KingCovert

Your partner has to pick up 5 of your 6 losers in a side suit, and can't lose more than 1 trick? So, after you've self-splintered and marked a trump lead. Now what? This just seems a bit too optimistic, although, I appreciate that this is a really nice hand. I think 2♦ and then 4♥ as Helene says is best, it's a mild slam try. Partner will know when they're looking at a hand that should explore further.

Probably 6♣. Depends which one of us is West, my partner might find 6NT. Not sure that he would decide it's better though... I wouldn't think of it probably. 1♣ = 15+ (in 1st and 2nd seat) 1♦ = Game-Forcing 2♣ = 4+♣ 2NT = 3-♣, no 5-card suit, Stronger than 3NT. 3♣ = 6+♣, no 2nd suit. 3♦ = Ace of diamonds. 3♠ = Ace of spades. 4♥ = Ace of hearts. 5♦ = King of diamonds. 6♣ = To Play. 6NT? Kind of hard for West to really see it though. 3♦ should agree clubs, in my mind, since we can never have diamond fit as West has no 2nd suit, and East has no 5-card suit. Possibly a slam try in No-Trump though. 5♦ should 100% show both AK♣, given the lack of a 4NT bid for 1430. After 3♦, I might just bid 1430, but, I think this might throw away any chances at grand. I really can't ever know when it's on in a 1430 auction. Partner is flat though, seems unlikely. So, in keeping this in mind, I might also just pragmatically bid 6♣ directly over 3♦.

Chalk this up as one win in the column of, "Don't tell opponents more than you need to". Of course, I don't know if in your system it's possible to have diamond slam here? If so, then, well, **shrug**. EDIT: I had a hand last night that went like this, 1♣: 15+ HCP. 2♦: 0-(bad) 9, exactly 4♠ and a longer suit, or 6+♠. 2♥: Asking. Shows extras. 3♦: exactly 4♠, 5+♦. 3NT: To play. It was a club Swiss Teams game, and I felt brave... I think the match was in a suspect place... So I punted. My hand was: J7 AQ AKXX AJ87X I see this hand the same sort of way, a known fit... or at least... I knew, no one else did. A suspect suit, but, it's probably okay, and the opportunity for opponents to make mistakes without information. Sometimes 3NT is just best in these circumstances.

For me, it depends on whether 2♣ is game-forcing. If it is, then I'm able to bid 2♠. But, from my experience, partner would be pretty mad at me for having 1 point in my two bid suits, as Mikeh says. I think that pragmatically, I'd bid 2NT here, because I feel like I want to play 3NT opposite like 70-80% of partners hands that have game interest, even with fit in a major. Not sure if that's an accurate judgement, but, this hand just looks gross in this auction so far. I just don't know if I can make 10 tricks with this hand. How many heart ruffs can I really take in spades for example while still collecting spades for not too many losers? Partner doesn't figure to have many small spade spots, and if partner does... Well.... I have some quick losers in spades to battle now. Either way, yikes. My problem here is, I just don't play 2/1 precisely because of sequences like this. So, I can't have a good agreement for a sequence that I can't encounter. My auction goes 1♠, 2♣, 2♥ (I play Canape), and partner will still be made at me for having 1 point in my two suits, but, partner will know my shape and I won't have promised extras.

I don't know if I qualify to speak on this, probably depends who you ask... I find it's far more productive to understand WHY your agreements are what they are, to understand the goal of a combination of agreements that work in harmony. I do remember my agreements, but I don't have to, I can derive them on the spot, because I know why they are as they are... For example, my partner and I play a 10-12 No-Trump, and we've decided to agree to play what I can only call a "Game-Forcing Inverted Puppet Stayman". The goal is to have responder declare. 2♣: GF. Asks about majors. Opener bids as follows: 2♦: I have a 5-card major. 2♥: I have 4♠. 2♠: I have 4♥. 2NT: I am 4-4 in the majors. 3♣: I have 5♦. 3♦: I have 5♣. 3♥: I have 6♣. 3♠: I have 6♦. 3NT: I have no 4-card major, no 5-card major, no 5 card minor, no 6-card minor. Therefore, I am 3334 or 3343 or (32)44. I don't seriously attempt to memorize the meaning of 9 bids. Even though, I have. But, it's somewhat trivial to remember these agreements once I understand the objective of them. Good systems are built to have consistent structure in order to reduce memory load, and this is the reason why. So that you don't have to remember 100s of sequences of bids, but rather, you memorize principles and derive the meanings. Someone else can speak on counting cards and remembering signals and stuff. I think this is a rather personal thing, it's very dependent on the person.

I wasn't aware that ACOL players were required to alert 1NT rebids when playing a 12-14 NT? I'll make sure to advise them all of that. Okay, I'm being rather sarcastic obviously, but, the point is valid. You don't alert a 1NT rebid when it shows a range outside of your 1NT opening range. That's sort of how 1NT rebids work, right? I'm fairly certain that they're playing Canape, and so the thing is here, they would never rebid 1NT unbalanced in the 2nd sequence, but might be 4441 in the first sequence. And so, they agreed that their 1NT rebid generally shows 12-16, but in certain sequences it doesn't. You are correct (when you state in a later post) that they are incorrectly disclosing the relevant information here. But, they are absolutely not required to ALERT their 1NT rebid. And, it's almost insane that you think they are. They are, however, required to pre-alert that they play Canape.

Oh, I wasn't trying to imply that they were malicious. Just, well, incapable. But, as for NT rebids. I'm rather certain that they're not really alertable in this context, but, something like Canape is a pre-alert, and opponents need to ask questions where they lack understanding of the consequences, such as in these sequences. But, I do agree, I think they're just horrible at disclosure, and no amount of familiarity with their system would aid them in disclosing information.

Funnily enough, if I were extremely poor at disclosure and played the system that I play, which is a variation on a Blue Team Club. This could quite possibly happen. If opponents have agreed to open 17+ as 1♣, and only 12+ HCP hands or better, while playing a 12-14 NT. And, if they played Canape, then: 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT: What this auction says is that Opener does not have a 1NT opener, nor a hand that is single-suited in diamonds, nor a two-suiter. Opener is balanced or 1444. But, balanced outside of their 1NT range. 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT: This is different, because, opener can't have 4+♠, since that hand would bid 1♠. Still, no 1NT opener, no two-suiter. So.... they could be 3343, or (32)53 or 3352. Must be balanced, and outside of the 1NT range. Hence, always 15-16. So, as I see it, it's true that Opener's hand is always 12-16, but, in the different sequences it's obviously much more constrained as you point out... I'd like to think that these players are just new to this system, and don't really understand it well, or their obligations within it... But I'm probably being rather optimistic. That all being said, it's actually incorrect to alert 1NT. They should absolutely not be doing so. Regardless, when they explain, they should do it properly...

So, let's break this down, you have a 12-14 balanced hand that has more clubs than diamonds (or 3-3), exactly 4♥, and either 2 or 3♠. So, your possible shapes are: 3433 3424 2434 2425 1435 So, if 3♣ shows exactly 5♣ which guarantees no 3-card support for spades. I'm going to assume you wouldn't rebid 1NT with 1426 shape... Seems a safe assumption. Then what shapes remain? 3433,3424,2434. I wouldn't rebid 1NT with 3415 shape, so, it's eliminated. All of these shapes are No-Trump oriented, so I guess the real question is, are there enough hands where you think the distribution of your values when you have completely flat shape like this is significant enough in your mind to have a clear preference for 4♠ over 3NT? You can make this agreement, but, it seems a rather useless one. 3♠ says exactly what your 3NT bid says sort of by default. It's really not up to your hand what the contract is. 3NT probably should just be to play, and if it is, what is 2NT? Why doesn't 2NT mean what your 3NT bid has been agreed to mean? On the hands where responder has slam interest, your agreement for 3NT seems like a rather huge waste of bidding room. Don't consume bidding room agreeing fits in constructive auctions, it's sort of self-defeating.

Perhaps in the sequences 1♣ - 1♥ (by opp) - X: You could double with just about any hand with 4♠. But, I think over an opening bid of 1♥/1♠, you actually should have proper takeout shape AND exactly 4 of the other major.

Please read the posts before arguing. I was not talking about a double of 4♥, but rather, a double of 1♥. Also, we were told that partnership overcalls are NOT sound. Either way, you're just very wrong.

Why are you assuming that trumps are breaking? This seems like a strange assumption.

I don't think most players would agree that 2♦ shows any more than 5 diamonds. Of course, you may have more. But, typically, 5 is the minimum number. The problem with doubling is when you catch your partner holding a bad 3235 hand. Or worse, a bad 3325 hand. Now what? Takeout doubles show 3 cards in each unbid suit. If you don't have that shape, don't bid them. It's just bad bridge. If you have a strong hand, this is a different story, but, then it's not really a takeout double is it? It just looks like one. If I had to pick one rather garbage agreement that novice players should correct before any other, it would be offshape doubles such as this example. At least, without any set of agreements around them that facilitates them. I won't dismiss them entirely without applying context. If your partner can't make a balancing double themselves, or cannot balance with an unbid suit, how effective is this takeout double with such a hand really going to be? Now, how often are you going to run into a train-wreck doubling without clubs? Am I really gaining enough on average to risk a bad board? Possibly, but, I'll erode partnership trust in the process. It's just not worth it. If I had 4162 shape, I certainly would not double. So, not doubling doesn't deny 4 spades. So, I'm not just going to randomly double with all hands that have 4 spades. If I don't trust partner to balance, then I'm bidding 2♦ with 4252 shape, if I do, then I'm passing. Depending on the suits and my strength of course.

Haven't read the spoiler yet, but, I think I have a "good" hand, but not a "great" hand for declaration purposes. Partner should rate for shortness (0/1) in hearts, but, it seems a very real possibility that we're going down in 5D, and I think it's rather likely that I could take 3 defensive tricks myself. Since double would probably be takeout for most people, I guess I would pass. For those that think that partner's double of 1♥ shows 4♠. It does, but, if partner were 4252, are you really advocating for a double over 2♦? We may have a spade fit, and if so, defending would probably not go so well. If responder were, say, 4513, and Opener had the A♦.... Well, they're probably making that 4♥ contract... The problem is, double is probably only correct when partner has spades, and wrong when partner doesn't. At least, at this vulnerability anyways.

Except, Bergen raises don't show 3 card support. And, for good reason. That's one hell of a waste of bidding room to show 3 card support.

So, is 2♠ followed by a double of 4♥ a reasonable plan for Responder on this hand? Or, rather, better than 5♣? I'd like to think so.... But, I'm sure I've overlooked something.

I guess, I'm just wondering if the long club support, hands are eliminated. Perhaps pass by Opener and double by Responder shows a hand sort of like this, maybe not void in hearts though. But, surely, it doesn't suggest Opener should ever correct to diamonds.... so.... Not much else to choose from.

Sincere question, if: 1♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♥ - X is penalty, then, what is: 1♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♥ - P - P - X ??? Also, assuming that most hands with this amount of strength and 5+♣ would probably bid 4♥ with this heart void, and 3♥ without it, if this double isn't penalty, what is it showing? I can't see how it would show any willingness to play in diamonds... But, maybe it's just penalty?

I think it's important for both of you (Mikeh and CyberYeti) to consider that most people aren't going to open this hand 1♣. It sort of actually skews the way that this auction should go, as opposed to the probable auction. I don't think many sane people are playing partner to have a 12-14 count with 3343 shape and two aces after opening a 1♣. The person who puts partner on this hand sees the cards deeper than I ever will. That being said, I think bidding 2♠ and then 5♣ over 4♥ is insane, but likely to be a little better than it is on this hand. I'd sooner entertain bidding 3♥ or 4♥ and finding a bid of spades afterwards than 2♠ then 5♣.... And I think those lines have obvious problems. 2♠ and 5♣ just does not describe this hand whatsoever. That's purely "resulting".

I think that it's a mistake to play somewhat suspect penalty doubles over weaker No-Trumps. Fundamentally, I think it just requires a certain amount of strength to play at the 2-level. And, just because the No-Trump is weaker, and that increases your partner's average a little, doesn't change the fundamental reality. This hand doesn't have a penalty double in my opinion. I'd love to see how it fares with a small singleton heart in dummy, it'll take like 4 tricks? This hand has clear playing strength in hearts, and so, attempting to play hearts makes sense. So, should you be bidding 2♠ here? It's really hard to say. Your hand isn't stellar... But... Your RHO didn't bid here. You're holding a singleton spade and 8 HCP, and your RHO hasn't bid. Your partner doesn't have some 8 HCP hand with hearts, that seems extremely unlikely. So, on this basis, I might be tempted to venture for a 2♠ bid. It figures to be partner's suit anyways, but, if it's not.... well.... partner still has some spades, and I'm ruffing them. This hand has value. Of course, I've seen the hand, and so this is definitely tainting my view of it. But, I do think, I wouldn't play this hand any cheaper than 2♠.

Sorry for the late reply, I was on vacation. I'm sure these forums were far more peaceful without me! You can distinguish double negative hands rather easily. Let's take the auction 1♣ - 1NT. 1NT shows a negative hand (0-7), with exactly 4♦ and a longer suit, or with 6+♦ and no other 4-card suit. Opener's conventional options are: 2♣: The cheapest bid, and the only bid between 1NT and the anchor suit (♦). Artificial and Forcing. Responder should complete patterning out their hand. Conventionally, 2NT shows a semi-positive hand with 6+ cards in the anchor suit. 2NT shows this for all 4 of these Canape sequences. 2♦: Agreeing diamonds, Not Forcing. 3♦: Agreeing diamonds, showing a better hand than 2♦. Not Forcing. You'd usually distinguish between 2♦ and 3♦ in these sequences based on Losing Trick Count, but, this would really depend upon your preferred methods of evaluation. Essentially, the cheapest bid is a force, probably a hand you'd like to play game in opposite the right double negative hand. A jump in the anchor suit agrees the suit, probably requiring something like a bad to okay semi-positive hand to continue. The cheapest bid of the anchor suit would still agree the suit, but, responder might need to hold a good semi-positive hand. A maximum, or a hand with good honours or tenaces. New suits are not forcing and natural (6+ cards), no trump is not forcing and natural. (Except the sequence 1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT) Responder should continue over non-forcing bids with a semi-positive hand, but, judgement can always be exercised. The non-forcing bid is made for a reason, sometimes it's just the best spot. Feel free to DM me if you want to learn more, or discuss things in more depth.

Win the Ace, win two diamonds (obviously can't be done if the break is 5-0 though), inspect the diamond break, cash the K of hearts, inspect the heart break. You're allowed to give one diamond ruff to the person with long hearts. One of these suits needs to break favourably, if both don't, well, you can collect JTXXX onside of diamonds I guess.

You're talking about Canape. The second suit is longer, or sometimes equal length, to your first suit. I believe that Canape is supposed to be pre-alerted, and then the second suit should be alerted, however, the opening bids, which may conceal a longer second suit are not alerted. This is because there is no guarantee whatsoever of a second suit, and you may well be single-suited or balanced when you open the bidding, at least I'd imagine that to be the reason. However, as best I can tell, the reason that the second suit is alerted is because opponents have a right to know that opener has at least as much, if not more, willingness to play in that second suit than the first. It's not really about strength, so, I'm not sure that this topic really contributes to the discussion about whether a reverse that doesn't show extra strength should be alerted.

Pass. Your don't have a bid that promises spades in this sequence, but you might be able to imply some spades.

Ah, I see, you had the sequence 1C-1D 400 times in those 8 days. Sounds pretty fortunate to me. I don't know if you're being intentionally daft, or if you are just prone to missing the point: I was giving your opponents the benefit of the doubt as they may well have not had the appropriate hand to interfere with. That went right over your head it seems. Ironically, if you read my post just above your first one, you will see a VERY symmetric set of agreements over 1♣, that is 80-90% of what my partner and I play. I can't comment on your system, you've neither described your system nor more valuable areas to improve. You've only asserted that there are better areas to improve and that your system is good. All of which may be true, but at the end of the day, my initial problem still remains. To call things "hoopla over a non-problem" with absolutely no qualification is just obnoxious and unhelpful. There are many people out there who have interesting and valuable information to share, despite my tendency to be argumentative I am happy to acknowledge that, and you may be one of them. However, you do have some obligation to qualify statements you make, or people like me can question you bluntly. You seem to think that I'm calling you a bad player, I'm not, only a lazy poster.