lexlogan

Rik, 3C means you are setting clubs as trumps only if that's what you've agreed it means. With a pickup partner familiar with American methods, that would be a reasonable assumption. But it is hardly the only possible meaning of 3C, and I doubt if there would be a world-wide consensus about that. Since this thread is under the SAYC and 2/1 GF category, I suppose American methods should be assumed, however revolting.

There is no bridge logic for 1C-2D-2H to be a "reverse", any more than 1C-1D-1H. The nature of a reverse is that opener forces responder to a higher level if he prefers opener's first suit. This is manifestly not the case after 1C-2D-2H; it is responder, not opener, who has forced the bidding to the three level. If you've agreed Soloway jump shifts, responder has denied a side suit, so opener's 2H or 2S rebid can mean whatever you like. But playing sensible, Morehead On Bidding style jumps, responder does not deny a side suit and opener's rebids are natural. Some of my favorite jump shift sequences proceed 1x-2y-2z-3z; we've found a 4-4 fit at the three level in a clear-cut slam interest auction. The equivalent non-jump sequence is 1x-1y-1z-2f (fourth suit)-something-3z, which, while forcing, does not unambigously show slam interest. (N.B.: 3 level jump shifts certainly crowd the bidding and should be more restricted than 2 level jumps, or they can be used artificially such as Bergen raises. But 2 level jumps often SAVE bidding space and simplify many auctions.)

IMO it would be very wrong to jump shift with this hand. In general I would say that you should not jump shift when you have a hand in which you plan to drive to slam regardless of how the bidding goes. In general I would say that you should think of a jump shift as a "statement" as opposed to a "question". More specifically, the jump shifter's statement should pertain to the direction he is heading in - he should clarify his direction with his rebid (typically by setting trumps). This hand has question written all over it. You don't know what trump suit (if any) you want to play in so you should give your partner as much space as possible to help you resolve this issue. There is no need to panic as you will be able to maintain control of the auction regardless of what partner bids over your 1D response. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com This is the textbook American treatment of strong jump shifts -- don't jump unless you know where you're going. Albert Morehead and, as far as I've read, most British authorities take the opposite approach -- jump shift with strong hands lacking clear direction. (Morehead might, however, advise against jumping with a hand this strong.) Clearly, playing with an American partner and lacking discussion, the jump is dangerous for two reasons -- far too many Americans assume weak jump shifts, and those who don't tend to bid passively over a SJS since they assume responder is captain of the auction. But with any partner I have discussed this with, I'd certainly jump. The slight bidding space consumed by a two level jump is more than repaid by avoiding a later jump and avoiding tortuous fourth suit sequences on such a relatively balanced hand. (I tell my partners KQxx or AJxx is fine for a jump, no need to raise immediately without four card support.) So the bidding typically proceeds 1C-2D-2H or 2S, after which my 2NT bid leaves partner plenty of room to finish describing his hand. Other possibilities include 1C-2D-3D; a welcome development, we have plenty of room to cue-bid toward grand slam. 1C-2D-3C; partner will be more inlcined to rebid a 5-card suit on this bidding, knowing the target is slam, not game, and we again have room for cue-bidding. The most problematic sequence may be 1C-2D-2NT, but it is hard to see how we are worse off than after 1C-1D-1NT. Anything we bid is natural, game-forcing, and shows slam interest; after 1C-1D-1NT, we'll need artificial gadgetry to avoid being dropped, or we can just bash to slam (and then what did not jumping last round do for us?.) On the given hand I'd rebid 3C and expect partner to show 3-card support: 1C-2D-2NT-3C-3D, otherwise we have a club fit (lacking a four-card major, he must have 3 diamonds or 5 clubs) and partner can begin cue-bidding over my 3C.

6♦. I've shown nothing, partner is making a slam try, I've got the trump ace and a singleton with extra trumps.

I would double, planning to bid 3C next over 2C, 2D, or 2H.

The auction 1C-1S-1NT-2H-pass looks normal. Having limited his hand, opener could raise with his four trumps, but responder's sequence gaurantees shortage in one or both minors, which is where most of opener's strength lies. At least one King is likely to be wasted. Responder likewise is cautious with a void in opener's first suit. Game doesn't look all that great anyway. As others have said, 2H has never been forcing in any variant of Standard American, but I've seen bridge columns in print stating otherwise and have played with innumerable partners who believe a new suit is forcing here. So I have some sympathy for raising to 3H opposite an unkown partner.

The heart lead seems least likely to blow a trick, and gives us field protection as well. Partner has a few points; everyone rates to be approximately 3-3 in the minors; the diamond lead is apt to set up the 13th card for declarer, while the club lead is apt to pickle an honor in partner's hand without establishing the suit for us. I frequently lead the singleton on this sort of auction (into partner's marked 5 card suit) but not the stiff King here.

I'd open 5D. Having passed, I think I'd pass again, maybe they aren't bidding game.

One reason to play 2♥ as described is because 2♦ is a more effective weak two than either 2♥ or 2♠, and of course 2♥ puts more pressure on the opps since they can't count on two chances to act. So a normal Precision pair can simply play 2♦ and 2♠ weak. Other schemes allow you to include more hand types, including various additional weak hands or hard-to-bid strong or intermediate hands, but all such schemes allow the opps more chances to get in the action, so I queston their effectiveness. Weak twos are simple and moderately effective, so don't feel compelled to muck around with anything else. I'd suggest concentrating on the rest of your system. Where allowed, the Rough 2♦ is a simple, reasonable alternative that puts pressure on the opps. Multi is reasonable if that's what is commonly played in your area.

I would certainly double if I thought that would encourage partner to lead a spade. I visualize grabbing the Ace of spades, returning my highest heart spot to partner's presumed Queen, and our collecting two or three more spade tricks (possibly including a ruff.) On a heart lead, we may collect only two defensive tricks unless partner has something in clubs or diamonds. 5D might also make if one of the opps has a heart void. The heart Queen in declarer's hand might be a problem; in dummy, we'll see it and partner is likely to have a side entry we can find. Offensively, partner needs controls in the minors for us to make anything, in which case we may collect 800 for the double. From Robson & Segal's examples, if memory serves, I don't think we can count on partner to have side strength, so I don't think 3S is forcing beyond 4H. As my double suggests a misfit for spades, I'll go with it and trust partner to lead a spade, not a heart.

2/1 GF with support doubles, niether vulnerable, Auction: (P)-1♣-(P)-1♠ (X)-? 4S seems straightforward. I don't think you can deny support for partner, then show support later, and expect him to work it out -- and why give the opps room to describe their hands? Systemically, 4C might show a big balanced raise while 4S shows this sort of distributional raise.

MickeyB, in terms of what you're trying to accomplish, please explain what's wrong with: 1C = 17+ balanced, 16+ unbalanced 1NT = 14-16 1D includes any 11-13 balanced. 1C opener passes over interference with 17-18 balanced. Opener strives to bid or double with 19+ balanced. Also, note to Glen -- I haven't a clue what your post means -- 1♣ 1NT 1♦ ? What on earth are you saying? Oh, wait, I get it -- you've listed three ranges at the top, and are specifying the opening bid for each range. So d2 is the scheme above.

Can't see your hand, only the suit symbols.

Everyone seems to assume 4♠ shows spades support, but partner denied that earlier. Perhaps partner has Kx x AKQ KJxxxxx.

As mentioned, classic situation is when partner doubles a major suit raise: (1H)-P-(2H)-X or (1H)-P-(2H)-P-(P)-X. In the first case, where the doubler is an unpassed hand, I assume we may still have game and use 2NT as lebensohl. In the second, where the doubler has already passed, we can forget about game and advancer's strength is unimportant, so 2NT becomes scrambling. Tola mentioned using scrambling 2NT when your length in the minors was "nearly equal". I strongly expect a simulation would show that with 4-3 or 5-4 in the minors, you would do better to bid your longer minor than ask partner via 2NT. I've read, for example, that a weak hand with 5-4 or 4-5 in the majors responding to 1NT is better off transferring to the long major and passing rather than offering partner a choice via Garbage Stayman or such. So I would use Scarmbling 2NT only with equal length in the minors in the example auction.

With 4 cards outstanding, the suit is more likely to break 3-1 than 2-2 BUT, as with trying to find the Queen with 4 out, once you reach this point the odds slightly favor the drop IF you have absolutely no other clue about the hand and no reason to keep one or the other opponent off the lead. It's about 52% to 50%. In general, with an even number of cards outstanding, the odds of dropping a specific card are slightly better than a finesse. Similar cases include AKQ10 opposite xxx (6 cards out) and AJ10xxx opposite Qxxxx (2 cards out.) A player who always finessed in these cases except when there were clues pointing toward LHO having the missing honor OR he could afford to lose the lead to LHO but not RHO would do far better than one who slavishly followed the "eight ever, nine never" nursery rhyme.

Now change the hands to: KQJx Ax Axxx Qxx x Kxx Kxxx AKJxx and we'll hope you aren't slavishly devoted to 4-4 fits. I once had an auction where, with three fits to choose from, partner carefully selected the 4-4 fit for slam with something like Jxxx opposite Axxx. One important point is that you generally need a lot of controls for it to make a difference which 8 card fit you play in. At the part-score level, it is rare to be able to take advantage of the 5 card suit for pitches. Most of the time, you'll take the same number of tricks in either suit, or it will vary randomly depending on splits, who's on lead, etc. Make no mistake -- I voted to prefer the 4-4 fit, and hands like my example are less common than Han's. Just don't substitute "4-4 is better than 5-3" for using your head.

This hand is a bit better than 8 hcp, due to the 10's and 9's. Double-dummy analysis, for what it's worth, emphatically rejects adding a point for a 5 card suit at notrump. Peter Cheung's website, for example, shows 24 hcp with a five-card suit to be only about 2% better than without -- and well under 50%. Since I am indifferent about game with 25 hcp -- I'd like to be there, but it's not worth the risk of playing 2NT with only 23 hcp -- I routinely pass 8 point hands opposite 15-17, except vulnerable at IMPs. So this is a pass. Anyone who invites with this hand should absolutely bid game with an extra point. I'm fairly certain blasting 3NT is a bad idea at any form of scoring against practically any opposition. I don't believe any amount of skill turns a balanced 22 hcp into a sound 3NT. If you don't like inviting, this should be an obvious pass.

Playing 15-17 NT's, partner has 12-14 balanced OR a hand which will bid again (18-19 balanced or any unbalanced hand.) If partner opened a 12-14 notrump, would you pass or raise? Based on double-dummy analysis, this should be a pass -- 25 hcp gives perhaps a 57% chance at game, not worth the risk of going down at 2NT when (as is more likely) partner has only 12 points. If you believe real-world results make 25 hcp games well worth chasing, and 2NT on 23 (or even 22) not so risky, this hand should respond 2NT (looks like it should declare) and expect partner to bid game on 13+. If you buy the double-dummy results, 1NT is plenty with this collection. What you DONT want to happen is to bid or force to 2NT and have partner pass with 13 "because you might have only 11, partner."

Bid 2C. Responder does not have 4 spades, and if he has 2 hearts he'll go back to hearts. If he has 6 diamonds he'll bid 2D. If he has 5 clubs 2C will be as good as any place. He'll be be exactly 3-1-5-4 once in a blue moon, and you'll wish you could've passed 1NT. Don't sweat it. Can't recall ever getting 4-5-2-2 opposite 3-1-5-4.

This is SAYC, not 2/1. 1NT was not forcing, and partner does NOT have a 3-card limit raise. In SAYC, he's supposed to bid 3S with that. That limits the frequncy of 4D as a slam try. Frequency isn't everything, however -- an infrequent bid which shows a large gain may well be preferred to a frequent bid which shows, at best, a small gain. Both slam tries and hands which rate to play two or more tricks better at diamonds will be quite infrequent; but the gain from playing 4D vs. 3S is much smaller than the potential gain from bidding and making 6S. I'm sure 4D ought to be a slam try but I wouldn't make such a bid without discussion.

Opener has something like AKJxxx Axx KJx x , give or take a bit. This is SAYC, so responder has at most 10 hcp and two spades. It makes little sense for responder to argue with opener's suit, but can 4D possibly be a slam try? Yes -- try Qx xxx AQxxx xxx . After 1S-1NT-2S, 3D is presumably long diamonds and short spades, so 4D in this sequence might be of the same ilk, but I wouldn't pass as opener.

Forcing. One doesn't open 2C in order to be dropped in a new suit, even if it a game bid. Opener is completely unlimited.

I voted for pass, but on reflection, partner could have a stiff spade and both red Kings, while the opps have 8 spade and 2 club tricks, so a double game swing is plausible. I should probably take out insurance at 5H.

A heavy 3♥, suggesting an 8-10 raise. I always bid cautiously with the Queen of their suit -- I treat it as a deduction from my offensive strength. They'll usually have something else to compensate for not having it...