Double !

seems i always make the one lead that permits the contract to make, so why stop now? Low diamond. DHL

IMO, one could write a dissertation or present a lengthy point-counterpoint discussion including plenty of documentation to support various potential benefits and liabilities of this type of Gambling 3NT opening. For example, while the bid could potentially wrong-side the contract, the opening leader won't always find the killing opening lead (that might be found by opening leader's partner). A draw-back to a transfer opening is the potential for the opps to make a lead-directing double. Personally, I think that one significant potential liability is going minus in 4m when partner has enough defense to stop the opps from making their contract but not enough quick winners win the race and permit 3NT to make. It's not clear to me that opening such a hand that has such a skewed ODR with a 1m bid solves much, especially if the opps become active. I guess that strong club players could assert that such hands could be opened with 2C with rebids adjusted to accommodate such hands. I am neither slamming the bid nor advocating it. Just suggesting that there are many points and counterpoints, theoretical and otherwise. I will admit to liking highly descriptive bids for hands that are otherwsie difficult to bid. Cool topic. Gee, I need to figure out how many zar points a 3NT bid has (between 26 and 29?). DHL

Justin Thank you very much for your input on this matter. DHL

I am very poorly educated in these rules issues, so I would like to ask a question. Or 2, or maybe 3. Am I not correct in assuming that, once any explanations have been given, that all of South's bids must be consistent with his/her initial explanation of the two club bid? Assuming that the answer to the above is yes, what explanation (if any) was given regarding the meaning of North's 3 diamond bid? And, what would a reopening bid of 3 clubs have meant for the N/S partnership? Like I said, I know little about what the rules say about these issues, but I understand the issue of not letting any comments or information from alerts/ announcements made by partner influence one's bidding or decision-making. I see these as being crucial issues because the third question I have is whether or not South had any other logical alternatives to bidding 3H? North's bidding sounds almost impossible if the initial 2C bid theoretically showed clubs and was passable by South. How can North now suddenly have a hand worth a cue bid at the 3-level. And, what does it show or ask for? eagerly await explanations from y'all (please don't just cite a rule). I have a hidden agenda here. One agenda is whether or not specific partnership agreements can supercede or prevail when there has been a theoretical UI and when the norm doesn't play or agree with the specific agreement and, therefore, deems another action as being a logical/ reasonable alternative (or whatever the term is)? It's like being judged against an alternative standard.... TIA, DHL

Is it 100% that the 5C bid shows clubs? Not in one partnership that I had a number of years ago (not that long ago-15 years maybe). It had a conventional meaning, but I can't say the name of the convention because Roland might read this. I know that the initial posting stipulated that 5C showed clubs, but I wonder about whether or not there is a better way. But, if partner did not ask my opinion but instead placed the contract, then partner knows more about my hand than I know about partner's. PASS I experience a lot of disagreement regarding what various rebids above 3NT mean on similar sequences that essentially begin with 2NT-3C. Perhaps there have been many innovations since the time I essentially stopped playing live bridge: if so, I would appreciate knowing what some of these are (not necessarily saying that I'll agree with them). DHL

one more vote for the double of 1S showing 4+ spades and a hand worth a response. Not the other 2 suits. DHL :)

Justin forgive me but my P doesn't know that I don't have the club Jack, and many people play that the lead of queen asks for unblock, or else count. So, it's at least possible that an astute declarer might work out the club situation given those parameters with a low club at trick 2? Yes? No? Thanks, DHL

I chose the queen of clubs and thought that it looked good when the full hand was disclosed. Then I asked myself what should I lead at trick 2 when declarer ducked the queen lead that won't advertise to declarer that I also have the king of diamonds? Is it a given that I am ahead in the race and, because it's matchpoints, declarer will have no choice other than to take the losing diamond finesse even if I clear the clubs suit? Or, will clearing the club suit make it obvious that I also hold the diamond king. At imps, no way would declarer take the diamond hook if I continue to lead clubs if declarer knew that the clubs were distributed 6-2. BTW, if declarer plays the club king at trick 1, then declarer is in serious trouble unless wearing a pair of Luis' sunglasses. (gotta get me a pair of dem sunglasses.) Interesting hand DHL

In thinking about how to bid this hand, you might wish to ask your partner the following two questions: If you open that hand with one club, left-hand opponent overcalls say 1H, and partner makes a negative double, 1) do you promise a 4-card spade suit if you rebid 1S, and 2) will partner interpret a 2 diamond response to the negative double as showing a reverse? Reverse your heart and spade holdings, and the issue becomes even more interesting, i.e. whether you will promise 4 hearts if P makes a negative dbl of a 1S overcall. The issue of a 2D showing or not showing a reverse still applies IMO. DHL

Makes sense to me. DHL

But, which club to lead. If you select a club lead, you are probably hoping that partner has at least two of them. Then the question seems to be which opp is more likely to hold the king as well as to hold 3+ clubs (If one opp holds 4 clubs, the da club lead ain't gonna work because of insufficient internal solidity unless the 8, 9, and jack all fall early on.) I don't know if this is common practice but, IMO, partner had a chance to make a lead-directing redouble when lho re-opened, yet elected not to do so- a possible negative inference? That, plus the hypothesis that lho might be more likely to hold the king, contributed to my having the C-Q accidentally on purposely fall out of my hand and onto the table. Sounds like rho is quite ready for a heart lead, even if rho stretched to bid 3NT because of the vulnerability. I'm probably wrong again. What else is new? Have a good one. DHL

Bergen raises certainly can apply after the opps make a "takeout" double. In fact, Bergen has suggested a specific structure of responses (acronym "BROMAD"- Bergen Raises Of Major After Double: "Better Bidding With Bergen, Volume Two, 1986/ pp 64-65). Hope this is helpful DHL

I agree with the idea trying to make the bid that is least likely to turn partner on when holding such a yucky hand. I see little merit in having initially bid 1♥ with this hand. (Telling partner that I have something when I don't really have it? Just to keep the bidding low?) Had the person holding these cards simply shown his/her longest suit (i.e. bid 2♣) to start with, then this person would have been in the position to pass any non-forcing rebid by the doubler, or to now bid a 3-card major in response to any forcing rebid by the doubler. I guess I'm dumb, but I try to comply when partner asks me to bid my longest of the unbid suits. I'm fully capable of digging myself into deep holes in many other ways. I don't need to compound this by bidding values or length that I don't have. Is this hand another case of "expert" bidding getting into trouble that less expert players wouldn't have gotten into? Supposed this hand had included 4 hearts and only 3 clubs, and had a legitimate 1 heart response. Then, I would suspect that partner's second double would show extra values (that it might still be our hand despite the fact that the the 1 heart bidder didn't promise anything more than 4 hearts), sort of like a support double that's not good enough to make a cue bid, rebid NT, or bid a new suit? If one plays it that way, then would not the simple rebid of the inferred 7+ card fit be the weakest action? Please, enlighten me. DHL

I couldn't help it, pard. I meant to lead your suit but the queen of clubs just sorta jumped out of my hand and onto the table before I could stop it. Sorry, P. :) DHL

not sure about "correct" bid, but am taking into consideration 2 dogs that didn't bark (2 things that didn't occur). 1. partner didn't double and then cue bid, & 2. partner didn't double and then jump in NT whatever DHL

The usual way, playing 2/1 or 1NT forcing (or semiforcing-yuck) to bid this hand is to respond 1NT followed by 3H to show invitational values and 3-card support. AND, IMO, this is one of the worst features of the forcing NT structure. I 100% agree that there needs to be a drury-like way to show this type of holding by an UPH. Some are playing that 2C responses can include hands like this as well as balanced hands and hands with club suits. This seems to be the way to go. I just would like more info on opener's rebid structure. But, I don't see any reason to not just rebid a la reverse drury. DHL

PASS not even close my Vul 2-level overcalls, especially at unfavorable, tend to be rather sound. Why promise values that I don't have? especially when my partner hasn't made his or her usual bid of "pass" yet? 2nd seat, I usually keep my bids sound (unless maybe in spades). What is going on with this hand? Did the opps bid a pre-emptive 3S and partner couldn't act, resulting in a missed 4H contract? Maybe it's becoming necessary to totally change the philosophy of defensive bidding to where jump-overcalls are intermediate, and immediate Xs and overcalls are transfers to a known suit, either weak or strong. Hmmmm. maybe not such a bad idea................Hey, who hit me? DHL

2 possibilities 1) just bid 4 spades. Partner has at most 1 heart, so you are playing with a 30 point deck (not to be confused with "not playing with a full deck"). 2) HOWEVER, if it part of the partnership agreement that partner is permitted to bid 2♠ with a hand that is less than an opening bid, such as whereagles' example, then (provided that we have discussed this) IMO a 3 ♥ bid might be used as a game try in spades (not asking for a heart stopper- this hand didn't bid over the 1H opener). Just be sure the partnership has discussed what the 2S bidder needs to accept the game try. Even so, with my kings including my KQ located behind the 1♥ opener, I'm not so sure that I don't want to be in 4S even opposite that sample hand. However, if wrong, I want to be wrong in favor of obtaining a plus score on the hand. So, if discussed, IMO, 3♥ seems like a good bid. I'm not clear what a simple raise to 3♠ would mean...(competitive?) DHL

This is a very unusual sequence of bids. In responding to this thread, may we rule out partner showing a weak hand with long (7 or 8) spades? I am not sure about 4S being a splinter in support of hearts. That would mean that the opps have like 11 spades between them as well as a heart fit. (what is wrong with that picture?) The other issue that occurs to me is the question of what kind of hand partner can have to justify making a splinter in spades after having initially implied spades via a negative double as well as the fact that partner didn't take a different initial action (such as a 2-club bid) during the previous round? Another possibility as previously suggested is that 4S shows a slam try in clubs with strong spades (like AKxx). If such is the case, then I suspect long but not strong clubs, something like a 4-6 hand. (In each attempt to hypothesize potential hands for partner, I am also looking at the fact that the opps bumped the bidding all the way up to the 2-level. Where are all of the hearts?) Another possibility that I can think of would be some type of hand with perhaps 3 hearts and prime support cards that partner didn't initially consider to be good enough to be GF hand until re-evaluated after opener's 3C rebid. I'm wondering if partner has something like ♠ Axxx, ♥xxx, ♦ K or Q, ♣ KJxxx, or ♠ Axx, ♥ xxx, ♦ x, ♣ KJTxxx. Whatever, when in doubt, i follow the axiom that all strange (if not impossible) bids are forcing one round. To bid 5 vs. 6 clubs? Do I have the courage of my convictions? Don't ask :) DHL

I used to play opening 2D as 5-11 hcp with 5-5 (occasionally better) in the majors many-many years ago. I actually called the acbl to get a ruling on the bid a number of years ago. To make a short story long, I was informed that the 5-11 range was not permitted, that opening 2 diamonds to show majors requires 10+ hcp. So, I can affirm what jtfanclub and others have said r.e. the bid not being permitted. (Mean ole acbl !! :o ) DHL.

No, I'm not! DHL

I knew I has seen this card combination in print and found the exact reference in literally 10 seconds. The bidding dinosaur had also, at times, been a bookworm when much younger and actually had time to read. I try to provide references to support assertions (when I can). In this case, I refer the reader to page 49 of H.W. Kelsey's book, "Match-Point Bridge", paperback edition, 1979, where he asserts that the second finesse will work 68.4% of the time. Hopefully, the many mathematicians among you all can explain how Kelsey derived that exact percentage. I know: 66%, 67%, 68.4% not a significant difference. The point is one more source supports the position that the second finesse is the percentage play. DHL

I know some people who would definitely disagree with this and might cite their spouses as living supporting evidence. DHL

What is wrong with bidding 3 spades, showing my very good major with good internal structure) at this point followed RKC with spades as the default suit (last naturally bid suit in the partnership) with cue-bidding hearts and then bashing 7D if necessary (OK, lose what, 2 imps?) and having the opps save at 7 hearts as a back-up if the opps continue to interfere with my plan. It's not so much that i want to know if partner has the ace of hearts, but that I want to be able to ask about the spade queen followed by the diamond king (assuming playing specific kings). Hey, if partner shows all three essential cards, anyone for 7NT if the opps sac.? or if playing matchpoints. But I am content to play 7 spades opposite any hand that has the queen of spades and K 5th or better of diamonds. Who knows? Partner might actually be able to support spades: the ability to do so was never denied with the 3 diamond bid.

Perhaps I have misread or misinterpreted the explanation of the 3 heart bid in the posting. But, I interpreted the explanation of "minimum GF values" as meaning at least GF values, possibly more. If this interpretation is INCORRECT, then please ignore the following. If my interpretation is correct, then I respectfully disagree with the 3NT bidders and, to a lesser degree, with the 3S bidders. I would rebid a very pedestrian 4 Hearts. Back to basics including back to the Captaincy principle. In standard Jurasic - Neanderthal bidding, before the advent of transfers and, of all things, pre-acceptance bids, dinosaurs like me played the sequence 1NT - 3M as asking opener to bid 3NT with 2 trumps, and to bid 4M with 3-4 trumps. Perhaps there were other, more expurt, options way back then that I never learned at the time. (Heck. There was even a times when my wife and I played Gladiator responses and had fun with them.) I often found that 4M often, not always, made an extra trick, even when responder was 5332. My point is, given the limitations of the bidding structure and options available, my opinion is that opener's first responsibility is to somehow answer responder's questions regarding the number of trumps held. (3S is fine if it suggests spade values and also promises 3 or 4 hearts.) I elect to answer my partner's question rather than to make a unilateral decision because my distribution is flat or with soft values. Partner's hand is unknown to me. If this works out to be the wrong decision, then my partner and I can revisit our bidding structure and sets of responses after the session or event..whatever. But, I feel it's a bad habit (and I see it happen a lot both on BBO and in the forums) to fail to answer when partner asks you a specific question. In further discussion you might decide that one member of the partnership might have made different bids, but it usually blows up in my face when I fail to comply with the captaincy principle. I shall now seek out the relative safety of my cave where there don't appear to be any tar pits or lava pools. DHL