Kalvan14

I said in the other thread that in my partnership 1m-1♠-2m-2♥ is non-forcing. This is the common treatment in 2/1, and IMHO it makes a lot of sense. Please note that this does not mean that advancer is broke: just that he is not in the position to make a forcing bid (after all, opener corrects to 2♠ with all hands including 2 spade cards, and raises even with minimum hands if he holds 6 in the minor and 4 hearts). IMHO, playing 2♥ as forcing (i.e. any change of suit as forcing) is truly a relic of a past age of bridge.

With all the honors located in opener's hand, 3NT should be likely make even with a bit less than usual strength. Strange to be surprised by a treatment (4th hand NT 11-14) which is really standard, and has been around for ages. 2NT showing a bal 19-21 is also quite standard (though not as much as 1N 11-14). It has also the advantage of right-siding the contract.

3♠ is the single bid I am not considering. Going down in 4♠ on a 5-1 break in an outside suit is unlucky: no reason for pard to complain, much less for oppos to give their learned advice ;) I still wonder what would happen in 3♦X, on a trump lead. Declarer should make no more than 7 tricks (4 trumps, the black aces and the 4th club, since the suit is splitting 3-3)

Am I the only one who sees slam chances here? Pard is certainly 4-6 in the minors (with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs, he should open 1♦); if his major holding is 2♠ and a singleton heart, there are good chances for a slam. Even a sub-minimum hand [xx x KJxx AQTxxx] plays slam on a club finesse. The trickiest point (in a non-established partnership) is to avoid the risk that opener corrects the final contract to diamonds, playing advancer for 4 cards in that suit. IMHO, it should not be a big risk: I play NMF (2♥ would not be forcing, and asks opener to pass or correct; the only forcing bid is 2♦, which does not guarantee diamonds at all. OTOH, in an auction 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♦-3♦, 4♣ is certainly forcing, and asks for a cue-bid. Slam is playable also with either x Ax KJxx KQxxxx or x Ax KQTx KTxxxx: both this hands are consistent with the bidding, but if advancers puts in a FSF the auction will be muddled.

Since opener is marked with a singleton heart (or in the worst case with 2 - but I'd bet on a singleton) he cannot rebid NT. A ♥ cue bid would likely to be interpreted as a good hand with spade fit (quite obvious). Opener's hand (if he is not one of those guys who don't know the meaning of pass) will be something like: Qx x KQJxxxx AKx or xx x AKJxxxx AQJ Both of this hands are close to a minimum for the "free bid" of 3♦ [and this time it is a true free bid: no one is asking opener to bid. Even if the partnership does not use 2NT Good/Bad 3♦ shows a single-suit reverse]. The second hand makes a slam playable, and open might even be stronger. The first hand has no play for 3N, but 5♦ is lay-down. I'm quite biased in trying to play 3N on a lot of hands which are normally played in a suit; not on this hand, though. The final contract has to be 5 or 6♦.

IMO, 1♠ might have been bid with less: A♥ and KJ♠ [with 3 diamonds and a clubs doubleton which should be good for a ruff] push me toward finding a bid for sure over 3♥. 2NT Lebensohol (or Good/Bad) is certainly applicable here; IMHO, if it is not played, it does not change the values shown with a direct 3♦: it just precludes a 3♦ bid on purely distributional values.

3♠ would be just competitive; I would go for X, a balanced game-try. It is most likely that pard has a singleton diamond; however, if by any chance he has a doubleton, and the oppos a re spoofing, 3♦X with diamond lead might end up in a nice penalty. BTW, I do prefer 1♠: the 1st X should show bot majors, 4-4

It depends on the partnership agreements: are you playing support doubles? Does 3♦ in the direct seat show a hand with reverse strength? There is also another consideration: pard is marked with one or two hearts at most (I'd guess just one, if oppos are reliable), and probably 2 spades. If the hand is something like xx x AQJxxxx AKx, our contract is 5♦, not 3N. My suggestion is X, forward going (not penalty), in particular if partner can have 3 spades. Alternatively, I prefer 4♦ (if it is an established partnership) or even 5♦ outright, it must be the most practical contract (if pard's hand is Qx x KQJTxxx AKx, 5♦ are lay-down, and 3N is a disaster).

Doubling 2♣ is for T/O, but I don't like this action with a very unbalanced hand: typically, it comes from a more balanced hand, where you can live with partner transforming the double (and on this hand clubs are quite likely to be the suit of the overcaller). I have not clarified it before, but with a very distributional hand, GF but not slam-try, pass and then bid would be the correct auction. No one has commented on the chances of the slam: would you be happy of playing 6♠?

Responder has shown a good 6-4, and is making a slam try, but the strain is still unclear. I would never consider 4N as KC asking, sorry.

How could 4N be RKC? there is no fit agreed. And opener might be in misfit with 3 spades and 2 diamonds. I've to say that the 2♣ showing a single-suit (which is quite an unusual defense against NT, at least here in Australia) proved to be quite annoying. Anyway, forgetting our agreements and anyway assuming that 4N is to play, I might accept without problem a 5♣ last train, with no certainty on the final strain (advancer denial or acceptance are in any case in diamonds, and opener passes or corrects). 5♥ (which bypasses diamonds) can only be a strong acceptance of spades; and 5♠ - by default - is a mild slam try. However, at the table pard bid 5♠, which, IMHO, is the correct bid with his hand. [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sa743hk6daq9862c9&w=sk62hqjt932dt3c52&e=st8h54dk74cqj8764&s=sqj95ha87dj5cakt3]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1N-(2C)-3D-(P)-3N-(P)-4S-(P)-5S-All P[/hv] At the table, I passed 5♠: IMHO, my hand is not much better than a minimum for the my auction, and the spades lack intermediates. There was a 3rd tactical reason: this was the 9th and final board of the last match of a Swiss team event, and the other hand were pretty good [we lost 13 IMPs on this hand, but still won the match by 21 IMPs]. Calling a possibly risky slam was not the best of tactics. Obviously in the other room they called the slam (in NT!!). Lead heart, taken in the balanced hand; Q♠ for the finesse, not covered, and J♠ without the least doubt. 6N made (below chances: you need not to loose both finesses, but then even if one finesse wins you must find the T in the suit; and both diamonds and spades must break). Bad luck: after seeing the cards, I was relieved not being in slam. The position in spades is interesting: W should never cover, even with the doubleton K, unless he has exactly KT; and E should drop the 8 in any case.

I disagree: 4N would be to play. What should opener do with 3-4-2-4 and values mostly in the round suit? Unfortunately, the auction has become crowded (and since clubs is not a suit, you loose even the option of cue-bidding). As far as the agreement was: pass: minimum and wasted values 4N: to play, misfit 5C: generic slam try in diamonds 5D: choice of contract 5H: strong slam try in spades 5S: mild slam try in spades Opener's hand is minimum, but there are no wasted values; the fit in spades is ok, and even the J♦ pulls his weight. AK A in the round suits cover the looser outside the 2-suiter. I'd go for 5♠. With a 6-5, GF but not slam try, the 1st bid should be in the major, irrespective of length.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sqj95ha87dj5cakt3]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1N-(2C)*-3D**-(P)-3N-(P)-4S***-(P)-? *: single suiter (unknown) **: natural and forcing ***: natural[/hv] 1N is 15-17, and may include 5-card majors. 3♦ can be a 2-suiter (and 4♠ confirms it). However, the auction chosen by N indicates a clear disparity between the suit. A semi-balanced hand (say 4-2-5-2) would have started with a double. Same thing with 4 spades, 5 diamonds and 3-1 in the other suits.

The first hand (4-2-3-4) might be better in defense than in offense; the second offers some chances for a game. S has given a minimum answer to the t/o X, and has not acted over 3♦. OTOH, the shape is quite good, even if the point count is minimum. Why not Axx KQ xxx Jxxxx? Now 4♥ is quite good (but N does not know abt the 6th card). The reasonable bid is pass, but 4♥ has some allure

If he is an old expert, I'll bid 4♥: more chances that he considers 3♥ forcing; otherwise it is a clear-cut pass 3N would be nice: pard might have Jxx AKQxxx xx xx, and the lead is certainly spade

IMO, 4♣ would show either an autonomous suit or a Q with fit in spades. Opener - in either case - should bid his controls.

I would expect Hxx Hx xxx Hxxxx; on average, 10 HCP. It might look good for a 4♥, likely on a finesse and hearts 3-2. The saying is 6-4, bid one more

That's your opinion: if you prefer to give the message of an unbalanced hand, with diamonds and hearts (such a nice suit) and no stopper in clubs, 3♥ is the bid.

I'd have preferred bidding 4♣ (certainly forcing). 4♥ is not much of a message for pard: how can he understand where my problem is? Btw, I need finding pard with a singleton, or the A♥. If his weak 2 is made up of KQ to 6 in spades and K♥, it does not look like a very good slam.

IMO,if there were a slam,the bidding sequence would be as belows: (1), [1♠-2♦] [3♦-3♥] [4♣ cue-bid for ♣controls without 6card ♠ (2), [1♠-2♦] [2♠-3♥] [4♣-4♦] cue-bid for ♣&♦,with trump options [? 4♠good ♠ 5♦good ♠ and ♦supports 4♥cue-bid ... Perhaps,there are other good sequences; Why do you think so? N has denied a heart suit, and has no extras justifying an immediate raise to 3♦. Frankly the point was not to make a poll of different systems. The auction was given up to 3N

2♠, in either case. Like Frances, I'd be happier if pard denied a spade stopper. A slam in diamond is quite possible (opposite a 3-1-6-3 or similar). 3♠ (Western Q or splinter) would require 4 diamonds. 3♣ is interesting, provided that it is fit-showing; still I believe that the spade singleton is more significant. A fit in hearts is unlikely (the only possibilities are hands with singleton or void in clubs), but who knows?

All good points. And the 6th spade is a big plus. Michaels are a relic of a time when bridge was less competitive than nowadays.

This is a very difficult problem. The only things we know for sure are: my RHO is broken. Give him 3-4 HCP, on average. I have 6 HCP, although a great shape my LHO and pard are sharing something like 30+ HCP. OTOH, pard passed in the direct seat. IMHO, 4♠ is too much, and might be a disaster if LHO has a strong hand (not unlikely). 2♠ is completely misleading: in the balancing seat, strongish one-suited jumps are the standard treatment. 1♠ is plain crazy. No pre-emptive value vs. LHO: if he's strong, I'm just opening a door to a game swing (just not to be too pessimistic: it would be easy to construct hand where 6m is playable). 3♠ should be really according to Lawrence suggestion: a hand which makes against a random 10 HCP count. The hand I hold is one king shy, IMO. Pass is attractive: cannot be a disaster, and it is likely that there is no game for us. If I bid, it must be 3♠, the least misleading bid. Pass is very close.

Does this mean that you agree with N's bid? With the real hand, I have even more problems in understanding 4♠. And with the hand you suggest, Frances, maybe it is better to bid 4♠ over 3♠

Strange hand, which should not be a problem at all. 3♠ is unlimited; 4♣ is clearly a cue-bid, with interest in slam; 4♥ is not last train. whatever he has, pard has denied a diamond cue-bid with 4♠. Even worse if it was a slow 4♠, which, IMHO, would bar me from bidding. If pard has bad trumps, with a diamond stopper, his bid should be 5♠, not 4. Did LHO double 5♣ for a lead? It would be again quite funny, since it would be an automatic re-double. I'm looking forward seeing what I missed