Double !

This hand, and some others that have been posted over time, have suggested a minor gap but still a gap in modern bidding systems, to wit: how to inquire about specific critical cards. On the AKX, x, void, 9 solid hand, you need two of several critical cards, S-Q, H-A or AK, H-A& D-A i.e. 2 cards to cover your two losers. What specific tooks other than elaborate systems (vulnerable to pre-emption) do most of us have available to ask for such specific cards? Many posts so far have involved either something slow and investigative (and potentially pre-emptable) or simple bashing under various philosophies. This posted hand and topic reminds me of a hand I held at the NABCs in Toronto a few years ago: S-void, H-KQJTxxxx, D-KQJTx, C-void. A freak hand? Yes! but they crop up every once in a while. During ensuing discussion regarding how one might bid this everyday 8-5-0-0 hand, I received the response "just keep bidding until someone says 'pass' " from a world class player. Thanks a lot. What methods do you people out there have to deal with such hands that are still somewhat integrated into your primary system? (Please don't tell me to not worry about such hands because they are so infrequent. This initial post says that the topic is worthy of discussion.) There is, I suspect, an option using a more natural system, at least for those playing openings of both 2C & 2D as strong and forcing. (To any of you who attended the 1970 Summer NABCs in Boston, the idea of asking partner "you got any Queens?"...."no, go fish" is not an option.) Thank you in advance for what I know will be thoughtful and erudite answers. They are appreciated.

This hand occurred close to 30 years ago in a sectional. Not a big deal, but it was the only time I ever protested a ruling, and I still disagree with the committee decision. I can't recall the exact hand that I held, but can get it pretty close. Match points, Red vs. white. Something like ♠xxxx, ♥AJ9, ♦Kxxx, ♣Kx. The bidding was as follows: 1S on my right, pass by me, pass by lho, and my partner thought for a while before re-opening with 3 diamonds which we played as intermediate (opening hand, probably 6+diamonds). RHO/1S opener now bid 4C. Right or wrong, I bid 4D, lho bid 4S, partner passed, rho passed, and i started to think (always a bad sign). I bid 5 diamonds on the reasoning that my partner, despite the hesitation, had made a descriptive if not semi-limited bid of 3D, the bidding suggested that she had spade shortness, and I started wondering where the losers were given this bidding and partner showing some cards (the club king rated to be good). After the 4S bid on my left ( i had been in the dark regarding how many potential spade losers i might have), I felt I now had additional information to visualize a reasonable play for 5D opposite a minimum 3D bid by partner, that the hesitation did not affect anything other than the fact that it occurred, and that the additional information gleaned came from the 4S bid on my left. I bid 5D. DIRECTOR! both opps screamed. The director and, later, the AC ruled that "pass" was a reasonable option over 4S, and ruled the result should be 4S by the opps, whatever the score, for a poor result for us. My argument, perhaps specious, was that the intermediate jump re-opening was similar to an opening bid of 1NT in terms of be relatively limited in strength and scope, and that any hesitation didn't change the basic meaning of the bid. (Partner had her bid, nothing more, nothing less.) There was no UI in the hesitation and I based my bid on the agreed meaning of partner's bid. 5 diamonds was cold. Please, help me understand where the argument breaks down. Just because some expurts suggested that a pass was a possibility, does that make "pass" a reasonable bid and, therefore, a mandatory bid? I understand the need the bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of potential UI, but where is it written that you must stop using visualization and reasoning just because there was a break in tempo? (There were no issues regarding alerts or failure to alert in this case.) Comments, please. Especially from those knowledgable in acbl tourney rules and regs. Thanks!

OK.............I'm a fish, but it still sounds like a request for a club lead to me. Partner can have club honors but insufficient club length to have dbl'd the 2C opener and be able to handle defending 2CX or XX. Or a potential club trick and an ace where the issue is needing to set up club trick before entry is used up. I know,..wrong again! The point is, partner went out of his way to tell me to stop and reconsider something different before making what might have been a natural, normal opening lead.

Definitely agree with Ben soft-shelled crabs out of the Chesapeake or caught directly out of the Middle River (just north of Baltimore) behind our house eons ago, and Maryland Crab Cakes You haven't lived until you tried 'em. Not sure how the phrase "you are what you eat" impacts on this, though. With all of these "fish-related" names......is someone trying to say something about my bridge game?

OK, I can see it now, ........someone bid 3♣ over 2NT with the major 2-suiter, and then redoubled when 3♣ was doubled in an attempt to get partner to bid his/her major. However, partner wasn't sure what the 3C bidder was doing, passed 3♣XX and then watched as the defense took a few tricks. (like 8 to 10 tricks) Please say this did not happen!

3 spades - splinter. Otherwise, whatever partnership has agreed on as limit raise or better---weak 2nd choice.

Judging from many other responses, my thinking/ reasoning on this topic might be obsolete but.......I think 3D should be constructive (as opposed to: "could be anything"), at least on this bidding for 3 reasons. 1) One of the opps has already limited his/her hand giving opener more of a fielder's choice and more options if I now bid. 2) My partner is listening and will probably need to make a competitive decision after the opps bid again. 3) If 3D could be anything and we will almost never bid 3NT, then isn't there the potential for being robbed blind by light initial action by the opps: maintaining a standard for the 3D bid should help prevent this. Not to mention the fact that one has has contracted for nine tricks by bidding 3 diamonds: the hand should have some values, maybe?......... (Not vul. I like to play 13-16 1NT overcalls. They help with situations such as this.)

Forget previous post: it didn't come out hidden: sincere apologies, but suspect know the issue or theme here.

Try "The Motherload of Conventions" @ www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~heng/personal/conv/c.ind.html Hope I got this right: good luck

Why would it not be on if you've agreed to play it?

another vote for pass. spade queen of questionable value, no evidence that opps have fit, my 2-level overcalls tend to be sound (usually 6-bagger), and I have a partner who heard my bid and just might have said something else with support or some decent cards. 2 & 3NT seems rather unilateral imo. BTW: where are the red cards?

happy to hear that 1NT is a reasonable consideration. (the AQ of hearts looks like AK to me: bad eye sight) that was the first thing that came to mind--always seem to get bad results by passing such a hand, especially if P has any kind of 5-card major. The obvious risk is if a red card appears on my left. Dangerous, but so is crossing the street, especially in inner city.

another vote for 3NT at imps. at mp I'll take plus score, Insufficient experience to suggest correct bid at b.a.m. (Instinct says bid 3NT making it a win/lose situation, put the pressure on opps to beat me.) I would consult my medium or check my horoscope--5+ controls/ hand is better than your average 13 hcp, can see 8 tricks off the top (probably) provided opps don't run 5-6 tricks off the top. Then I'll have the chance to say "sorry, P"!)

another vote for "forcing one round"

99 and 44/100% asleep here, but will venture an answer and make self look bad: Low club trick 2. Kill one entry, possibly set up a club trick if P led from KTx. I await the correct answer with anticipation. suspect P more susceptible to a squeeze than my hand...oh, well: anyone for a round of golf?

re: Little Major The following is from the book "Bridge Conventions, Finesses and Coups" by Terence Reese (pp. 98-99) 1965 Openings 1♣ = basically = hearts. Response 1♦ = usually negative, but may show some big hands. Response of 1NT = semi-positive, may be balanced, have a suit, or have hearts. 1♠, 2♣, &2♦ are positive responses. 1♦ = spades or strong, balanced hand. Response of 1♥ is negative, etc, etc. 1♥ = "either very strong or very weak. Responses based on controls." 1♠ = 12-15 with "some values in both minor suits, no biddable major" 1NT = 14-16 2♣ or 2♦ = 12-15 "one fair minor suit, no biddable major" 2♥ or 2♠ = "use major-minor 2-suiter." 2NT = "either minor suit pre-empt, or strong minor 2-suiter. Hope this is of interest. Enjoy. Sometimes these old books have some value.

fwiw the version justin gave is the one i learned.

To bid or not to bid. That is the question? "It's now or never." Elvis I would risk bidding 2 shovels (automatically makes it wrong! don't exactly like my 5332 shape with 7 losers)

This might be faulty reasoning (so what else is new?), but I would open 1♠ in 1st or 2nd seat with the given hand for four reasons: 1) I have the master suit and can always outbid the opps at any one level if necessary, 2) my hand is playable in another suit, 3) my hand is 4 1/2 losers with a void: partner won't know how to value outside controls, and 4) I do have a little bit of defense. Switch the heart and spade suits and most of the above still applies. IMO, the real problem with the 4♠ bid is the void: there's no way to show it. P will likely play you for 7321 or 8221 and value his/her hand accordingly. I don't know which approach, pressure versus discipline, tends to win out in the long run. I tend to be more disciplined except for 3d seat (especially nv vs. v), then it's a case of "caveat emptor"! At least partner doesn't throw his cards at me and leave the room after I've gone down 1100 after opening an undisciplined pre-empt.

Agree with opening north hand 1♣. But, if north has passed, i am unclear about what is wrong with 2NT by south- at least the intermediate spot cards are good and the shape is right. 1♥ doesn't seem right: you really don't want P to lead the suit. You have a 2-suiter. Why wouldn't you want to tell partner about it? ps: and I am not a big fan of uNT.

I am going to dare to disagree with some respondents, and instead congratulate declarer for doing well on this hand. A lot of play threads have focused on devising the best technical line for playing a hand given an optimal lead. In the real world, luck, both good and bad in terms of opening leads, plays an important role. It then becomes an issue of attempting to maximize the benefits of or take advantage of the good luck. I'm not saying the line taken was or was not the technically optimal line, the opening lead helped determine what might or might not be optimal, but declarer was successful and did well on the board (next time you gotta bid these games!!!). I say "very well done" to sceptic, with the request that you not pull off such an illusion against me: I'm sure to fall for it.

I think 4Spade bid was insufficient. I would've bid 5S/ 2S and let opps guess at the 6 level with the likelihood of not going down more than the value of any vulnerable game that opps might have (to wit: no -800).

If you care to go back to the 1960s, Charles Goren (I think) had a 30 minute program, sponsored by Samsonite, makers of bridge tables et. al. I believe Audrey Grant also had a TV program somewhat more recently, but not sure and don't recall date. But I remember watching the Goren program.

I would bid 2NT, Ogust or whatever. If P shows a good hand, especially with good suit, I would rebid 3NT: the 3rd spade in my hand increases chance of running the suit. The outside ace are fast winners/ don't have to give up the lead to establish the tricks. 3NT is on a hook opposite AQJ6th and out, so a pass of 2S seems rather conservative IMO. A lot depends on how disciplined one's wk 2s are. If opener can have most of hand outside of spades, then the decision becomes much more difficult imo.

PASS same reasoning