bid_em_up

Of course, last night my cable modem decided to die and its going to take them two days to replace it. :P

So you automatically shut out any possible chance of reaching 6D? Funny hand, innit? It's entirely possible to set up partner's hand so that you go down at 3 or make 7. I really don't mean to argue with you all the time. :P Your choice of 3D is a much better call than either 3H or 4H (both of which are terrible bids, imo). At least you have a known diamond fit, 3H is quite likely to be passed by partner on his minimum holding with a stiff heart when 5D/6D are cold, and 4 hearts is probably down when partner happens to be 4-0-(5-4) or 3-0-5-5, and even some 3-1-4-5's. Rebidding some number of hearts is simply too unilateral of a bid when it is readily apparent that there is a possible alternative strain to play in, imo. Bidding 3D at least lets partner in on the diamond fit part of the hand. But it is not as flexible as 2S, as you do not get to find out (via partners bid or non-bid of 2N) whether or not there are wasted spade values in his hand.

My answer is somewhat dependent upon methods agreed/allowed. I think partner is quite likely to be either 3-1-5-4 or 4-0-5-4. In my particular methods, I know that partner holds 5+ diamonds and 4+ clubs, since we open 1C when 4-4 in minors or when 4 diamonds and 5 clubs. The 1D bid followed by 2C guarantees longer diamonds than clubs. With this agreement, I am not ready to rule out 6D yet, and I am not sure what game is best at this point or if we need to be in game at all. It could be 3N, it could be 4H, it could be 5D or it is entirely possible that we need to stop in 4D. The only call that flexibly creates a forcing auction that asks partner to further describe his hand is 2S. If partner does not bid 2N, I will seriously consider 6D (as he has no wasted values in spades, and no values in hearts). If he bids 3C, I will show the diamond support via 3D (still forcing after 2S). If he bids 3D, I will bid 3H (again, still forcing and implies 6 good hearts). With no wasted spade values, I will not stop below game, either in hearts or diamonds. Diamonds is probably the best choice, as 5-4 fits usually play better than 6-0 or 6-1 fits. If partner bids 2N showing wasted spade values, I will bid 3D to show the support and decide where to go after hearing his next call. If, my methods do not promise longer diamonds than clubs (partner can have 4 diamonds and 5 clubs, or he can still have 5+ diamonds and 4 clubs), the problem is more difficult. While I am not quite as eager to drive to game just yet, I still want partner to give me more information about his hand. 2S is still the only call that allows me to elicit further description of his hand, without "seemingly" committing us to any particular strain (as a 3H bid, or a 3D bid might do). The principle here is to get a better idea of what partner's hand actually contains. You know he has no points in hearts (other than maybe the J). You want to know, does he have wasted points in spades? Can he possibly have 2 or 3 hearts? Does he have 5 clubs and 4 diamonds? or does he have 5 diamonds and 4 clubs? All of this will help you to decide what action to take next and the only way to find out is via 2S.

So you automatically shut out any possible chance of reaching 6D?

I'm not. :)

Well, I guess you can't help me... I have 10 hcp. LHO has around 8. That leaves 22 hcp for my partner and his. That's 11 apiece. I wouldn't expect my partner to say anything with an 11 count without 5 good spades, and I wouldn't expect RHO to bid with an 11 count unless he had some good fit or controls, and he doesn't have the latter. Since if either of them had a 15 count they most likley could find a bid, I'd say the chances of both of them both being in the 8-14 range are pretty good. As far as balanced, well, LHO has 7 hearts, and I have 1. RHO surely would have bid if he had 4 hearts. That leaves 2-4 for partner and 1-3 for RHO. My hand is balanced outside of hearts, LHO hasn't shown shape except for hearts, no reason to think that my partner isn't balanced- he's more likely to be balanced than average. I think a balanced 11 count is exactly what I should expect from partner. May have a little more, may have a little less. It's not that I disagree necessarily with balancing, it's that I think examples of 15 counts or singleton diamonds aren't useful, as those hands are rare enough that they aren't worth considering. On the other hand, the hands in your last example are much more down to earth, if you'll excuse the pun. And if you want to X in hopes that your partner has one of those hands, then I think that's a reasonable thing to do. Phil, I dont mean for it to sound heated either, sometimes it's just my caustic wit and writing style; other times it's simply frustration. JT, let me try and address this a little better. You say that you prefer partners to be more aggressive in the direct seat. While you may "prefer" this style, I think if you read what others are saying (not just myself), you will find that this "style" is not the preferable method of most players. I believe that most players are less willing to step into a live auction at the three level when LHO has yet to take a call. Note, this is a first seat preempt and you are expecting partner to decide whether or not to act immediately, without hearing what his LHO has to say and knowing that he still has a competent partner that can still protect our side in the passout seat. One of the best things I have ever been told is "you don't preempt a preempt", bidding in the direct seat needs to be based on solid values. Now, in your prior example hand of QJ10x x KQxxx KJxx, this is about the best you can expect RHO to hold and NOT make a call. If he was weaker with a fit, ie, he would/should raise to 4H. If he is stronger than this, he likely would raise to 4H even on a stiff. If he actually has a stiff heart, then partner is holding 4 hearts (possibly even 5). RHO's failure to act, actually increases the the likelihood that partner actually has a better hand than his expected 12 hcp but has no good action in the direct seat. And all of this, of course, is based on the invalid assumption that LHO actually holds 8-9 hcp for his 1st seat preempt. He is actually likely to hold less, imo. x KQJxxxx xx xxx xx AQJxxxx xx xx xx KQ109xxx xxx x x KJ109xxx x xxxx All are reasonable first seat preempts (for some people, anyway). Now there are between 24-27 missing hcp on these hands, yet partner failed to act and so did RHO. Partner's failure to act in any of these cases is either going to be based on the fact that he does not have spades, or that he has a true trap pass of 3H. If he doesn't have spades, and he doesnt have a trap pass, then he must have clubs and/or diamonds, and you have a fit with both of these. You are going to lose the partscore/game battle (as previously shown) even when partner holds spades, but cannot freely bid at the 3 level or when holding a minor where he cannot bid at the 4 level. KJxxxx Axx xx xx is a good example of a hand that does not have a stiff in either minor and yet, cannot justifiably bid 3S directly over 3H. Maybe your style allows for this, mine does not. Kx Axx xx KJxxxx is a "balanced" 11 count where bidding 4C directly is lunacy. I am not by any means claiming that balancing on Axxx x Axx Q9xxx will win ALL of the time. But, you simply cannot sell out to 3H on this holding. It is a long term losing proposition. Addendum to already long post: Adam said, "My general tendency is to be aggressive with shortness in the enemy suit and conservative with length. This tends to avoid disasters when we both have moderate length in their suit. If you gave me a second heart instead of one of those clubs I would pass." and this really is the final deciding factor. Your shortness combined with RHO's failure to raise, increase the chances of partner actually holding the trap pass as well. If the hand was Axxx xx Axx Qxxx, pass becomes a much closer choice.

I have found that, for the most part, I really prefer Lavinthal Discards vs. NT, first discard only. Why? You don't have to discard a possible winner from your best suit in order to encourage that suit. However, there are also some disadvantages to them as well. Such as when you can't really afford to pitch from either of the remaining two suits (you need to retain your holdings to protect those suits), but you really don't want either of them led. Unfortunately, if you now pitch from your best suit....partner will refuse to lead it, and lead one of the remaining suits according to your pitch from your best suit. This can be quite aggravating at times. Another advantage to Lav., imo, is that it only takes one discard to convey the message of what you want. By direct discard, I assume you mean, you encourage what you want led or discourage what you don't want led. This takes either one encouraging discard or two discouraging (one in each of the remaining two suits, unless already known). If you can't afford to give one encouraging, then partner only has a 50/50 shot at getting it right if he wins a trick before you have a chance to make your second discouraging discard. Versus suit, I prefer direct discards where high encourages and low discourages, and prefer to give negative inferences first unless absolutely necessary to do otherwise.

No. BIT's are contextual. A routine pass in an auction we aren't in takes 1-2 seconds. Even a 5 second pause can be a break in tempo, in an auction like 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N - 3N - (....pass). A 10 second pause is a lifetime in an auction like this. Count it out for yourself. On the other hand, in a high level competitive auction, 20-30 second breaks are common. If anything, making a call in a that takes 5 seconds might be considered 'fast', although I wouldn't say 10 seconds would be considered fast under any circumstances, but I am a fast player by nature, especially when it comes to the bidding. Huh? Not sure what you are attempting to say Phil, can I take 10 seconds to think about it? :) My point was, there is a big difference in waiting 30-45 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, wriggling, squirming, whatever, than a "normal" 5-10 seconds in an auction such as this. You should be expected to take 5-10 seconds to consider your bid in this sequence, and attempting to claim it is a "break in tempo" is carrying things to the extreme. Calling the director for a normal and expected BIT is ridiculous.

I'm sorry. Anyone who complains about a 5-10 second BIT needs to take up golf, or bowling or any other sport. BIT's were meant for the 30-45 second, 1 minute, 2 minute tanks that frequently occur. Anybody who wants to complain about somebody taking 10 seconds (i.e. skip bid please wait...where the NORMAL wait is supposed to be 10 seconds) to decide on a call, can kiss my.......and I will be happy to tell them that. (Hopefully, that doesn't violate Zero Tolerance!!) :)

The X is takeout, my vote is other. 4♠

The odds are greatly reduced of partner holding a 3-3-4-3 12 count. Yes, he may have that hand, but if you can't understand why this is true, then I really can't help you. Here's one though: Kxx KJx Kxxx Jxx How many is 3H x'd down? And only a 3-3-4-3 11 count. Bummer. Here's another: KQx xxx KQx K10xx I'll take my chances of being plus in 4C (or possibly 5C). Ok, so its a 13 count, I stole the extra point from the previous example. :) And just because he fails to act over 3H, does not mean you cannot have game on your 10 count as you implied in your initial post. I gave 4 reasonable examples that took all of 30 seconds to come up with. Mainly as a means of countering the claim that we simply cant have game that you made and that if partner failed to act with a 15 count, "we will have a talk after the game" or that "If partner has the flat 12 count I expect him to have, game isn't just out of sight, it's left Earth's gravitational pull and is drifting off into the cosmos." The point is your assumption that partner is on a flat 12 count is invalid. He is less likely to hold this hand, and more likely to hold some hand where he simply cannot act on his own over 3H, where game is cold. And we might have a talk after the game. But I dont think you would enjoy it. :)

If my partner passed with 15+ and a double stop in hearts in direct seat, he and I will have a discussion after the game. The idea that direct seat should roll over and play dead is what causes all of these problems in the first place. RHO is going to be basing his bid almost entirely on controls. Side suit queens and jacks and going to be almost worthless in a heart contract when partner is likely to have no more than 2. Give me an 12 count aceless wonder as RHO: QJTx x KQxxx KJx and I wouldn't even consider bidding 4♥. Because you have two aces (neither of them the ace of hearts), the odds of RHO having good HCP but poor controls is pretty high. If partner has the flat 12 count I expect him to have, game isn't just out of sight, it's left Earth's gravitational pull and is drifting off into the cosmos. Really? KQxx xxx x AJ10xx Gee, look, a 10 count that partner couldn't act on. Yet, how do you like your chances in 4S? KJxx xxx x AJ10xx Damn, only a 9 count and yet 4S is still looking pretty damn good. Ah hell, KJ10xx xxx x KJ10x Wow, an 8 count where 4 spades is practically cold, as long as you can avoid a club ruff. And these are the MINIMUM hands you can expect partner to reasonably hold. If you think that your partners should be bidding in direct seat over 3H on any of these hands, more power to you. I hope to have you as an opp frequently, though. And as I stated, he is more likely to hold better than this. A normal 15 count, where partner really shouldnt act over 3H: Kx KJx QJxx AJxx What would you like him to do? X? ummm, no. Direct 3N? suicidal. Keep up the good work though.

This hand is a clear balancing double at the two or three level, imo. RHO's failure to raise to 4♥ indicates that partner is quite likely to have a decent hand with no good bid in the direct seat (most likely because he has only two spades). The chances of partners having a decent hand are further increased by the quasi-weakness of our hand. Think of it this way, you have a preemptive bid on your left, no action by partner, and a failure to raise to 4H or bid 3N on your right. Where are the points? Usually, they are in partners hand. I would not be surprised at all to find that partner holds a normal 1NT opener where 3N is cold, or a hand where 3H x'd is down 3 or 4. Balancing on this holding is an absolute must, imo, or the opponents will steal you blind.

Pass. But put the diamond Q in the spade suit instead, and then 1S.

I don't disagree that the 5-2 might be preferable (of course, it could be a 5-2 heart fit instead of the 5-2 spade fit, and bidding 3S prevents playing 3H, if its right). As I thought I implied, with discussion, 3S is ok. Without discussion, partner would have every right to infer that I am 3-5-4-1 and bid accordingly. Of course, if you routinely raise 1S to 2S on this holding (and I suspect that many would), now partner is more likely to be aware that you only have 2 spades, making 3S the better choice. However, I think in the BIL forum, 3H is the still the better choice of calls. In other words, 3S is fine for you/your partners (I certainly respect your judgement), but I really don't consider it to be the "recommended" bid at the BIL level, for reasons already stated. :)

2H should imply a 6th heart. X says, I can tolerate whatever you do and would be almost unanimous in any poll, I believe.

I seriously doubt it. While partner is unlikely to hold a trap pass of 2D, he is certainly likely to hold something like KJxxxx x xxxx Qx where he cannot take a free bid over 2D (assuming you are not playing negative free bids). 2♠ would be forcing, and this hand just isn't good enough to do so. I cant imagine any expert quietly selling out to 2D on this holding.

3♥. This is the one time it is acceptable to rebid the 5 card major, imo. 3♦ would promise 5. 3♠ should show 3. 3N would show club stop. All of these are out. The 4SF bid asked specifically, do you have 3 spades? do you have clubs stopped? The answer to both these questions is no. Partner should be aware that 3H may be this kind of hand, and is the "lesser" of all the lies your forced to tell. The 3H bid does not guarantee a 6th heart. He can now bid 3S to show 6♠'s (if he has them), 3N themselves holding a club stop, or 4H (I would not be too afraid of playing the 5-2 ♥ fit at this point). Unlike Phil, I would not bid 3♠ without prior discussion with partner. If partner is aware 3♠ might be only 2 card support, then it might be ok but what I really don't like about it, is that it will present the illusion that we are 3-5-4-1 and partner may head off to a spade slam under the impression that he only has one losing club.

b.s. How much weaker do you think the cuebidding hand can be? It should never be weaker than this, without compensating shortness somewhere, imo. On the 3-3-4-3 pattern, with the opening bidder over it, this hand is nowhere near as good as you are attempting to imply that it is. This, assumes of course, that a raise to 3H is invitational (as it should be) and not preemptive. The cuebid at this point should say, I can almost bid 4H on my own, unless you have a real bad overcall. If all partner can do is bid 3H, I am going to trust him and pass. Bidding 4H is even worse hand evaluation, imo. Not to mention a break in partnership discipline. I do not know Free's overcall style. I suspect that it is nowhere near as disciplined as mine would be for a w/r overcall (but thats just a guess). But to bid 4H after being told that his overcall isn't that good is simply playing one handed. Maybe you like that, but I dont. "You clearly have as much idea of what you are talking about as the man in the moon." Quote Papa the Greek. The reason for going via the 2S bid is to show that the raise is made on high card strength and not length to allow pd to make a sensible decision if the opps decide to sacrifice. 2S shows a limit raise or better and this hand is far too good to pass 3H. Note that even without the "wasted" K of S 3NT makes on the 4-3 C break. Vul overcall or nv overcall, this hand is worth 4H. "Maybe you bid like that, but I dont." Maybe you will after playing for a few more years; don't give up yet. Ho Hum.

b.s. How much weaker do you think the cuebidding hand can be? It should never be weaker than this, without compensating shortness somewhere, imo. On the 3-3-4-3 pattern, with the opening bidder over it, this hand is nowhere near as good as you are attempting to imply that it is. This, assumes of course, that a raise to 3H is invitational (as it should be) and not preemptive. The cuebid at this point should say, I can almost bid 4H on my own, unless you have a real bad overcall. If all partner can do is bid 3H, I am going to trust him and pass. Bidding 4H is even worse hand evaluation, imo. Not to mention a break in partnership discipline. I do not know Free's overcall style. I suspect that it is nowhere near as disciplined as mine would be for a w/r overcall (but thats just a guess). But to bid 4H after being told that his overcall isn't that good is simply playing one handed. Maybe you like that, but I dont.

The trick is, it's stated that it is a responsive double. Partner should not have 4 spades, but instead should be something like 1-3-4-5 or 2-3-4-4. (If partner actually has 4 spades, they should bid 3S). I suppose he could be 3-2-4-4 as well, but this is less likely. 3S will be a losing call, in the long run as you cannot stand the likely force @ trick 2. Since I am holding the majority of the KQ's in the deck (and the club Q will most likely be finessable if needed), and yet partner has shown approximately 9-10 hcp for his X @ the three level, I will play him to hold two aces (and possibly the club Q as well). Without these, he can't have much of an X. The missing Ace will be onside, which should give us a reasonable play for 5 of a minor. Partner also should have discounted any heart values he may have since he is under the heart bidder, which makes it more likely that his values are working ones. The only possible values for this are two of the three side aces and possibly the club Q. The problem is, if I just bid 4m now, partner will pass, unaware of the fact that our hand fits quite well with his and has improved somewhat with his responsive X. If 4N at this point would be pick a minor (and I think it should be), thats my call. Otherwise, I think I'm stuck with 4H as my only forcing option at this point. A distant 3rd choice is to leave the X in, as we should be taking 2 spades, along with 3 minor suit tricks.

http://www.wral.com/news/strange/story/1228631/

There is no reason to show 4S in the sequence 1C-1H-1N. Opener has normally denied 4 spades by his failure to bid 1S. Even if you partnership "might" rebid 1N when holding 4 spades, you still normally would bid 2D (nmf) to find out whether opener has 3 hearts or 4 spades. Which is why this sequence should be 6+♥, 5♠.

Checkback sequences should show the other major first when 3-4, imo. Why? Because the 4-4 fit will frequently produce extra tricks than are not available in the 5-3 (or 6-3) fit. You will always be able to find the 5-3 fit anyway. If the checkback bidder holds 4 cards in the other major, he will raise to 4M. If he fails to do this, he must have 5 of his suit (otherwise there was no need for the checkback), and will bid 3N. Now opener holding 3-4 in the majors can correct to 4 of responders major.

1♣-1♥ 1NT-2♠ Spades must be longer than hearts- if you play some form of checkback, you'd use it with only 4 spades, if you don't, partner would never bypass spades to bid NT. That's really only to show 5-4, not 6-4, so maybe it is better to start with spades and then bid hearts with this. This auction would show 6+ hearts, and 5 spades, in most systems.