firmit

Given the actual hand, I am beginning to see the advantage of opening 1♥. Is all of you defending the same method if spades and hearts are switched? If after 1♠-1NT , is 3 of a minor always 5-5, but hearts may be 4? I have been presented this from someone, don't remember who. Think it is part of the system used by some of the national players in Norway.

♠ AQ10x ♥ QJ9xx ♦ AK ♣ Ax This hand came up. And as the only table I opened 2NT 20-21hp ( semi balanced ). This actually gave us a good shoot for the slam, which no-one reached. However, that's not the point. I defend my opening anyday: I got solid stoppers in each suit. Take away either of the minor aces, or 5431, I'd plan a reverse-bid. But not on this hand. We use 4 card majors and NT-bids may contain a bad 6 minor, or a 5422. Is my logic wrong? Should I be convinced of opening 1♥ and make a strong reverse bid?

I am currently devoting a lot of time in re-evaluating my hands after partners bid. This field is subject to many views. However, I would like to get a feedback on my own re-evaluation and upgrade "form". A sample hand. I hold ♠ Kx ♥ A9xxx ♦ AJ10 ♣ 9xx Playing 4 card majors. 2NT GF asking for shortness. First/second cuebid, 0314. 1♥ - 2NT Guess not many object to this. Got one comment on 3♠ Trelde, but that is not apart of our system. 3♦* now my first really evaluation begins. A lot of posts just state "a good 9 count" etc, without more elaboration. On this hand, I would like to know how people would proceed after the given auction: 1♥-2NT-3♦. I obviously got a perfect hand opposite partners singleton/void diamond. At this point my normal 12 hp count is re-evaluated to a apprx. 4 loosers: My ♥A+length gives me extra points = +2hp. My ♦J10 seems worthless, but my A is crucial. And together with ♠K I would say my hand is worth 15-16hp. Given partner has showed a distributional hand, my slam progress towards slam should be evaluated, no? Please, comment on hand evaluation. How do you evaluate your hand after partner's bids?

Me and my partner have just agreed on Sandwich. (1C)-p-(1H)- ? X = exactly 4 spades with 4+ unbid minor or strong one-suiter, or strong balanced 1NT = 5spades + 4+ of unbid minor ( may even be bid if 1C promise 2+)

Nice post! Glad you had a great time! After partner bidding 1♥ after your 1♦, and you holding a rather strong 3 suited hand, with two honours in partner's suit, and a singleton - a 3♥ good support bid seems right. However - 3 aces and a ten, should be upgraded a bit - so: let's say 13-14 for the aces and 10 +2 Jacks + 2 for the honours in partners suit + a singleton = 19-20 fit points, warrants 4♥. Maybe not everyone agrees with this, but I would not kill partner if he bid 4♥ directly (edit:if I was responder!).

North's hand. Was dbl correct choice after 12-14 NT? Should she pass my 4♥? S D753 H - D EKDT985 C E3

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sj10975h93dkj84caq]133|100|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] (p)-p-(p)-1♠ was not too hard for me to bid. Even for me! But the rest is kind of interesting. Partner returns: (p)-2♣*-(p)-2♠ I alert, and explain to opps that we play Reversed Toronto / Drury, so 2♣ is showing 3 card spade and around 10-11 fit points. My partner disagrees - she says Toronto/Drury only applies in 3rd seat, given that the 4th seat could be strong... (as in the 3rd seat cannot?). Her hand: A2 QJ2 AT73 9842. 1. When Toronto is agreed, does it not also aply in 3rd and 4th seat? 2. What would be the correct respons for her hand?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s86hkj986432dckj6]133|100|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] West opens 1NT* weak NT, 12-14. Me and my partner have agreed cappelleti. So when she doubles, my choices was limited - at least that's what I thought. I jumped to game. (1NT)-X-(p)-4♥ However, partner was not finished! (..) (p)-5♦!-(p)-? No agreements, so clearly this is natural. New suit at 5th-level is not your everyday hand! 1. Is 4♥ correct? What should I have done otherwise? 2. After partners 5♦ - what are my options?

3D seems right, but I considered 4D to show 5-5+

I am not defending myself - my previous response was wrong. I am not running away form it - it will always haunt me! I've asked some other experts where I come from, and they agree with you all. I have been presented a "solution" to handle psyche-bids: "If the opponents are known for their honesty, hence not bluffing, you should use X as take-out. However, the given situation 1x-X, is a known bluffing situation! After 1C-X-1S! - X = advancer shows exactly 4 spades minimum 6+ hp ->partners choice - 2S = 5 spades 6-9hp " All other bids natural I guess. He continues with, "if this is suitable, is unsaid, but some of the elite players in Denmark are using it." Please comment.

Jlall You destroyed my answer! GOOD!! It was horrible! I rest my case.

Norths dbl is responsive ( edit: or is it negative..:) ), and shows fit for unbid suit; hearts and clubs. Perfect bid. 3♣ is obviosly competitive - but some play it as forcing. Anyway, partner should wake up and re-evaluate his hand. He suddenly got a two way fit himself! Bidding 4♣ is also valid. 4♣-2 or 4♣-1, still beats 3♠ making. North should count the opps cards: Partner got 3 spades probably, and 3+ hearts. He did not feel like bidding 3♥, so 3+ unbid suit is all we got. With single diamond, and partner probably holding 2-3 in the suit, opps got a two-way-fit - which give them the odds of 3♠ making. Hence - 4♣ should be bid. It is easy to say with the entire layout - but 4♣ should be bid if you expect 3♠ to make. Some may argue the rule of 17 trump - if we got 9 trump, they got 8 - thus 3♠ is to high. But that need modifications when a two suit-fit is present.

EricK makes a good point. One should give some thought about the second bid before making the first on this one. If you do not fancy supporting partner with a 3 card (here spades), one could consider opening 1D, which will give you the option of bidding 2C on the next round. For me, I would always open 1C and support partner after 1D/S and 1NT after his 1H response with this hand. Some like bidding 1NT without a 4 card major, especially playing 5 card major. 1C-1D gives the 4th seat the cheap 1H overcall. They will probably compete to 3H. So, the 1NT response will probably have its supporters.

I agree with Jlall. Cue-bidding should always initiate an interesting hand that need further descriptive bids. A jump in a suit shows preference for that suit within the different ranges. First hand, you got a 6 LTC opposite to your t/o overcalling partner. This should end up in game somewhere, most likely 4S, or even a slam. Depending on what partner bids after the cue-bid, I would show my one-suiter by jumping to game in spades on the next round. This should give partner a good picture of my hand as a strong one-suiter. Second hand - also cue-bid followed by forcing bids (new suits). Though 4S is most likely the contract here also. I like all jump-bids to be more "pre-emptive-like" than strong in this situation. Therefor, I do not like jumping directly to game in neiter of these two hands.

It all depends upon agreement. Usually, conventional meanings are off - or replaced by others - if opps double or overcall an opening bid. Ex being Jordan 2NT replacing Jacoby 2NT when opps double openers majorsuit. I've seen people using Bergen after an overcall and double, and even using GF J2NT respons. However, the standard varies with geographical location. The sketch below is standard in my local club (personally I do not use Bergen), using the jump-shift to the suit below openers major as Bergen: 1H-(X/1S/2C)-3D being a jump raise - showing 7-9 hp, 4 hearts 1S-(X/2C/2D)-3H - as the jump-raise for spades. 1H-(1S)-2S* would be GF 1H-(1S)-2NT would be Jordan - 10-12 4 card support.

With support doubles I would consider redbl showing 3 card support in hearts. 1C - p - 1H - X XX If suppX not an option, I'd bid 1NT. Opps got spade, no doubt, so showing heart support somewhat important. 1NT and 2H are both perfectly logical - I would say it's a matter of preference.

At 1-level, one might use 4s as RF - not GF. This way, the correct hand gets to play in NT. Edit: This implies that 1NT might be used as GF with spade controls, <4. Depending on agreement. 1C-1D-1H-? - pass <6 hp, at least 3 hearts - 1S RF - control asking, may be weak- "transfer" to 1NT - - 1NT 11-15 - - 2NT 16-17 - - 3NT 18+ - 1NT GF with control in spades, serious slam interest - or 1NT 6-9hp spade control - depending on agreement - 2H 10-12 limit 4 hearts ( implies 4+-4 D-H, 10-12 ) - 2S GF hearts, splinter-singelton - 2NT 10-12 spade controls - 3H GF hearts - 3S GF hearts splinter-void I think this is easily adapted into sayc - changing only 4s meaning at 1-level to RF vs GF.

Depending on what 1C means for me. If 1C is 2+, then 1S is textbook-correct. If partner shows 3-4 card support in spades, it would be hard for me to convince him of my clubs. If 1C is 3+, there are more trumph in clubs than in spades. I would bid a forcing club raise - in either case I think.

Given my system is based upon (3)4+ clubs, I may bid 2/3C with 4 support, the 1NT respond would deny <4 hearts, <4 clubs and <4 spades; 3343, 3352, 2253... How about (which I found in the link of a previous post) 1C-1D - DBL 5+ hearts - 1H 5+ spades - 1S 4 hearts, or 4-4 major - 1NT 4 spades, major with diamond control. I now get to differentiate 4 and 5 of each major - with <4 of majors, I may support with clubs, pass with diamonds - or if agreed force with strong hand with 2D. This will give partner the option of passing 1NT even with 4-4 fit - may be usefull in matchpoints, right? If one bidding 1NT with 4c spades, one may switch the meaning of DBL and 1S meaning: - DBL 3 meanings: 4 hearts - OR 4-4 major OR a natural 1NT bid - 1H 5+ spades - 1S 5+ hearts - 1NT 4 spades (after DBL: expecting partner to bid 1H with 4-5H 12-14, 2H with 4+hearts 15-17, 3H with 18-19 hp if not 2NT - letting me bid NT at cheapest level ) Edit: 3rd meaning on dbl! Why not 4-4? :) I see no immediate problem in differentiating the three meanings in my next bid. Comments?

I'd takeout - anyday. If partner got some values, he'll show them. If not my next bid is pass ( if his bid is non-forcing ). Given situation, I'll bid 5♦.

Interesting indeed! But many deals are! No double is possible at the 4-level in this situation - from neither side. 4♦ bid and made is unbelievable - east not bidding is just insane - or he has some 6th sense-table-feeling!

Same approach: (1♥)-X-(p)-2♥* (p) - 2♠ I have no trouble passing partners 2♠ with 3 card support (though I would like to have 4-but given your example...), or 3♣/♦ for that matter - denying 4 spades given partner may t/o with a 3 card spades.

This is something I have not given much thought. What is the general consensus? I use normal super-accept: jumping in the transfered-to-major with 4 card support and maximum. What is prefered, or what makes the other better-off := a "natural"-suit vs xx-suit.

Normally, a 2♠ bid should show 10-12 fit points and 4 spades. 3♦ is non-forcing showing 8-11 5+diamonds and normally denies a 4 card spade - not my choice even a bad 4 card spade 4-1-6-2. However, with the idea that the right side should play the contract - I would consider bidding 2♥ forcing for one round, and to let partner show his 4 card spade - promising exactly 4 card major myself. This will right-side a spade contract. I can then later make a game-trial bid depending on agreement. If he denies spades, he probably got some sound minor values, which gives me room to show a nice 5 card with 3♦. I would expect partner to fully "see" my hand as: 4 spades, 5+ diamonds with invitational values in the two suits; 10-12 fit points with a suit contract. With 4-1-6-2 I actually got some game going values. Investigating slam may be a long shot, so I would start the same way; 2♥. Simple preference in spade from partner, makes it easy to jump to game. All other bids from partner, makes things interesting!

Using negative doubles 1♣-(1♦)-X normally shows 4-4 in both major, or at least 4-3 1♣-(1♦)-1♥/♠ shows 4+ I see no disadvantage of using 1♣-(1♦)-X to deny a 4 card major and 1♣-(1♥)-X for <4 spades, when 1♣-(1♦)-1♥/♠ shows 4+, and 1♣-(1♥)-1♠ merely shows a natural spade bid, which one would have bid if opps did not overcall. As officeglen said, with support dbl's as a retaliatory action, or more precisly, as a tool to show show 3-card support when opps overcall, this could be interresting to try - if only to see how it fits into my system.