Antoine Fourrière

I think a natural 3♣ response is useful whether you play it invitational or game forcing, but 3♦ should show some sort of fit, because with diamonds you can answer 2♦ anyway and play that a 3♣ rebid is an invitational-plus one-suiter and that a 3♦ rebid replaces what 3♣ would have shown, natural or fourth suit.

When you hold a six-card suit or two five-card suits and 9HCP, it looks like you're playing four-handed bridge. In the absence of an equivalent to Wilkosz, East should open 2♠ (vul at imps costs more when you're wrong, but wins more when you're right, therefore it is irrelevant). 2♠ is superior to 1♠ because East should be more eager to be raised to game with four spades than with a fourteen count, but 1♠ is certainly better than pass. West should overcall 1♠ or 2♠. The four hearts and the two defensive tricks point to 1♠, but the pressure factor and the overall value of the hand point to 2♠, so I view it as a toss-up. West should also open 1♠ or 2♠ if the EW hands were reversed.

3N. The hand is a bit strong for 2N, and Qxx of spades may well provide a stopper if opener has a six-card suit, in which case nine tricks aren't very far away. It will also be safer to pass over partner's 4♥ than if I bid 2N and LHO bids 3♠. If they double, I will redouble (hopefully, but that's matchpoints) for minors.

In my opinion, Namyats is awful because transfer preempts and multis make sense only when the opponents still have some room, the big balanced hand is awful because you need room yourself and the solid minor isn't that useful because you can open at the one-level and rebid your suit until responder agrees to utter no trump (or 2/3N yourself if you have a lot of extras). So I guess 3N should probably show a two-suiter, but also some problem hand. I would suggest 8-12 HCP with five spades and either six decent hearts or a good six-card minor. (In other terms, a hand you are unsure which suit you should open at the one level, such as this hand.) Answers: 4♣ pass or correct, 4♦ asking and 4♥ natural.

I do not think a slam with two losers in a side suit when you have twelve top tricks is so bad. It is quite infrequent, and the defense will lead something else nearly half the time. So I would forget about it anyway. The spades are so good that they may provide enough tricks even opposite a misfit and I don't want to disclose opener's hand or discourage a spade lead. So I would answer 3♥ (or a Bergen equivalent) instead of introducing them into the conversation. Failing that, I would rebid 4♥ over 3♦. 3♥ is rather wrong because opener's third bid now caters only to finding the right game. Over 3♠, responder is no longer in a position to ask for cooperation (3N would still be natural) and may only inquire for a club control or for aces, but not for both, and since it seems now that both spades and hearts are going to run, maybe 6N from the side which has suggested a club control would get a nice passive lead.

1) 5♦ Hearts become a minor when they have spades. 2) 4♣ 5♣ seems too unilateral. But I must precipitate things a bit. 3) 4♥ Most descriptive bid. (By the way, my 2♣ opening shows 11-14 with five clubs and a four-card major and my 3♣ opening shows 12(11)-14 with six clubs. Responder might enjoy it here.) 4) Pass Not enough total tricks. Might bid 4♥ over 3♠ if hearts and spades were reversed. 5) Pass, but would have overcalled 3/4♦ if playing decent methods, or 4♦ if playing DONT.

The guilt of def1 is overwhelming: 1) Passing doesn't accomplish anything. If the hand is too weak for 1♠, 2♠ at least shows spades with some interesting distribution, and will land the pair in a playable contract more often than not, provided responder relays with a good hand and less than three spades. It is true that one time out of five, responder will pass with less than two spades, opponents will also pass, and 2♠ will be an awful contract. But passing is bound to backfire more often than that, though in a less predictable way. 2) Pass is correct, even if there would be nothing wrong with 1N. 3) If 3♦ now shows an invitational five-five, def2 can't accept with three small diamonds, so def1 should have shown true remorse, either by redoubling and bidding 3♠ or simply by punting game opposite a known three-carder. Nevertheless, the judge should (reluctantly) show some restraint because 4♠ wouldn't be enticing (34% instead of 84%) if def1 held two clubs and one heart and there is no totally convincing way to find out (unless 3♦ by def1 and 3♥ by def2 is deemed to be convincing). But even within that line of reasoning, 34% half of the time and 84% half of the time points to game. So, def1 should get a harsh sentence, but not to the extent of having to play in an ACBL tournament or to practice French Standard.

4♦ should show that kind of hand in the passout seat, giving the choice between pass, a natural 4N (4N from pard's hand may be easier than 3N from your hand) or 5/6♦. 3♦ seems more useful as a bar bid, with something like x AQ KQJxxx xxxx. For the record, a two-way 3♠ (natural or solid diamonds) wouldn't have worked too well on this hand. (No, I'm not implying it is a silly convention.)

6♠. I don't think I will be able to declare 7♠ scientifically. A singleton and a void already suggest that the real matter here is the right lead or whether the opponents should sacrifice, and uncovering third-round control of hearts or the exact number of discards available borders the impossible.

Why rebid 3NT with 18-19 bal when 2NT shows that hand? Gulp, you're absolutely right.

The question itself is ambiguous. If the choice is between support doubles and penalty doubles, support doubles clearly win. If the choice is between support doubles and doubles giving another bit of distributional information, the choice is debatable, in particular when you already need the double to show a strong notrump, so that any other bid including pass shows real clubs. But when you play the in my view superior five-card major/strong NT/unbalanced 1♦/natural 2♣/balanced if minimum 1♣, you have already said a lot, and my answer would be good or excellent (unless you also play five-card major responses). If you play the awful American/French best minor, you are more in need of a double which would say "by the way partner, curious as it may seem, my minor is for real this time", particularly when the overcall deprives you of rebidding your suit at the two-level, and my answer would be poor to fair.

Why not simply open or rebid 5♦? This hand certainly looks more like a 5♦ rebid (which allows West to bid 6♦) than a 5♦ opening, but shutting off the opponents may win big another day, so I am not sure I wouldn't go for it.

North's opening is not really out-of-range. (7N would still be on a finesse - but 7♥ would become a bit less than 60% -- if North had the ♦Q.) Since North opens 1♥ because of his good suits, yet seems unable to rebid 2♠ over 2♣ to show his spades, maybe his hand should be viewed as a commercial either for switching to the Brazilian 1♠ relay and five-spade 1N or for playing that 2♠ over 2♣ doesn't promise any extras. (Yes, it is also a commercial for Flannery, but Flannery does cost a full opening.)

I would prefer something like DBL 44 or 43 in the majors 1♦ 3/4 hearts and a five-card minor 1♥ 3/4 spades and a five-card minor 1♠ 5 spades 1N 5 hearts without 3 spades 2♣ 5 hearts and 3/4 spades It robs them of their cue-bid when you do not have a five-card major, but also gives your side more flexibility for a raise. They still have to consider playing in your 3/4 card major. And if you end up declaring, it will often be from advancer's undisclosed hand.

This hand isn't worth 15 HCP, but 16 HCP.

4♣. But since pass is forcing and double is punitive (and 3N should be played by responder), I think 3N would be more useful either as a club transfer (allowing responder to bid 4♣ when he has nothing obvious to bid) or as a real takeout.

I wouldn't bid 1N for fear of hearing 3N with a balanced 18-19. (Playing a system which opens these hands 1♣ might convince me.). But if I did, I would pass any rebid by opener. (True, not a 3♠, 4♣ or 4♦ auto-splinter.)

2♣, but the continuation and evaluation depend on system. If I play Rosenkranz's rebids (my preference), I rebid 3♥ to show five diamonds and four hearts. Otherwise, I rebid my hand as a 24 NT if that overbid doesn't send me immediately to 3N, but as a 23 NT if only that underbid allows me to utter 2N at some time, either directly or after a Kokish 2♥. (Not that I am particularly eager to play 3N opposite a pair of jacks, but my hand is good for slam.)

I think 1N should be natural, to play, but suggesting both tricks and points, although the stoppers are irrelevant. After 1♦ 1♠, something like ♠ Ax ♥ AQJx ♦ Kx ♣ KQxx ♠ xx ♥ QJ9x ♦ AKTx ♣ AJT ♠ Ax ♥ Ax ♦ xx ♣KQJTxx Hand 1 is strong enough. Hand 2 and 3 become very good if partner has 5 HCP.

Partner had an unpleasant hand, one for which has been devised an unpleasant convention. What should he open? 1♦, I think, because 3♦ is horrible and 3N wrongsides that contract. If he passes, what should he answer over 1♠? He was stuck by then, and hoped, wrongly again, that 3N would be taken as natural, but 2♦ would have been horrible too. On the other hand, you should have thought that he could have AKQxxxx of diamonds and passed 5♦ to give him a cop-out, because you could afford it. So he is certainly guiltier than you, but not to the extent you had to simply drop him.

#1. 5N. Josephine, allows conflicting fine shades of judgment by opener and responder. #2. Pass #3. Double, wtp #4. 2♥ because it is matchoints, 1N at IMPs. Agree with either 1♣ or 1♦. #5. 6♣. Offers more chances than 6N, allows partner to rebid diamonds only with a solid suit, may attract ♠A lead.

Pass. When it comes to opening 3♣ or 3♦, I count 4/3/2/1 in the suit, 3/2/1/0.5 outside the suit, 1 for a seventh card and I open with 7-9 of these "mixed" points. Hence, I lack the ♠Q (among other possibilities)

Well, this hand is quite famous, and helped Germany lose its 1989 Venice Cup semi-final against the Netherlands. [hv=d=e&v=n&n=sj643hak93dq542cj&w=saqt7hjdkjckq9754&e=sk9852h6d983ca862&s=shqt87542dat76ct3]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Von Arnim opened in second position 3♥, normal preempt or a solid club suit, van der Pas doubled, Zenkel answered 4♣ (which would have been pass or correct in the absence of a double), Schippers doubled and everyone passed. -1700.

3♥, without a doubt. A three-level jump to a cheaper suit only promises six cards.

Why can't you have 11 HCP with a red singleton?