cinvent77

3♥ as asking for a stopper is also Kantar's suggestion. (2♥) - 4♥ would show both minors. Perhaps that could be an alternative meaning for 3♥ as well. BTW Do you play Leaping Michaels as forcing? Vincent

In the new situation, (1♦) - X - (P) - 2♣ (2♦) - X - (P) at least it's clear what the second double means: this is take-out. Partner has an above average take-out double, three-suited. Unless he is super strong he will pass 2♥ and 3♣. He could have bid 2♥ himself with 5♥ so he probably has only four. I'll bid 2♥ that's one level lower than 3♣. The more I think about the original problem the less certain I get what the "right" meaning of the second double should be. As a general policy I'm in favor of "no double is penalty unless we specifically agree it is" (This seems contrary to the usual practise, but I think it makes more sense). Maybe mike was right and this should be a case were the (second double) is "penalty" ie. show a decent hand with good spades. That doesn't mean we always have to pass the penalty double, of course. Two questions: - Is anyone in favor of pulling a penalty double here? - Say that the second double is penalty. Would you then play (1♦) - X - (P) - 1♥ (1♠) - X - (2♦) - 2♠ as natural?

I read many good arguments. The standard agreement is probably penalty. However I don't like trying to double opponents in a one-level contract. The frequency seems low. Unless partner has a real trump stack and a decently strong hand, it probably won't gain us much. And even if 1♠x is a party for us, perhaps the opponents can escape to say 2♦. Moreover with a decent hand (say, 15 points) and good spades I would overcall 1♠ over 1♦ and maybe double next round. So, the doubler doesn't have a hand like that. Leaves either a very strong hand with spades or at most four spades. Maybe one should just agree whether the second double is penalty or not. I'm in favor of "not". But then: what would a nonpenalty double mean here?

I'm not a good declarer, so no guarantees, but here's what I think: Declarer cannot afford two trump loser, so the hearts must split 3-2. RHO probably has a doubleton diamonds, so I don't try to ruff two diamonds right away. But then I don't see a way to ruff two diamonds. So I'm always going to lose a heart and a diamond, plus a club. I need to keep the club losers to one. This is only possible if LHO has ♠K and ♣A. So my plan is: grab ♦A, then immediately play low club to king. Playing two rounds of hearts is too much for then LHO may be able to lead a third heart, killing the diamond ruff. I'd like to hear the thoughts of better declarers.

Thank you for the replies. By "learning SAYC" I meant figuring out what to expect in a pickup partnership in BBO The SAYC booklet is sometimes a little vague. Here the sour grape was that I passed 3♦ while partner had 15 points... Maybe I do need to find a regular partner ;) If you play Walsh then 1♠ seem to me to be natural and GF. And since responder can bid FSF followed by a minor, 4♣ and 4♦ must agree hearts, show slam interest with some clubs support/a good diamond suit, respectively.

This is probably a question which has been asked before, but I cannot find a conclusive answer. I'm learning SAYC. Consider the following situation: 1♣ - 1♦ 1♥ - ... In my opinion responder's rebids are "obviously" 1♠ = natural and forcing 2♠ = fourth suit GF 3♦ = invitational but nonforcing Since I'm rather stubborn, what do you think? What is the most common agreement? Vincent

First, I see the merits of your 1♥ response, although 2♣ is not wrong. Now partner has a reasonable take-out double. He's short in spades, so pass is not an option. 1NT shows some values, so that's out as well. Ergo: no bid is nice. Maybe 2♣ for the lead? :) Perhaps slightly better than 2♥, since you don't want to encourage partner to bid 4♥.

The problem in a pick-up partnership is that opener cannot be sure that a rebid of 3C is understood as forcing (which is a good treatment not playing 2/1 GF imho). I like the style of bidding 6NT directly. It's most probably right, doesn't give too much information to the opponents, and avoids all possible disasters. So, the best sequence is: 1♠ - 2♣ - 6NT :P Vincent

Pass. Was it 4Sx + 1?

I would bid 2♠ then double. Bidding 4♠ over 4♥ seems to be making the decision all by yourself. If you feel frisky mix a spade with your clubs and overcall 2NT.

After a business redouble LHO shouldn't be able to pass for penalties :) Hence he probably has no preference. I'd expect business redoubles to show a good hand in points (say at least a decent 10 HCP), not necessarily clubs. The more clubs redoubler has, the more likely that the opponents can escape. Perhaps another meaning to redouble may be more profitable.

pclayton is right, 3♠ is nonsense!

No, of course not. And now that I think of it (only a little tough :) ), if he does, I could bid 4♣ so not really a problem after all. What after a 1NT rebid? BTW xyz is a marvelously mysterious sounding name for a bridge convention ...

I apologize for the ambiguous wording. This is what happened: LHO leads ♠Q from QJ9x, all follow suit. Second trick: small spade from the left, RHO plays king and the ace on the third trick. Then (in the fourth trick) he exists with a heart. I tried to rotate the hands on the first post. Here is the full original deal: [hv=d=n&v=a&n=s873hqj874dj9ckq9&w=sak2h632da85cj1052&e=sqj94h95dq762c764&s=s1065hak10dk1043ca83]399|300|[/hv] And the bidding, with silent opponents: North South pass 1D 1H 2H 3H all pass (South might have rebid 1NT, but that's not the point)

This hand seems hard to bid if you don't play any conventions. Suppose you play standard and start with 1♠ what would you rebid after 1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT? or after 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♣? Take a pessimist view and bid 3NT, bid 4NT and hope partner understands is quantitative rather than respond 5♦ with one ace? I think I'll bid 3NT. Clearly we need either Inverted minors or some Checkback Stayman. As an aside, do people respond 2♣ (forcing) with a 4-card major and game-forcing values? It's seems reasonable to me, but the books I've read all explicitly say no 4-card major is allowed.

Partner is certainly counting on some of our points, so I'm not sure if this hand is worth forcing to 5♦. Would 3♠ be an option? That must be constructive and can hardly show a good spade suit since we didn't follow 3♠ right away. Partner can raise with four, bid 3NT or sign-off in 4♦.

Playing a strong 1NT in the sandwich maybe has its uses. This was a pick-up partnership so 1NT definitely was natural. Even if 1NT is natural I don't think South's pass is a crime. Of course East is the culprit: not only did he try to relieve us of our money with his light 1♠ response, he even rebid his jack-fifth suit rather than choosing between his partner suits. Perhaps the money will be coming my way next time. :) Thanks for the replies. Vincent

After partner opens 1♦ and you bid your hearts you have become declarer in 3♥. [hv=n=s873hak10dk1043ca82&s=s1065hqj874dj9ckq9]133|200|[/hv] After LHO leads ♠Q, RHO cashes ♠AK then exists with a heart. I drew the trumps, cashed the clubs and then played ♦J. LHO produces the 2. I played the king and that was one off. Of course LHO had the queen. No else went down in 3♥. The opponents insist that I need to take the diamond finesse ... I guess they mean "against the queen" rather than "against the ace". But ... why? Why is the finesse against the queen better? Or shouldn't I be taking no finesse at all?

Before I knew my wallet was stolen at BBO - and my partner's too! We were seated NS and these were our hands: [hv=d=w&v=n&n=skj9ha1097dj97cq93&s=saq63h532daq2ck104]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The bidding goes: West North East South 1♦ pass 1♠ pass 2♣ pass 2♠ All pass Would should North and/or South do? All our actions still seem reasonable to me. Any suggestions?

2♠ is a proposal to play in a 4-3 fit and therefore has to show good spades. With hand 3 I won't bid 2♠ but 3♣ seems alright as does 2♠ with hand 5. In fact I cannot think of a 4-5 hand which would bid 2♠ as double on these hands seem more natural. Thus, 2♠ shows 4♠ - 6♣ in my opinion.

IMO natural bidding methods are reasonable apt in this situation: responder should strive to make a rebid to allow opener to show extra strength. In EKAS this 2♣ bid is actually forcing if I am not mistaken. I'm not too familiar with Gazilli but if you play 2♣ artificial after 1M-1NT and 1♥-1♠ it makes sense to use that after 1♦-1M and 1♣-1M as well. This would mean that you would bid all 'problematic hands' through 2♣. I vaguely recall reading about such a convention which included for example hands with 3-card major support. This convention was named after someone, presumably its inventor. Maybe anyone else knows the name? In any case I would try to make the structures similar to reduce memory strain.

Let's see what the good/bad points of bidding 2♠ are this case. Good: - (1♣) - 2♠ uses a lot of space - partner has passed Bad: - vulnerable vs. non-vul. - IMP scoring, especially in light of the vulnerability. - Qxx in ♥ - not too solid 5-card ♠ - singleton ♣, makes it less likely partner has support Of course it is all a matter of style. If you agree on bidding 2♠ with this hand, that's fine. Personally I would pass this hand: there are too many bad points. Change ♥Q into ♠Q and I bid 2♠ at MP as the suit is more 'double-resistance' and consider 1♠ at IMP.

I like the spirit in 3NT. And if you want to be there you should bid it now. But I think it's too much of a gamble at IMPs and maybe even at MP. Partner should not have a good spade holding in first seat vul vs non. LHO can lead through a possible diamond stopper in dummy. Your opponents are no beginners and are likely to do the right thing on this deal. Ideally you play clubs from the other side but I don't see how to get partner to bid clubs first. Maybe 2H - 4NT - 5♣ - pass? :unsure:

Aggressive pre-empt may work beter against weak opponents but ... when asked what say 2♠ means it is a bid awkward when you have to explain: "Pre-empts are normally solid, but may be shaded if partner thinks you are so-so." :)

That is a good point. Let's see if I can actually apply the Law: partner probably has three diamonds and at most four. The opponents are likely to have nine spades. That means that there are at least 18 tricks. Apparently the Law suggests that you either bid 4♦ or double. Pass is not an option. But then I'm not sure if I understand this at all. :P