m1cha

I know. But this was a real-life hand and I didn't want everyone to worry about the ♣Q. I guess I should have moved the ♣Q to dummy and ♥Q to South to make it a better problem. Such things happen. Yes, with the first two tricks as I originally gave them, the problem only works if South has three spades. And 3 or 4 clubs of course.

Everyone played 3NT with this board in a local cllub the other day but it turns out 7♦ can be made against a 5-0 trumps break. Can you find out how? [hv=pc=n&w=s6ht5dat9854ckjt3&e=saq87haj83dkqca94&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1sdp3dp3np4dp4sp4np6dp7dppp]266|200[/hv] Never mind the auction, some of it is fantasy. So is the lead of ♣2, it's meant to reduce your worries about the ♣Q and keep focused on the real problem. Anyway, West wins the trick with ♣J and continues with ♦4 to ♦Q only to find out that North has a void. Take it from here. You must avoid to lose a trick to ♦J7632 at South. What's the plan? You need the spades finesse? Yes, it works. Hint: Full hand:

I see. The reason I said it was because 4♠ makes while 3NT is down with only 4 spades.

Just real bridge life. But I hope people didn't take my 'conclusions' more serious than necessary. Yes but if you had defended against 1♣ you would have played it -2 (as I should have) for -200 which is besser than your part score :) . Overcalling 1NT with this kind of hand did not work out well in Nullve's last example (see the spoiler), by the way, really funny follow-up bidding there. Right, but in the first place I got very unlucky since I bid 4♥ only because the label of the double promised 4-4 in the majors. I would have bid 3NT otherwise. I agree, 2NT is very normal. But I suggest you take the 5th spade, too. :)

Some real-life examples. Yesterday in a robot duplicate I felt I have to pass this wonderful 17+ count after opps had opened 1♣: Link 1 Partner passed, too, for 1♣-1 and I got 67 % because 3NT just won't make. (4♦ does, but would you play it?) Conclusion 1: 1m can be a good contract when played by the opps. Today in another robot duplicate I passed this good 14 count without a good call after opps had opened 2♦. Okay, that's on the two level but wouldn't have been much different over 1♦. Link 2 Partner doubled, so I ended up playing and making 4♥. Others played and made 3NT. Conclusion 2: Passing doesn't mean you miss your game. Just a few minutes later another 16-count, same tournament as above, and I felt I have to bid over a 2♥ opener. The result was 2NT-3 for -300. The opponents can make 2♥+1 for 140 and no more than that. Yet I gained 1.9 IMPs on this one as most others on my axis went down for more: Link 3 Conclucsion 3: Don't be greedy around Christmas time.

Just wondering ... How crazy is it to rebid 2♦ as South after a pass from North and East?

Thank you for all answers. I agree of course that, if the BIT suggests to bid, I should pass. I am not completely convinced though that in this case the BIT suggests to bid. For example (as I mentioned eearlier), if my partner does NOT hesitate because he is weak, then probably they will make 4♠ and we should defend against it. But maybe I'm resulting. I guess I should also have passed just to keep things simple. Because convincing someone that a BIT suggests to pass needs some effort; while a BIT suggesting to bid is what almost everyone will believe by default. Anyway, this is the full hand: [hv=pc=n&s=sk6hakt52d8caq943&w=saqt7543hdt7ckt65&n=s82hq864da9543cj7&e=sj9hj973dkqj62c82&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1h4spp5cp5hppp]399|300[/hv] Well, so I bid 5♣ which, in theory, is the better option for the opponents because both 5♥ and 4♠ are down at perfect defense. I know that this doesn't matter, but I find it quite funny. At the tables, nobody found the killing trump lead against the four declarers playing spades by West. One declarer misplayed, down 1 in 4♠. At 6 tables, 4♥ or 5♥ were played by South, two opps lead diamonds killing 5♥. All other opps (also in my case) lead ♠A after which 5♥ is easy (though someone misplayed this also).

Yes. There was no way to disagree about that. :) If the double is at least partly for takeout, I would consider a double if I had the red suits; because if partner bids clubs, I can correct to diamonds to show my hand. But with hearts and clubs I would be afraid that partner bids diamonds leaving me no good place to go. When I started learning bridge, I was told that after a partner's slow pass I should also pass unless I have a really good bid. But this is not what the TBR says nowadays. Today the TBR says I should not bid whatever may be suggested by partner's slow pass. In this situation, arguably, if we are strong, I should bid because we will make a 5-level contract or even a slam. If we are weak, I should bid because the opps will make 4♠ and we have a good defense. If we are in between, it looks like no party may make their contracts so I should pass. Thus, partner's hesitation can mean that he has a mediocre hand and suggest that I should pass, and in consequence I may actually have to bid 5♣ in order to avoid using UI. Can someone follow me? This is why I like msjennifer's suggestion to call the TD ahead of bidding. Unfortunately (as one of many interesting facets of this hand) I was the TD myself, and the vice TD was my LHO who bid 4♠ :) . But there were others who could have done the job for us. I agree, but most likely after South's 5♣, North has an easy pass or bid without logical alternatives. : For those interested, I'm going to post the full hand tomorrow.

Pair tournament (club level), all red. You open 1♥ with this hand: [hv=pc=n&s=sk6hakt52d8caq943&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1h4spp]133|200[/hv] LHO jumps to 4♠ and the bidding comes back to you. (a) What is your call? (b) Same hand, same bidding, different situation: After the 4♠ bid, your partner dives for a minute and then passes. RHO passes. What is your call now? Does partner's hesitation make a difference and why?

True but I'm still thinking if it matters. Anyway, I have deleted my former post because I came to the conclusion that the OP probably doesn't imply what I thought it would imply.

[deleted]

m1cha - icycookie (3rd Q) 11 - 37 (-26) http://webutil.bridg...9492367&u=m1cha I concede. I have no reasonable chance to catch up. Congratulations to icycookie and good luck in the QF!

m1cha - icycookie (1st Q) 6 - 41 (-35) http://webutil.bridg...9235908&u=m1cha

m1cha - shuba (4th Q) 25 - 36 (-11) http://webutil.bridg...9131663&u=m1cha

m1cha - shuba (3rd Q) 29 - 4 (+25) http://webutil.bridg...9050512&u=m1cha Final result probably tomorrow, ~ same time.

m1cha - shuba (2nd Q) 25 - 29 (-4) http://webutil.bridg...8904336&u=m1cha

m1cha - shuba (1st Q) 17 - 24 (-7) http://webutil.bridg...8478188&u=m1cha

m1cha - 42krunner (4th Q) 14 - 11 (+3) http://webutil.bridg...8096593&u=m1cha Hard match. Too bad for 42krunner: I owe my victory to a misclick in board 5 that gave me 5 IMPs.

m1cha - 42krunner (3rd Q) 37 - 24 (+13) http://webutil.bridg...8002121&u=m1cha

With one partner, we play a similar system and feel the same about the 2NT bid. We agreed for it to show hands where we want to play whatever but not 2NT. The result was a Lebensohl-like convention puppeting to 3♣ upon which responder can pass: 0 - 3 HCP with 7+ clubs, or bid 3♦: 0 - 3 HCP with 7+ diamonds, 3♥: 0 - 3 HCP with 5-5 in the majors, 3NT: 4 - 7 HCP with 5-5 in the majors. Opener can refuse the transfer and bid a forcing 3♦ instead, upon which 3♥: 0 - 3 HCP with 7+ clubs, or bid 3♠: 0 - 3 HCP with 7+ diamonds, 3NT: 4 - 7 HCP with 5-5 in the majors, 4♥: 0 - 3 HCP with 5-5 in the majors. Even if this is not the optimal use of the 2NT bid, it should be better than risking your partnership. ;) We arrived there after reading a comment from Marty Bergen who said if there is a bid you don't want to use, you shouldn't set it to 'undiscussed' because if you do, it will be misused and result in a desaster. Rather you should assing to that bid an exotic meaning that never comes up. His context was, iirc, jump rebids by the 2♣ opener. Anyway, we found that remark very wise.

It's 16 HCP + a small singleton, 18 total points. With 18 total points GIB will double with anything and rebid a strong hand. Very normal up to this point. What seems weird to me though is the second double (or its explanation). Nor do I. Several times I noticed GIB not bid what seemed a fairly standard take-out double just because it had three cards in my suit.

m1cha - 42krunner (2nd Q) 16 - 16 (± 0) http://webutil.bridg...7916854&u=m1cha

m1cha - 42krunner 7 - 19 (-12) http://webutil.bridg...7876752&u=m1cha

The argument as such is correct but how often does it happen and where do we get when we always pass when something bad might happen? Or, to look at it from the other side: If I don't open this and partner doesn't open with ♠ KQxx ♥ Jxxx ♦ KTx ♣ xx, how will we find our full game in spades? Rely on opponents to open it for us?

This is not a symmetry. Because in Michaels you specify a major and in this version of Unusual you would specify a minor but that's not the same for various reasons. The standard approach is that you focus on bidding the majors as precisely as possible. This is why Michaels over (1m) shows both majors, Unusual shows hearts, and if you have spades and the other minor, you bid spades. Bid the minor in the next round if you still want and can. If not, never mind, it's just a minor. What you can do if you think it's worth it, play (1♣) 2♣ for both majors and (1♣) 2♦ for spades and diamonds or vice versa if you think it's worth it. I did for a while but I believe there are better uses for the jump to 2♦. Obviously this approach does not work if opponents open 1♦. For a while I played (1m) 2m to show spades and an unbid suit and continue like with Michaels after a 1M opener. I don't any more but it's playable and certainly better than playing 2NT with an unspecified major. Alternatively, as others have said already, you may try something like Ghestem.