and you lose the potential crossruff. The correct technique - I hope I am right here, please advise if I am wrong as I am far from expert level - is to tackle ♥s first by leading the ♥Q at trick two. That allows you to discard the other ♥ on North's fourth ♦ after drawing two rounds of trumps.

Being a woman I'm not a great football fan but I sat down with my husband last night and was completely absorbed in the England vs. Colombia game. Well done England! However, my husband is not totally convinced that a penalty shoot out is the best way to end a football match that ends in a draw after extra time. We discussed this for a time after the game, and I thought my husband's suggestion - I would! - would be a better way to end the match, although I do realise that a penalty shoot out makes for a lot of excitement. His suggestion was: 1. After extra time is finished, both managers have to remove five players from the field. If a team has had a player sent off that would make for a six against five game, and an element of fair play during the match would be acknowledged.. 2. The game would then go to sudden death, and the next goal scored would be winner. He said that 'a sudden death goal' has been tried before with full teams, but with six (or less due to red cards) players a side it would be easier to obtain a quick result.. 3. The managers would be allowed to introduce any players not used on the substitutes' bench for this period, so fresh players are available. 4. A coin would be flipped for the teams to decide which end they would play at during this period. The ball would be thrown in by the fourth official (over his head) at the halfway line with his back to players, and the game will recommence. (Or alternatively - as I suggested - it starts again at the halfway line with two players of each side allowed in the centre circle about a yard apart from the ball, and the whistle is blown to restart the game.) Ok, I acknowledge we are amateur watchers of this game of football - I believe it is called 'soccer' in North America - but both of us think that a penalty shoot out is a sometimes cruel, perhaps slightly unfair way of ending a football match, especially one as high ranking as the World Cup. If England had lost that penalty shoot out....maybe this post would have been more valid, especially - as I saw it - some of the Colombian players were unsporting picking up six yellow cards against England's two. Do you too think a penalty shoot out is the right way to end such a high profile game? Thanks for your replies in advance.

Horrible! Partner using a double in the balancing position. How strong is he/she? Full strength or just balancing? Who's to know at the point? I'd rather bid 3♠ with one guaranteed trick in my hand against 3♦x because if partner has points, 3♠ will be ok, and if partner has doubled in 4th vulnerable vs. vulnerable without points he will have distribution. The devil vs. the deep blue sea scenario :(