Kalvan14

3♠: I'm not proud of thsi bid, but the alternatives (including pass) are all worse, IMO.

1♥-1♠-2♣-3♦: 6/+ diamonds, 4 spades, weakish hand (denies 2 hearts)

Transferring to S, and re-bidding 2 or 3N is not for me: IMO, this should show a balanced or semibalanced hand (5-3-3-2 or 5-4-2-2); I'd never anticipate a 5-5-2-1. I can understand passing a 2♠ rebid: if opener cannot super-accept, game is likely to be marginal. OTOH, I'd prefer to play 3any forcing up to 3♠ only (i.e., can show just an invitational, distributional hand). Opener would rebid 3♠ with a minimum and 2-3 spades; 3N, max and 2 spades, with stopper in the round suits; 4♠ max and 3 spades; 3♥ or 4♣ without stopper in the bid suit, 2 spades and max (obviously good fit in diamonds).

IMO, we should start one step earlier: 2♦ rebid shows 100% 6 diamonds (opener can pattern out 5-4 hands with either 4 clubs or spades). Therefore, after 2♠: 2N= natural, good club stopper 3C 4th SF, with insufficient club stopper (but at least Jxx or Qx in the suit) 3D shows a good suit (AKJxxx or AQJxxx are minimum holdings), willing to play 3N with a single club stopper by advancer 3H is natural, 3 cards (and should take priority, unless clubs stoppers are very good, or diamonds include the 3 top honors) 3S shows values concentrated in spades and diamonds, nothing in clubs and not good diamonds. 3-2-6-2 or 3-1-6-3.

1♣, without any doubt. clubs/spades is the most difficult 2-suiter to show after opening 1♠ [and normally you are unable to]. Quite likely that opps will show a red suit too. Another reason for keeping spades in reserve

One of the fascinating and occasionally frustrating aspects of reading BBF is the realization that almost no generality can go unchallenged (I couldn't write that without the 'almost' without being internally inconsistent). A number of players in this part of the world do indeed play that 2/1 is on in competition. I have played that method myself for years, in certain partnerships. Do I think it best? No. But some fundamentalist 2/1 players swear by it :P I stand corrected. It's true that even the most obvious truths (or what we consider the most obvious truths) may not be such for someone else. Believe it or not, couple of days ago I was berated by partner for not doubling 1♥ by RHO with 15 HCP in a 6-3-3-1. The nitwit passed with 2 aces and a couple Js and i scored 1♠+5 :P [defense was not best, and all finesses worked ;) ]. It was utterly impossible to convince him (not that i tried too hard)

1m-1M-3m is not GF. 16-18 HCP and good 6-card suit 1m-1M-3m-3M should be forcing. Opener has already shown a good 6-card suit. Why bid 3M with a weak hand? 1m-1M-3m-3OM shows a stopper in OM, and denies a stopper in om (in principle it might be a cue-bid, with fit in m; but opener behaves as if it is a 3N try) 1C-1M-3C gives a chance to show exactly the stopper that advancer has in his hand (3D= stops diamonds, 3OM= stops OM) 1D-1M-3D-3N guarantees a stopper in clubs; stopper in OM is uncertain. 1m-1M-3m-4m is forcing

IMHO, advancer should always double 1♠ with 4 cards in hearts, and strive to bid 2♥ with 5 cards and any reasonable hand, say 9-10 HCP [the more so if he's a passed hand]. Priority is given to identifying a possible fit in the other major, and even the most fundamentalist 2/1ers accept that an auction 1m-(1♠)-2any is not GF. The risk of bidding 2♦ with 5D + 4H is that LHO might jump to 3♠. Now you are in a bit of a quandary. How do you explore for the 4-4 hearts fit? This approach has also the advantage of making clear that 1m-(1♠)-2om denies 4 cards in hearts. Going back to the posted auction: 2♠ is forcing to game (or at least to 4m: but I quite dislike sequences which give away a clear GF to keep the possibility of stopping on a dime in 4m). Therefore 3♦ is part of a forcing auction, and the bidding cannot stop there

Opening 1♥ with 4 hearts and 5 diamonds is an idea which comes from original Acol. I've no problems in having uncertain lengths (I played Neapolitan club after all: it was a classic); however you must play a system where majors are four cards in principle. Bit awkward doing the same in a 5-card majors system. IMHO, this hand is best opened 1N

1N is automatic for me too. 11-14 HCP, balanced with stopper in hearts. IMHO, this is the standard treatment, and I'd use it even in a casual partnership: I'm quite surprised by the lack of unanimity.

After 1♦-2♦ (IM), 2N guarantees stoppers in the majors and it is not forcing. It is now a bit of tossing a coin: opener most likely has a balanced hand, 12-14 HCP. Advancer has 12 HCP, in a very flat hand. At IMP and vul, advancer should raise to 3N.

In Australia. But I learnt 2/1 (many) years ago from Hardy's book. And IMHO inverting the meaning of 3m and 2N is quite a good idea.

I'd prefer 3♣, and double over the anticipated 3♦ by LHO. I'm not going to pass 2♦, and then having to decide what to do over 3♦

Playing the standard 2/1, I'm quite surprised no one mentioned 2♦ would be Inverted Minor. While it would normally require 4 cards fit, it is quite a good picture of the hand: it does not give a wrong impression in terms of strength (as both 2♣ and 1N would), and right-sides NT (it also stressed the need for major stoppers). The standard 2/1 does not include 2N as a balanced hand 11-12 (or stronger): 2N is a weak pre-emptive raise in diamonds (the limit raise in diamonds is 3♦, again to right side NT; and the limit raise in clubs is 3♣).

4C is an horrible bid: 0.

1. 1N or 2N (unusual). Both have flaws; IMHO, if we have a game 3N looks best. So I think I'd bid 1N. 2. Horrible choices: X, 3N or 4C. 4C is very conservative; 3N depends on how many hearts pard holds: if just one, it's a disaster. If 2 is fine; X looks a bit more attractive overall, and is my likely choice. But I hate this hand. 3. X, responsive. Over 2D, I've an easy 2H. The alternative is 2H, but I'd prefer to have an honor for it. 4. Pass. No doubt. 5. Toss of a coin, again. You might make a case for pass; 6S rates to be a good defense, if they have a slam. Do they? 6H is cute, but no one will bid 7C. It's a decision I might take either way at the table.

Over a 2M Mujderberg (or eq.) the classic game try is 3♦. However, I'd expect that pard has a max. hand to open 2♠ at adverse vul and 1st hand. I'd not be too cute, and will bid 4♠

Pard likes to live dangerously :angry: Double is T/O. 2♠ rates to make. 2N (scramble) or 3♦ are the (not-exciting) choices. I'd assume pard does not have good diamonds, otherwise might have doubled 2♦.

IMHO, N migh safely assume that E-W cannot have less than 9 spades after this auction (also considering that they should have almost nothing outside the spade suit). I agree with Mikeh: best N bid is 6♦. It is quite unlikely to get to 7, pity. As usual, pre-empts (even crazy ones like this, at equal vuln) work very often.

1. No splinter with a void. S's 1st bid should be 2♦, looking for a secondary fit. Btw, it's not an awful crime missing this slam: the ♣K in N's hand could be replaced with the 2, and would pull the same weight. Now you're playing slam with 24 HCP, and a perfect double-fit. 2. Pass. Pard rates to have a Q or a couple of Js. Is it worth trying to save, after this bidding sequence? Lead the ♦K, and hope for luck. 3. Pass. Saving r vs. w is not a good policy. 4. I'd bid 1♠. Over 2♣, N would rebid 4♠. IMO, S hand is worth a move. Maybe 6♠ is best. Maybe 5♦, which should show a 2 suiter. Depends on the mood and the moment. 5. Opener has shown a good hand, with his double. I'd assume that 2N shows scattered values (say 7-8 HCP, with a spade stopper).

Pard's double can also come from 5-4 (even 5-5) in the minors, and just 8-9 HCP. Therefore, no real hope I'll find 3 hearts in his hand (why should he deny support?). The theoretical 15 HCP in opener's hand make it a points trap: too many quacks. I might have onsidered 1NT opening; over 3♠, IMHO it is a clear pass.

♠AKTxxx♥x♦AKQxx♣x A jump shift or a reverse by Overcaller has to be GF or how in the world are you going to GF and describe your hand at the same time? Give GOP xx or Hx of spades, and please explain how I'm going down in 4S w/o a ruff or some other surprise happening? If GOP has xx of S's then S's are Jx:Qxx or H:Hxxx I think everyone reading this can play any of those layouts for no more than 1 loser. So if GOP has a S fit for you and =nothing= else, you are losing at most 1S+1H+1C and taking 10 tricks to make 4S. If GOP happens to have a double fit in S+D w/ us (not unlikely on the auction) things rate to be even better. GOP rates to not be broke on this auction or the opp's would not be dying in 1N. Even better for Us, the hand that rates to have the delicate holdings is on opening lead, possibly blowing a trick in their hand, and must risk finessing the opening bidder on opening lead into our hand. What reasonably likely layout are you afraid of not making 4S with here when We have a S fit (or even if GOP has a stiff S honor)? how to describe an absolute GF 2-suiter: I said it, 2N [other strong hands can be described doubling 1N, with defensive values, or cue-bidding 2C] 3D, IMHO, shows a strong hand, but is not an absolute GF. With tolerance in spades, pard should correct why should it be likely that pard has a fit (not to mention a double fit)? Opener passed 1N, which hints to a balanced holding. LHO bid 1N: while this does not necessarily shows a balanced hand, it should guarantee a spade stopper, and deny 4 hearts (in which case a negative double makes more sense): therefore partner has (at least) 5 hearts. It is unlikely that oppos have 9 cards in clubs. Therefore, pard rates to have 4 clubs. It looks like that pard has (at best) 4 cards in the pointed suits. If they are 2-2, it's fine (but pard would correct 3D to 3S). If pard holds a singleton spade and 2-3 diamonds, I'd like to stop asap.

I'd bid 1♠ at 1st turn. When the bidding comes back after (1♣)-1♠-(1N)-P-(P), IMHO 3♦ should be enough (even if I agree it is not GF): pard is rated to have some points (less than 10, IMO), but more likely than not they will be the wrong ones. If anyone is afraid that bidding might stop with pard holding a fit in diamonds, I'd suggest 2N (which is obviously with a very strong 2-suiter: spades+minor). Btw, my LHO (who has bid 1N) holds certainly a stopper in spades. If he has 4 cards in the suit, this hand is unlikely to play game.

Double would be responsive (you don't double for penalties at 2-level in an assured fit sequence): usually, it denies a fit for partner's suit. I'd prefer 3♥: limit raise or better. The strength is more or less this, and AKT in spades are quite a good complement for partner. Double is not a crime, though :D . 2♠, followed by a double is not my preference: I might use this sequence with less points in spades, though. 2♠, followed by 3♠ is a no-no.

The normal opening bid is 1♦, with a 4-4-3-2 shape [either in 2/1 or SAYC]. With advancer's hand, my strong preference is double: it promises 4 cards in hearts, but values are good, and the posted hand plays well in a Moysian fit. 1N without a stopper and submitting a possible stopper in partner's hand is not for me. 2♣ shows a weaker hand. 2♠ is too committing [you've to play 2N or at 3-level]. 3♣ [in 2/1, 2NT shows a weak raise in clubs, and 3♣ is the invitational raise] does not fit this hand [good defensive values, and balanced hand; not to mention just 4 clubs].