Kalvan14

This is the right analysis: matter of fact, pard has already extra values for his 2♣ bid, and with the ♦T he might jump to 3N. Certainly S should pass whatever N bids

2♦ is a reasonable bid, but once you believe that N has ♥ (as all the table believed ;) ) I would not even bid 2♦: pass and wait for further developments. 2♦ is not pre-emptive, and I do not see what particular advantage might bring. It is quite likely that S bids 4♥ all the same (and it would be God's punishment for N's sins). At least 800.

1♠ in the balancing seat does not promise a lot: at a guess, pard is somewhere around 8 HCP. Don't forget that he has available a double - a bit more flexible than in the direct seat - and a jump to show intermediate hands. Best is probably a pass. Where are you aiming to go with 21-22 HCP in aggregate and a substantial lack of fit?

Really? My requirements are MUCH different, but I guess that is a style thing (I'm agressive at 1 level and conservative at 2 level). I guess that shows here since I think a 1S overcall is auto and personally would not consider 2S over 2D. Why the criteria should be so different going from level 1 to level 2? In a way, you are in a better position: RHO has a limited hand, while, had he opened 1♦, his hand would be unlimited. With a decent suit like this, I would be happy (maybe not really happy - let's say willing) to bid 2♠ The 7♠ hand is a funny one; the normal bid should be double. It never really pays to go for very long chances (and seeing the cards, I'd be happy to have doubled). OTOH, you never know what happens at the table. I am not surprised that someone jumped to bid 7N. It depends a lot on the status of the match: this kind of decision cannot be taken in a vacuum. Years ago, in a very similar freakish hand, I reached 7♠ in a whiff (I had 9 or 10 ♠ with all the top honors, plus a chicane and a couple aces), and when RHO doubled, I redoubled: at worst I would have been 1 light, so I was betting 100 points against 730, not a bad bet with 7:1 odds ;)

That's very easy: with the new hand you post, I pass 2♠. why should I go a level higher to play a similar contract? IMHO, yr insistence on the rebid of 2♠ with the 4 quick tricks hand does nothing to change my opinion

A double in this position, after yr pd 1N bid, looks to me a penalty bid. Suppose that I am wrong (but why keep t/o doubles even where they are not needed?): it is clear, at least, that a double might be misunderstood. You have a very clear cut bid (3♠), which not only describes yr hand, but has also a pre-emptive value toward RHO. Why bend backward to ignore it?

There must be a minority position: 3♠. 4 quick tricks, and 6 losers. You can keep the T♠ ;) Lol, it took me three attempts to get a ♠ symbol in!

As a matter of terminology, there is a difference between "Non-Forcing" and "Sign off". A Sign-off places the contract and tells partner not to bid any more, a non-forcing bid simply allows partner not to bid anymore. A 1NT opening is non-forcing, but it is a descriptive bid and doesn't place the contract. Just as a NF 2NT in this sequence is a descriptive bid. The person who is in position to decide the contract is responder, not opener. Eric I used "non-forcing" with due consideration of the meaning. As an example, after opener re-bids 2N, responder can propose another suit at 3-level. So the 2N bid is "non-forcing", i.e. responder is not committed to a re-bid but can do it if feasible and useful. OTOH, responder has also -more or less - clarified his hand: invitational, with 5 spades. Do you think that opener is committed to a bid? In my way of playing bridge, opener is entitled to pass (minimum hand, and likely misfit), but I do recognise that mine is a minority position. What is important is to identify the "forcing bids": I had proposed a 2N "lebensohl", in order to free all direct bids as forcing.

1♦-1♥-1♠ does not show an unbalanced hand in Walsh style, but I understand that this is your partnership agreement (I suppose you have the 2♣ checkback over 1N). After the bidding shown, I would just bid 3N. My hand is quite a minimum, even if it is shapely (but you have already told that), and diamonds are lacking texture

Partner should take back to 4♥ with 4 trumps. I have no prob with that. but at the table I felt that she might have just 3 cards. Was I wrong? And with 3 cards - even with the miserable hand she brought - 4♣ was a good contract. The problem with many bridge players is that making a bid out of the "standard" practice creates panic

Agreed in full. Mark me down for 3♣

4♥: sorry, guys. I like splinters, and once again this helps a lot in the hand pattern (in particular to look for a possible ♦ slam

I have no problem with your 1N: ok, it may not be a classic, but it works. And your black suits kings are ok. I would not have pulled the double, though (the double should be for penalty, IMO: there are other conventions which can be utilised in this kind of sequences to look for a fit). Oppos have (at best) 8 hearts, if not 7; our line has the majority of points; if partner leads ♦ (which is likely) declarer might loose control of trumps. Why go for a 3N on a combined strength of maybe 23 HCP?

3N, without any doubt. It's a classic bid, based on running clubs (and the lack of ♥ stopper does not worry me too much). If you want to mess atound (remembering that for me 2♠ is not forcing), you need to introduce a 2N Lebensohl style (see the other thread with the same bidding). Now a direct 3♣ would be forcing (but I think I would still prefer 3N on this hand, to make clear to partner I am not interested in playing ♠; 3♣ would indicate at least a spade tolerance)

Playing 2N as "non-forcing" places you in the very strange position to decide the exact contract just knowing that your partner has 5 spades and likely 8 to 10 HCP. This means that 2N cannot (better should not) be passable. There is the 3♣ bid, which might be a bit different (and it is the reason for which I play a lebensohl style on this kind of sequence): 2N relays 3♣ (and opener can pass); 3♣ direct is forcing and so on [pls. note that for the sake of pre-emption, a direct 3♠ is not forward going, while 2N-3♣-3♠ is forcing]. Playing with a new partner, I would consider both 2N and 3♣ forcing. I forgot to say that 2♠ is not one-round forcing: opener can pass.

In my book, 4♣ is not forcing: opener has a reasonably strong hand (probably balanced, see below), and has made a try to play 3NT. Since the partnership lacks a stopper in ♦, opener retreated to 4♣. Let's start from the beginning: 1♥-(P)-1N-(2♦)-X My understanding is that this would show a balanced hand (5-3-3-2) and 17 to 19 HCP. What other reason has the opener to double? If he has a "true" penalty double (with ♦), the oppos should have a ♠fit. If he has a "take-out" double, there is no reason why he should not bid his other suit (or suits). There is not necessarily a need of a stack of diamonds to penalise 2♦: 24-25 HCP, in 2 balanced or semi-balanced hands and 4-5 diamond cards should be more than enough). The follow-up bidding is a bit strange: pard bids 3♣ [weak, 6 cards almost guaranteed], and opener tries again with 3♦ [is he bidding his cards twice?], which i believe everyone will interpret as a trial for NT without stopper. the poor guy in front of him bids 3♠ [which I too take for half a stopper in ♦ - ood bid, btw] and opener finally relents and bids 4♣ [which cannot be forcing: he might bid 4♦, 4♥ or even 5♣. Why should he try to force with the only bid placing the contract in a "safe"haven?] I wrote the post before voting, and it looks like I'm in the minority. But I do not change my mind: 4♣ cannot be forcing

Well, as it happened in real life, 4♣ was misinterpreted (Justin came closer to the meaning, and - at least - her action was the correct one, although for the wrong reason). Quite likely it was the wrong bid; certainly it was too much for a casual partnership. [hv=s=s4haqt5d64ckqj932]133|100|[/hv] I had this cards, and I decided to bid upon 1♣ opening at my left. I have enough strength (both in HCP and playing tricks), and if I pass, the next time I will have to bid over 3♠. I am not too shy in interfering with a good 4-bagger at the 1 level. Now, when the bid came back at the 2♠ level, I had nothing to say. My partner decided to compete (I agree with you that it was a horrible bid), and the third time I had a good bid: 4♣. Consider that I had not contested 2♠, and now I am introducing a new suit at the 4 level!! This should indicate that: a) I want to compete B) I may have some feature that made it unpossible to compete at 3 level (but let's be clear: I did not find an A under my chair, and, even if I had psyched, it would be quite silly to pull it out before it gets doubled My partner had bid already 3 times on a collection of tram tickets, and obviously bid once again: 4♥ [which should mean: I don't know what's happening :D ] Since defense is the most difficult part of the game, I made 4♥, for the record. The lead was K♦, and ♥ were 3-3, with the K on-side. To paraphrase a famous saying, the operation was a failure, but the patient was restored to good health :P

I think that the C2 is likely a true 4th best, so our friend has 0S, 4H, 5D and 4C. He has the J of H and the A of D to go with the C Q. Why not lead from the D or H suit? He heard that J empty leads against NT don't work and that a D lead wouldn't have enough entries in his hand to set up the suit so he tried a C by elimination..... :D Very imaginific. And it would fit a weak opponent who has read some books. IMHO, the 9♣ looks like a singleton, and W has lead the 5th card of his suit. I would play 10♣, k♣ and 9♦for a finess of the ♦Q PS: if E has the ♣Q (veeery unlikely) he should play it; and if he has 9-8 in ♣ he should play the 8. I am more and more convinced that the 2♣ if a 5th card. Alternatively, W has a 1-4-4-4, and has led the promised 4th card. E does not know how to discard (maybe he is giving count). It does not change my play to the first 2 tricks

2N, it is the most descriptive bid. and after E double, I would not run. Let pard decide: I have my bid, and my hearts are nothing to write home about.

N should really bid 3♥. With S hand, it would be tough to re-open (unless you know that yr pard can pass with veery good hands :D )

I prefer a 3N reopener. There are plenty of (weaker) hands in N with which 3N is a lay-down or almost so. This said, double is a reasonable alternative, with a fit in all the unbid suits. N bid (4♦) is a bit shy: his 10 HCP are all working: I would have bid 4N for the minors, but I am not so convinced that i would bid 6♣. Which goes to prove that, overall, 3N is the best bid at MP.

In a club MP, playing with a good casual partner, you are S. W opens 1♣ (5-card majors, can be 3 cards). The bidding goes: (1♣)-1♥-(1♠)-2♥[you]-(2♠)-P-(P)-3♥-(P)-4♣ What does 4♣ mean? If you want to know your cards: [hv=d=w&v=e&s=s753hj97dat965ct5]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

3♠. Most likely the bidding goes: (2♠)-X-(P)-3♠-(P)-4♣ or ♥ Over 4♣, bid 4♦ (which is 100% forcing, and should be a 2-suiter ♦/♥) Over 4♥, 4♠ (cue bid): a slam is quite possible, and the 5-level should be safe

It is not a 2♣ bid: the wrong opening is messing up all the auction and losing 1 bidding level. This said, 2♦ (waiting) is a very strange bid: I would expect that you should be able to show a 6-carder with 2 major honors. Most of the blame, in any case, is with the opener (besides 2♣, the 3N rebid is horrible). Still South has made 2 bad bids: 2♦ and 6N. I would apportion the blame 65% to N and 35% to S

It is quite a good idea: you can stop in 1N when it goes 1♥-1♠ (less than 4 ♠)-1N if you have a ♠ fit, it goes 1♥-1N-2♠ (and it is likely to be played by the right side) you right-side the NT contract whenever responder does not have ♠: 2 times out of 3, while the most common treatment does it 1/3 (when responder has ♠) The only disadvantage I can see is that oppos can double 1♠ to show the suit: is it so dangerous?