Blofeld

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sxhkqdakqjxxcaqt9]133|100|Scoring: IMP RHO opens 1♥ playing 5cM and a strong NT. What's your plan?[/hv] Just had this come up ... am interested to hear what the general approach is.

I think the least likely is thirteen spades and out. ... I may be misinterpreting the question.

3♠. We may yet want to play in 3nt, and we may want to bid up to slam. Moreover, if the opponents outbid us, I'd like a spade lead. 5♣ would be my second choice.

Looks misfittish. I'll pass, though I've no real idea if that's the right action.

Great story, luis! --- My attempt at the problem would be that some adjustment is in order, but to what would depend on whether East's hand was good enough to force to a slam opposite a minimum reverse, or merely to invite.

Ben, you seem to be missing a factor of ten still. At ten cents a hundred, your two 3nt contracts with the rubber they bring will give you less than a dollar!

But you wouldn't pull 3♦X to 3♠ on that hand. I'm not sure whether I'd bid 2♠ or not - I don't like either action! Certainly if I didn't and 4♥ was bid on my left passed back to me I'd venture 4♠, and I think if I do bid 2♠ then the continuations you made are reasonable. Edit: to be fair at the table I'd have a hard time not bidding 2♠ with a hand as good as this.

To be fair, Ben, Frances said that things might be different (i.e. it might be worth considering passing 2♣) if partner (i.e. the 2♣ opener) were a cretin.

I'm not sure whether I'd bid 3♣ or 3NT to begin with, but if I start with 3♣ then after the 3♠ call I think I'd like to double.

Now hang on a minute. The problem would be different if playing 2♣ as an absolute game force. But most people don't play it as such these days. So there may not be a game available (there may still be one, as the 2♣ opener is unlimited above, but ...) Does anyone have the resources to simulate the results of passing 2♣ openings?

I wouldn't dream of bidding anything else! It would be a massive betrayal of partnership trust to do otherwise. Passing 2♣ may not be a betrayal of partnership trust. As David said, I don't know that I could ever bring myself to do it at the table. I don't know whether there are hands on which it is the percentage action (and if so, I imagine that they are very few - certainly the hand that Wayne passed on wouldn't qualify). But passing does not declare that you distrust partner. It says "Partner, you just opened a hand which is a game force or close to such. I don't know what you've got, but I am forced to take a guess here. By bidding on I give you another chance to speak, but on the basis of my hand I know that there are many possible hands that you may hold [implied: and I trust you to hold one of them] on which this will take us too high, in which case bidding on will lose. On the other hand, passing will gain when 2♣ makes and bidding takes us too high, and lose when you had a genuine game force. My best guess is to pass." While we're at it, one possible advantage to passing 2♣ is that it may sometimes put your LHO under pressure. Perhaps your partner could make a ♥ game in his hand, but the opponents can make a ♠ game. Who will balance after 2♣ - P - P - ? TheoKole, I think that the case you describe sounds worse than some of the possible passings of 2♣ being hypothesised (though I don't know the details), as there had been room to have a conversation. But even so, even if there were no reasons for him to think that he should bid 6NT, then it can be called a judgement lapse. Is that really reason enough to refuse to play with someone?

Destroying partnership trust? Perish the thought! Not trusting your partner is insane. And if your partner once passed a forcing bid, that does not mean that he or she distrusted your force, nor that you should in future not trust your partner to bid when forced. I firmly believe that trusting partner - even if partner is eminently untrustworthy - should be just about axiomatic. I'm a little tired now so if the above reads as verbal nonsense, please ignore.

Of course, it depends on the pre-empt style you've agreed with partner, but I think that the 4♦ bid is fine, and can't see why West is acting over it.

My best guess is that my partner doesn't have ♠s (we tried to probe for the double fit and partner refused any further action). This is likely to leave ♦s as his second (or even first) suit. Furthermore, LHO bid 5♥ over 4♠, which inclines me to think that he isn't very long in spades either. So my best guess is that my RHO has ♥s and ♠s. Given this, a ♠ looks obviously wrong. There could be some merit to leading the ♣A, or a ♥ might help, but I actually think I'll try my small ♦, leading through dummy's presumed suit into partner's presumed suit.

I always hate those forum posts which amount to "I agree", but ... ... well said, Luis.

Al U Card: why is it obvious that a double of 4♥ is takeout, but a double of 4♠ is penalties? They're one bid apart. Is a double of 5♣ also penalties in your style?

Oh, Wayne (sceptic) passed 2♣ [as for that matter did I, after ascertaining that there wasn't a misclick - but my pass is perhaps more excusable :P], but I don't think that that's an offence worth making enemies over. It was a poor judgement call, but this was a friendly table and I don't see anything wrong with trying some more erratic ways of bidding hands when in a friendly environment. Apart from anything else, if they're a bad idea, it tends to help give you a better idea of just why they're a bad idea. Hanging people who are deliberately screwing up the game is fine, but he was passing because he honestly thought that that might be the best action. And surely this is the time (if any) to bid like that, rather than in a tournament, for instance?

Marlowe: It's been pointed out to me that I may be misunderstanding you. I had imagined just reversing the majors in your hand. If the 4♥ bid is also being changed to 4♠ then I'm bidding 5♣ in an instant!

Surely the normal meaning for 4NT over 4♠ is showing two places to play and forcibly denying any interest in penalising them? I would automatically assume that the double of 4♠ was takeout. This is possibly idealistic ... I believe that the double should be takeout, so I treat it as such. I want to encourage people to play it as such and in particular I really don't want to punish a partner who has bid it as takeout. --- While I'd bid 4♠ on the hand Mark posted, I'm not sure that I'd follow Marlowe's lead in bidding 5♣ with the majors reversed. There I would at least be sorely tempted to pass. I'm not sure which the better action is.

We don't have a trick source, but we may yet be able to make 3NT by brute force.

I take the opposite stance there - I'd really like to see the more imaginitive bids that are suggested. I trust that people won't make calls without reasons, and it's fun to look at all the different possibilities.

Roland: I'm sorry, admittedly it depends on agreements. I play the bids as either game trials or as advanced cues (in which case it will be revealed as such when you later take further action).

3NT for me. I don't believe my hand constitutes a slam try, but I'll be very happy to cooperate with any that partner wants to make (over 4♦ I'll bid blackwood).

As I would understand the auction, the 3NT bid denies the ability to make any cue-bid at the 3 level. So it would have to be either an offer to play or a hand with slam interest despite no controls in the side suits (and thus presumably excellent trumps - perhaps something like ♠AKQJxx ♥xx ♦QJ ♣QJ). With your hand I would simply have bid 3♣ and perhaps continued with 3NT over 3♥ (promising a diamond control by implication).

I'd bid a direct 5♥ and no doubt have it go for 800. 4♠ seems too likely to let the opps judge whether to bid 5♠ or not, by the presence/absence of a double on my left. I don't mind a 4♥ bid now, though, so long as you pass later.