JohnnyH7

Is 4S an option with this hand? I see many hands that partner can pass 3S with that make game, especially in the "6-7 HCP" range that we're supposed to play partner for when they preempt.

I like X. With what kind of hands would you overcall 2H? 1) With 5431 you would usually double. 2) With 55 you would usually bid michaels. 3) With 5332 you would usually pass as it is very dangerous to overcall in sandwich position with that shape. So: With this shape I prefer to double so that my 2H overcalls here can show six as that is the most frequent hand type and partner can count on it. Also, with 5422 I have support for all the other suits, and we may belong in either: 1) clubs 2) diamonds 3) defending doubled. With the trend these days to open AND respond light, they will often have too few points to be in 1N. Maybe partner has the blacks, and we are crushing them and they can't run. For instance, suppose partner has: KQJx x Qxx KJxxx. The opponents opened with 11 and responded with 4, as seems to be the style of some of the younger experts on this forum. If we overcall 2H here, we really let them off the hook. Of course X is not penalty here, it is takeout, but partner will often convert. This is similar to my NT defense, named JohnnyH over NT, where I double with hands that are not penalty oriented. How does this work? Well: 1) Partner knows I have some points. 2) Partner knows I have 2 suits. 3) Partner will pass with some values. Having our HCP divided is far more likely than something like 15 opposite 7, thus we get way more penalties playing JohnnyH vs NT. I also think this post really illustrates how poor responding with terrible hands are. It's funny how these things work.

I would bid 2H. I think this is less of a distortion than 2C, although 2C is the correct technical bid. It will be very hard for partner to evaluate his hand if I start with 2C; starting with 2H enables him to upgrade th right things (heart length and/or the king, minor suit shortness etc).

I think forcing to game is a massive overbid. 4333 hands are bad enough, but with the spade jack often wasted and the stray club jack, it's even worse. There is nothing to ruff, and you have sub-minimum high cards for a game force to begin with. Add to all of this that the game is MP where you need at least 50 % odds to bid game. I would seriously rather raise to 2S than force to game.

The first auction depends on your agreements about what constitutes a 1N opener. As I would open 1N with all 5332 hands I prefer to play 3N as 5242 with 15-17. It uses up a lot of room but is descriptive. On the second auction, I think 3N should show 15-17 with exactly 2 spades and balanced. 2N does not necessarily show a balanced hand, and is very often bid on unbalanced hand types in that auction so it should not have a specific range.

You are a teacher and yet you expect people to read your minds when you make ignorant blanket statements? You said: If you except those experts and world class playing with students, why not say so? Why would Elianna's examples be "exceptions of course" if you didn't say so? How would you know that an expert or world class is playing with a shy student if you just ban them upon seeing that they require permisson for kibitzers? I'm sure the answer will be so obvious that I should have figured it out without you saying anything. What about experts that are tired and just want to goof around with some friends without a bunch of kibitzers? What about experts that are playing with friends and like to use the occasional cuss word and thus must bar kibs or someone will complain? What about experts who are just a little insecure, perhaps they're married to an even better expert? What about experts that don't want to deal with people like you? Are these all obvious exceptions to your statement that should have been inferred? To think that you would make such a ridiculous statement, and then have the nerve to be so condescending to say to a nice person like Elianna because she dared to make valid arguments in coherent sentences is amazing to me. I hope that sinks in, but sadly I know it won't.

2nd list should include some minimum amount of tournaments played as well.

Think you're missing an option Todd, the title is a not so subtle clue.

Sorry, but hrothgar didn't really say it all. He forgot the very likely 8. balanced hands less than invite 9. 3 suited hand 10. 2 suited hand. 11. invitational 1 suiters. Among balanced hands we have those that include hearts, those that don't. The invitational 1 suiters don't matter much directly as partner can bid 3x if he has one, but they matter indirectly if he has a weakish hand with a 1 suiter (does he also balance with 3x? How do we know his strength). This hand is very complex. If we pass, realistically it will usually go all pass given our void. If partner has any kind of balanced hand he will usually pass unless he has about 11 and is willing to gamble out 3N. If partner has a red 2 suiter he will X back in which is fine, if he has a 3 card limit he'll bid 3S. If he has a 3 suiter or 2 suiter that includes C+Red he will pass. If he has a 1 suiter that is weak and also has some kind of club holding (not unlikely) he will probably just defend. However, if we bid partner will expect more AND we can't get our shape right. 3H would usually suggest 5-5. Our best bid with this shape is probably double except that I would fear partner sitting for it when I have this hand as my X shows more in the way of values. If we make exactly 3 of something and they make 3C, we can simply never get to the 3 level by bidding. Partner will raise us to game. If we pass, we may miss a game (usually in hearts). I think I would go with 3H. The risk isn't overwhelming, if we don't get Xed and we end up going down I really doubt that we will be converting a plus into a minus (3C going down and us going down is unlikely given our hand...at worst it will be a minus into a bigger minus). Getting Xed will be our main risk. This way at least we wont defend 3C cold for 4H.

1) 4N. 2) pass.

1) 3D 2) 4C 3) 2C

3H then pass.

I would open 1S. Sure the spades are bad, but there are still 5 of them. I don't want to needlessly distort my shape. 4S in a 5-3 can easily be better than 3N or 5D. If the auction gets competitive, we may miss a 5-3 fit altogether, or end up showing 5-6 which could cause partner to misevaluate. If we have a 5-4 fit we may end up having to guess what to do as partner will not be able to figure out we have 5 if we open 1D. 1D allows them to get in with hearts much easier. In many auctions, such as 1D p 1H p 1S p 2H p we will be poorly placed. If we bid 2S we will once again be showing 5-6 and defeating the purpose of opening 1D (aren't the 1D openers treating their spades as 4?), but what else is there? 3H? 4H? 2N? 3N? All can lead to poor contracts when spades is our strain. After 1N, I would definitely rebid 2D. Jump shifting when your anchor suit is xxxxx is a recipe for disaster. This plan will miss some games opposite some values and 1-3 in the pointed but not enough to bid over 2D. I believe you will gain much more by stopping short of game when its right than you will lose from the few games you miss.

My thoughts exactly.

In competitive auctions, sometimes you have to stretch. I would always bid 2H with this hand. If the opponents stopped bidding, sure I'd X and bid hearts, but especially with my partial diamond fit, it would not surprise me if this auction got competitive (and high) quickly. If I don't get my suit in I may lose it forever. As for playing strength, I think this hand is fine for 2H. The DQ is nice and 6 good hearts are useful. Treating it as "invitational" with hearts feels right. It lacks the defense that is generally required for this bid. Modern experts also tend to make this bid when they have a diamond fit and 5 hearts and are light. It's a bidders game.

This hand is just too good for 1H. I understand the major (black suit) defects to Xing, but thats the price you pay to be able to reopen light. In a pinch I will bid 1H in balancing seat with 16 on a really flawed X hand (this qualifies!), but you have to draw the line somewhere. Partner with a weak hand and a long suit will realize in passout seat you are likely to just have some kind of strong hand since he is weak and his LHO passed a 1 bid. You may get burned, but I feel that bidding 1H is just going to miss too many games.

I would X with the east hand, 5D with the west hand, pass with the east hand. If east bid 4S, I think west has to pass. I think Xing with the east hand will tend to lead to better results than bidding 4S, but it could certainly work poorly.

I think playing for penalties is absolutely nuts with such poor hearts, poor shape, and no aces and 1 king. Just because we have a majority of the high cards doesn't mean we will beat them when they have a long suit and their side cards are all aces or kings. 2N is a slight overbid since this hand probably evaluates to a poor 10 or so (I'm sure some evaluation methods would downgrade this to 8 or something, but thats going overboard). On the upside, I can hold up in hearts and I have a lot of finessing positions through the partner of the preempter. FWIW I would use pass then 2N as scrambling and not natural (or lebensohl).

Amusing. I always said I would NEVER X with a void in spades if I could not control the subsequent auction. However, this hand is so powerful I think that I have to X. Unlike the poster that asked what the problem is, I find Xing with hands like these to be very problematic. I just can't catch up if I don't.

KJ K98xx Ax AJxx red/white imps. 1D p 1H ?

I would lead a trump. I think the SQ or the CK would be most likely to get you accused of cheating if it worked. I think a red suit would never get you accused of cheating.

Xing with about 1 trick opposite and 1 trump a partner who responded at the 1 level probably didn't occur to josh as an option.

Pass. I would have raised to 2S if they had not bid 2H, and am willing to bid 3S in a pinch over 3H. However I'm not willing to be pushed 2 levels higher than I would normally bid. If partner has a hand he can X 4H (cards, over which I'll bid 4S). It's possible he will pass it out with a perfect hand for game, but it's also possible to go for a big number bidding.

It's not quite as simple as that. It's hardly difficult to construct hands where leading low is the only winning action, particularly when missing the H9. The real question is which are more likely: those hands or the ones where leading a top one is right? Well if you lead a low heart and they win, they might have 5 diamonds 3 clubs and a heart, or they may just have 4 diamond tricks but you get squeezed in three suits on your third discard if an opp has 4 clubs. They also may have 5 diamonds and 2 clubs and a heart but partner just has Qx of clubs, so you again get squeezed. So ace would gain in one of those (not so unlikely) scenarios when they just had Qx/QJ of hearts opp 2 or 3 (not Jxx). Low will gain when partner has Jx/Qx of hearts and dummy has Qxxx/Jxxx AND the opps dont have 9 runners (or 8 runners where you get squeezed). It seems like leading high is percentage.

Decent is an understatement. If diamonds are 2-1 slam is cold barring a ruff at trick 1, if diamonds go 3-0 slam is still extremely good.