karlson

1. Bridgemaster (available on BBO) 2. Bridgemaster (available on BBO) 3. Get a book or two by Kantar. 4. Play more hands and try to analyze them together with some good players.

You souldn't be worried about preempting the opponents in this position. Given that you have 4 good spades, they are very unlikely to bid no matter what you do (and if they do bid 6♠, you can double them for what looks like at least -3 and probably -4 or more, which, at this vulnerability, will be more than enough to compensate anything you can make). I guess lefty could have 8 clubs or something where preempting might give him a tough problem, but most likely you're just going to buy the hand at any level. So you should just concentrate on what you think you can make. 5♦ is a complete lock (what losers will you have?), and 6♦ just needs to catch partner with ♦AQxxxx, or the ♣A. Partner having only 5 diamonds is a real possibility though, given the vulnerability and your hand. You could keycard, but you'll still have the guess about which top diamond partner has (11-12 card fits are not what keycard was designed for). Better would be if you have some kind of asking bid available, like 2n, then you can guess to sign off in 5♦ if partner shows a minimum, and otherwise bid 6. Perhaps 3♠ will accomplish the same goal. But most likely you're going to end up guessing. I would guess to go low with 5♦ unless I can get partner to offer some further signs of life.

3♣ shows an invitational hand in most standard systems. Your hand should force to game by bidding 2♥ -- hopefully you'll have room to bid 3♣ over partner's response. Note that aside from 3n and 5♣, 4♠ is also a very possible contract, maybe even opposite a doubleton.

I've found that when playing 2n-3♣-3♥ as no 4-card major, the opponents are often not amused when you show up with 6 hearts and insist partner's explanation was correct.

Compare 1♦-1♠ 2♥-3♦ (natural gf) 1♦-1♠ 2♥-3♣ (♦ support) 3♦-(some gf bid) I think that when responder has a GF with support for opener's minor (the most common case, it seems to me), it's more useful for opener to make the next bid, as opposed to responder. Opener's rebid can show almost his entire shape, whereas responder would have to just shrug and bid 3n the majority of the time. Also, since 2 of responder's major is already forcing, there is not as much use in the 3-level transfer. Transfers are most useful (compared to lebensohl) when immediately knowing partner's suit might help the other hand compete over interference. That's essentially never going to happen here.

I play the same style, but it seems right to me to swap (play 3♥ as 18-19 bal with 4 hearts, and 3♦ as an unbalanced 4-card raise). I think rightsiding is more likely to matter opposite the balanced hand (but it's probably not a big deal either way).

While the card might say "negative doubles through 7♠", there's virtually zero chance of partner pulling the double given our actual hand (partner is missing two aces and a bunch of other stuff). I would just gamble and take the push. They may well save.

I enjoyed these. Shades of bridgemaster.

That seems to be the meaning in the US, but everywhere I've been in Europe, people use it to just mean "longer minor, 1c with 3-3, 1d with 4-4" as MickyB said. The alternatives being various forms of 2+ 1c or 1d.

[hv=pc=n&s=s6hk83dkj642cakt5&n=st2haq92dq83cq963&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp1d1sd4s]266|200[/hv] 1♦ showed 4+♦. Not necessarily unbalanced, but would only be balanced if 11-13 with at least 4 good diamonds (1N is 14-16 and 17-19 balanced opens 1♣). Either player doubling 4♠ would be takeout. 3rd seat openings are "normal light". How do you think the auction should end? Assume E-W are done.

It's not uncommon to play this pass as forcing (when a passed hand raises a preempt to the 5-level). I got the idea from these forums, and have the agreement with several partners. Arguably you could play it even at the 4-level. Essentially pass acts kind of like a responsive double (not sure what to do), and double would be a stronger defensive suggestion. I would double on this hand since I have a minimum and non-extreme shape. I assume the people who commented that this is a silly and exploitable agreement didn't realize the 5♥ bidder was a passed hand. It's hard to have a lock for 11 tricks opposite a third seat preempt as a passed hand.

I would bid 4♣

Excellent thoughts. Though I think righty will basically always pitch clubs since he can be pretty sure declarer is short there and he has no idea what's going on in hearts. I also thought it was not impossible that lefty failed to lead a stiff heart. After all, dummy sounds short in hearts, declarer apparently has something, and partner doubled 4♣.

I don't know if it was fancy, obv, or lol, but I played righty for doubleton diamond and ♥KQ ♣K.

Should have just put this in the original post: whenever you play a spade, righty pitches a club

[hv=pc=n&s=sq9654hjt82dakjc9&n=sak873ha7d842caq4&d=e&v=0&b=8&a=p1sp2n3hdp4cdpp4hp4np5cp5np6sppp]266|200[/hv] ♣6 lead, 3rd/low. 2n showed 4+♠, inv+. Double of 3♥ was penalty. Opponents don't play any 2-suited openings. edit: originally had opener bidding 4♦ instead of passing over 4♣x

It hasn't been mentioned explicitly, but I think that playing the double of 3n as asking for a lead of partner's worse major is pretty common, hence I would think the spade lead is suggested. Not sure if those arguing with Trinidad are assuming this and not making it clear. I also cannot find anywhere in the thread if N-S had an actual agreement about double. These situations are very difficult, because in practice many people don't pause over 1n-p-3n. Whether it's your side pausing as required and declarer perceiving a BIT, or the opponents taking 10 seconds when you know from previous experience that they usually pass instantly, it can be extremely difficult to convince the director that the tempo was normal/abnormal. There doesn't seem to be any great solution for this.

I think Roger has done an excellent job with the last two lectures and I would encourage all intermediate level players to check them out.

Since not being able to play 1n with a 3-suiter short in responder's major seems like a negative to me, I haven't been all that impressed with any of the proposed structures.

My experience has been that the unbalanced diamond is not particularly effective. The main benefit is supposed to be that responder can raise to a higher level in competition, but in practice, responder often has a 4-card major that he doesn't want to bury, so he doesn't necessarily want to blast to a high diamond contract. Meanwhile you end up selling out to 2M after opening 1♣ with a 9-card diamond fit. I now play that the 1♦ opening, if balanced, just guarantees 4 good diamonds. This seems to raise the frequency, still allow responder to compete a little more than in standard, and still allows you to open 1♣ on non-descript hands, concealing your shape if you get to 3n or 4M. On the other hand, playing 1M unbalanced could be quite interesting, since now responder can raise an extra level quite often. I suspect however that there would be very common losses from playing 1N instead of 2M. Then again, I'm not going to argue with Auken-Welland's success. I'm a big fan of these responses (especially if 1♣ can have 5 diamonds): 1♣-1♠ 4+♣ 1♣-1n 4+♦ NF 1♣-2♣ 6+♦, weak or GF (can include 5♦ GF if you like) 1♣-2♦ 6♦ invitational This lets opener compete quite often to the 3-level if next hand bids 2M, a not uncommon scenario when responder denies one. Even more so after 1♣-x.

It would be quite normal to want to make a takeout double if 3♣ was weak.

Surprised by these replies a little -- I think south should just bid a slam. Seems like it rates to be good opposite some very mundane hands. Perhaps not if you know the opponents will always bid more than this with 9 hearts, but I don't see why they necessarily should.

Lead-directing raise to 5♥? ♠xxx ♥Qx ♦xxxx ♣AQxx

I think double shows hearts and another place to play and south pulls to 2n, scrambling. Since south might be 2335 or whatnot, north might just choose the known 5-2 fit, but I think 3♦ would be reasonable.

A popular method in many parts of Europe is to reverse the 2n opening and 2c..2n sequence. In theory, this lets you get out in 2M opposite the (19)20-21 (responder can just bid 2M over 2c, to play opposite the balanced hand). It would be nice to combine this with transfers as well as Kokish though, so one scheme is to play 2♣-2♦ either waiting or 5+hearts 2♣-2♥ 5+spades over 2♦, opener bids 2n with 24-25 bal, and 2♥ with either 20-21 balanced or 5+hearts, i.e. Kokish, and you can continue from there with responder already having denied 5+♠. In theory this means you play 2♥ when you have 10 or 11 hearts between the two hands and responder doesn't have enough to force to game opposite 20-21 balanced. I keep waiting for this to happen when I'm playing against these pairs, but I think I rate to be waiting a very long time. It's rare enough a priori, and the opponents rate to be in the auction anyway.