rhm

deleted

The agreement I like to have is that 2NT in competition shows 2 places to play and (takeout or balancing) DBL would show that all three might be playable. Therefore I suggested minors but the inference would be that the hand was too weak for a negative DBL. Rainer Herrmann

I have heard this a few times. Similar statements have been made against weak notrump openings and mini notrumps as well when they got popular. Now some experts have given up penalty doubles altogether against them. I play this now for a long time and can not remember having been caught. For this to happen the right conditions must be present: You must be at favorable vulnerability, opener must have a weak notrump with a suitable holding in overcallers suit, responder (who has much better information) must be broke and nowhere to run. I believe the danger is greatly exaggerated. Trap passing is difficult and was never very successful and is often quite expensive, and opener can see the the colors too. And if your trap passes may conceal a strong hand you are obliged to alert it. It will be expensive if opener decides to pass. All not so simple. Rainer Herrmann

I do not see why. Opener would need substantial extras to double or bid again red at the 3 level uninvited. I see no good basis for your remark. Also good opps will raise here on the slightest excuse, particularly at favorable vulnerability. I have seen this done on yarboroughs. It would not surprise me if our side has much more HCP strength than opps here. Good opps are not omniscient. If I would get doubled every time I go down I would have given up tournament play long ago. In my experience this is a scenario where opps rarely double you unless you riun into a trump stack. The reasons are simple: Your side has opened the bidding, which is almost always an advantage. Both the overcall as the raise are wide ranging. So opps, whether good or bad, do not know where the balance of strength is. Far more often will we push them to 3♠ or make something ourselves. Rainer Herrmann

Double is a poor choice, because there are 3 flaws: You are weak and you are balanced. Your distribution is not perfect You are red. However, I believe that if opener balances with 1NT after 2 passes this should show a weak notrump (not 18-19) with reaonable stoppers in overcallers suit. This agreement relieves responder of finding a bid with an unsuitable distribution. He is almost never broke in this situation when advancer also passes. It is rarely a good idea to pass out at the one level with a balanced hand and raesonable stoppers in overcallers suit. No, it shows a willingness to compete, not an invite. I do play negative free bids at the two level, but negative free bids, though limited and not forcing, show a good suit in a constructive hand. So this hand is unsuitable for a negative free bid in my opinion. But even without this I rather bid immediately with an invitational hand. Double shows a willingness to compete, with no clear preferences. DBL looks right to me. I pass with a trump stack. 2NT: minors. Rainer Herrmann

I never said he should. Compare it to opening bids. They got lighter and lighter over the last half century. But the puzzle is requirement for a response also got lighter. Sometimes you will just not make your contract, but this is not necessarily the end of the world. It does happen, but not too often, because few opponents keep quiet either, when you and partner are minimum. Also your undertricks in white may still translate into a good score or you may have overbid, but you find a lucky lie of the cards or you may get some help from opponents. Meckwell and co make a living form that. It is as simple as that. It is a bidder's game. Rainer Herrmann

All the risks he mentions exist. But different to you I do think they are pretty small. That's why I made the comparison. Why would I want to? I gave examples of hands previously, which shows that the sky is the limit, once we have a fit. Just to remind you I would find it pretty difficult to reach 6♠ even after overcalling 2♠ when partner holds something like ♠Kxxx ♥x ♦Axx ♣AQxxx and this is not an exceptional "great hand". Of course partners hand need not fit ours so well, but the potential of our hand is quite high. If our admittedly few HCP were quacks I could understand the point. By the way partner can see the vulnerability as well. This is a fallacy. This an argument for overcalling 2♠ not for passing. As I pointed out in previous emails your chances missing hearts increase when you pass compared to bidding 2♠, in particular when next hand will raise or jump raise diamonds. If partner has enough to come in with a heart overcall over your pass, he will come in over a 2♠ overcall. The opposite does not hold. If partner is too weak to come in over pass from you he might still bid once you show values with an overcall. I see little wrong encouraging a spade lead. Of course as usual there will be deals where another lead will be better. But given this hand I think suggesting spades looks right not wrong. Partner is still allowed to look at his hand before putting a spade on the table against 3NT. Whatever the merits there will be many deals, where a spade will be required against 3NT. Do you expect one from partner if you pass? A very good point, but appropriate for some other hand on some different deal. The irony is that his last point is quite appropriate for his own strategy: Now if partner has no spade support good luck!. The major danger I see: As always when you come in with substandard HCP the deal could be a misfit with partner having just enough to suggest game in notrumps. I bet against that outcome. As I said previously overcalling 2♠ can backfire, but my whole point is that I believe passing here has higher risks than bidding. Vulnerability and scoring have a profound effect on this. Rainer Herrmann

Sorry, given the conditions, white against red at matchpoints, I would overcall 2♠. I am not claiming the overcall could not backfire, but I strongly believe it will gain more often than it will loose. The hand has a high ODR ratio. Rainer Herrmann

First of all 2♦ might get passed out. LHO is not obliged to raise. Of course should LHO raise to whatever level your chances having a fit increased. This does not mean it is safer to come in at a high level. And should your partner have a broken heart suit, say ♠x ♥KJxxx ♦xxx ♣Axxx, I wonder how you will proceed over diamond raises. Delayed spade bids will not improve your chances finding hearts. Of course if you reopen with a double partner might have 3 spades and responds in clubs. The bidding might go (2♦) pass (4♦) pass pass 4♠ (DBL). Good luck! Rainer Herrmann

Reminds me of the person, who stays in bed for fear of getting overrun by a bus. It happens. Rainer Herrmann

Few good players would pass at these colors, certainly not in third seat favorable. You are playing Bridge espoused 50 years ago. Rainer Herrmann

Why would we end up in 6♠ if partner holds ♠Kxxx ♥x,♦xxx ♣Axxxx? Give partner another ace and we do have slam, hard to reach I admit. As long as we have a spade fit I am not worried should partner bid slam on his own, unless partner is a beginner at this game. But then, I am always worried until dummy comes down. :P My judgement tells me that bidding 2♠ is surely a long term winner as long as we have a major suit fit, even though partner may expect another king in my hand. And chances are we do have a fit. I wonder what the passers will do when next hand raises diamonds maybe to the 4 or 5 level. . It is matchpoints and passing at these colors 2♦ is more risky than bidding 2♠. Rainer Herrmann

deleted

Genuine chances are negligible. Hope for an error in defense instead. Playing the heart king early gives you very little chance whether they take the heart king or not. In such scenarios it is almost always best to run your long suit immediately even though you do not visualize what will happen. On the clubs discard a heart, a diamond and then another diamond. In most cases continue with spades and discard a second heart. Hope that someone, who will be out of spades, has the heart ace and the diamond king and blanks the heart ace. Rainer Herrmann

The strength requirement for a 2♣ opening got stricter and stricter over the years. As a result the opening bid hardly occurs any more. Now some are questioning the value of the bid in the first place. Maybe it would make more sense questioning the trend. By the way we have a similar trend with reverses. The strength requirement for a reverse got higher and higher. They also get ever more infrequent. But of course if there is almost no way to stop below game after a reverse, you need strict requirements. I think it would be better to give responder more ways to show a weak hand after a reverse and lower the strength requirements for a reverse. Rainer Herrmann

On the other hand xx Axxx AKxx xxx has no play for six. I'm not so sure that slam is as likely as most others think. Therefore I prefer 3D, seeing if partner can make a positive noise. If he can't then I'm happy to play in 4H. Why don't you read what you quote? This is an argument for the splinter not against it. Splinters are designed to keep you out of no play slams. Rainer Herrmann

A minimum like ♠xxx ♥Axxx ♦AKxx ♣xx would give you excellent play for slam. While it is true that red suit values are at a premium, the most important issue is whether there are wasted values in spades or not. An advanced player will also take into account his own length in spades. 3 or 4 cards in spades are much better than 2 or less. 3♦ ducks this issue. Over 3♠ you sign off with 4♥ if partner control bids 4♣ If he bids 4♦ you continue with Blackwood. Rainer Herrmann

7D Why should they find a club lead? Even then I am not dead. The standard lead is a trump against a grand. In 6NT against a diamond lead cash 3 diamonds and play 4 rounds of clubs discarding two hearts and a spade. If West has less than 4 diamonds and less than 5 clubs you are home with a spade finesse, which will endplay West. When West has either 4 or more diamonds or 5 or more clubs take the double spade finesse after 4 rounds of clubs and 3 rounds of diamonds keeping the diamond king as an entry for the second spade finesse. . Same procedure against a club lead: Run 4 rounds of clubs and take the double spade finesse. When in doubt rely on the second spade finesse after cashing all your minors. Rainer Herrmann

A good line but I am not convinced it is the best one in an expert game I also would like to know auction and which diamond was led Rainer Herrmann

deleted

Interesting. Of course Brogeland and Forrester are top level players. But that does not mean I am as enthusiastic as Brogeland seems to be. Presumably opener indicates his low doubleton and then responder bids 3NT or not. There are many problems with this. First even if opener has a low doubleton chances are it will not be in the suit where responder holds a doubleton, not only because there are 4 suits where opener can have a doubleton. If opener shows a low doubleton somewhere else this gives defender useful information what to lead when responder bids 3NT next and just because responder has a game force does not necessarily mean game will be unbeatable. We tend to get deeply impressed when we have close to 30 HCP in 3 suits and the defenders cash 5 or 6 trick in the fourth suit. But how often does this happen? I tried to check how likely it will be you will need this convention to get a great result. For this to work a) no 8 card major suit fit, where I assume anyone would find that strain anyway b) responder has no 5 card major, because he would not respond with 2NT c) responder being balanced or semibalanced I assumed opener to be 15-17. For the game force I assumed the combined HCP to be between 25 and 30 I allowed both opener or responder to be 5422 or 6322 with a six card minor and I defined small doubleton means only absence of king or ace. So either could hold the queen or jack. If you insist xx versus xx chances for this to occur are of course even less. Result: You will have to wait on average for more than 500 deals, where opener opens 1NT before opener and responder will hold a small doubleton in the same suit and the above conditions are met. Is it really worthwhile to cater for this condition and reserve a bid for this? Rainer Herrmann

Some sort of puppet is popular over notrump openings e.g. 3♣ over 1NT. But I know of no leading player recommending nowadays a treatment to detect xx opposite xx after a notrump openings? What should have higher priority in my mind is responder being able showing shortage (singleton or void) and the balanced hand to decide on the strain. In this case you might have slam while 3NT goes down or 3NT may be the only game. Most play that with a long minor responder can transfer and then a new suit shows shortage. But how does responder show shortage with a) a 5 card major b) a 4 card major c) both majors 4-4 or 5-4? Rainer Herrmann

Wesley it is you who made this claim, not me. So whether I participate at top level tournaments nowadays (I don't) is a bit beside the point. I doubted your claim, because it is hard to believe that a top player would even consider that. The drawbacks are too obvious Give us the name of a single top player, who plays that way. But I doubt any names will be forthcoming from you. Rainer Herrmann

Top class? I doubt that very much. Second rated players maybe. This is even worse than all this super-accept doubleton nonsense. The idea behind transfers is that the unlimited hand can decide whether to proceed or stop. A weak hand may have in any combination: 1) a long major 2) short diamonds 3) a strong major and otherwise an entry less hand. As a rule it is usually better making the long suit in the weak hand trumps to provide communication between both hands It is the urge finding a meaning for any sequence, which is plain silly. Simple is often best Jump to 3♥ over 2♦ with four or more hearts unless your hand looks unsuitable for game on sub-minimum combined values (An ace-less quacks hand for example). Jump to 3♠ over 2♥ with four or more cards and a maximum for suit play. So super-accept more freely in hearts than spades. If responder bids 3NT over a super-accept this is natural. He is showing 5332 and suggests 3NT as a final place, which opener will accept with a suitable hand like 4333. A sequence like 1NT-2♥-3♦ has no justification in a top level game. If I would bid like that I would have psyched with a hand too good to preempt in diamonds, more likely opposite a passed hand. Something like 12 HCP and a seven card suit in diamonds. Rainer Herrmann

This is from real play. Obviously the hand is cold if hears break, where we have no trump loser. So the question is what can be done when trumps do not break without jeopardizing our contract if they do. From the bidding we can deduce with some likelihood 1) diamonds are likely 5-4 2) West does not have more than three spades (no negative double) From the opening lead we can deduce with some likelihood 1) West does not have a singleton spade and spades should break 3-2 2) West has led from 109x(xx) in clubs and East holds the ♣Q. I would reject your construction though I admit it is a nice one. West would likely lead a diamond when East is likely to have the diamond ace or possibly a spade, which beats the contract most of the time when it can be beaten. Few would lead a club from QT9xxx against this bidding. If clubs are not 4-4 we can either ruff out the club queen or if West has led from 109x in clubs we can establish the club 8 for a second club discard by forcing a cover of the club jack. What to do in case clubs are 4-4? If East has 3 hearts ruffing out the club queen is clearly percentage. He is not likely to have 4 clubs in this case. If East is 2=3=4=4 West at all white with 5 diamonds and a singleton heart might have jump raised to 3 diamonds. So chances are that West has 3 hearts and in this case East most likely distribution is 3♠=1♥=5♦=4♣. Kaitlin's solution covers both cases well. Of course East could be 2-1-5-5 or 3-1-5-4 with only one spade honor, in which case different lines of plays might work. But given the bidding and play Kaitlin's line seems to me the one most likely to succeed and would have at the table. The first step in all successful lines is to realize that it is not necessary to play the singleton diamond from dummy towards the king even though East is a favorite to hold the ace. This almost always losses when hearts do not break. For that reason I did not want to tell anybody who has the diamond ace. Rainer Herrmann