beatrix45

B) This is the real lesson from this hand. Ignore the heart suit, and treat this like you would any other eight (or nine bagger given the trick potential of your heart suit) with a broken suit. Are you telling me you don't know how to bid such hands?? Join the club. Try bidding an unusual number like 4 ♣ that promises a long suit and maybe partner will be able to help if she happens to own a club doubleton with two honours like KJ or AK.

B) Boys, boys calm down. We have already established that I temporarily forgot how to bid and that partner's elevator doesn't go quite all the way to the top. When this happens, try to avoid getting doubled.

B) Styles have evolved over the past three or four decades. Many, many moons ago the rule was that a new suit by responder was always forcing. Then somewhere in the 1970's it became the fashion to play that a new suit by responder was non-forcing IF opener had made a limit rebid (e.g. 1NT or a rebid of the suit she opened). Confusion and ferment ensued until someone came up with 'fourth suit forcing' over the 1NT rebid, which is essentially an artificial relay bid asking opener to clarify her hand. This works pretty well, and I urge you to adopt it.

B) Good this point came up. The majority of 2/1 players play a 2/1 as GF, but a sizable minority play it as forcing only to the four level. Personally, I like the latter treatment a little better but am not a fanatic about it. This issue is one of the first things that a newly forming 2/1 partnership needs to settle. Also, some 2/1 players say that a suit rebid by responder shows a long suit and can be passed. As in: 1♠ - P - 2♣ - P 2♥ - P - 3♣ - P P - P

You mean 'precise' as in making the obvious ♦ king lead, then shifting to a small heart at trick two and having a partner who isn't a moron. 5♣ is untouchable on the existing lay of the cards. Partner should see that we get there whether I bid 2 ♣ or 3♣ at my second turn.

:D Whole lotta result playin' goin' on around here. A cautious 2♣ call (as opposed to a pushy 3♣ bid) seems absolutely called for when I am 2-1 in partner's suits. It is a 'free' bid, so pard will know I have decent playing strength and will surely raise to 3♣ looking at a hand worth around 11 points in support of ♣ and a likely 10 card trump suit. Now we should get to the RIGHT game (5♣) after I cue bid 3♦. As far as playing in 3NT goes, all defenders have to do is not lead a spade or continue diamonds into the wheel and declarer loses 3♥, 1♦ and the ace of ♠. Most of the time this won't happen but only because East's hopeless 1♠ bid will induce West to shift to spades instead of hearts at trick two. The board is probably going to be a push. You get +430 in a mis-defended 3NT. I get +420 in 5♣ when your team mate lets me steal the heart.

:D What a bizarre auction! Is partner a comedian? I'm with luke on this one, it just can't be a cue bid in support of hearts. Both partner and I are passed hands, so neither of us have power which is what the cue bid advertises. With a distributional heart fit, partner ought to raise hearts directly. She must have six or seven diamonds, I suppose. At least that would be consistent with her second pass. At any rate, I PASS. As to criticism of my first round pass, I am joining right in. My hand is a book two heart opener aside from the spade holding, but partner is a passed hand, so the biggest potential downside, missing a spade game, isn't likely. A one heart opener strikes me as better than a pass.

:D Don't you know better than to use Blackwood with two quick losers in a side suit? This is elementary Slam Bidding 101. On the actual hand, just suggest slam by cue bidding 4♦ over partner's 3♥ preference bid. Partner has a MUCH better hand than she might have held - better hearts (three to the king) and a good suit to go along with the spade ace, so she should show the spade ace even though it gets the auction above the 4♥ level. Now, you can show the diamond king AND deny a club control by bidding 5♦. Partner, lacking a club control, should bid 5♥ - end of job. If you need a board, you might consider bluffing a club control by bidding 5♣ over 4♠. If that deters a club lead, you will make seven on the actual hand since partner has a couple of unadvertised extras - the spade queen and the diamond jack.

:D Happy to join the choir. The one and only bad bid in this auction was the 4♦ cue bid. Remember, folks, bidding, esp. slam bidding is a conversation. When East bid 4♦ she was saying, "I have lots of extras, is there a slam in this hand?". After all, she could have passed 4♣, but the fifth club and the 12 HCP (cheesy though they may be) justify a raise.

I don't agree with this! :( The seeding procedure starts in the first round by pitting the team with the least masterpoints against the one with the most. In flight A, for example, my friends and I from my Thursday morning rubber bridge game once started against Mike Passel and Eddie Wold at one table and Malcolm B. and Bobby Wolff at the other. We won a moral victory of a sort. You ought to try it if you can.

:( Very perceptive analysis!! I never realized the K-S connection was at the root of all my problems. God, how I hate inverted minors! All my partners want to play them (double inverted flip-flop Jordan, anyone?? Oh yes, I see, only in competition). I have achieved a limited amount of inner peace and security only by insisting that we play the single raise as a game force. Of course, this renders a certain class of hands unbiddable, but that's why God lets me bid the other minor suit as my first response.

:( Hard for me to fault Def1's first round pass. The hand's playing strength deserves an opening bid, but to open 1♦ is weird, and opening 1♠ is ruinous after a 2♥ response. You just can't recover if the hand turns out to be a misfit. The next two bids were just fine, but Def2's pass of 1♠ was gross. With a full opener and 3-3-3-4 shape, I guess 1NT is best. How in the world did Def2 think that a pass was going to win? After 1NT, Def1 ought to make her move now with a 3♦ call (5-5 come alive with five sure playing tricks in diamonds). The subsequent 3♠ preference should be enough excuse (very little ought to be needed) to bid the game. Assessment of blame??? Def2 100%. Let me count the ways passing 1♠ can lose. You have the one that actually existed, but the potential biggie is a shaky 4-3 fit vs 1NT bid by the field. Or, the opponents balance and make it or go down one.

:( A lot of good postings on this topic, but there is one perspective I didn't see: ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVES ASAP. Yes, we are in a game force, but is our main objective now just to bid the right game or is slam still in the wind? I think this is why opener's rebids that use up bidding space w/o confirming a useful trump fit are best defined as showing extras. Prior to 2/1, an auction like 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♥ didn't promise extras, but a high reverse like 1♥ - 2♦ - 3♣ did. This still makes sense to me. Similarly, auctions like 1♥ - 2♦ - 3♦ also suggested extras because (esp. at matchpoints) finding a minor suit fit doesn't necessarily confirm a place to play at the game level when 3NT is an option (9 tricks vs 11 for the same score), but this isn't nearly as important a consideration for slams. Minor suit contracts score almost as much as NT contracts at the slam level. It would be nice if 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ promised a 6 bagger, but that makes 2NT an overworked 'catch all' bid. Remember, that with a game force established and only at the 2♥ level, you still have lots of room to investigate, and you have done something very important by advertising a minimum with your simple 2♥ rebid even if your suit length is still ambiguous. ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVES ASAP IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN TELLING YOUR STORY. The principles underlying the basic structure of 2/1 seem to be pretty much the same as those of SAYC. The early game force of 2/1 (a prime example of the benefit arising from the early establishment of objectives) frees up a lot of subsequent bids that can then be given special meanings. The earlier trend was to use them for preemptive bids like WJS or for 'picture' bids like splinters. More recently, we are starting to see them used as an introductory portal for relay sequences - e.g. the 'serious' 3NT. Indeed, why use all double jumps as splinters (tying up two or three bids) when you can pick just one of them as a portal and reveal the short suit on the next round (see, also, the 'multi-2D' opening bid). That's why I really, really want to preempt and otherwise jam your auction.

:( I second your view. Not playing 2/1, the 3D call has much more going for it. But, if we are in a game force, then partner could have bid 3D to look for a club stop with 2-3-5-3 distribution. Opposite 2-3-4-4 distribution, I probably want to be in 3NT regardless. Sometimes I think that the whole concept of bidding a 4th suit forcing without the traditional holding in the suit has been escalating out of control in recent years. For some people it has gone from an occasionally necessary evil to a preferred method. On this hand a lot of correspondents say they have to bid diamonds they don't really have to allow for the possibility that partner has bid clubs she doesn't really have. Maybe we ought to define fourth suit bids in these kind of auctions as artificial relay calls and have done with it.

:) 3H for sure. I don't like my lack of a heart honour and my slow club cards. Plus, hands with secondary 4-4 fits and shortness opposite partners long suit often don't play well, you just don't have enough trumps to do all your business. At matchpoints, if I wanted to shoot with this hand, I'd rather pass than bid 4H.

:) I would bid 5NT like a shot, unless of course, you are playing a style that features very light opening bids. It's hard to construct a normal opening bid that won't give you a reasonable play for 7H opposite KQxx of hearts, and it may well be a laydown. Opposite: xxx KQxx AQxx xx you need no heart loser and either 3-3 clubs or the spade hook or a diamond opening lead from the king. The spade queen or the club jack are going to be worth a trick. If you are off the diamond ace, it may get led, setting up a zillion tricks.

B) This is a really good problem hand. The original negative double was devised to cover hands where there was no good bid available, and a pass was not a good option either. That's exactly what we have here. My hand is plenty strong enough offensively for 2S, but it woefully lacks defense. So, a negative double looks attractive to me. Plus, it looks like the bidding ought to develop fairly well after a negative double. If they have a heart fit, then partner will either have a few spades or will be all diamonds and clubs. With my playing strength, I am more than ready to bid up to the 3S level in any case, and if they reveal a heart fit then the 4S level should be OK. The only disaster hands would be something like 1-3-7-2 distribution for partner. Plan A for me would be a negative double followed by a spade bid. That way, if partner wants to double a heart contract, I will happily sit for it. On the actual hand, a double worked out as well as could be expected - not a bad auction, really, if you don't mind partner's underbidding. Imagine what would have happened after a 2S call.

B) Trixie is confused by this question and some of the responses to it. She does not even know anyone (except her first husband Elmer, and he couldn't play a lick) who would bid 3C playing any system at any form of scoring. My goodness, you don't even have a club honor.

B) Why did partner bid 3C??? Since I don't have an ideal call, my thought is to consider each of the possibilities and see what bid I can make that will do the most good, or at any rate do the least harm. 1. Partner wants ME to play the hand at three NT. Always a good choice with Trixie at the wheel. Even my good partners sometimes get a little tired and want a short break. If this is a live possibility, then I think that it is by far the most probable one. In that event 3NT is automatic. 2. Partner is slammish and wants to uncover a diamond fit when I give a diamond preference. Well, a simple preference does not show all that much support, my diamond holding could be worse, but I don't have real support, and my hand is only average minus in a slam auction. A slow 3D preference shows my hand but is outright cheating. I really don't like a 3D bid because, if pard takes it seriously, it might propel us into a 6D contract looking for the trump king and off another trick. If 6D is right, we might still get there after a 3NT bid. 3. Partner has three hearts and short spades and is looking for 4H or more or some number of NT. 3H is an outright lie about my suit length, but sometimes 4-3 major fits are the best spot. My spade holding argues that this is probably NOT one of these hands. So, 3H will likely work out OK, but I don't think it is the best bid. 4. Partner is 5-5 or 6-5 in the minors with enough cards to be slammish. In this case I don't got it for him/her. Only the AK of hearts is positive. So, in this case, 3NT is the best bid, and if pard bids 4C, I can give a forced, tepid 4D preference. Most often pard will pass 3NT, and we should be in the best spot. Play all misfits in NT (just kidding). 5. Partner has good 4 card heart support and 3C is the first step in a slam auction. In this case, I want to slow the auction down a little, and 3 NT will do that best. We should get to the right level in hearts with no problem. The bottom line for me - 3NT!!!

:rolleyes: Every Thursday morning at 10 am PST I host a friendly rubber bridge game for ten cents a point (Canadian) with many of our local bridge players in attendance. For those of you who believe that three clubs is the proper bid on this hand, I would like to extend an open invitation to join us. Please e-mail me at beatrix45@msn.com. God bless you and don't disappoint. We would love to have you come by. Trixie

:rolleyes: I have to bid a game. Opposite an expected hand with the KJ of hearts I can count six hearts and two diamonds. Missing the heart king, my hand is actually a little better since the heart suit may come in opposite six small. I anticipate a total of about nine HCP total. This means five or more HCP outside hearts. Will that translate into one (if the contract is NT) or two (if 4H) tricks? I think the odds favor that. As to the choice between 4H or 3NT, the case for 3NT almost boils down to one 'magic' hand: QJx KJxxxx x QJx Never bid the 'magic' hand. So, I think 4H is the ticket. xx KJxxxx xx KQx needs club ace onside x Kxxxxx Qx KJ9x 4H is a solid favorite xx KJxxxxx x KJx good spot xx Jxxxxx Qx AJx hearts come home or no spade lead

:blink: Trixie is not too bad a dummy player herself, but she is no better than the merest novice at playing king empty fourth opposite jack empty fourth.

What luck!!! Assuming that 'very strong opposition' means that my team is the underdog, this freak hand may give us an excellent chance to win the match. Unless pard might open 2D first seat with five, they have no diamond losers. The club ace should cash. Partner may or may not have a second trick in the form of the club king or a protected major suit queen. We are not going to outwit this opposition except, perhaps, by using a very subtle ploy. What are the odds of partner having a trick on defense? With AKxxxx in diamonds (the most likely holding), I think the odds are against partner having a trick. If so, the straightforward bid is 7D. 7C is wrong. Remember, you are on lead versus 7H, 7S is very unlikely, and if they bid 7NT then you can double for an unusual lead (you may get a club) and partner won't have AKxxxx of diamonds, so he/she is likely to have a major suit trick to boot. According to the LAW, there ought to be at least 21 trumps and a void, so 7D doubled will, at worst, lose only a few IMPs. Go for it!!! Trixie

:) Playing opposite myself, I would bid 2H because it should be (almost) safe even vul because of my 6-4 distribution and the trick taking potential in the spade suit. What to bid here is a matter of one's philosophy concerning weak 2 bids - are they essentially disciplined and constructive or preemptive and disruptive (my preference). Best case is that pard can make a LAW raise with three or four hearts, and one of the opponents will intervene by bidding his/her partner's non-existent spade length. If partner might suspect that I could have a 5 bagger for my vul two bid, then bidding 2H is less attractive since a disruptive heart raise is less likely. This hand is a poster child for the 'preemptive and disruptive' school of weak two bids. Trixie

:) To me, a pass is a very attractive bid. My partners are all very skilled at scrambling home with lots of tricks in 4-3 fits. The biggest issue, as I see it, is whether or not I risk missing a game. Vul at IMPs a 1NT bid might be the safest choice, but otherwise I like a pass. A secondary issue is whether we have a 5-3 heart fit and a good part score there - but how do we get to 2 or 3 H from here? Consider what partner has to have to make a game on straight power (unless pard fits hearts I have a rather ugly 8 HCP hand). Most of pard's game going hands would have been opened with a 15-17 NT, called for a 2NT rebid, or been strong enough for a reverse or jump shift rebid. A pass puts pressure on the opponents, so they may give us a second chance even if 1S is wrong. Trixie