Joe_Old

It is absolutely defined in SAYC (but not in Standard American). 15 to 17, but unsuitable for a 1NT opener. Usually it is unbalanced, though it may be a balanced hand with a 5 card major if the partnership has agreed not to open 1NT with a 5 card major. The reason it is not 18-19 or 18-20 is that range is usually better defined by a jump shift (with an unbalanced or semi-balanced hand). Perhaps I shouldn't have said, "defined", because the ACBL SAYC booklet doesn't have a definition for the bid. I should say, "defined by implication" because the system doesn't make sense otherwise. Note also that many play the 2NT rebid (by opener) as 2 way in the 2/1 system (12-14 or 18-19) since the 2club call is forcing. That can't apply in SAYC since you often want to stop in 2NT.

I don't like the 2♠ bid either. But, the last chance to salvage the deal was that 3NT call. Why not 3♥? Hopefully North will take it as a suit (partner, do you want to play a 4-3 fit? Was 3 diamonds intended to be NMF?). It's still an awful auction.

North certainly does NOT have a 3♥ bid in direct seat. Too many players look for excuses to bid every time they have 13 cards, when they should trust partner to balance when appropriate. To bid at the 3 level in direct seat, you require better than a minimum opening hand, perhaps Kx AJ10xxx Kx Axx.

I guess that you don't understand the form of scoring. Red, IMPs, you stretch to reach game. Passing is understandable, but it's not winning bridge.

I know that I'm adding this after a spoiler, but this is a routine (but very borderline) double. It's also a double if you are in fourth seat and LHO dealt and bid 3♣. In every expert partnership I know, protecting partner when you're in the balancing seat is a must, and two four card majors makes this even more necessary. Granted, there are wasted values in the minors, and if the hand was xxxx xxxx AQx KQ, I'd pass.

np. In that case my idiot analysis stands.

Consider what you "know". Responder has 5+ ♥ and usually a stiff or void. Given the bidding, you expect responder's shape to be something like 1-5-(3-4). Advancer has bid a vulnerable game, meaning you expect his distribution to be something like 5-1-1-6, because you expect advancer to have an outside source of tricks. It doesn't matter that a lot of this is wrong, it's the information that you have and you have to act on it because passing is not an option. If responder has the shape suggested, then 6♥ is on a finesse, at worst. A 5♦ bid from opener, on this layout, will tell responder that opener has a strong 2 suiter, and responder should cuebid 6♣. Now the problem will be to stay out of the unmakeable 7 (opener will have to re-evaluate responder's probable distribution, decide whether responder has a ♣ void or ♣A, and how many ♠ responder holds). A RKCB 4NT from opener, if methods permit, can allow responder to show 1 keycard and the ♣ void, which should tip off opener that responder has 2+ ♠ and 4+ ♦. Assuming that overcaller passes, opener will then know to stop in 6♥. Opener will also know that the deal is extremely distributional (after re-evaluating responders probable distribution), and that s/he can't count on any tricks on defense other than the ♠A. Of course, the opponents will know all this, too. Hold on - I just read the new post - DIAMOND VOID? Originally wasn't it a Club Void? Forget everything I've posted, I'm confused.

4♥. At this point your only proven assets are the ♥K and ♣void. By pre-empting ♥ you use up more room and you may not be giving up the ♣ void if your methods allow a 6♣ response to RKCB to show a ♣ void and one keycard (odd number of keycards that must be one after a pre-empt). While bidding the ♣ splinter is tempting, 4th seat (advancer) now has the option of showing a ♣ suit cheaply by doubling. A splinter will map out the distribution while the opponents are bidding and if the opponents declare. (Meaning, advancer has a tougher bid over 4♥ than 4♣, and your distribution is more ambiguous with a 4♥ bid). Keep in mind that it is not clear whose hand it is, or what level or strain is best for either side. Picture the opponents making six, or (unlikely) seven in either black suit. The downside is that 4♥ on this hand makes it harder for partner to judge whether to sacrifice because s/he won't expect your possible ♠ trick on defense

Science is hard to come by when bidding a 10 card suit. However, one strategy that works well in goulash games is to open this hand 1♥, then wait to see what everyone else bids. If your partner responds ♣, at whatever level, bid whatever Blackwood variation that you play, and if partner shows an Ace, assume that it is in his suit and bid slam. The point is that you can draw inferences from the bidding (and with 29 HCPs and only three suits in the picture there will be bidding). The downside is that the opponents will have time to get ♠ into the auction and may outbid you, or they may raise the level so that a Blackwood investigation is impossible. At least you will get some indication from partner, either by a bid or even by passing, whether you should bid on to a making slam or to sacrifice. The other option is to open 4 or more ♥. Again, with ♥ out of the picture and 29 HCPs outstanding if you open at the 4 level there will likely be more bidding, but your partner will be the one who has to decide whether to pass, double or bid on and s/he won't expect 10♥. Therefore, if I'm not opening 1♥ I'm taking my full pre-emptive shot with 6♥.

duplicate

So much to say.... The correct % for psyches may be as high as 10%, particularly with computer dealt hands that tend to be more distributional than human dealt. That is why systemic psyches have been outlawed: they are devastatingly effective and appropriate. (Personally, I'm happy that systemic psyches have been outlawed). One of the few outright psyches I've ever bid came in the late stages of a US National qualifying event, when I needed a top. I had x xxxxxx xx xxxx and overcalled 1♠ in 3rd seat, hoping to be given the chance to play ♥. Partner had nothing and the opps played 3NT instead of 7♠. Three pairs advanced. We were fourth and the opps fell from second to fifth. Didn't talk to me for a year. This hand illustrates the pattern of one of the most frequent types of psyches: a shapely hand where you bid shortness, expecting to run if doubled. Frequent use tends to make partner expect the tactic, so when you run after a double partner "knows" to leave you in your "second" suit. Not, IMO, very ethical and a major reason systemic psyches have been outlawed. The all time classic psych, one that I love, is the "Striped Tail Ape Double". This is a situation where partner has offered to sacrifice and you know the opponents will make their slam, so you double them in game hoping to be -1190 instead of -1430. If they redouble you run to partner's suit "like a stripe tail ape".

Addition to prior post: This system can also be used over a NT response, or to show 5-6 in spades/hearts, spades/diamonds, spades/ clubs, hearts/clubs or diamonds/clubs. It can sometimes be used over interference, but that takes a lot of discussion.

With some partners in a 2/1 system I play 1♣/♦ - P - 1♠ - P - 3♥ as this hand. Since 2♥ would be a reverse, the jump to 3♥ shows a 5-6 or better, but minimal opening values. (4♥ would be a splinter). The 3♥ call wasn't being used anyway, so.... I cribbed this idea from an American expert (sorry, I've forgotten who), so there's probably discussion of the idea online.

The problem with your argument is that you are stretching to reach skinny games (against known distributional hands) when you're missing cold grands because partner is afraid to act. I don't think that's a satisfactory trade-off.

AKxxxxx being "borderline" is a judgment call. Personally, I don't think it's good enough. The strong 4 card ♠ suit (and imo any 4 card ♠ suit headed by an Ace), however, takes this hand completely out of the definition. There is also the matter of the hand not being quite strong enough (6 tricks opposite a useless dummy). If this is only a judgment call, then the 4♥ bidders are using very poor judgment because they settle for a ♥ game where East can make 6NT and either hand can make 7♠ or 7♦. But, I'm not willing to state that lamford and the players he polled are purely wrong. I'd like to hear why they feel the usual definition of the jump overcall over a pre-empt should be modified, because so far I haven't seen any good reasons expressed. My position is that even considering that the example hand qualifies for a 4♥ call requires a major adjustment to the definition.

Actually, if you read my posts (2), you'd know that I was in complete agreement with you. I guess you're not ...... OKay - not "jump shift" - jump overcall. Point is that in the 2/1 system that I'm familiar with, West's 4♥ call was an overbid. Obviously other systems have other definitions. And this is definitely systemic. Jump overcalls over pre-empts have definite systemic meanings. It may be a matter of judgment as to whether a particular call fits the systemic meaning, but that doesn't change the fact that the system has defined the call. lamford and the players he polled obviously accept a definition of a jump overcall that includes hands weaker than you or MrAce will accept. MrAce claims (I agree) that the best use of a 4♥ bid in the given situation is "a self sufficient suit and not much sympathy to play in another suit". I'd like to know from lamford, or anyone else, why another systemic definition will yield better results over the long term.

Apparently there is a dispute between US and British (Acol?) players as whether to treat the example hand as worthy of a jump shift. A systemic argument. Here, a 3♥ call by a 2/1 player will get you to a makable slam. The actual 4♥ call didn't. A victory for 2/1. One hand doesn't prove anything, but I haven't heard any theoretical arguments to make me believe that a jump shift on that hand is superior in the long run.

Assuming a 2/1 or some other standard American system, Cyberyeti's example hand is about the minimum I'd expect for a 4♥ bid: strong, showing 7+ tricks and setting ♥ as trump. I disagree with the actual deal/auction because West is too weak - it's closer to a pre-empt over a pre-empt than the strong hand a jump shift should promise. Given that, I'd bid 3♥ with the actual West hand, allowing East to get into the auction with any reasonable collection. Given the actual auction, East's pass opposite a (supposedly) powerful jump shift is way too timid.

My initial thought was to lead a ♣, but on reflection I'm leading a ♦. What cards are you keeping after declarer runs 7 or 8 ♣? It might be vital to break up the squeeze on the opening lead.

With 19 HCP and an 8 card fit I would normally say 4♥ is the only bid under consideration in a 2/1 or SAYC auction. But not here. Opposite a minimum, this hand will play very poorly if you need a lot of transportation to take your finesses. That is, if partner has a lot of entries, you already have enough tricks to make game, if partner doesn't have many entries, 2NT may be too high. Therefore, being a team game, I bid 2NT because it's a 3433 hand with a lot of quacks.

Duplicate

A major plus for the splinter bid is that it helps partner evaluate his side suits for potential tricks. Partner can judge whether he has wasted values in your short suit (KQJxx isn't nearly as useful opposite a small singleton as opposite Axx), if a cross ruff will be a major source of tricks, etc. Therefore, the ambiguity of the splinter is usually outweighed by the picture it offers partner of how the two hands fit. Limiting splinters to voids only is a huge loss. Since singletons are much more common than voids, you lose the ability to splinter on about two thirds of potential hands.

Playing GIB 2/1 the auction could go: 1 ♦ 2♠ (Soloway jump shift) 3♦ 3♥ (forcing) 4♦ 4 NT (RKC) 5♠ 7♦ 2 problems. Responder is equally likely to bid 7 NT, and everyone I know would open 5♦. (So I like Miamijd's solution).

Most people play that a reverse promises a minimum of 17 or 18 HCP, but there is nothing wrong if you agree with partner to play 15+ if you build in a way to bail out of the auction at 2NT or 3 of a minor. This is not common practice and definitely not for the risk averse.

This is not a forcing pass situation only because the negative double is ambiguous. Classically, it promises 10+ HCP (which would make this a forcing pass situation), but nobody plays it that way any more. In the example hand, it could be distributional, and you have to take action to tell partner that you have, in context, a big hand. One treatment is to use a double as control showing and slam invitational, promising prime cards in the unbid suits and secondary spade support. 5NT (not what I would bid here) would be pick a slam (anything but hearts). Lacking specific agreements, I'd ask about the point range for the2♥ bid; if they promise an opening hand I'd settle for 5♠, if they play it as a simple overcall I'd worry about missing slam (is the 2♥ bidder serious about that 5♥ call?).