rhm

3NT. My decision would not depend on the state of the match. If partner can not move over 3NT slam is an underdog. Rainer Herrmann

I would not only consider it, I would do it. :lol: Rainer Herrmann

True, but you can play all your life and I bet you will never have a zero count after this sequence and an intelligent passed partner will know this. You are virtually marked with strength, though you could have somewhat less. The 2♠ bid is rather pointless and partner is likely to bid ♥ over 2♠. If this hand is going anywhere, you will need a fit and the best way to find out is to bid your suits and give partner a chance to raise one of them. However, opponents seem to have a ♥ fit and Pass followed by 2♦ invites LHO to bid 2♥ now. That's why I would have preferred to bid 2♦ immediately over 1♠. With the ♥ void, an immediate 2♦ overcall is much less dangerous than it looks Rainer Herrmann

If Frank Stewart was an under-bidder, he would hardly be as successful as he actually is. Rainer Herrmann

To assume that a top player like Frank Stewart, who has no Roth-Stone tendencies, only does not open all rubbish hands, would consider the North hand a borderline opening is an insult. In fact the North hand might bid game over a single ♠ raise, since little is needed in the majors for game. However, hand evaluation for slam is different. First round controls and trump quality take a much more profound role. I just mentioned Stewart as an example, that there are many experts, who do not consider automatic control bidding the right philosophy. Judging from his recent publications, Rodwell is also in this camp and nobody can claim he would not open fairly weak hands. Just because lesser so called experts claim this philosophy "idiotic", I am simply not convinced they know the game better. Rainer Herrmann

One of my pet ideas, is to play canape with 6-5 or more extreme distribution. The main argument for this treatment is that when your higher ranking suit has six cards you can be weaker to reverse than when your higher ranking suit has only 5 cards, because once you rebid your six card suit, there is rarely a need to preference back to the lower ranking 5 card suit. It is amazing how many problems are solved that way compared to standard bidding. (You can check for yourself by browsing this forum for problems with 6-5 hands. There are a lot of them) If partner shows a good fit with your 5 card major suit you never need to bid your six card suit and even good opponents misjudge in the bidding and in the play. Having this agreements with my partner I would open 1♥ of course. If partner shows a good fit with ♥ I am obviously in a good position. If not my partner will know once I rebid ♦ that my ♦s are at least as long as my ♥s and if he does not preference over my first ♦ bid, I know he has at most a doubleton ♥. I know 1♥ in standard is a dubious bid, but that is because standard is not well thought out for such distributions. Rainer Herrmann

We seem to be looking at 2 different hands. If your losers consist of trump losers and aces, 5 losers are a lot and some correct loser count upwards when primarily first round controls are missing. From North's perspective he is missing 3 aces, the ♥queen and the ♠king. Unless partner holds 4 of these 5 key cards slam is probably odds against and if South does hold 4 key cards he will continue over 4♥. There are experts out there, for example Frank Stewart, who think cue-bidding is not mandatory and is to be discouraged, if you are not suitable for slam. Rainer Herrmann

I would bid 4♥. Raising ♦ is likely to be better only if you can make six, which is possible if partner has ♦AK and ♣A. With that much he might move over 4♥ anyway. If opponents continue with 4♠, I will next bid 5♦ next even if partner doubles. Too risky to leave the double in with so much support for ♦. If 5♦ goes down I do not expect to get doubled. I see 2 distant alternatives: 3♠ or 3♦, with the intention of bidding 4♥ next. This assumes that 3♦ is unlikely to get passed out. Neither alternative does justice to the ♥ suit. Rainer Herrmann

2♥ is the weakest response responder can make apart from pass. I can not see how opener can now continue with 2♠ missing the strength for a reverse. Of course some seem to require for a reverse almost as much as for a 2♣ opener, but this is a silly concept in the first place. Anyway this sequence 1♥-P-1NT!-P- 2♣-P-2♥-P- 2♠-P-3♠... makes no sense to me. Without 3 cards in ♥ responder would almost always prefer 1♠ to 1NT. So if he can now raise ♠ he must hold 3 cards in ♥ and must have a hand not strong enough for an immediate ♥ raise. According to your logic opener is too weak for reverse. Seems to me the partnership is already overboard after the ♠ raise. The sensible way of playing 2♠ is in deed a good distributional hand with shortage in ♦, but at most 3 cards in ♠. Rainer Herrmann

Play 2♥ in a 4-2 or 5-2 fit I suppose. That strengthens your character :) Why is this "very likely" ? Rainer Herrmann

My guess is you are playing a weak notrump. RHO had a good lead (solid or semisolid hearts) and not the normal quota of points for his double. Also partner might have psyched. Double is really bad here. It is for partner to decide whether to sacrifice in 5♣. You have given enough encouragement. Pass stands out Rainer Herrmann

Showing the solidity of your sequence requires you to play the lowest card of your sequence on the second round. So the king followed by the ten would show that you have a sequence KQJT but not the 9. Of course there is no way, by which you can show your entry at the same time. In fact you almost never can convey two different types of information at the same time. But if the second round is ducked the queen on the third round indicates an entry in the higher ranking suit and the jack in the lower ranking suit. Unluckily there are 3 suits where your entry could be. So there is still guess work. If you had KQJT9 you could unambiguously signal for all remaining suits. If there is agreement that you would never double a strong notrump without a good suit to lead from, then you could lead the queen on the second round and an expert might deduce that this lead can not be from KQx (where one should not overtake with Axx) and therefor must be an attempt to show an entry in the higher ranking suit. In this case you have non standard agreement that the second card shows the entry and only the third round shows the solidity. K, T, Q shows diamond, K, J, T shows hearts, K, Q, T shows spade. However, I would do this only if I were on firm ground. I would not do this with a new partner. Rainer Herrmann

Everybody plays the first double as takeout, for which I would expect 5 cards in ♥ more often than not, and I at least consider it pretty normal. Whether 3♥, even when forcing, is a better bid can be argued. Partner is unlikely to have ♥. ♣ or notrump contracts look like more likely contenders. But you can define the second double as you like. It is true, that if you have a takeout double over 2 ♠, you can hardly have a penalty double now. However, fact is, that over-caller's options will be severely restricted, since he passed already over 3♠. If you double a second time the most likely contract by far will be 3♠ doubled and this is the contract, for which you must be prepared for. (As a side note give South one ♦ more instead of a black card and he might now bid 4♦ over the second double and you will end up playing in 5♣ doubled.) I would expect that most people would define the second double as showing extra strength. Superficially North does have this. But those values must be convertible to defensive tricks. 4 queens do not necessarily add up to a single defensive trick and the club length actually subtracts from the defensive prospects his partner will hold. Give yourself 3 more cards in ♦ instead of in ♣ and I would still not double a second time, but many would. Rainer Herrmann

If opener had shown ♣ I agree, but 1♣ is often based on 3 cards when you play 5 card majors. That's why system matters here. Most would not have considered 2♣ if RHO had passed. Opener could easily be 4=3=3=3 or 3=4=3=3, in which case I doubt that a ♣ contract will do well. As opener I would expect 5 ♣ cards and consider 4 cards a rare exception, particularly when I can deduce that partner must be short in ♠. Not that unlikely that opener has a strong balanced hand when you are weak. I think if you bid freely 2♣ vulnerable, opener is entitled to bid 3NT with 18-19 and a balanced hand or he will double if LHO jumps to 3♠, with 18-19 balanced. Also if opener bids 2♠ next I would not know what to do. I can think of even worse scenarios. Rainer Herrmann

I beg to differ. It is not bad luck and with one defensive trick I would not expect to beat 3♠ a large amount of time, particularly not when opponents are vulnerable. The second double, though not strictly penalty, is just asking for a disaster to happen. How often do you expect partner to run to 4♣ when you are looking at an undisclosed ♣QJ72? Double should not be a default action, if you do not know what to do. Pass is a much better candidate, though I would bid 4♣ here. Rainer Herrmann

You are red versus white. If you are playing 4 card majors I consider 2♣ barely acceptable. When the system is not specified, one should assume 5 card majors and strong notrump. I do not espouse that free bids have to show more, but with a sub-minimum for responding, pass is now a valid option, since opponents have kept the bidding open for you. Over 1♣ you might have bid 1♦, though even here pass would not have been wrong. Now bidding 2♣ freely over 1 ♠ vulnerable is just asking for trouble. 2♣ should either show more ♣ or more strength. Opener is likely to over-compete and you will concede 200 or even more or opener will double opponents, when you can not beat them. Rainer Herrmann

If I thought pass would be wrong over 1♠ with this hand red versus white, I would not have chosen it. Rainer Herrmann

No, but I would expect to get raised to 5♣. I admit freely I do not reach all good slams and at the same time avoid the bad ones. I do work on it though :) Rainer Herrmann

4♣ stands out. I do not feel stuck here, because 4♣ describes what I have, a jump rebid in ♣ if partner had responded. I do not understand how one can pass. Is partner supposed to balance vulnerable with ♠x,♥xxx,♦xxxxx,♣Axxx ? Rainer Herrmann

Of course and I play few scenarios as forcing passes! For me the meaning of 4 ♣ has not changed by the intervention. Partner has invited slam. Double. Partner is of course allowed to overrule. Double does not show ♦. More likely it shows values in ♣ and a minimum hand with doubts that 5 ♠ is going to make. No. Even more doubts that 5♠ is a decent contract White against red I would consider Pass not forcing, since opponents are unlikely to be sacrificing. I probably still double, since I do not want to encourage 5♠, but it is close. My guess is that 5♦ makes and 5 ♠ would have been one down. Partner should have overruled but many do not understand these scenarios. Hard luck. Rainer Herrmann

So you Pass when you want to defend and double when you don't? What is the rational for this switch? Rainer Herrmann

Partner can not play the ♣2 when you hold it yourself. I assume he played a small ♣ and it would be nice to know your carding agreements and whether this is IMPs or matchpoints I do not understand why the double should have Lightner implications, when your vulnerable partner bid game, East used lebensol opposite a limited partner and is therefor very likely sacrificing. For me this looks like a normal penalty double. You need 2 more tricks, which will either have to be 1) 2 ♠ tricks. 2) 1 ♠ and one ♣ ruff 3) 1 ♠ and ♦ ace 4) ♦ ace and ♣ ruff. Partner will need and is also marked from the bidding with at least one ace. It is obvious that it is very dangerous to continue ♣, which would only be necessary in case 4. Even when partner has only one ace, it is most unlikely that declarer has the ♠ace and partner the trump ace, in which case his 4♠ without the ♠ ace would have been very doubtful anyway. (case 4) More likely partner could have seven good ♠ and a singleton ♣. Accordingly play ♠ king. With a doubleton ♣, partner will encourage (or even better overtake with ♠ AQ) and discourage with a singleton ♣. Rainer Herrmann

If this contract is supposed to have a chance with 2 top losers in the majors, I think you need 1) the ♣ king onside. (likely) 2) trumps to break 3) entries to dummy 4) clubs not 0-4 The play diverges after trick 2, depending on whether ♣ are 2-2 or 1-3: If ♣ are 2-2 the play is a little bit simpler. Ruff the ♠ low and play a ♥ from hand. If the defense plays another ♠, ruff and draw trumps. If the defense returns anything else, ruff two ♥ in dummy before drawing trumps by coming back to hand by way of the ♣ finesse. You make 6 trump tricks and 5 club tricks. If ♣ are 1-3 and the trump jack is third, I do not think you can get the necessary entries to dummy. Even if you ruff the second ♠ with a high trump, if LHO covers the ♦ 3 and otherwise not. So play for the trump jack to be doubleton (presumably with East). Ruff with the ♦ten. Play ♦ace and overtake ♦queen in dummy. Now play a ♥(we need the ♥king for eleven tricks). Presumably East will win and play a major. If a ♠, ruff. Ruff a ♥ in dummy, draw trumps, on which you discard your remaining low ♥ and lead the ♣ jack to take the ♣ finesse. If a ♥, ruff in dummy. Play a ♣ to the queen, the preserved ♦ 3 to the table, a ♣ and finesse. Cash the ♥ king to discard the remaining ♠ on the table and finally overtake the last ♣ in hand with the jack. Hard to say which layout you should play for. The second one is more indicated by the bidding and is more artistic and would also work if ♣ are 2-2, but requires in addition the ♦ jack to be doubleton and West did not lead his singleton ♣. Rainer Herrmann

Maybe it is not normal. Who cares? Bid and play normal and you will get a normal result. When I play I try to do better. Besides what is normal today used to be unheard of a couple of years ago. What matters is whether it is a good bid. Good bids are rarely normal. I do not need a rebid problem before opening 1NT. For me it is enough that a bid describes a hand well. Besides, if you open 1♣ and partner responds 1♥ you would have to jump to 3♥ and besides showing a stronger hand than you have, I do not like that at all with no ace. No matter whether partner passes, bids 4 ♥ or tries for 6♥, I give you good chances to go down. Claiming that there is no rebid problem is true for players who can not evaluate a hand. I would open 1NT for various reasons: 1) secondary honors are better suited for notrump. 2) A singleton king is better than a small doubleton, whether as a stopper or when partner transfers into this suit. 3) The value of the hand is just right for a 15-17 notrump. (worth around 16) 4) If partner transfers into ♥ and you super-accept (nobody forces you to do so) you will at least be assured of a nine card fit. 5) This hand will do better declaring than as dummy. Some number of notrump played from this side will quite often be the right strain, sometimes even when you have a 4-4 fit in a major, and chances are small that this hand will play notrump if you open 1♣ Note that this is a recurring discussion. I just cite one of the best players in the world on another discussion forum: Chris Pisarra asked: > A98x > Axxx > K > AQTx > Second seat, all white. > So I opened 1NT. While I clearly can't argue that it's the normal call, would you even consider it? Or was I completely off > the wall? (Note: This is a much more contentious example since far better suited to suit play -RHM) Good judgment. Many hands with a stiff king are best treated as balanced because the king is likely to be useful at notrump but not at a suit contract. There are various subtle benefits too, such as baffling the defenders' shape count. Partner makes no adjustment for this; if he chooses that suit as trumps, the blank king is typically better than two-small. In fact, I've seen a number cases over the years where partner has used Texas (to 4M) and the 6-1 fit was the only (or best) game because of communication problems in notrump. It's amazing how many players think nothing of opening 1NT with a worthless doubleton, yet disdain that bid with a stiff king. Which holding is a better stopper? -- Richard Pavlicek Amen. Rainer Herrmann

West is marked with at least 5-5 in the majors. So East will typically have at least 5♣ headed by the ace and the ♥ ace for his opening bid. Since West has at least 5 cards in ♠ and East at most two, West few goodies will often consist of the king of ♠. On a trump lead I can see 10 tricks. If you would have asked ATB for reaching 6♦, I would give most of the blame to North. South showed good judgment by bidding only 5♦ Rainer Herrmann