Kalvan14

Do you really need the gadget? 1m - 1♠ - 1N or 2m: 2♥ is weak, and offer a choice between ♥ and ♠ 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♦: this is a reverse, and 2♥ would be 4th suit forcing (but you are in a forcing sequence all the same: if pd bids 2♠, can you pass???) 1♦-1♠-2♣: this is the most awkward sequence, and the only one which might benefit by the inverted Flannery. But then you need this exact sequence, and responder with a weak hand and 4♥/5♠. And even here you can always re-bid 2♠ if you can't to give a preference to ♦. I play 2♥/2♠ over 1m as fit showing: 5 cards where you bid, 4 in opener's minor and an invitational hand. I believe this is more frequent, makes skinny games contract reachable and is quite pre-emptive against opponents.

Of course 4D does not only promise 6 cards, it promises a solid 6 card suit, i.e. AKQxxx maybe AQJxxx, i.e. AKQxx is not almost as good, also 4 card trump support, hence a singleton in one of the other two suits, I think 5-4-2-2 is quite different than 6-4-2-1. Marlowe Well, I play a re-bid of 4♦ a bit more flexible: 6 cards, with 2 major honors (otherwise you have a bid which will come once in a blue moon :) ). For that reason, AKQxx is "almost" as good. If you just look at HCPs, the hand is worth a good 2♠ (the ♣Q is not pulling full weight). The reasons for being excited abt. it are the honor concentration in ♦ and the very good intermediates in ♠.

Ditto. My problem is that partner does not have a honor in ♦, and he might be more reluctant to go to 4♠ with a minimum (I can play 4♠ with a couple of kings in front - even with Q♠ and a side king). The more I think about it, the more I like 4♦ (the problem is that 4♦ for me is 6 cards, but AKQxx is almost as good)

I wouldn't since it gives up on spades. I would probably bid 3♦ at IMPs and 2♠ at MP. I don't think we would loose ♠ for game: 4♠ over 4♣ (splinter) is 99% a choice of contract. We might loose ♠ for slam, but I am almost sure that slam in ♦ would be likely to be better than slam in ♠. In this particular case, it clarifies the misfit.

White vs. white the "best" bid is 1♥. Not a very nice one, but I do not have problems with rebidding, have some defense and 7 losers. White vs. red I'd open 4♥: I wonder who has the ♠ In the poll, I voted 4♥ :)

I'm in full agreement. The ♣A gains only if N has a singleton K♣

You won't pull the wool over my eyes that easily! 12+13 is only 25 points. At 3 points per trick, this is on average taking only slightly more than eight tricks. To make a game in a major, say, we ought to have combined 30 points between the two hands (or possibly 31, as there are 40 points in the deck rather than 39). LOL, assume the following hand: [hv=n=sakqjht98d765c432&w=st98h765d432cakqj&e=s432hakqjdt98c765&s=s765h432dakqjct98]399|300|[/hv] Each side has 20HCP, which would mean that each side should almost be able to gain 7 tricks (since this is obviously impossible, assume one side makes 7 tricks, and the other one 6). However, the defending side makes always 8 tricks, in this layout (whicj means a trick is gained with 2.5 points), while the declarer makes just 5 tricks (1trick=4 points). Does this means that it takes 19 HCP to open? (pard should have 7 HCP, 1/3 of 21, and this would result in a chance to make 7 tricks)

so with x x KJTxxxx Qxxx you bid what? 2 ♠, and - if doubled - 3♦. Obviously you cannot match every possible hand with a descriptive bidding sequence. I choose to loose on (rare) hands like this one (take away the J or the 10 of ♦ and I might pass over 1♠) rather than misrepresent my hand in more forward going occasions. IMHO, the more I look at the hand you put as an example, the more attractive would become passing over 1♠

would anyone consider bidding: 1♠-2♦-4♣? 4 ♣ is a splinter bid, with ♦ fit. Since everyone appears to agree that North hand is not strong enough to bid 3♦ (13 HCP, 4 trumps, a singleton, no wasted value is "not strong enough"?), 4♣ appears to be the most descriptive bids (btw, South, hearing the misfit in ♣ and seeing the misfit in ♠ will be quite happy to stop in 5♦). As an aside, this sequence (1M-2♦) or the other one (1♠-2♥) is perfect to play 2N by opener as lebensohl (or bad/good).

Thanks for posting this hand, the more I think about it the more meat I see. I do not see how partner can be as good as: Axx=AQxxx=void=AKxxx Partner has made not one but 2 free bids, I would bid 4s with that hand over 2D. Pard has not made 2 free bids: in my view 1♠ ignores the double and is 1-round forcing. The point is quite different: if pard has a minimum to average hand (say, up to 15 HCP) , he would raise ♠, without introducing ♣. Otherwise he is self-fixed in an auction like the one which is being discussed: 2♠ would be a weak preference, denying a 3-card fit. My first gut-feeling would be to bid 4♠; and I would certainly bid it playing with a partner I have confidence in. The only negative feature of my hand is the ♠ texture. I fail to understand how 2♦ could be other than a 4th suit forcing.

I always find a bit strange that people play 2/1, and from the beginning they start to find reasons not to play a 2/1 as a GF. :P I may be an integralist, but a 2/1 bid (not in competition) is a GF. Thank you very much. This includes also the infamous 1M-2m-2any-3m, which - in my system - is a single-suit reverse, and imposes trumps. I do agree that the forcing NT is not the best part of the system; IMHO, you can always find a way out of a fix. Going back to the posted deal: a) if i am playing MPs, there is no question: 2♠. It guarantees some MPs, and it leaves open the door for pard to show a 5-5; B) playing IMPs, 2♠ would be chickenish. I would choose 3♥, as the lesser evil. If pard is weakish, he should have some shape, and 3♥ is a reasonable contract even on a Moysian fit. If he is strong, I would not despise 4♥ on a 4-3. Why all this fear of playing with just 7 trumps? c) 2N would never, never, never be in my book with this hand. give me a 4-5 either way in the minors, and some 9 to 12 HCP, and it would be my bid. d) 3♦: sorry guys, but this is a clear invitation toward 3N with a minimum fit (even Jx). As such, it would require some strength in ♣, and a better ♦ suit. As an aside, why keep a drop-dead bid when pard has already shown a 2-suiter? The same applies to a 2N lebensohl, which is trendy, but trows away the chance of explaining to pard which one of the possible invitational hands I have. don't misread me: I like Lebensohl, and make a large use of its principles. just not after 1M-1N sequence. e) 3♠: in my book, it shows a limit raise in ♠, with a balanced hand and 3 trumps. So it is clearly out of the question here. Hope I have not offended anyone B)

Are you sure that 2N is this kind of hand? I play 2/1, with IMF and Inverted Jacoby (so 2N would be a weak unbalanced raise in ♦ B) ). The most considerate bid would certainly be 1N: I would not be going to hang myself for a miserable ♥J! My 2nd choice would be 1♠, followed by the already proposed invitational 2N. I might consider misrepresenting my hand (1♠ on 3 cards!), but to do the same in ♥ would be a bit too rich for my taste. Bidding 1♠ would make a raise on 3 small cards more unlikely, while 1♥ would attract a 2♥ every time N has Qxx, Kxx or Axx. The problem here is that 1♦ may very well be with 1-3-4-5 shape, with 4 cards in either minor, and 5 cards in the other one. Whenever a 2/1 bidder decides to open 1♦ with 4♦ and 5♣, he is always quite happy to raise partner's major on Hxx.

I would probably pass over 3♣. A double would show a 16-17 HCP balanced hand, and would leave the decision for the final contract to partner (but with his cards, minimum 2♥ bid, 4 trumps and 1 trick or less in defense i would certainly bid 3♥ over the double). let me amend my 1st statement: I would pass at IMPs, but would double at MPs.

South is to blame: opening 1NT is like taking a roulette spin. You may win, or you may loose, but it is a swinging action. I would have opened 1♦, with the intention of rebidding ♣. The likely auction would be: 1♦ - (P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (P) - ?. At this point I see 2 possible line of thoughts: a) N bids 3NT, disregarding the 4 small cards in ♠; it is the most likely 9and prosaic) action, and the result is 3NT+1 on the likely led of ♥ J. B) N goes for a more sophisticated auction, and bids 2♥ (4th suit forcing). S would rebid 3NT, but this gives N the right information (1-3-5-4 or 1-3-4-5 are the likeliest distributions. N should bid 4♦ (forcing) and pass over S 5♣ (which clarifies the mnors' distribution)