Caitlynne

In Standard American systems (e.g., SAYC, 2/1, KS), your 3C bid is known as a "high reverse" (i.e., a reverse at the 3 level as opposed to the lower 2 level) and definitely promises extra strength. After a 2/1 response (whether it be 2/1 game forcing or just an old fashioned SAYC style 2/1 simply promising a rebid), the high reverse is game forcing. Nevertheless, the concept of a high reverse is an area that is often off the radar of inexperienced and/or non-expert players. Still, it is important for opener to promise extra strength when rebidding at the 3 level simply because a rebid at the 3 level deprives responder of considerable bidding space that s/he may need to continue describing his/her hand before committing to 3NT or any other contract. For this reason, there are two "standard" approaches to your rebid problem: (1) Rebid your major at the 2 level with all minimum hands. When playing this style - the original standard style, by the way - the rebid of your major does not promise extra length, just the possibility of being minimum. Mike Lawrence is often associated as an advocate of this style and sometimes this rebid style is called the Lawrence Method. (2) Rebid 2N to show a minimum. This is the style advocated and popularized by Marty Bergen. In this style, rebidding 2M does show extra length. The problem with this style is that 2NT also consumes a lot of bidding space and, perhaps even more seriously, may wrong-side a NT contract since it neither requires nor promises stoppers in the unbid suits. There are non-standard solutions as well. One of these is known as the Shuler Shift. Here 2N is used to show extra length in opener's suit while the meaning of the 2M rebid is consistent with the Lawrence Method - i.e., either a balanced hand or a two suiter without high reverse values where opener's second suit is lower ranking than responder's (and would have required a rebid at the 3 level to have shown it). The basic justification for using 2NT in this way is that the 2N rebid is less likely to compromise a NT contract when it shows extra length in the major suit since responder is likely to have the unbid suits adequately covered when avoiding opener's major. There are other solutions as well, but they get complicated and I am insufficiently familiar with them to explain them here.

Employing hand constraints in a Practice Bidding table represents one of the rare instances where BBO's functionality is not self-evident and intuitive, so I sympathize with your question. From the Main Menu, click on Practice under Play Or Watch Bridge. Next, click on Start A Bidding Table. Next, click on the Start Table button. Next, click on the 3 bar sandwich icon near the upper left corner to engage a drop down menu. From that drop down menu, choose Deal Source. You will then see constraint controls; after you set the controls, you can save your set of constraints and name it so it may be retrieved for future use. Happy practice bidding sessions! Regards, Caitlynne

If you don't play strong jump shifts - where the jump shift response shows either independently strong one suiter or two suiter with fit for opener's suit (clarified by responder's rebid)- you will have a problem on these types of hands. 1D - 2H 2S - 3H 3S - 4S 6H - Pass There are some specialized partnership agreements that are advisable for adoption in these auctions, but even without them, it is usually renders slam bidding pretty straightforward. (I have found that such slams are almost impossible to reach intelligently if you play weak jump shifts or invitation/non-forcing jump shifts, methods that have become fashionable.)

I am definitely bidding and I want to preempt. However, I don't like 5C for two reasons: 1. I have only seven clubs; 5C strongly suggests at least 8 clubs and no other good suit in which to play, so 5C is too much of an all or nothing (mastermind) bid. 2. I have a very fine FIVE card diamond suit. The likelihood of diamonds being a good place to play - e.g., should partner have 4 of them - is not particularly small. So my plan is to hedge my bets: 1. Start with 4C. This suggests a 7 or 8 card suit and I have that. 2. If LHO bids 4M, and this gets passed to me, I will try 4N - unusual, and strongly suggesting 5 diamonds and 7 clubs.

West is 100% to blame. And the culprit is the 4H rebid which was an egregiously huge overbid. There is nothing truly wrong with a 1H opening. Many players would agree that there is too much side suit strength to preempt and that the extra length in hearts compensates for the marginal honor values enough to treat this as an opening 1 bid. Others would choose to open 3H or even 4H. Any of these is reasonable, so no blame there. But, after opening 1H on a 10 HCP hand, you have to stay true to this decision. West treated his/her hand as a 1-bid and that is okay, but it is a minimum opening bid and subsequent actions need to be true to that treatment and evaluation. A jump rebid to 4H was not okay. Not even close because it shows considerable extra values. Had West rebid 3H - as s/he must - East would have been content with game - probably 3NT that West could convert to 4H.

With the AKQTxx, Ax, xx, KJx hand, I would rebid 3S after partner responds 1NT to my 1S opening. This is a very good hand for the 3S rebid for sure - better than the AQJxxx, Ax, KJx, Qx 17 count - but as you have suggested, the jump rebid shows about a good 15 to 17 HCP and I have 17 HCP. There is nothing wrong with having just a tad extra for your bid when your bid is not only reasonably close to descriptive of your values, but also the most descriptive bid you have available in your system. If you don't want such problems, you have to play something more sophisticated like Gazzilli. But that is hardly standard and is not advisable for a pick-up partnership anywhere, let alone on BBO.

I play the King of clubs followed by a club to the Ace, giving myself the chance to drop the QT doubleton with either opponent. If I don't get this (incredibly) lucky, I play a heart to the King. There is a slightly better than 50% that the Ace will be onside for some players in the West seat would lead an Ace against a slam if they had one.

I lead the 10 of diamonds. If partner is merely an experienced player, partner has made a Lightner double asking for the first suit bid by dummy - and that is diamonds. If partner is a good player, either s/he has it beat no matter what you lead, or partner has made a Lightner double asking for the first suit bid by dummy. This is THE widely understood meaning for this double.

I do have sympathy for you (even though I disagree with your Double), but I would be positively LIVID at partner for passing a takeout double with little defense against spades while a guaranteed fit - and one that is likely to be strong - exists. Partner absolutely should bid 5S with his monster - good values and super support for any suit you might choose. Obviously you would choose clubs and you would get to your club slam - and your Double would have worked out just fine. Your partner's decision to pass 4Sx is INSANE. Your Double asked him to takeout to a suit and he has absolutely no justification whatsoever to not cooperate. This error is so bad that, unless your partner is truly a beginner, I would NEVER play with him/her again. I do disagree with your Double however because you have strong reason to believe it is best to play in one of two suits and have ZERO interest in hearts, the suit partner is most likely to bid in response to a general takeout. I would choose either 5C or 4NT (unusual for the minors). When you choose either, partner should cue bid 5S on the merits of his/her monster supporting hand and then pass your 6C follow-up.

Assuming that 2S is natural, 1 round forcing game try (which it should be since no explanation was offered) and 3H declines the game try, then there can be no agreed meaning of 4D other than it must be some kind of natural slam try. So it could be a cue bid or a fragment. But who cares? The message is clear: I am not worried about clubs and I want to know how well the values of your already disclosed raise to 2H fit my cards in spades and diamonds. If you have club cards, you correct to 4H. If you lack club values, you find some encouraging bid. Very simple really.

My opinion is that both are to blame. Opener is to blame because he chose his opening bid without recognizing potential rebid problems. It is well known that a systemic problem exists in standard methods when holding an approximately 19 or 20 HCP hand featuring a single good, long, minor suit. These hands typically feature too many losers to open 2C, yet a jump rebid just isn't enough because that's non-forcing and suggesting a good to only fairly strong hand (i.e., "game invitational values"). The situation is especially bad on those hands, such as opener's actual hand, that feature shortness in the other minor and have no 4 card major suit. Manufacturing a reverse or jump shift rebid is a possibility, but it prohibited with a major suit and a poor idea with the other minor when there is shortness in the minor. You can't makes such bids because they undermine partner's ability to contribute to the dialogue in evaluating suit fit and the working fit of honor values. Opener's hand represents a textbook example of a well known gap in standard, a gap so huge that some partnerships have been moved to address it by adopting a specialized conventional opening to cover it. Regardless, opener chose the opening bid poorly since the jump rebid in diamonds is not enough over a 1-level response in either major (or 1NT, for that matter). On the other hand, responder's decision to Pass at his/her second turn despite holding 9 HCP including both good support for opener's known 6 or 7 card suit and a side suit AJxx suit is hard to fathom when opener is known to have game invitational values seems very timid in the extreme. Virtually always, game should be bid when the partner is known to hold at least 25 HCP and a good fit in some long suit. To me, calling Pass would have been unthinkable. 3NT would be natural and strongly imply a club stopper since 3H often will be bid to show a heart value in the exploration for game in NT - and that would be my choice. You clearly don't have enough for 4C, but 4D is probably a reasonable though inferior alternative. I have more sympathy for Opener than Responder here. Opener failed to consider the rebid problems; recognizing a rebid problem such as this requires bidding judgment and a nuanced understanding of standard bidding structure - the kind of sophistication that the lion's share of players lack. Passing 3D, however, reveals far more widespread and general failings in plain old valuation judgment and that is a far more serious weakness.

Playing a strong 1NT, 5 card major system, I would open the East hand 1NT in order to avoid a rebid problem. If I open 1C and partner responds 1S, I am stuck. I am too big for 1NT (12 to 14 HCP) since I have 16 HCP. I am not strong enough to reverse into 2H either since I don't know where the hand is going so I can't take such control. (Reversing with fewer than 17 HCP is uncommon - but the true test of a reverse is whether you can handle all rebids by partner - and you cannot with this hand - 2S would be embarrassing since you don't have enough to bid 2NT if partner has scraped up a 1S response on an ugly 6 HCP). So I avoid the headache by making an off-shape 1NT opening bid. After that, West will/should explore for a major and, when no major suit fit is found, should settle for 3NT. 1N - 2C, 2H - 3N, Pass seems like a typical auction.

Last question first … No, I think trying for slam is correct. My rule of thumb is this: if I can imagine a perfect minimum that fits partner's bidding and make a slam virtually cold, I make a try for slam. I can imagine partner holding xx, Kxxx, AKx, Kxxx and that is a pedestrian minimum opening bid that is cold for 6H unless QTx of hearts is with LHO, an 11% chance. I think your slam try by showing club values is reasonable, as it will make partner value a good club holding. However, I think I would like to make partner's cue bidding life easier, so I start with 2S. Now, with the example minimum I gave, partner has it easy: 1C - 1H 2H - 2S 3D - 3S 4C - 4S 5D - 6H Pass

I prefer getting to 3NT to 5D at any form of scoring. 5D can fail. A heart ruff seems likely. And if the club finesse fails you are down. The club finesse is likely to succeed with the 2H opening bidder being somewhat unlikely to hold any particular side king at all - and if s/he does hold a King, it could easily be the King of spades rather than the King of clubs. Regardless, if the club hook is on, both contracts will make. And then I want to be in NT, especially at MPs, but certainly too at IMPs. If 3NT is down, well okay, so is 5D. One more thing 3NT has going for it is that it might get a heart opening lead, providing immediate success for declarer. I like the auction shown up through 3H. I have no idea why the 3D overcaller did not bid 3NT at his/her second turn. 5D seems to be telling the same story twice and committing the partnership to a high level while 3NT shows the heart values and a distributional hand - after all, overcaller did not choose 2NT immediately - while offering flexibility to a partner who will now know exactly which strain (diamonds or NoTrump) has superior play.

I prefer to play it as a Splinter showing 4+ card length in opener's second suit and - importantly - shortness in opener's first bid suit. For example, in the sequence given (1H-1S, 2C-3D), one might expect responder's hand to be something like this: AQxxx x QJx KJxx The reason that shortness in opener's first bid suit is important is that a simple 4th suit forcing bid would be best with support, e.g., AQxxx Qx xx KJxx Now responder rebids 2D. This gives opener a chance to describe his hand, perhaps showing 3 card spade support, emphasizing hearts, bidding NT with diamond values, or raising diamonds with 4 cards in diamonds (i.e., a 0544 pattern). No matter what opener does next, responder is usually well placed to lead the remainder of the auction.

Well, your club certainly is free to make whatever membership rule it might like, but banning systems by name or label is difficult thing to do. Precision is a strong, artificial, and forcing 1C system. There are many others of these - Blue Club, Schenken Club, Ultimate Club, and LORI Club are among the several that I am familiar with. But is it only the strong variety among artificial club systems that your club membership finds so irritating? What about the not strong and yet still forcing varieties such as, but certainly not limited to, the Polish Club and Roman Club systems? What if the artificial club system is neither strong nor forcing? There are many such systems. I play such a system. 1C shows either 4+ clubs and a non-balanced hand or a balanced hand that other might have opened 1NT when holding it. In fact, any "natural" approach forcing system in which the 1C opening bid may be made on as few as two clubs - e.g., 2/1 playing 5 card majors and 4+ diamonds - would be an artificial 1C system if the ACBL did not go out of its way to define a 1C bid as natural if. when it may be opened with only a 2 card club holding, the hand features exactly four spades, exactly four hearts, and exactly three diamonds. Regardless, certainly there is nothing innately natural about bidding 1C on a 2 card holding. Club systems will continue to exist and can be expected to remain popular. That is a reality that your club needs to grapple with.

Playing a natural approach forcing system where my 1NT opening shows a 12 to 14 HCP balanced hand, I would bid differently and easily reach the slam: North 98xx Ax AKxxx AQ South AQ KQxx QTx KJxx N - S 1D - 1H 1S - 2C 2D In order to not miss a potentially good trump suit fit, it is important to confirm possession of a (reasonable quality) 5 card suit when 3 or 4 cards might be held - - 3D 3H - 3N 4N - 6N

The 3D bid is bidding out shape and probing for the best game. That much is unequivocally clear. Only a sick mind might think that 3D shows shortness in the absence of a specific agreement. The bigger issue is the 2C response. It is misguided on a modest 4 card suit at the 2 level since it is non-forcing and partner might (and clearly should) pass with a hand like Axx, KQxxx, Kxx, xx.

Assuming that the 1NT rebid shows a minimum range opening bid of approximately 12 to 14 HCP, I will just raise to 3NT, opting for the 9 trick game rather than explore for 5D. If the 1NT shows more - e.g., 15 to 17 HCP, I will use whatever methods we have to show diamond support with game forcing values. This is necessary since there are minimum balanced hands in the strong NT value range that would produce a slam - e.g., consider this 15 HCP hand where 6D is virtually cold: Kxx xx AKxxx KQx

The double is certainly intended for takeout. If by some freaky miracle partner's holding has 4H beaten, partner would just call Pass and take the plus score. Partner has a shapely hand and does not want to sell out - probably a 3 suited hand with a heart void. You cannot Pass. For several reasons (e.g., Law of Total Tricks says the opponents are protected). But most importantly, partner has asked you to take the double out to a suit and expects you to do so unless you have a heart stack behind declarer. And you don't have that. Rather, you have two suits - clubs and diamonds - so there is no reason to hesitate making the obvious bid of 4NT which, of course, is unusual asking partner to choose a minor. This 4NT bid also has the fortuitous benefit of transferring the declaration to partner, positionally protecting any spade honor partner might hold from being led through on the opening lead.

Dependent upon your partnerships specific agreements and understandings, many paths to 7H seem possible. Here is one: West - East -- 1D 1H 2D 2S 3H 3S 4D 5C 5D 7H Pass Here is another: -- 1D 2H 3D 3H 4H 4S 5D 6C 6D 7H Pass In the first of these two, the 2S rebid is safe since East has denied 4 card length in spades (by failing to rebid 1S). In the second where a Soloway Style strong jump shift is used (unclearly since the suit is missing two top honors so, despite being 8 cards long, it does not meet the definition of "nearly solid"), the auction requires a bit of aggression (with the 4S cue bid) to get there. Either way, being able to arrive at 7H without too much angst seems like a good goal for any partnership.

I think South's takeout Dbl is quite reasonable and is better than the other alternatives (4D, 4H, and 4S). But with Ax of clubs, North should know that 4C is not off much and that partner is quite unlikely to be short in spades. I would rebid 4S with the North hand. Remember, takeout Doubles should generally be taken out whenever you have any reasonable action to remove it. Rebidding a good 6 card spade suit is a VERY reasonable action to take out the Double. North gets 100% of the blame for this one.

The only rational choices are Double and 4H. Since I have a no loser trick count hand - and this especially clear vulnerable vs. non-vulnerable opponents - I strongly favor the more optimistic 4H. It is standard that the cue bid is either a very strong takeout or two suited. So, if partner bids 5D, I will convert to 6C which is choice of slams for the black suits. If partner persists with 6D, I will raise to 7D since my AKQ of diamonds should be adequate trump support opposite an announced 6 or 7 card suit. I think it reasonable to play partner for JTxxxx or better in diamonds.

4S. This shows about 20 points, typically balanced or semi-balanced with 4 card support. The power raise is superior to the 4C splinter rebid. With a stiff King, you don't want to encourage partner to devalue club holdings like Axx, AQx, Qxx, or QJx by showing shortness in that suit.

Opener has nothing extra and lacks any kind of big fit. In contrast, responder knows this deal is his/her partnership's hand - i.e., that the 2D bid was made primarily on the basis of honor values rather than extra distributional values - so responder must be the one to double. Pass was a clear cut mistake at pairs.