Double !

2♣ no rule that 2C/1M promises 5+, in fact, there are some who would bid 2C on a 3-card suit in certain situations, just to establish a GF. anyway, rules were made to be broken! :( dhl

Seeing how responses to this post seem to be decreasing, let me fill in the missing pieces. FWIW, 'twas I who held the South hand. Right or wrong, I decided to bid 3NT hoping that my heart queen would solidify the heart suit and that, even if partner had a lousy holding in clubs, the opps might not lead clubs or I would be able to scramble 9+ tricks before losing the lead. On this occasion, the decision to bid 3NT turned out to be OK. However, the results of mikeh's simulations are very interesting as are the splits in the votes and posting. Partner/ opening bidder's hand was ♠ A 7 2 ♥ K J 8 6 5 4 ♦ A 9 ♣ A 7 dhl

The issue with this hand, as I see it, is two-fold: 1) playing imps, holding the given hand, which contract rates to be safer, more likely to make? 2) playing matchpoints, which contract, 3NT or 4H, is more likely to make more tricks on average? dhl

It might be helpful if you could expand on this, especially regarding opener's and responder's rebids and follow-up bidding sequences to help differentiate between minimum hands and hands with extra values. While the good 6-4 vs. weaker 6-4 distinction might be outdated (I am willing to accept what you say), it still works as far as I can see. Perhaps the rest of one's bidding structure might be a significant factor in determining which way to go with this? As with many other similar issues regarding which way to approach a situation, IMO, the partnership might be better served by deciding on one approach and going with it. dhl

I am clearly not grasping something here. It sounds like part of the discussion involves how to bid the hand so that we might buy the hand in some heart contract when the opps can theoretically out-bid us in spades. To me, the idea of initially underbidding and then trying to catch up is specious at best. If one wishes to play psychological tactics here, one might also try bidding one's values and then confidently bid one's game contract, especially at unfavorable where the opps might be more likely to take a save to avoid a double-game swing. This has been known as "bumping". Partner might just confidently bid the game with the expectation and hope that the opps take a save. I was taught early on, during the Jurassic period i believe, to try to describe one's hand in as few bids, as quickly as possible in order that the partnership can judge approximately how high to go and in what strain to go. Two Spades describes this type of hand (decent 3-card limit raise), and permits for more co-ordinated partnership discovery and decision-making. Granted, I do not play unusually light initial action (although, Glen, I must admit that I am still fascinated by your ETM TOPS system), so I usually have something close to my initial bids. The sooner I am able to draw my partner into the joint decision-making process, IMO, the better. (He's a much better player than I, and he will assume that I do NOT have this hand if I make any bid other than 2S.) dhl

Helene: isn't this sort of what you anticipated when you opened one diamond. i'm not sure that this is a problem: i guess i'm missing some important inference. What is wrong with bidding 5D over 5C at this point? Doesn't it describe exactly what you have? With solid diamonds and an outside ace one might have selected a different bid (e.g.: 1C). I don't agree with opening this hand with a possibly pragmatic 5D and then doubling should the opps compete because 1) the opps might not compete, and 2) P will undervalue the combined trick-taking potential of the partnership by at least one trick and never play you for two aces AND a semi-solid 8 or 9-card suit. perhaps now we need to invent a namyats-like opening for minor suits lololol have a nice day/ evening dhl

I don't believe that you chose poor examples at all. This is a topic where, as far as I know, there is not universal agreement. For example, Marty Bergen used to or still does recommended bidding all 6-4 hands via the 6-4-6 route. Fred Stewart recommended in one of his books (sorry, I don't recall the title) that one bid 6-6-4 with minimum opening hands, and 6-4-6 with extra values. Others have suggested that one base the decision on where honors are located. At matchpoints, I personally prefer to rebid the 6 unless i have extra values, and even sometimes when I have extra values if the quality of my 6 is reasonably good. I might even downgrade my hand slightly at matchpoints with a borderline-extra values hand (maybe a 15-count) with a weakish 6-card major because of the potential benefit of playing in a major vs a minor. The exception might be when 6-4 in majors. dhl

The logic behind this eludes me. How can one make a bid that was initially not even invitational and could have been relatively weak with support, and then suddenly make a bid that says "hey, P. I'm interested in a possible game?" Is this a commonly agreed understanding that 3C at this point shows a game try in hearts, perhaps a help-needed or whatever you choose and says "thank you opps for competing with 2S so I might make this game try?" Maybe this bidding dinosaur is not only obsolete but virtually extinct. dhl

did I misread? I thought the problem said unfavorable, matchpoints. dhl

Don't you just hate it when that happens? dhl

hadn't really thought about the response structure to capp X's, but Phil's idea about "systems on" seems like a very good idea to me. wish I had thought about it first--lolololol. Given that, and the fact that it is unlikely that our side has slam, I am not sure what the advantage to bidding Texas (4D) as opposed to jacuzzi (2D) would be assuming that partner can/will not pass 2 diamonds with such a hand. dhl

depends on what toys i have available. IMO, the hand values clearly to a 3-card support GI raise. So, I bid 2S = 3-card GI heart raise. I agree with upgrade of henad due to favorable location of spade-king. In addition, hand has a nice QTxx combo in clubs. dhl

I do not agree with the double of 4S on the first hand. Pass is likely the more prudent action: perhaps partner's pre-empt has done its work and the opps are poorly placed. It is difficult to tell although holding the KJ in hearts increases the likelihood that opps might be in the correct strain if not at the correct level (yet). OTOH, give partner AQ8th and out, and 10 hearts (5HX) is -300, and a good save. Tough call, but doubling 4S does little more than help declarer locate cards, and you have 1, maybe 2 tricks on defense if P holds the template AQ7th or 8th and out in hearts. Perhaps I am alone on this, but the South hand on problem #2 looks more like a limit raise than a 4S bid to me. xx in two outside suits and AK4th in other side suit along with 5-card trump support seems pretty good to me. I might ask, how yucky might my partner's 1 spade overcalls be, even at unfavorable? dhl

90% to east for having created a bidding sequence that his/her partner either didn't understand, that hadn't been discussed, and was subject to different interpretations as evidenced by previous posts. When in doubt, try to ensure a plus score. (I have little trouble with partner's 2H bid: has shape, someone has to take the inititative/ precision 2C opener not the easiest to compete against.) btw: I know of many who might interpret an immediate jump to 5S as looking for club control. I also know of some who tend to be careful about pushing to slam after the opps have opened with a nonpre-emptive bid. dhl

Respectfully wish to ask a question I pretty much know but have never played namyats/mitchell xfers. (Yeah, I am telling the truth.) Why is this hand too strong for a 4D opener. Does a 4C/D opener specifically show an 8-trick hand, or is there some wiggle room? fwiw, my preference is to use whatever bids i might have at my availability to show the freaky hands when I get the freaky hands so I don't feel I have to make up for my highly skewed ODR later should the opps get frisky and try to mess with my mind (easy to do). tia DHL

I hear you, but I have always played that When partner launches an "out-of-the-blue" 4NT after a suit bid (when is clearly not quantitative) We still play rkc, and treat the last natural bid as the Trump suit for now, including showing K & Q. Unless a suit has been agreed upon. Simplistic? Perhaps. Is this the Expert way? Probably not. Do I have any really well established partnerships at this time that have discussed more intricate ways? No. Does it work? So far, so good. Can I count to 13? No! DHL :blink:

pass any other action is purely speculative. your hand wasn't worth a bid at the 1-level, now it's suddenly worth a bid at the 3-level? The opps haven't shown a fit. Your partner knows more about your hand than you know about partner's, and partner did not take action. and you actually don't know that much about lho's hand. the opps might not be in their best contract. pass is not a dirty word dhl

Qx K9xxxx Q AQxx I would want to get to 3NT on this hand. If I bid 3♥ pard may raise on Kx Q AKxxxxx Kxx Agree most hands with six hearts would bid 3♥. I still think 4♥ is an offer though. note that you have a key diamond honor. otherwise i believe that you would need much better suits to bid 3S and, therefore, would bid 3H without the high diamond card to show 6-card heart suit. dhl

1) I would bid. Master suit. I want a spade lead from partner. 2) I don't like going for telephone numbers, but 6-4 is better than 6-3. I am really undecided about bidding 2H at these colors: I can think of valid arguments both for and against. Part depends on what opps might open 2C on. Part depends on the fact that more and more people double to show dbl negatives on this bidding. This could put opener in an uncomfortable situation if holding a balanced 22-24, but might still choose to defend and we might not do very well. Put me down as an honest vote for undecided on this one. DHL

IMO, it's important to mention the implication that, without a supporting diamond card to help opener run the suit in NT, responder is showing a very good 6-5, maybe 6-4 (with good inner solidity in both round suits) with the 3♠ bid. Otherwise, without the fitting diamond honor or fairly strong round suits, this hand looks to be headed for trouble unless responder's hearts are very good. IMO, the 4H bid seems to me to be an offer to contract for 10 tricks with hearts as trumps. DHL

Question/pregunta: How good of a hand does advancer (responder) promise, if anything, if advancer responds/bids 2NT, and what types of shapes might advancer have? (2♦-p-2NT?) One could count the number of times that I've played multi on a few fingers, so i am not exactly an authority on the matter. Too bad multi is mid-chart................... TIA DHL

Amen dhl

Does this constitute a written guarantee? lololololol DHL

IMO, playing the sequence 1M-1N-2Y-3M to show a 3-card limit raise is one really bad method albeit the standard in 2/1 (and in original K-S). It is so difficult for opener to know what cards to value, and it has been known to get the partnership overboard (an unforced error). There needs to be a better way. I know of several BBF members who have been including these types of hands among those that start out with a multi-purpose 2 club response. Perhaps some of you would be kind enough to present your 2C response structures and follow-ups for evaluation and discussion. I believe that a better mousetrap is needed that the current 1N followed by 3M system. DHL in addition, what methods do you use to invite game holding a decent 10-11 with 2-card support after 1M-1N-2M (same M)? I have my ideas, but they probably aren't mainstream.

Can partner possibly have more than a jack? (or a queen assuming that one of the opps pushed in making his/her bid). Partner can't have a high spade honor to help "establish" the suit for the defense. J: Is this "the thought" to which you refer? DHL