beatrix45

:blink: I agree, almost. Partner will bid game with 8 or 9 HCP outside of ♣, or compensating distribution. So, we want a solid majority of such hands to have a 50% or better chance of making. On this hand, any finesse against opening bidder is around 75%, and given the lack of competition, odds on a 3-2 ♠ break should be around 75% as well. Given this, I find just a few more failing cases than I would like, but on this basis a 2♠ bid is certainly reasonable, imo. The other requirement is that 2♠ be safe opposite four small and out. Here, I also have a slight problem, esp. if we are vul. Partner will not be able to hit her hand until late in the play, if then. Playing suit combos like Kxx and KJxx will be a nightmare. Easy to go down two or three, a disaster if vul. Putting the two cases together argues against a 2♠ bid, imo. You WILL miss a good game contract once in a while. If you add just one more working HCP to this example, most of these problems are considerably diminished. AKJx .................... AKxx.......................AKxx Kxx....................... Axx.........................Kxx KJxx......................KJxx.............or........KQxx xx........................ xx...........................xx In short, this aspect of bidding has been carefully worked out over the years. Don't mess with it.

:rolleyes: It is really very simple. Visualize three or four common type hands just short of a 2♠ bid. If all of these hands produce a game, bid 2♠.

:P PASS Not sure what form of scoring here, but I surely can't fault passing up to now. Bidding at this point could be suicide. Once in a while opponents will have nine clubs, AND we will have nine spades, but I'm not going to risk -800 to find out. In retrospect, I wish I had overcalled 1♠, but there are plenty of good arguments against that.

:P 7♦ If partner can't make seven opposite this dummy, it will cost me $97 (Canadian). If this happens, I will personally see that I subsequently make good my loss from such a miserable excuse for a partner.

:P Without a good rebid, partner could have passed over 1♠. If she is not shy, why should I be? Two bullets and three diamonds, bridge is a simple game, just prefer with 3♦. Odds are they have a nine card spade fit, will bid 3♠, and we will have to go quietly. Maybe we can beat it.

:P Don't have to be a LOTT disciple to visualize a zillion tricks, esp. if partner fits spades. She did bid 5♦ anticipating something that might be worse than: AKJ4 Q98 AQ65 65 So, bidding 6♦ might put us in the best spot, and in any event it forces them to make the last guess. I think 6♦ looks better at IMPs than at matchpoints.

:) Why is bidding NT without a spade stop better than temporizing with 2♣ or doubling without a fourth heart? Would it matter if my spade holding were J62, what about 1096 or 632?

:) Playing 'guess the system' is not bridge. If it takes an occasional bogus alert to make things work, so be it. Playing in a major event would be a different story.

:) I am an old fashioned, non-expert (at least now) player who has yet to learn the finer points of 2/1 (I dropped out of serious bridge before it became popular), but, I do know something about bidding theory. There is no NEED to play 2♠ in this game forcing auction as showing extra values. It is like the old K-S auction 1♦ - P - 2♣ - P - 2♥ or 2♠. Weak 4-5 hands will outnumber strong ones by 3 or 4 to one (where, by the by, is the dividing line between strong 4-5's and the other 4-5's? You see my point, there is no longer any logic as to where to put it.). How do the 'strong 4-5 er's' bid those more numerous weaker hands without distorting something? This 'does a 4-5 reverse promise extras' issue also highlights something that irritates me about 2/1. Having insisted on game (or 4 of a minor) with the initial response (which is a good thing in and of itself), the partnership still has multiple objectives - which strain and slam or no? When, who and how does one quit being descriptive (which strain) and start setting an objective (slam or no)? The old fashioned strong jump shift does the latter beautifully, but 2/1 players say they don't need it. It seems to me that space conserving reverses like 1♥ - P - 2♦ - P - 2♠ are better used to show shape rather than extra values (which is not, by the way, the same thing as a 'slam or no?' query). This leaves bidding room for any number of 'impossible' or relay bids like the 'Serious 3NT' to set the table for a slam investigatory auction. Bridge has always combined natural bids and relay bids in the same auction. Easley Blackwood was a pioneer. As usual, your hand postings are provacative and to the point. The quality of the game is going to take a quantum leap as a result.

:) I'm not gonna pass. I'm not gonna double at this level with a stiff heart. I'm not about to bid 2NT when percentages say there are nine or ten hearts lurking in the two hands to my left. I don't have a bid to show a minor 4-5 two suiter in this auction. This leaves the pedestrian bid of 3♣. I like it. It suits my personality.

:) Another way. Open 2♣. Over 2♦ or (in this case) 2♠ make a jump rebid of 4♦. This sets ♦ and invites a cue bid. After 4♠, you have your answer (give or take a potential ♥ loser). Still, at matchpoints, you need to ask for aces to investigate the higher scoring 7NT. There is no sanity clause unless you are of the 2♠ promises two of the top three honours. Great when it comes up, but it creates a lot of awkward auctions when it distorts natural bidding sequences. OR, play a strong club system with asking bids.

Im not a LOTT fan but it seems to me 18 is much more likely. :) You are correcto. I was looking at seven ♦, but I only saw six. Nevermind.

:) Gosh, I don't want to start a Holy War here. I would never say the case for passing was in any way ironclad. If partner is void in diamonds, passing loses big time. Also, when declarer has a good six bagger - as she very well might on this auction - that adds roughly one to the total trick count. I was counting on just one trump trick (five for declarer). There is only one chance in nine that my partner has the ten of diamonds, plus another, roughly, ten percent chance that declarer won't have a dummy entry - the ♠ king or the ♣ queen won't do. Placing the opponents with A and K of ♦, there are another 22 HCP outstanding. Partner is marked with (I think it is fair to say) 12 HCP or more. With partner having 12-15 HCP, I don't want to be in game - this is, after all, a bit of a misfit hand. In these cases, I would settle for any plus score. So, how can 9 or 10 HCP translate into three tricks for the opponents (and a bad-for-us, but non-ruinous +180 [would that be 2, 3 or 4 IMPs??] for the opposition)? ♥ AKQ ♥ AK and QJ of ♣ ♥ AQ onside (i.e. in dummy) and the ♠ K with the 2 ♦ opener ♥ AQJ onside (i.e. in dummy) There are some other winning cases for the opponents, but do you see my point? My AJ of ♠ figures to be over the ♠ K or Q in the dummy and I believe this reduces the opponents winning cases to a distinct minority. With no long suit and a QJ wasted in ♦, it takes a lot for our side to make a game on this hand even with a ♠ fit. KQxx AQJx x A10xx is still well short of a lock. On defense, we figure to get two ♠, one ♥ or two if the opening 2♦ bidder has the K (a 25 to 33 % chance??), one natural ♦, two ♣ and a ♥ ruff on defense. Passing is either +2 IMPs or -3 IMPs assuming game is bid and made at the other table. Finally, we have the slam hand. KQxx AKJxx x AQx This will hold declarer to four tricks. +800 versus +980 if you get there (lose 5) or +800 versus +420 if you don't (win 9).

:( Hand 1: One thing is for sure. I am afraid to bid 3♠ because the hand might completely fall apart. Partner would have to have something like AKJxx in ♠ and Qx in ♦ where the ♠ J (or 3-3 ♠) would be key. As between 4♦ and PASS, it looks like 4♦ is better when there are 18 tricks (-50 vs -140 and +130 vs +50 and +150 vs +100). But when there are only 17 tricks, PASS is a lot better (-140 vs -150 or -500 and +50 vs -100 and +100 vs -50 and +150 vs +130). Just (or even more) likely to be 17 as 18 tricks in the hand. Looks like PASS is the right call. Hand 2: No reason to think we can make our contract, and prospects for defeating theirs look fairly good. The ♥ A109 might turn into a trump promotion. PASS

:( This looks to me like a hand with no more than 16 trumps - eight ♦ and eight ♠ - and it might be less. My ♦ holding tells me it's probably a 15 trick hand, AND the cards (other than ♦) look like they are sitting well for us. My black suit honours are behind the dummy. Indeed, if partner is: Q952 AQ105 8 AJ92 they may not have any tricks outside of ♦ with no way to get to dummy to lead trumps. According to my arithmetic, if we have ten tricks in ♠, they would likely have only five tricks in ♦ (+500 vs +420) - say, four ♦ and a heart or five ♦ period. If we have nine tricks in ♠, they should have six in ♦ (+300 vs +140). On a really good day partner will hold: Q85 AKJ4 82 A1086 and we will get +500 versus +110 or -50 at the other table. I PASS.

:) Rebidding 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit seems to me to be a matter of style subject to partnership agreement. Some do it gleefully; others abhor it. I happen to think that Justin's opinion is about right. No one has mentioned how vulnerability, the form of scoring or the 17-19 HCP 1NT rebid might affect the question. When I first encountered the '1NT rebid with a singleton' some years back, my first impression was that one big argument for it was that it won the race to 1NT at matchpoints. Getting to 1NT first is a big winner at matchpoints when non-vul, but less so (if at all) when vul and against good defenders. If I rebid 12 HCP with 1NT opposite a partner who advertises 6+ HCP, we might have as few as 18 HCP. Non-vul going down one or two tricks is -50 or -100 versus -90 or -120. In this problem, we ought to be playing at least 17 HCP opposite 6+ HCP. It should be our hand, and we are more likely to be safe at the 2NT level. I feel more comfortable opening one ♦ and rebidding 2 ♣ here than I would were I using the strong NT range with the 12-14 HCP 1NT rebid. I also think that the upside from bidding 1♦ followed by 2♣ is greater at IMPS or rubber bridge. You are more likely to find the occasional slam. The extra overtricks you get at 3NT when you rebid 1NT don't mean much.

:) Thanks for the posting. It makes an excellent point. One additional thought: only the hand long in the opponent's suit knows if any high cards are wasted there. Long before the LAW came to town we knew this was important, but now we can see its full significance.

<_< This was my thinking exactly. This is an instance where, at pairs or rubber bridge, I would be inclined to play the opponents and their demeanor. If they aren't a strong pair and look like they won't want to balance, then a pass has something extra going for it, and I would make one if I needed a board. Not so at teams, passing would be a violation of trust.

:lol: The first hand is no more than a good minimum in terms of playing strength and high cards. I have no sixth spade; my LAW situation is unknown. PARD KNOWS ABOUT MY HEART SHORTAGE. Plus, she may have been under pressure to bid 3♠ in the first place. She will know what to do. For all these reasons, I PASS. The second hand contains a nice surprise - the stiff club - and partner is marked with short hearts. Big, big, big difference. Now my diamond holding takes on a new luster as partner almost has to have a fit, say 3-1-4-5 or else have a fourth spade: 4-2-3-4 at worst. It could be a lot better than that. Unless there are 48 HCP in this deck, somebody (maybe everybody) is bidding on distribution. I bid 4♠. By the way, the last time I heard this auction go 4♥ - Pass - Pass - Pass, Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister and Anne Murray was in pig tails.

:lol:

:P No, but there is science and reason versus ignorance and superstition.

:P Thanks for the clarification. The opponents are vul and we are not. I initially thought it was the other way around. The difference in the vulnerability changes the situation considerably because if I bid 4♣ partner will not take it NEARLY as seriously. She might not raise with two of the three key cards. I still don't like a double for all the same reasons previously stated. So, mastermind I must, 5♣ it is.

:P Would this ever show just four cards in each major at adverse vul?

:P Responder's priorities over the 3♦ game force ought to be: 1. Rebid spades with five 2. Bid NT with a club stop 3. Raise diamonds with four I think that rebidding spades even with five small is important. A fairly high percentage of opener's 3♦ rebids are based on hands with three card spade support where opener badly needs news of the 5-3 major fit. All the world knows that a 3♥ preference may (once in a great while) be based on a small doubleton if responder has 4-2-3-4 distribution with four small clubs. After the 3♥ preference, is 3♠ by opener a cue bid? I dunno for sure, but it is very useful as a natural bid with honour third in spades. It's a way to find a Moyesian fit, which may be the only decent game. Failing that, it can coax a 3NT bid (a near club stop, 10862), or 4♦ (decent three card diamond support and nothing else to bid), or 4♥ (better than minimum heart support). When opener bids 4♦ over 3♥, SHE is confirming hearts and suggesting slam. Hearts is the spot, and she doesn't give a rat's patootie if you just have a small doubleton in support.

:P First things first. My info on this hand comes from the opponents bidding, so I need to find out as much as I can about what their bids meant. It sounds like the 2♣ opener has a hand similar to a Michaels cue bid - usually 5-5, but sometimes 4-5 or even 5-4 but never 4-4 in the majors. If this is the case, then what does 3♠ mean? Is it a blocking bid or is it 'constructive', possibly invitational to game? What would a 2♦ or 2NT response have meant? If 3♠ invited, then odds on partner's having one or more of the three key cards - ♣ ace, ♥ ace or ♦ king is reduced. So, my first move would be to query first about LHO's and then about RHO's bids. My hand is a brick for 9 tricks in clubs, and it will take 10 tricks opposite some hands with no honours at all. The problem is two natural heart losers or a heart ruff, i.e. when partner has three or four small hearts or less than three clubs for me to ruff with. According to probability calculations, this will occur about 50% of the time. If partner has no key cards, we have 9 or 10 tricks, and bidding 4♣ right now is enough. They might even make 4♠ (in which case 5♣ doubled down one may be a good save), but everything would have to be perfect for both them and us for this to be the case. If partner has one key card, we ought to have a better than even shot at making 5♣ - almost 100% if it is the ♥ ace or the ♦ king + the ♦ queen, and around 50-50 in the remaining cases (ace third of clubs and short hearts are very good, long hearts w/o the ten are very bad). Bidding 4♣ now likely won't get us to 5♣ (partner will probably pass); double should, and 5♣ does it perforce. If partner has two key cards, she ought to raise 4♣ to 5♣. Soooo, what is the percentage bid? Double, 4♣ or 5♣??? Against good players who consider 3♠ to be 'a constructive raise' (i.e. typically four spades and 5 to 10 HCP), I would lean toward 4♣. Partner owes me a raise to five with an ace + the ♦ king (or two aces) and three trumps, or with a LAW hand with four or five clubs. Opposite these hands 5♣ should be a good spot. I only lose vis a vis an immediate 5♣ bid on the hands where pard has one key card and 5♣ makes (50-60% of such cases), and those few hands where she has no key cards, the opponents bid and can make 4♠, and 5♣ is only down one. Admittedly, 4♣ doesn't put max pressure on the opponents, but I AM looking at half the high cards in the deck, so how important can preemption be? If this does turn out to be a wild melee where we have 10 or 11 clubs, and they have 10 ro 11 spades; the fun is just starting and 4♣ is a good first step in terms of bringing partner into the picture. If the 3♠ bid was a more of a bar bid based on spade length and little else, then, I think, 5 ♣ may be the best call. Chances of catching partner with one or more key cards is better, and it does force the opponents make the last decision - always a good idea. Bidding 5♣ IS taking a stand and masterminding the hand, but why not? I don't see the logic of making a double here. Of course, it could work out; but bidding room is scarce, I certainly don't want to play in diamonds, and my hand is vastly more suited to play the hand than to defend. It has four quick tricks, but ten playing tricks. I need to bid my suit.