The_Badger

North had the opportunity of giving preference to 3♥ and didn't, and really do you want to turn a part score into game by doubling at IMPs? It could be going down 2 or 3, but I suspect it is only going down at 1 at the most, and there's a fair chance you might be endplayed too. By doubling you could also put pressure on partner to remove to 3♦ (although he should trust you), and anyway, that 2♦ overcall could be lead-directing as opposed to anything substantial. So, even with 3 potential tricks in your hand, I'm inclined to pass - call me cowardly if you want. The last thing you want (I am assuming this is IMPs teams) is a borderline decision being converted into a big swing.

About 15 minutes ago I posted a general reply in the Expert Bridge forum about how difficult it is generally to bid 2♣ hands. (Might be worth a look.) This hand sort of proves it to some extent, a good 4-4-4-1 opposite a 2♣ opener. I'm sort of with Tramticket with his analysis, but there's a few assumptions that Novice/Beginners may not aware of - namely showing second round controls with the weaker hand after a fit has been found. Even so, it looks the only way to reach the grand.

I've been of the opinion (for a long time) that someone needs to write a modern definitive bridge book on 2♣ openings and their responses, including how to deal with overcalls, interference, etc. as it is long overdue. The reason why it hasn't been done is probably the frequency of big hands - I believe that holding 22+HCPs (or QTs and/or controls, or however you define your strong 2♣ opener) is about a 125-1 chance - so we all get by with what is out there, be it controls, 2♦ waiting (positive or negative), or whatever takes our fancy. I'm personally not a fan of 2♦ waiting but I do see its merits - rightsiding a contract, for example, preserving a level of bidding, etc - but it also gives a partnership headaches as the opening bidder sometimes cannot tell if his partner is bidding as a positive/semi-positive or a negative (except where there is a 2NT double negative incorporated into the mix.) SAYC, for example, and this is what I read, blindly says that an opening 2♣ bidder should feel comfortable to bid to 3♥/3♠/4♣/4♦ on his own opposite a negative except with a balanced hand. What it doesn't take into account is the majority of the hands that need to open 2♣ do not have long self-supporting suits and controls outside, and are more likely to 5-4-3-1 or 5-4-2-2 or similar shapes, and only work when a fit is found. (Also, when those 5-4-3-1/5-4-2-2, etc hands tend to be top heavy minorsuitwise they become awkward to bid.) Even although I go against popular opinion, I actually like controls as virtually immediately (but not always) the opening 2♣ bidder - who should technically (and this is my opinion also) be in charge of the auction and final contract - can see where the hands are potentially heading. If controls are good enough for Jimmy Cayne (JEC) and his team they are good enough for me :) The other problem I personally encounter is any positive response to a 2♣ opening automatically guarantees game being reached but not slam necessarily. There are plenty of hands in that positive hand territory (7-11HCPs as a rough example) that do not fit well with opener, but as opener has received a positive response he goes slamming, or perhaps worse, responder takes over the auction bouncing the partnership into an unmakeable slam.. The reason why I mention who controls a 2♣ auction is important as if you look at the Precision system it is invariably the opener who is in charge of the auction - not always but on the majority of occasions. That's probably one reason why the 2♦ waiting bid was introduced so that the 2♣ opener is primarily in the driving seat once again.

At rubber bridge or teams it is a cinch to pass. At MP pairs I might take into account how bold the opps are/aren't, and whether their pre-empts are solid, semi-solid or flaky. Though personally I wouldn't relish playing this hand in 3NT - no guarantee partner has 4♥s - if ♣s are 7-4-1-1 around the table, as everything else is unlikely to break, so I come down that passing at MP pairs is the best option too, and what most other players in the room will be doing with this holding.

In the same vein as the infamous Sex Pistols album title "Never Mind the Overtricks, Here's One for the GIB Robot Discussion Forum" - again! :)

Agree with everything you say. I looked at the hand for 10+ minutes before posting, and did write "is likely to have a singleton" knowing full well that East's raise could be on a doubleton, and/or West's initial opening could be a 5 card suit ♦AK1098 or similar. But I'm with eagles123 and mcphee here that there are too many (boring) hands where 4♠ is a walk - or at worse a finesse - and partner can't balance.

You have to take the bull by the horns and bid 3♠ I believe. Partner's is likely to have a singleton ♦, and whilst he didn't double on the first round of bidding, he doesn't need much for 4♠ to be a viable contract. Passing is wussy, in my opinion. Bidding 3NT is suicide. And dbl. doesn't even enter the equation.

And that's the conclusion we came to at the end of the evening. So, ipso facto, to improve as a player, you need to concentrate on bidding more than play and defence.

I liked your analysis Nige1 (+1) but this last statement is not statistically true, in my opinion, as many auctions you're not involved in as you have hands where you pass throughout. Yes, you are part of the auction, but not a participant in the auction.

Thank you. Something else to read on the subject.

Yes, I agree to some extent. But it was surprising how many 'avenues' - some say 'arguments' - we explored over the course of a couple of pints of beer. That's why I'm interested in BBOers views.

Bidding or Play? It goes like this. I had an interesting discussion recently with an eminent bridge friend, and we both agreed (quite obviously) that an advanced player needs to improve bidding and play to reach expert standard. And for an intermediate player to reach advanced player standard the same ground rules applies. However, if you were only allowed bidding or play, what one would be more useful to teach a seasoned intermediate player so that their game improved? Needless to say, there were a lot of views either way, and I'd be interested in BBOers take on this. Thanks in advance.

I'm (personally) looking at this double in the same way as a redouble of a takeout double: I have values in the other three suits, let's penalise the opponents wherever they end up. Not sure what North's 2♠ call's all about? If he has 6-5 red or better with no defensive values, perhaps 2NT is a better call.

It's a great idea, in my opinion. Serious players will go where the masterpoints are. However, there are many players who due to work or family commitments, financial constraints (students, for example), location, or perhaps like myself with disability, cannot participate in ACBL tournaments. To have an online tournament is just the way the world's going. If successful there will be more. That's for sure.

I believe this is one of the most undeveloped areas of bidding when opponents interfere over a 2♣ opener. Even though you might potentially wrongside a contract occasionally, you probably need a 2NT bid by responder to be some sort of positive relay as opposed to what (?) just 8-10 points with a balanced hand? I have seen this happen more often recently, opponents overcalling at the 2 level very lightly over a 2♣ opener in the hope of throwing a spanner in the works. Long gone are the days when big hands were respected, and you didn't hear a peep from the opps.

Agree with Timo (MrAce). Surprisingly disagree mildly with nige1's statement - just a personal opinion - "so you probably want to avoid this slam" The hand is all aces and kings and top trumps. I'm not even looking at lines where the trumps are 4-1 (28%) but lines where trumps are 3-2 (68%). I cannot see many good partnerships keeping out of slam with the 2 hands. To me, it is a percentage slam where various lines to make it exist.

Forget about bouncing the opponents out of the bidding and concentrate on your own bidding, so 2 ♥. Once in a while you will get a hand where pre-emption is correct, but more often than not you will make things difficult for partner. I played the Multi for years. Personally I don't like having a strong minor as an option. It's too Benjaminised Acol(ish) and I don't like Benjaminised Acol either. (Just my opinion.)

Couldn't have a more perfect hand to bid 2NT as Unusual NT. It's perhaps at the lower end red vs. white with a passed partner, but South has passed too, so it's the most descriptive bid by far. You'd be very unlucky to find partner with zilch and a bad fit.

Yes, on reflection ♦2 is standard, is unlikely to give away any further tricks, and has a 66% chance of finding partner with a useful card. My suggestion of ♠5 now looks like the lead that does give declarer that extra trick :(

A horrible decision with this hand! Partner can't have much and any lead could hand declarer an extra trick. My own personal view if I was with a regular partner is to be consistent with our leads. No Stayman used in the bidding, so in the absence of standard lead we'd always lead a major against this bidding. The problem with leading the ♠5 is that partner may think you have 4♠s and plan the defence on that basis.

Suggested line: Duck CK (to make it harder to find a diamond shift.) Win the second club, draw trump, and take a heart finesse. Try for 3-3 hearts before taking a diamond finesse. Mmmm.... (to make it harder to find a diamond shift.) As both Kaitlyn and Timo (MrAce) recognise, timing is everything on this hand. Usually it is best to duck the ♣K on the first round but ducking it, I believe, makes it far easier for West to find the ♦ shift. Here South needs to be one tempo ahead of the defence.

The Swiss convention and all its derivatives were popular many years ago but seems to have gone out of fashion. Personally I liked Swiss when playing Acol. Here is the link to the Bridgeguys page. http://bridgeguys.com/Conventions/SwissConvention.html

I stand corrected. However, there are bidding sequences that show voids, and bidding sequences that show singletons. As quite a few commentators have said, there are plenty of South hands where slam would be a no-go. Blaming North entirely is (to me) unfair. If you're going to use splinters, use splinters to show a singleton specifically (which come up more times statistically than a void as everybody knows). The suggestion I was going to write but thought better of it is that South bids 2♦ followed by 4♦ to show this rockcrusher with a void. The reason I didn't is that East/West's bidding is at best lacklustre, and at worse amateurish. In a normal competitive auction, if South bids 2♦ will he be allowed to bid 4♦ if East/West bid properly? We shall never know.

With 5-4-2-2 shape the hand isn't crying out for another bid as it stands. Exchange the ♦ and ♠ suits, and I would venture (hesitantly) 3♣.

Personally, I don't understand East's 2♣ or South's 4♦. That South hand is massive in support of ♠s. At equal vulnerability I take on board that it's less likely that the opponents will sacrifice (though it works well here). Did South expect anything other than 4♠ from North? Though to be honest, it's going to take an imaginative bidding sequence to reach slam. Splintering with a South hand that has a distributional total point count in the region of 22 with top trumps is unimaginative in my opinion.