temp3600

Same line as Apollo81's. If the ♦J holds, revert to hearts, playing East for the ♥Q and the ♠K.

2NT. Without clear agreements, I think it's a relatively safe bid. It doesn't sound very strong. If partner thinks it's natural, I have a stopper. If partner thinks he has to bid 3♣, I have that too. We might end up in a 5-2 spade fit or a 6-1 diamond fit instead of a 6-2 club fit though.

4♠ with hand 2 at any vulnerability. 4♠ with hand 1 at favorable, 3♠ at the other three.

I pass. Partner seems to have 7 or 8 solid or nearly-solid diamonds, very short hearts, and something on the side. I don't think we can make anything at the 5 level, but we have a better chance of playing undoubled in diamonds than in hearts.

Thanks for your replies. kenrexford : the comments and structure about switching to the second suit as trump are very interesting, thanks a lot.

I really dislike being doubleton in one of the suits I promise. I don't mind having xxx, Jxx or even xxxx (with a nice-looking 4-3-3-3) in the suit I'm doubling. Vulnerability and partner being a passed hand or not don't affect my take on this. I might be a little more loose with having a doubleton at matchpoints, but still don't like it.

Suppose you play that 1♠ - 2♠ - 3♣/3♦/♥ is a long-suit game try that can also be used as a slam try. If responder jumps to 4♠ and it was only a game try, all is well, but if opener had a slam try with K10xx or Q10xx in the side-suit, he might be a bit stuck, not knowing if partner has AJx or a small doubleton. With this in mind, I though about using these answers to 1♠ - 2♠ - 3♣/3♦/3♥ : 4♠ : doubleton in the game-try suit (and maximum) 4♥ : singleton or void 4♦ : honors, but not a great holding. Probably 1 top honor and that's about it. (Axx, Kxx, QJx, Q10x(x)) 4♣ : honors, very good holding. 2 top honors or 1 of AK with the J or 10. (K10x(x), AQx, KQx) 4♥, 4♦, 4♣ and 3♠ would be used in a similar way if the major is hearts. So, what do you think of this? Do you already have meanings for these bids in your partnership? Do you think the possible gain when opener has a slam try is worth the information given to the opponents when it was simply a game try? Do you think the meaning I chose to assign to these bids is sensible, or can be improved? Also, how do you play an answer below 3M, i.e. 1♠ - 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♦? Thanks for your time!

I would bid 3♥ with responder's hand, which I play as 4(+) hearts and slam inviting. 4♥ would be 4+ hearts with a minimum hand. I like this beginning : 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 4♣ 5♦ ... with 5♦ exclusion blackwood. I think standard for 4♦ is a hand with a very good diamond fit and a strong slam invite, as opposed to 3♦, which simply shows 3+ diamonds and is forward going. 2♠ can be played as forcing or non-forcing, so I wouldn't make this bid without a clear agreement.

I think North has a clear accept of the 3♣ game try. If he accepts via 4♣, the partnership can reach the slam.

Small ♦.

If 3♥ is non-forcing, North has a tricky rebid. Since I don't feel I can describe the hand well via any of 4♣, 4♦ and 4♥, I would simply use key-card and place the contract. So 1♠ - 2♥ - 4NT - 5♣ - 6♥.

RKC. I think that if partner has his white vs white 4♥ bid and we're not off two aces, slam is a good bet.

Most to South. South's 3♣ followed by 3♦ sounds like someone who's disappointed partner doesn't have a club stopper. After hearing North bid both red suits, South knows the 4 level is safe and should jump at some point to indicate his great distribution.

X. It could work out poorly.

One line is to hope for 3-3 clubs and 3-2 spades with the ♠K onside. ♥K at trick 2, throwing a diamond, and small spade to the 8. Take the return, ♣AK, club ruff, and spade to the Q. This line is around 12%. It might be possible to improve this line a little when clubs are 2=4 by swithching to diamonds. Suppose we start with the ♥K, throwing a club, a spade to the Q, and the ♣K. If at this point we think clubs are breaking 2=4, it is possible to make by playing West for exactly two spades and three diamonds to the J (the position of the ♦A doesn't matter). We now play ♦Q and small diamond to the 10. Now the good ♦K in dummy will take care of our club loser.

Let's call : line (1) : ruff the ♣A, pull trumps line (2) : throw a diamond on the ♣A, take the diamond return in hand, pull trumps I'll ignore 5-1 and 6-0 spade breaks, and 4-0 diamond breaks. line (1) wins if spades are 3-3 (duck a diamond), and needs diamonds 2-2 when spades are 4-2. 36 + 48*0.4 = around 55% line (2) wins when diamonds are 2-2, or hearts 3-3. If diamonds are 3-1, hearts 4-2 but spades were 3-3, it is possible to set up the diamonds, so the ♥A with West in that case is an extra chance. 40 + [60]*0.36 + [38]*0.36*0.5 = around 68 % So discarding a diamond on the ♣A is clearly better then ruffing it.

X. I bid 4♠. X. Against 3NTX, I lead a spade.

I would double 3♥ and lose the club suit. I don't think the West hand is worth a game force, with its lack of aces and singleton in partner's suit.

I pass, because partner could've bid 4♣ and jumped to 5.

I play 3♥ as showing a self-sufficient suit, with pretty much the same requirements for the suit you described, and setting trumps. If I generalize slightly, one player asks a yes/no question, and the other uses the first step for no, and several other steps for yes, while showing a feature at the same time (here his number of keycards). I think it's a sound method, but also that the most important part of it is that yes/no question. What is it here? Obviously it has to do with the quality of his semi-positive 2♦, and maybe also with his trump support. So, what are their respective importance? If responder has a bad hand in both criteria it's an easy no, and if he has a good hand in both an easy yes. This leaves hands like Axxx x KQ10x xxxx and Qxx Qxx Kxxx Qxx. Good in one criteria, bad in the other. So, to summarize a little my thinking about this, I think it is crucial to first define very clearly and precisely what hands by responder are worth a yes and which ones are worth a no, and only then add the twist over the yes answer.

I play a 12-15 'weak' NT. For a while, I played automatic runouts after penatly double in direct seat. I stopped. Now passing is 'optional', based on the 1NT'ers hand. Well, sometimes we ended up running anyways, and sometimes we played it and made or went down one. But what I also found was that, more than half the time when they could have gotten us for a phone number, the partner of the doubler chickens out, and they get a part score. It signficantly improved the 1NT. If you're the partner of the 1♠ bidder, and you just pass like it was just another part score auction, odds are they'll pull. I mean, just look at this thread. An awful lot of people here would turn a 200 or 500 into a 120 or 130. After seeing the the results of of the poll, how can you doubt that the right thing to do is just pass and have the opponents let you off the hook? We have a completely different evaluation of the situation : you are trying hard to escape a double (and therefore prefer to stay in 1♠ which gives you better chances of getting "off the hook", for the reasons you mentioned, which I would likely agree with if I was running too), whereas I think 2♦ is a fine, fine spot for us. Partner bid voluntarily the second time, despite hearing our pass and the opponent's exchange, so he was ready to face a weak hand. We do have a weak hand, but with a good fit for his first suit. Did I say I thought 2♦ was a fine spot? That was an understatement.

One straightforward line is to play East for three hearts withouth both the Q and 10, and West for the ♣A. With that heart holding, East can overruff dummy only once, and if he does, it is with their natural trump trick. ♦AK, diamond ruffed with the J. Let's say East overruffs with the Q and returns a trump. I take with the A and ruff the last diamond with the 9. Now ♠A, spade ruff, draw trumps with the K, and small club to the K for the tenth trick.

If I had 4 diamonds, 2 spades, and no points to speak of (as RHO), I'd pass. Opponents are unlikely to leave in 1♠ X, while an X of 2♦ is clearly penalty, and LHO could easily have 5♦ . Partner bid 1♠ voluntarily. He is showing exactly 4 spades (rarely 5, when he is 6-5), and at least 4 diamonds, quite often 5. I don't think it's a good idea to leave him in the 4-2 fit because it's at the 1 level and not go back to the 4-4 or often 5-4 fit at the 2 level.

What if partner is not yet thinking about defending the hand? Maybe we have a good save in hearts against their cold 3NT or 5♣.

The SAYC booklet has this guideline for competitive bidding : "Bids mean the same things they meant without the intervening bid". So in the auction 1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(P) 1NT-(2♦)-3♠, 3♠ should be invitational. The booklet doesn't say anything about balancing, but I would be very surprised if 3♠ wasn't invitational in the sequence 1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(2♦) P-(P)-3♠. It eases the load on the memory, plus responder is likely to have about the same strength in both sequences. There is also X by responder at his second call to consider. Some people use it to show extras without a clear bid (I think it is described as an 'action double'), in which case it gives additional sequences and allows to differentiate more precisely between types of hands : 1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(P) 1NT-(2♦)-3♠ 1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(P) 1NT-(2♦)-X-(P) 2♥-(P)-2/3♠ 1♣-(1♦)-1♠-(P) 1NT-(2♦)-3♦-(P) 3♥-(P)-3♠ for example. Some discussion is obviously needed for the partnership here. Others prefer to have the punitive X still available. I hope this helps.