lexlogan

Negative Free Bids trade one set of problems for another -- the enemy may not give you room to describe your strong hands if you start with a double. Like barmar, I've almost always played strong notrumps and compete in a new suit as you describe. While eliminating the minimum balanced hands from opener's possibilities obviously helps, even playing weak notrumps you still have to allow for a minimum, unbalanced, misfitting hand, right?

I started leading the King from AKxx (the Ace would ask for an unblock) last year. Too many 3NT's slipping through on Qx in declarer's hand, among other issues. Seems to make sense to get a look a dummy and partner's signal. I note that on the ACBL convention card, the King is marked as correct from AKJx. That does not seem consistent with using the King for unblock, so I take it that Ace or Queen for unblock is still standard in North America.

I'd bid game. Be nice to stop on a dime here but just move partner's K♦ to spades and you'd be kicking yourself for no guts.

I assume 3♦ was a limit raise. I control-bid 4♣; 3♥ doesn't work since partner is supposed to leap to 4♠ if he likes his hand. If you have an alternate scheme (say, 3NT = game) then 3♥ would be fine. Over 4♣ partner bids 4♦ which means wasted values and I sign off at 4♠.

If responder would just as soon be in 3NT on a 5-3 fit, he can use Stayman rather than a transfer, playing 3NT when 5-3 or 5-2 and 4M when 5-4 or 5-5. I prefer the sequence 1NT-2D-2H-3NT to be the question, "Do you have three hearts?" rather than "Which contract should we play?" If you want to be in 3NT opposite 4333 but not 4324, then opener must be allowed to pass 3NT; but then reponder must bid a second suit on an unbalanced hand, when he may not have any interest in a minor suit contract. I don't care for that and I don't care for opener exercising judgment with less information than responder.

Many of us do it routinely; why would it be impractical for everyone to do so?

A few weeks ago I was victimized by a concealed revoke: North showed out on the second club, I played her for length in spades, she in fact had a singleton spade and I was down an extra overtrick. After I got home I realized that South could not have 4128 shape and, checking the hand records, North revoked and then turned her cards face down when I claimed the last few tricks. I'm quite confident North was not aware of the revoke, and of course if I'd been more alert I'd've realized something was out of whack. But it's much easier to spot a revoke when you see the cards! Anyway, the Laws disallow intentionally concealing a revoke but do not require everyone to face their cards when a claim is made. I routinley do so, and note that several players do likewise, but most turn their cards face down. Would anyone favor requiring all cards to be faced after a claim?

Thanks for the replies. I can certainly see the logic of using 5NT to show something extra, but this is not documented in the Bidding Toolkit article, and you can equally argue that 5NT gives the RKCB bidder one more chance to explore for grand slam. As with most "fast arrival" moethods, seems like 6H ought to be used rarely, carrying the message "nothing else here."

Regarding the RKCB Queen ask, let's say you have an auction like 1H-3H; 4NT-5C; 5D asking about the Queen of trumps. The original method I learned was next step = no, second step = yes. Later I learned agreed suit = no, anything else = yes, with a side suit showing that King along with the Queen. So, in the above auction, if I had the Queen but no side King, I'd bid 5NT, since "anything else" promises the Queen (or ten trumps, of course.) A partner referred me to the ACBL Bidding Toolkit article at the ACBL website, which says that you jump to 6 of the agreed suit with the Queen/no side King. Is this more common than using 5NT? Is there any advantage? By the way, if the Queen ask is above the agreed suit (1H-3H; 4NT-5D; 5S queen ask) I'd bid 5NT to deny the Queen (giving a last chance to stop below slam) and 6H with the Queen and no side King. So the denial bid is the cheapest of the agreed suit or 5NT. Did I make that up or is that a common agreement? Bridge World Standard does not clearly explain these details as far as I can tell.

The spots are crucial here -- we have nothing useful in hearts, while the club suit can stand a 4-2 split. We are far more likely to have a club than heart fit. There are many hands where 5C or 6C makes and 4H fails. We don't want to play a 5-2 heart fit. And finally, the enemy is likely to outbid us in spades; we want to get our best suit into action quickly. I'm opening 1C, planning to rebid 2C, and then mention the hearts if convenient later. I'm treating the hand like 4-6. Switch the spots and I'd open 1H.

Playing 1♦, 1♥ and 1♠ as 4+ (which is why I assume this is in the Natural forum), you can open 1NT with 4 or 5 clubs and 2♣ with 6+. That simply requires you to pass with 10-11 and 3334 or 3325 shape where your only long suit is clubs. Nothing wrong with that; you could include 11-point 3325's in 1NT, but I suspect passing will work better, especially if you allow, say, a passed-hand 1NT to show this shape, or a 2C reply to partner's opening. If you allow 4-card major responses to 1C (game-forcing with 9+ hcp or perhaps 8+ with extra length) you have a very natural, playable system.

Someone mentioned 4144 shape. I would also respond 2C on that shape, or any 4xx4, with game-going values and strength in clubs. With game-invitational values (up to 12 hcp), always respond in the major suit first; you may not be able to show your complete shape. I don't like 2C as a complete game force, but it denies a reasonable alternative if it does not have 13 hcp. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The advantages of responding 2C include: (1) You may have game or slam in clubs. Even with a diamond fit, clubs may be the better strain: AQ xxx Qxxx AQxx, you can pitch diamonds on the spades; at 6D you may have two trump losers. (2) It will be easier for partner to bid notrump; the club suit is often "lost" in stopper-showing sequences. (3) You have a better chance to show your compete shape. (4) You avoid any implication that you would like to play in spades opposite three-card support. Conversely, when you bid spades first and then force to game, partner will often infer a 5-card suit or strong 4-bagger and may prefer that strain to notrump, especially with, say, a singleton club. (5) You immediately inform partner you have a decent hand, not a scraggly 6 count or less. This helps in both constructive and competitive bidding -- after a 2/1 bid, doubles are for penalty. All opener needs is four fair trumps to hammer interference. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When 2C is not played as a game-force, responder nevertheless shows game-forcing values whenever he bids or raises a major suit. A major suit at the 3 level may be simply a notrump probe; although responder may skip over a major at the one level, neither player skips over a major at the two level, so by the time we're bidding at the three level we know whether or not we have a major suit fit.

Respond 2C, the natural response for a game-going hand. Define this as forcing to (and with sufficent values for) 2NT, which means opener does not need 2H or 2S to show extra values. Allow opener to rebid naturally, up-the-line: 2D = 5 diamonds, 2H = 4 hearts, generally without 5 diamonds; 2S = 4 spades; 2NT & 3C natural. If you allow 3C to be a minimum, it helps if 3H and 3S by opener are game-forcing fragments: AQx xx KJxx Axx would not want to stop at 3C, so either 3C must be forcing or opener can rebid 3S with such a hand to show extras, a fit, and something in spades. The notion that 2H and 2S are "reverses" is a holdover from the days of four-card majors when a minimum 4-5 hand would open the four-card major and rebid 2D. Bridge logic dictates that 2H and 2S must be forcing (you can't assume those are playable spots) but in the modern style 2C is strong enough that responder can rebid 2NT or 3C or 3D.

East's hand does not need controls -- it needs tricks. A reasonable auction might begin 2C-2D; 2H-2NT, showing some values (Responder could bid 3C with a bust.) At this point I think opener can force to slam and invite grand slam with 5NT, and responder can accept with 7NT.

If North opens: 1♣-1♦ 2♦-2♠ 3♠-4♠ looks reasonable, 3♠ is obviously not four card support Assuming South opens: 1♦-2NT (balanced, game-forcing, 13-15 or 18+, generally denies 4 in a major) 3♥ (singleton or void, ala Jacoby 2NT)- 3♠ (fragment, suggesting no heart stopper) At this point South is aware that the 4-3 fit has the shortage in the wrong hand, but with 27+ hcp 4S looks better than 5D. The plan is to pitch clubs rather than ruff in the South hand. Playing the sort of 2/1 GF common around here: 1♦-2♣ 2♦-3♦ 3♠-4♠, clearly only 3 given the failure to bid 2♠ last round...

I gave up trying to read all 10 pages before posting, but here's my story: RHO opens 2♣, strong and artificial. I preempt with 4♣. LHO bids 4♦. RHO proceeds to some slam. When dummy appears, it's a flat nothing. I ask what 4♦ meant, and they say "negative." Declarer collects 12 tricks. I apologize to partner for not bidding 7♣, forcing LHO to respond 7♦!

Both, and also because your jump may not prevent the enemy from bidding. Cue-bid to show "this is our hand". Jump to show "I want to play in spades." The cue-bid announces that we will not allow the enemy to play the hand undoubled; the jump does not carry that meaning. This is the same sort of distinction Standard American methods have always made between a distributional game raise (1♠-4♠) and a strength-showing raise (1♠-2NT Jacoby or equivalent.)

I'd generally rebid 2♦, planning to compete to 3♣ next. 3NT or five of a minor are possible, but seem fairly unlikely if partner cannot move over 2♦. If you have an agreement that a 1♥ or 1♠ rebid promises four clubs (i.e., opener must rebid 1NT on any 4333) then it is probably better to rebid 2♣ or 3♣. I'd settle for 2♣; I give little weight to distribution when bidding minors since the goal of 3NT generally requires high-card strength. 2♦ will give a better description of this hand when there is any subsequent bidding; the downside is that if there isn't, 2♦ is probably not a good spot.

Save "fast arrival" for when partner has limited his shape and strength -- such as opening in notrump, or a non-forcing, descriptive rebid. I suggest reading Fred Gitelman's article on fast arrival, available here on BBO. Eric Crowhurst wrote (misquoting from memory) "few things are more annoying than being fixed by partner in a non-competitive auction." The mania for limit jumps in notrump is among the more revolting developments in modern American bidding -- do you enjoy it when partner leaps and you have to guess what to do with an unbalanced hand?

Pass. Partner is presumably short in diamonds; he'd need something like Qxx KQJxxxxx x x to make 5H; we are not at all sure of setting 5♦, nor does a two-trick set seem likely; sacrificing could easily be a phantom. Trust that partner made them guess, don't take the last guess yourself.

I'm having trouble determining what you meant here: "not bid" or "bid" or other?

Obvious pass IMO. Why chase them into a game? Our only defense is the possibly dead K♠; there is virtually no chance we can make 5♣; 4♣ offers them a fielder's choice -- bid game or double for blood.

I had a strong hand recently opposite partner's Jordan 2NT: 1♥-(dbl)-2NT . I just settled for game, but realized I had no clear way to explore for slam. With some partners I've agreed a new suit shows a singleton (ala Jacoby), but as 3♥ would not be forcing, it's harder to show a strong hand with no singleton. I suppose 3NT could be 16+. bridgehands has a 3♣ gadget rebid. Anyone have experience or a (preferably simple) scheme? Jordan itself is rare enough and I can't recall another case where I had slam interest. For discussion, I had something like xx AQxxx Ax AQxx; the Jordan bid promised limit+ values and four card support.

1♦-(2♠)-3♣-(3♠) 4♠-4NT 5♦-5NT (0 or 3 key cards) 6♦-6NT looks good 6♣ might be better since this is not a slam the field will necessarily bid, but that requires either North or South masterminding to give up on grand slam without enough detail about partner's hand. At 6NT we try to drop the Q♦ and then fall back on the heart finesse or a squeeze. Actually, that gives a decent play for 7♣, but I think 6NT is a fine matchpoint spot, with good chances for thirteen tricks.

2♠ for me. I have 9 working high card points and a fine six-card major. With two quick tricks I'd be inclined to open 1♠, but I see no reason to strain to open a 1.5 QT, flawed 11 hcp hand when there is a perfectly good alternative. Richard Pavliceck's data shows that "light" 1♠ openings are a clear loser. I do not vary the high card requirements for a one or two bid by vulnerability; I do pay more attention to suit quality when vulnerable.