rhm

Because 3♥ should show worry about spades. I see no other reason to introduce a good three card heart suit. I assumed from your example for openers hand that you did as well. On frequency grounds alone when opener denies a four card major, opener weakness will be in the other major more often than in either minor. I would certainly bid 4♥ with your first responder example and 3NT with your second. That is the whole point about the 3♥ bid. While I agree that information leakage is an issue, which often does not get enough attention, the information leakage starts with Stayman. I would not do it with 4333. But once you go down this path of exchanging information it is usually better to take full advantage of it than worry about it too late. Rainer Herrmann

Well, if I held the East hand receiving a support RDBL it would never occur to me to bid 3♥. What was the point of bidding 3♥ first? Helping the opponents in the bidding and making the defense easier against 4♠ or did East want to suggest a heart lead instead of a spade? Reasonable players just do not bid like this with a hand holding three small herats and ♠ KQJxxx and no other side suit honor. Rainer Herrmann

Your first possibility is sound, but your second suggestion is rather silly. Would declarer holding six spades and receiving a support double bother to suggest hearts holding a low doubleton there? Switch to the queen of clubs. In the unlikely event that declarer has the club ace, hope that partner has both the queen of diamonds and spades. When you come in with your major suit aces, force the dummy in diamonds. Rainer Herrmann

I agree. Many Bridge problems posed work only on paper, not at the table. Many fears are unrealistic, even against world-class player. Of course everything can happen at the table, but some incidents are so remote that they do not happen due to brilliant genius but rather by accident. Most do not happen anyway, but are afterthoughts. Rainer Herrmann

This happens to players, who can never have enough agreements and conventions played. Suddenly every bid gets suspect. Rainer Herrmann

So for the sake of the argument assume West has 2 hearts and 3 spades Which line do you suggest, which will enable you to ruff 2 clubs and establish the fifth heart and get there to enjoy it without getting overruffed? I agree though that this line appeals once West is known to be out of trumps. By the way who claims grands are easy to play? Rainer Herrmann

Why not? Seems to me intelligent bidding and contrary to some I find it hard to misinterpret. If a partnership has no agreement it should assume natural within context. Since opener has denied 4 cards in hearts and did not pass 2NT he must have a reason to suggest hearts. It should show such a hand. Nothing else makes much sense without agreement. Rainer Herrmann

deleted

Do you mean my methods or yours? I assume by 1♦->2♥->3♣ you mean opener choosing this sequence of bids after a 2♣ reply? Could be 1♠=4♥=4♦=4♣. 1♠=4♥=5♦=3♣ or 0♠=4♥=5♦=4♣ or possibly 0♠=4♥=6♦=3♣. It's not that artificial. You simply switch the meaning of 2NT and the next highest bid. Everything else is natural but must be unbalanced. Of course when someone has not shown 3 suits you may need a relay to ask for suit where the shortage is held. Say the bidding starts with the above hands 1♦-2♣ 2♦-3♣ Opener has shown a (semi)balanced hand. Responder has shown an unbalanced hand with no 4 card major and at least 6 clubs. Now 3♦ asks for shortage: With the actual hand you stop in 3NT. With my modification of openers hand you continue to 6♣. Of course the method does not resolve all issues but is a clear improvement over standard and it is fairly simple. Rainer Herrmann

No it is not. My method puts top priority not on diamonds but on the issue whether opener is balanced or not. Your rebid structure for opener does not give you this information, whether he responds with 2♦ or higher. I said I offer no solution, but I give you a hint: Once opener shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand with his cheapest rebid, what stops you using the same method for responders rebid ? Rainer Herrmann

Change the opening hand to [hv=pc=n&s=sa32hkj2d2caq7432&n=s54haq43da543ck65&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp2cp2hp3cp3sp3nppp]266|200[/hv] and 6♣ looks right. None of the suggestions so far come even close of addressing the issue here. Of course there are many styles how to respond to 1♦-2♣. I will not offer a solution, but some observations and a suggestion. When 2/1 is game forcing, priority should be given to making optimal use of the remaining bidding space from there to 3NT, which almost always acts as a watershed. This does not mean you have to play a relay system, but playing what you did before 2/1 was game forcing gives away many of the advantages 2/1 game forcing can provide. To conserve bidding space I have developed the following simple convention: Switch the meaning of 2NT and the lowest rebid opener could make, in this particular case 2♦. Simply put 2NT now shows diamonds and 2♦ a balanced (or semi-balanced) hand Since the lowest rebid by opener conserves bidding space it can take more load. Over 2♦ responder can now easily introduce a 4 card major. Any other rebid by opener promises an unbalanced hand (singleton or void) Since over 1♦-2♣ 2NT bypasses both majors it would deny a 4 card major and promise at least six diamonds and an unbalanced hand. With 6♦322 rebid 2♦ (semi-balanced) followed by 3♦ Assuming no further conventional bids, the bidding would start: 1♦ -- 2♣ 2♦ -- 2NT (waiting bid, denying a 4 card major) 3♣... (opener shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand with club support) This is not a complete solution to the above problem, but it might get you thinking in the right direction. Rainer Herrmann

My conclusion from this is that heart to the queen is the better chance. It wins when North has the heart king and three or more clubs, since he will get squeezed between hearts and clubs after the club duck. That North has 3 or more clubs is a 68% chance. So the overall chance for this happening should be close to 34%. Discount one or two percent if you like, because if North has a majority of clubs there are more vacant spades in the South hand for the heart king. If South has the heart king we need that the same hand holds 4 or more clubs and 4 or more hearts or that someone had 109 third or doubleton in hearts. I have not bothered to compute the exact odds for that but they are significant (around 15%). If you duck a club you win when clubs are 3-3, roughly a 36% chance. But if that is not the case residual chances are negligible. You would need South to hold the heart king and someone to have at least 5 hearts together with the long clubs. What is worse ducking a club means East can win and switch to a heart before you know whether clubs break. Even if we discount the chance that North will go in with the heart king some of the time when you play to the queen the latter play looks to me clearly inferior. Cashing spades first before you commit yourself is not unproblematic, even if everyone follows to the first 2 spade tricks. What will you discard from dummy on the fourth spade? A diamond discards from dummy hurts your squeeze chances after a heart to the queen. Say the queen holds and you duck a club. Now opponents will return a club and there is no heart club squeeze any more. Better to discard a club. But now ducking a club instead of playing to the heart queen will not provide enough tricks without the heart finesse. You can only play 3 rounds of spades before committing yourself. Rainer Herrmann

Fine if it is not There are numerous examples on BBO and other forums where a 5 card major got raised immediately with 4333. I do not recollect a single instance where this action has been seriously questioned. Rainer Herrmann

Personally I do not like raising partner immediately with 4333, particularly with a good holding in opponents bid suit. It is one area where I depart from standard bidding. In essence this is a distribution with a low ODR and 4333 usually disappoints in a trump contract. I am not claiming that notrumps always plays better, but it sometimes does, particularly single dummy. Raising a major suit tends to lock you in this strain.. The actual suggestion is not possible since overcaller has the spade queen. Rainer Herrmann

If 2♣ was a limit raise I agree that overcaller had more than enough for game. You overbid and overcaller seroiously underbid. I can understand 3♦, however, as a slam try or in preparation of what to do over an eventual 5-level bid by opponents, but not as a game invitation. From the perspective of the 2♣ bidder he should clearly double 4♥. If overcaller can only invite game with 3♦ you clearly have not enough to accept after having shown a limit raise. Having so little for your limit raise you can not pass the decision to partner. Overcaller should bid 4♠ regardless, confirming that his 3♦ was not a game-try. Rainer Herrmann

Would you have bid differently if you held matchpoints [hv=pc=n&s=st8762hqj7djt6c76&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=pp1h1s2h?]133|200[/hv] How is your clever partner supposed to know? (If you deem the hand to weak for 3♠ substitute one of the heart honors for the heart king.) Preemptive bids may describe your values accurately but they rarely provide an accurate description of your hand. On the other hand once South can reasonably assume North to be short in hearts, he is in a better position to judge what to do over a voluntarily bid 4♥, which partner did not double. The actual matchpoint result seems to confirm this. Rainer Herrmann

I do not see why partner should be in a better position to judge. Apparently few took the profitable sacrifice. Seems not have been obvious to them after 3♠. I like partners, who think out of the box and when their clever logic produces good result I cherish them. Happens far to rarely for my liking. Rainer Herrmann

I do not critic 3♠, I only said he had a point, which is an intelligent one, and I consider the critic self-righteous and overblown. Rainer Herrmann

I think he has a point, particularly at matchpoints. You would not sacrifice at IMPs. But at matchpoints going for 500 (or less) against 620 can mean all the marbles. When opponents bid 4♥ over 2♠ they have bid game voluntarily and it is likely they have 9 card or longer fit and partner is short in hearts. In other words the above scenario becomes likely. If you jump to 3♠ the inference is much less clear when next hand bids 4♥. Most people are oblivious to such considerations at matchpoints. It can be good matchpoint tactic. Rainer Herrmann

This is the crux of the matter. The times when fourth best really helps my defense are few and far between, while as declarer I find it often useful to know how the suit is likely to break. That's why people sometimes depart from fourth best to fool declarer. But fourth best seems to me a signal, which breaks even at best. I have given up zero or two higher honors (sometimes called coded leads) for the same reason. It seems to help declarer more than partner. Not all signals are created equal in this respect. On balance some seem to benefit partner more and some declarer. Attitude leads are an alternative against notrump contracts. Attitude leads are clearly superior when you decide to lead passive. Choosing second best from a poor suit is not quite the same. The way I play attitude leads I have a lot of leeway. The card led is not only determined by the length and quality of the suit led, but by the whole hand and how much I hold in other suits. If I have a second suit, to which a switch might be welcome, I might choose a different card than when not. Declarer gets the same information, but it seems less useful to him. Whether I lead high or low, he never knows how the suit is breaking, while partner is rarely in the dark. It seems to me declarer has not the same benefit from this lead than partner. Of course there is a learning curve for this lead. For example I am reluctant to waste the 9 or even 8 say from a "worthless" three card or longer holding and will often choose a lower card. Rainer Herrmann

This is borderline for 4♦. The odds are very heavily against it anyway. If you start constructing such hands preempts will be very effective against you, no matter what clever conventions you play and how strong. I think chances that you will tomorrow get overrun by a bus are higher than partner holding this particular hand. Rainer Herrmann

If you are not deaf and blind calling this hand a two loser hand after this start sounds to me highly optimistic. Also it is anything but clear whether you should bid 4♦ with this hand. My preference is 3NT, But I admit this will not always hit the jackpot either. Rainer Herrmann

Come on. Your partner has made a strong game forcing bid missing those diamond honors staring in your face and you are telling me we are in grave danger loosing the first 2 tricks in clubs? If partner holds six solid spades, 2 small clubs and 5 diamonds to the ace jack, he should have bid 4♠, because 4♦ is convention abuse. If there is a perfect spot it is likely 7♦ or an even higher contract, but you can do no more than bidding 6♦. Of course we might belong in 7♥ from my side because 7♦ gets beaten by a Lightner DBL. If the perfect spot is game, look for a new partner. Rainer Herrmann

I know you have an infinite memory capacity for slight improvements which will turn out to be crucial every second leap year at best Rainer Herrmann

Of course there are other mainly artificial possibilities. But playing transfers makes it difficult to stop in 2♠, when responder has say 5 spades and opener two or three unless transfers start with double, in which case I do not know what you do with 4144, Rainer Herrmann