lexlogan

Pass initially (no Ace, stiff King), 2NT (=4 card raise) or 3♥ now according to style.

Seems overly cautious. You have a 7 loser hand; the stiff King of diamonds rates to have some value (partner must have some values outside hearts) which compensates for not having an Ace. Partner opened in 3rd seat; his five card "support" for my spades will cover most of my heart losers. If he provides 3 or 4 high card tricks I expect to make 3 or 4 spades -- oh, partner is playing it? I trust he knows how to play a dummy reversal, or perhaps he can just ruff diamonds. The KQ of hearts looks great -- two pitches, or more likely, one trick and no heart loser. Partner isn't likely to be void (overcaller's partner did not raise). If they get Ace of hearts and a ruff, partner likely is short in clubs.

Missing a 25 point game is not disastrous, especially if you can stop at or below 2♠. Sure, you'd like to be there, but investigating typically risks a shaky 23 point or worse 2NT; your net gain is smaller than you might think. So the only real problem here is 16 opposite 10. You could "solve" that problem by not opening 12 point 5422 hands, or not responding 1NT with 6 points. As I think the cost of those is too high, just decide whether you prefer responder to overbid with 10 points or opener to do so with 16, or live with missing a few 16-opposite-10-with-no-fit games. I suspect mathematically opener has a higher expectation that responder is not minimum than the reverse; 1/3rd of 40 minus 16 is 8 points, so the number of times opener bids 2NT and catches responder with only 6 or 7 shouldn't be too high. On the flip side, 12 is more common than 13 which is more common than 14, etc, so I think the risk of a 22 point 2NT is higher if responder takes the push. If opener does invite with 16, he probably needs to bid game with 18 rather than have too wide a range for his game try. Bidding a 24 point 3NT isn't disastrous, either. (The stated points are for average hands, of course; no matter how fine your judgment, you'll have a range of hands equivalent to 6-10 and 12-16.) No way do you want to open 1NT with 5422 -- the odds are better than 50% you have a fit in spades, and without crunching the numbers I would expect a heart fit at least 1/3rd of the time you don't fit spades, so there's something like a 67% chance of a major suit fit and the shape will play better in a suit. I don't think the frequency of this situation is worth any special gadget or treatment.

3♥. Love the controls but this hand has too many losers; responder is short in diamonds, I expect AK and a ruff.

Agree 4C is cue-bid with 6 card suit. For me it does not promise 1st round control, it can be Ace or King. It will not be a short suit since I could transfer then jump as an autosplinter. 1NT-3M is quite valuable for slam interest hands with no singleton and no side suit. If you start with a transfer, you have to follow with 4M (6+ card suit) or 4NT (5332) to show slam interest, neither of which is forcing and both of which eliminate your below-game cue-bidding room. I define 1NT-3M as "single-suited slam try, usually no singleton or void." The given hand of course should start with Stayman since a 4-4 spade fit would be preferred.

If I know we have 25 hcp, two aces, and either a ten or a five card suit, I want to be in 3NT at any form of scoring. This does not mean, however, that I want to risk 2NT when that's the best we might have. So I wasn't quite sure how to answer the poll.

This sort of hand is tricky -- we have some values and support partner doesn't know about, but bidding may push the opps into a game we can't beat. Lacking both clear-cut offensive and defensive values, I'll pass and pass again if the bidding continues. My hand really may not be much different than partner expects looking at his own hand and listening to the auction. I would be more inclined to bid with quick tricks that could be useful defending or declaring. [edit] Oops, missed the jump. Obvious 4 heart or 4 diamond bid.

It seems to me that opener would often like to double 3♠ and lead his minor suit singleton. The result could be bloody. Opener would want to bid with a side 5 card suit, a spade singleton, or extra length in hearts. Pass is clearly forcing; the "no control" agreement seems useful. 4♣ and 4♦ can show the 5-5 hands. 3NT can show the spade singleton (leaving room for cue-bidding) while 4♥ shows extra length and but a minimum; you could agree this shows a spade control.

My hand could be worse but the misfit for spades is discouraging. I'll rebid 2♥ to limit my hand and follow with 3♦ if partner continues with 2NT.

4♠ may make if either hearts or clubs break 5-2 or if someone discards poorly. I certainly am not going to waste time trying to avoid a 5-5 major suit fit.

I play the related strong club gadget, 1♣-1♦-1♥ could be hearts or could be 20-22 or 25+ balanced. I found the "automatic" 1♠ to be a real problem when opener (as is usually the case) rebids in a suit (showing hearts + whatever.) We now play responder's 1♠ as 0-5, other bids = 6-7. All such bids are obviously game-forcing opposite the big balanced hand and game invitational (forcing to 2NT) opposite the heart hands. In the 2♣-2♦-2♥ version, showing hearts can never hurt, so 3♥ with 5 hearts and 4+ will I think help no matter what hand opener has. 2NT = 6+ spades and 4+, we will rarely want to play notrump when responder has 6 spades, and the bid doesn't get in the way when opener has hearts. 3♣ and 3♦ migth require more thought.

pass = -10

(Before looking at other replies) if partner has only 5 spades and less than 4 hearts, he must have 3 cards in a minor. If he has 6 spades the 6-1 fit may be playable; if he has something in hearts 3NT may be good. I count 5 club tricks, a heart, likely at least 2 diamonds, and extra chances in diamonds, spades, or from partner' fit for one of my suits. I'm going to force to game with 3D.

The only players I've seen use NMF with weak hands are those who don't think twice about landing in 2NT with 18-21 combined hcp. If opener does not have 3 of the major, there isn't room for much else. Therefore, NMF basically shows a hand that is worth a 2NT invitation or 3NT game bid, but wants to check on a major suit fit along the way. With 5 of the major and not enough to nvite game, rebid the major if partner promises at least 2 cards in your suit, pass if he doesn't or you aren't sure. I think the best alternative to NMF is XYZ, but I've not played it extensively.

How do you play 1♠-2♦-2NT? I play it as minimum, non-forcing; and 1♠-2♦-2♠ does not promise 6 spades, it merely denies the ability to bid something else. With that in mind, 1♠-2♦-2♠-2NT is forcing, simply because opener does not have the hand he would want to pass 2NT with -- he either has extra length in spades or a minimum with a club or diamond suit (too weak to bid it last round) or a balanced hand too strong to pass 2NT. A simpler if somewhat more radical method is to allow opener to bid any of 2NT, 3C or 3D with minimum hands, not forcing. All strong hands lacking a heart suit (i.e., a suit that could be shown at the two level) rebid 2♠, which now promises either extra length or extra strength. Again, responder's 2NT is logically forcing, opener rebidding 3♠ to show 6 or anything else to show extra strength. (Rebidding hearts would suggest a good 6-4.) After 1♠-2♦-2♠-2NT-3♠, any suit bid by responder is a control bid agreeing spades as trumps. (This includes 4♦.) The logic is that responder's 2NT denies a terribly shapely hand. Assuming you treat 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♠ as invitational, responder with game-forcing values not suitable for an immediate splinter or Jacoby 2NT raise may have to make two bids before supporting opener, but those bids should help clarify responder's hand and assist with slam exploration. Hands with values only in responder's suit and opener's can rebid 4♠. If opener shows a minimum by rebidding 2NT, 3♣ or3♦, responder can use 3 of the other major as an artificial game force.

Why would I expect to find 4♠ after 1♣-1♠-2♣-pass? If responder bids again, he deserves to find a stiff spade.

I was reading an old (60's) book by Ron van der Porten where he emphasized doubling with this sort of hand. But I learned from Robert Ewen to bid the major first, double for takeout later. This hand is not strong enough to double and then bid spades; making a taekout double is asking to play in a 4-3 fit in preference to the 5-3 you'll never find by doubling. I would not overcall such a poor suit with less than opening bid values.

Bidding 5 expecting to make obviously requires partner to have two Aces, so that's clearly wrong. Raising to 5 with four trumps and a singleton would often be good tactics, expecting they can make game in hearts; but here you have too much potential defense outside clubs. Oddly, then, you should raise to 5C if you throw out one the Kings outside of clubs. With your actual hand I would raise to 4C; it's too much to hope they'll pass 3C, and while raising to 4 might push them into a making game they weren't going to bid, I think the combined chances of fourth hand not having enough to bid or finding four is an overbid or missing their best fit make it worth the risk. Picturing partner with, for example, x xxx xx AQxxxxx, you would raise to game with Axxxx x KQx KJxx and expect to have a good chance to make (and not much chance of beating 4H unless clubs are 1-1.) However, at this vulnerability, partner might have only 6 clubs.

If you make a move toward slam, you'll find that partner has some random 12-14 balanced nonsense, "Haven't you head of Fast Arrival, p?" Probably the majority of players who purport to play 2/1 game force bid this way. As to what it ought to be, I'd vote for 18-19 3343. (Most jumps to 3NT before partner has described his hand should be 4333's, definitely not 4432's.) Do Rodwell and Grant cover this sequence in their 2/1 book?

The flaw, here, as I see it: with our opening bid criteria, this is not a game-forcing hand. It is a NT invite with 4 hearts. Make it a bit stronger, and some people who don't feel 1D-2C should promise 5+ would agree with you. Right, make it xx Kxxx KJx AQ10x or stronger. I still open a lot of shapely 11 counts, so I, too, would be leary of game-forcing with my original example, but most players these days force to game with 12+ hcp.

Additional note on the sequence 1♦-2♣: With a hand such as xx Kxxx QJx AQ10x , most players would respond 1♥ to 1♦. But with a sensible rebid scheme, the bidding will go smoother if responder starts with 2♣. 1♦-2♣ establishes the game force, shows the club suit to be well-stopped for notrump purposes, and does not interfere with finding a 4-4 major fit. Consider interference by fourth hand: 1♦-1♥-(3♠)-? What should opener do with four-card heart support? Pass and find responder has 5 or 6 hearts, or bid and find only 4 trumps and no business declaring for 10 tricks? Now compare 1♦-2♣-(3♠)-? If a heart fit exists, it's only 8 trumps, and the hand belongs to our side. We can double, bid 3NT, or proceed in either minor. We may lose the 4-4 heart fit, but then given the preempt, the chances of a bad trump break are surely greater than normal. Absent interference, 1♦-2♣-2♥-3♥ is a beautiful auction, as is 1♦-2♣-2♦-3♦, etc. With simple, sound agreements, 1♦-2♣ changes from one of the most confusing sequences in modern bridge to one of the most efficient and productive. So, whether you choose to treat 1♦-2♣-2♥ as a strength-showing sequence or not, make sure opener does not rebid 2NT with a four-card major.

The specific sequence 1♦-2♣ deserves its own treatment. The Standard American logic that required extra strength for rebids of 2♥ or 2♠ was based on 4 card majors, where you might open 1♥ with a minimum 4-5 hand, and fairly low requirements for the 2♣ response, possibly 8 hcp and a singleton. Nowadays, the 2♣ bidder promises the values for 3NT (or possibly 5 of a minor) and there is no reason why 2♥ or 2♠ must show extras. Some players never respond 2♣ with a four-card major, but that practice makes it harder for responder to describe his shape or to reach slam in clubs. Given that responder will often have a four-card major, it saves bidding room for opener to simply make his first natural bid up-the-line: 2♦ shows any five diamonds 2♥ shows 4 hearts, typically without 5 diamonds 2♠ shows 4 spades, without 4 hearts and typically without 5 diamonds 2NT shows a balanced hand with typically 4-3 or 4-4 in the minors. 3C shows 4+ clubs, unbalanced (so 5-4 minors) or perhaps with an unstopped major suit (Axx xx KQxx KJxx, for example.) Finding a 4-4 major fit is easy this way; sequences like 1♦-2♣-2♥-3♥ establish hearts as trumps and leave a full level of bidding below game to explore for slam. Compare to 1♦-1♥-2♥-3♣, which is not clearly game forcing, and ambiguous about whether the fit is actually 4-4 if opener sometimes raises on 3. The requirement that 2♥ or 2♠ show extras forces opener to rebid 2NT with any balanced hand, leaves no obvious rebid with 4441 shape, and prevents establishing a major suit as trumps below the 4 level: 1♦-2♣-2NT-3♥-4♥. An alternate scheme is for opener to rebid 2♦ as a default, not promising any extra length; this strikes me as being unnecessarily artificial and would seem to make finding a 5-3 diamond slam more difficult. Bidding trick: with a genuine "reverse" such as Ax AQxx AQJxx xx, opener can rebid 2♥ over 2♣, then follow with an "impossible" diamond rebid to show the shape and strength.

Right, I always ask my partners what kind of suit they consider minimum for a weak two. If they think xx Jxxxxx AQx xx is a weak two, we play Ogust. If the bid tends to show a good suit, I prefer Features.

I did an extensive analysis of 4333 hands opposite a 15-17 notrump. There are four reasons not to use Stayman: (1) Partner may also be 4333 (mirror shape.) (2) They may double 2C for the lead. (3) They may benefit from the info about opener's hand. (4) The trump suit may divide badly. No one reason is sufficient to avoid Stayman, and all but #1 apply to 4432 hands. (If partner has mirror 4432, notrump is probably wrong.) But #1 is sufficient to tip the balance against using Stayman; it occurs a whopping 33.6% when partner has four cards in your major. Meanwhile, partner is only about 33% to fit your major, and that along with reasons 2-4 argue against such nonsense as Stayman In Doubt. On the other hand, these days players open notrump frequently with 5332 and 4225 hands, which reduces the odds of mirror shape and may well swing the balance back in favor of using Stayman on 4333 hands. If partner opens all 5332's in range, the odds that he will be 4333 when he matches your major drops to 24.4%. That still makes the odds of either 4333 or a bad break around 50%, but the 5-4 fit may play a lot better in the suit and throw in some 4225's and it may be worth it. Even 4333 opposite 4333 will sometimes play better in the suit.

The main reason I haven't attempted this style is I have no clue how to respond to it. Some of my partners often double with what looks like junk to me and I bid aggressively and get a bottom. Care to describe how to advance one of your own doubles, Justin? This. When partner is "also" short in opponents suit they will compete very aggressively. Do those who like this style also think it is a good style when played by int- players with poor to middling judgment? Or does it take a more sophisticated appreciation for auction, hand valuation, table presence, etc. to compete well. I think you might get away with this style with a fairly passive partner, but I can assure you from experience you'll set an active partner up for disaster. Bridge is a partnership game. If I'm playing with someone I can count on to have a six card suit when he opens a weak two, I bid one way; if I know he may have only 5 under certain conditions I pull in and let the initial bid do the damage. Likewise, if I can count on partner to have an opening bid in support of any suit when he doubles, short perhaps a card in a minor, I can bid aggressively; if I knew partner liked to doubled on a flat 11, or 9 hcp (no ace) and a void I would exercise restraint. Making such bids without warning will get us a bad board immediately AND damage the partnership AND have partner stewing instead of concentrating on the next hand.