The_Badger

Spurning the ♥ finesse at trick one puts you a tempo ahead. This might be matchpoints but I would be happy to come home with 9 tricks here if things don't turn out well.

I agree entirely on that point, Mike. I was a tad surprised that the OP suggested 6-10 but that's what I had to work on. However, I would never negative double on a hand with the right shape but with poor honour strength topping the suits. I remember two hands, one from a Cayne game, another from a Duboin game where even 6-7 HCPs wasn't sufficient to negative double. So I've always worked on slightly higher values.

Rebidding a minor at the two level on Qxxxx is just awful. With the hand you had I prefer Double than 1NT as partner could have a 3 card ♦ suit opposite your singleton. Also, double suggests a slightly stronger hand than a 6-10 1NT response. I would look for at least 1 honour trick in a hand doubling in this position, preferably 1 and 1/2, and this hand meets this criteria easily. Also, any potential ♥ fit may be lost if the opponents raise to 2♠ after a 1NT bid by you.

I think the final contract all depends on what system E/W are playing. If E/W are playing weak jump responses then they will arrive in a ♠ contract; if not, then N/S will arrive in a ♦ contract. That about sums up this board. If West doesn't mention the ♠s, then on values N/S should arrive in a 5♦ contract (as Cyberyeti rightly says) unfortunately going down on the ♣ ruff.

I will assume a 10 card ♠ fit for E/W as it is over four times more likely than an 11 card fit. (The board display icon is the enclosed ♠ symbol on the far right of the icons for future reference.) [hv=pc=n&s=sa74hdkqj954ckj92&w=sqt9853ht943d62c3&n=shakj652dt87cq854&e=skj62hq87da3cat76&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1c]399|300[/hv]

The funny thing is msjennifer has posted this in the Natural Bidding Discussion Forum, and whilst I said 4♣ is a great bid previously, it's a bid that Advanced/Expert players would have come across - the jump fit in a new suit in a competitive auction - but might be certainly more obscure to players at a more basic level. In a strange way, there's nothing seriously wrong with 4♣ as a natural bid given that you can always return to ♦s, assuming partner will get the message. Cyberyeti is quite right that the auction and fits that exist for both pairs could see bidding at slam level, with both pairs able to make slam. This is a hand I would dread at teams, but at pairs you are allowed more liberties. The one thing I am picking up from the bidding is that is less likely that both sides have double fits, although they could well exist - but that would make the hand extremely freaky. The opposition didn't indicate a ♠ fit on the first round of bidding, but opener might have a long suit. I think it is less likely that partner has (4 either♥/♠)5♦4♣ shape but has (7 either ♥/♠)5♦1♣ shape. But trying to work out any potential distributions on this round of bidding is pure speculation. I still like 5♦ here as it takes away a whole level of bidding for the opponents, but equally 4♣ could be the winning bid.

I like this sequence better if you have a good ODR (Offence to Defence Ratio) but why make it easier for the opponents to find their game/slam. The ♣KQ isn't as good as an A in defence, and with a seven bagger there's little chance of ♣s holding two rounds. Partner has overcalled vulnerable (at adverse vulnerability) so should have something outside the ♦ suit. Whilst 4♣ is a way of showing this hand, depending on methods, I'd rather just bid 5♦ direct as my hand is pre-emptive through and through. Let the opponents guess at the five or six level. I personally feel 4♣ is a great bid if partner understands it as this type of purely-pre-emptive hand, when there's a good chance that you may sacrifice (at adverse vulnerability) against the opponents, something that happens rarely.

With partner passing in 1st seat, the odds favour passing too now but not in a 'trap' sense. 3NT might work but you know the suits are breaking badly so I am reluctant to bid it. Double looks hideous with doubletons in both major suits After partner 'balances' with 4♦ (God Bless Him :)), I'll content myself with 4♥ as he's shown a major two-suiter that couldn't open in 1st seat. If he was three-suited he would have doubled.

I'm not fond of opening 1NT with 2245 and two major suit doubletons and open suits, but that North hand is a pretty solid 15 points (K&R evaluates it as 17!). It's a lie to reverse with such a hand (or bid 4♦ as in the actual auction) but it's sort of acceptable as a 1NT opener. Whether you get to slam opening 1NT instead of 1♣ is another matter...

https://www.larryco.com/bridge-learning-center/detail/671 http://www.bridgewebs.com/ocala/Hand%20Evaluation.pdf http://www.jazclass.aust.com/bridge/br_handvaluation.htm http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/ And a BBO discussion on ZAR http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/2542-zar-points-useful-or-waste-of-energy/

Having looked at this again, you're right. It is a clumsy sequence but East is easily worth 3♠ after 2♣, and 4♦ can hardly be an advanced cue bid by a passed hand. I assume the result (that the OP didn't reveal) was a gain to East-West. North's semi-speculative Double is probably the clumsiest bid of them all: a hand that smells like a crossruff, tastes lie a crossruff, and lo-and-behold is a crossruff.

I'm not a tournament director, but except if 2♣ is some artificial bid (like Drury, but it can't be Drury as there is no ♠ fit), I don't understand why East isn't starting with 2♦. The whole bidding sequence doesn't sit comfortably with me whatsoever.

What would have 4♦ meant after 3♣? When I used to play regularly that signified a double control in the suit bid and setting trumps in the last suit bid after 4th suit forcing, with extras. However, other players may interpret it differently.

I agree with what Tramticket says generally, but certainly in a no-trump contract spot cards do make a slight difference. I have now remembered that I read somewhere a long time ago that because of the way tricks are established, by covering honours, finesses and the like, the 'lower intermediates' 8s and 9s play a slightly more significant role in gaining a trick in a no-trump contract. That sounds quite obvious and logical, but someone had actually done some analysis to prove this. Where that analysis actually exists I haven't the foggiest.

The K&R evaluator does evaluate 10s, 9s and 8s as far as I know http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi Use a standard 1NT hand such as ♠Jx ♥ QJx ♦Axx ♣AKxxx and change some of the 'x's into 10,9,8 (especially in the long suit) and different values do appear. As for detailed analysis, I personally haven't any available. Sorry.

Any Indian players who can translate this into English better than Google Translate welcome :)

You can lose 2♠ and a ♥ so I'm playing for a 3-2 trump split, and even though it's anti-positional, ruffing a ♣ on trick two - which seems so routine given the bidding - opens you up to an overruff if you lose a ♠ finesse, so I'm entering dummy in ♦ by leading the ♦ 2 (blocking the suit) and then running the ♠J. Does that work?

You are right there, Mike, because I perhaps don't have enough experience of 2/1 bidding this side of the Atlantic, and - my personal bugbear - the "one bid suits all" nebulous 1NT response to a major with such a wide variety of hands means that you have to bid out your hand whatever you have in it. I actually never considered that you could end up playing in 1NT doubled as a final contract (and that's stupid on my part, I agree) especially when the opponents have a known 9+ card ♠ fit. However, on a Badger level, there's a bit of psychology involved in not bidding here too as the opponents think you are happy to play in 1NT doubled, and that puts pressure on them. Bidding gives the game away and lets North bid again, but at such an early time in the auction I'd rather put South on a guess (even with perhaps ♥ tricks over me) as to what North is actually doubling on. Is he doubling for takeout, the most likely scenario, or has a big balanced hand himself, a less likely scenario? And yes, you are absolutely right, 1NT doubled going for -800 or -1100 would be an awful result but it's only one board at match points so its a risk worth taking. I might look differently playing teams.

Passing with rubbish when the opponents have the anchor suit, spades, and a known fit and can always outbid you is usually a sane option in my opinion. 2♦ vulnerable doesn't add anything to the party but just helps the opponents place the cards.

I'm really unsure about the best bid here, if any. I am sorely tempted to (very reluctantly) pass. I think the problem with encouraging with a 2♠ bid here - that feels the right bid which hopefully partner will be able to work out: good ♠ stopper and maximum 10-11, is that a 3NT contract may play badly. Without the X I would bid 2♠ automatically instead of the stringy ♣ suit. With the X it feels that everything is going to break badly, but wussy passes are not my style so 2♠ it is. Partner should have more beans and/or shape to bid over the X at adverse vulnerability so you cannot let him down by passing lamely.

I suppose it all depends on what system you are playing. If 1♣ can be bid on 2+/3+ then it is far more difficult than a guaranteed 4+ (for example, standard Acol. Easy 1♣ - 3♣ limit raise). I agree 2NT (11-12 balanced?) is far from ideal, and nor is 3♦. However, make the ♣J the ♠J in opener's hand and 3NT is still a thin game but it has some play. Where the opponents have used a weak jump overcall, many players might use 2NT as Lebensohl. But all in all it is one of those hands where the weak jump overcall achieved its objective against opponents who both have 12 counts. However, there's a reasonable case for bidding 3♣ as responder here based on the probabilities of hand distribution. If I remember correctly 4333 shape only comes up about 10% of the time, so it more likely that partner has 4432/5332/5422/5431 etc. distribution so it's odds on (1-9 on) that he has more than a 3 card minimum suit, so if this can be taken as a limit raise, it's seems to me the best descriptive bid by responder.

It's partner's fault for not leading a trump. You must have the ♥AKx for your double, Tramticket :) Nice story, even though it didn't have a happy ending.

http://www.clairebridge.com/textes/romankeycard.pdf This is as good as it gets from the founder and president of BBO, Fred Gitelman :)

The funny thing is, Mike, I agree with what you say, but needs must in this auction especially as both players have originally passed. Let's call it a 'pre-emptive strike' as opposed to a 'pre-emptive bid'. The one thing I learnt from Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal's excellent bridge book 'Partnership Bidding at Bridge' many years ago is that these types of bids puts immediate pressure on the opposition. As I said in my original post 'Let the opponents make the last guess'. I'm all for constructive/semi-constructive auctions most of the time, but we already know that the opponents have the majority of the points so let's make their life as difficult as possible. Pure and simple.

I thought about this too, but given that partner hasn't opened a weak two in second position, I erred slightly on the side of caution here. However, East has probably the best hand at the table and has used a support double which has some limitations as far as I can see. It guarantees 3 card ♥ support, but it doesn't say much else about East's HCP range. That's why I plumped for 3♠ instead of 4♠ here because the opponents are on real guess, as it's unlikely West has a six card ♥ suit as he didn't open a weak two in first position. 4♠ I saw as a slight overbid, but as you say Tramticket it is borderline.