Left2Right

This is an age old problem. Let's take it one piece at a time. a) You hold an a "semi-balanced" hand as Max Hardy put it, not a balanced hand. Although popular in some circles, a non-standard NT call here or on the rebid reflects a clear lack of patience, both in partner and oneself. b) You hold 7 controls(1), under-representing the equivalent balanced two club opener, even if it's just by half a trick. c) The rule we should keep in mind is that "minor suits DO NOT become second class citizens until one partner or the other can cogently dismiss the possibility of a minor suit slam." One cannot invoke this rule having heard nothing from partner. Even after putting all this together, common natural systems make this hand a problem. The sophisticated but rarely used solution: The False Reverse. After patiently opening one natural club, partner responds, say 1NT. Your false reverse into 2♠ clues partner in to the possiblity of this hand. Any partner worth his salt will support clubs with any three of them or any honor doubleton. You are on your way. 8-) (1) https://www.bridgehands.com/E/Expected_Controls.htm

I stopped playing in these things and I recommend we all do. It's very unappealing when stalling occurs and worse, you never see whether BBO takes any action against the perpetrator. Worse yet, a perpetrator can issue himself a new BBO ID at will and begin the cycle all over again. Your future is in your own hands. My "favorite" incident: LHO got into a nonsense auction with a silly partner and bid the hand to 7NT, everything past the 4 level being doubled. He played two or three tricks of the silly hand and then stalled. Average assigned by computer. Complaint issued. Silence from BBO on the outcome. No more stallable games for me.

One slight modification to the Rule of 15, I suggest: When I hold fewer than four spade cards, I mentally change it to the Rule of 16 (usually slightly more defense). Reason: If my passed opponents chime in with spades, I hate being pushed to the three level where I am either set with such a minimal hand or can't double and wish I had settled for positive zero originally by passing. When I have the spades, it's more likely that "they" will be ones pushed to the three level. I've had noticeably better results with this little tweak. 8-)

I'm surprised that everyone (so far) has omitted the potential for penalties. I learned the hard way from the late Paul Soloway that failing to open a hand that has two defensive tricks (and enough playing value, of course) shortchanges partner in her ability to double the opponents off should the auction get a bit heated. At matchpoints, one cannot afford to hide this particular light under a bushel. At IMPS, the wisdom of knowing when to bail (letting them declare) is every bit as important.

By the way, Trick13, The "exception" you will be making is not actually an exception, it's the rule. International champion Richard Pavlicek has condensed this topic from what you will find in published books. http://www.rpbridge.net/5e00.htm Your is example 4. Cheers.

You will find that the better players use Steve McQueen or something similar. (Remember him from The Great Escape?) Reason: It makes no sense to settle for a part-score bonus when you could have earned a game bonus for the same effort. Non-vul 1NTX= 180 1NTXX= 560 And yes, I do of course have a constraint file for that too. See www.charlesandgerry.com/bridge/constraints.html#escape Practice Steve McQueen with your favorite partners at a BBO Bidding table. After adopting Steve McQueen, you will never again play 1NTX; it will always be redoubled or taken out. One proviso though, it will always be up to the 1NTer's partner to order up the redouble or the escape; after all, he is the captain.

Again, I offer my resource to help you practice this convention with your favorite partner and see whether and how effective your understandings are. Try this constraint. Also, there are two important foundation points to think about before answering the 3♠ continuation question. 1. Mr Ingberman himself did not flesh out all the continuations that can happen after opener's reverse. So it's up to us to make ours make sense. 2. Consider the following two auctions. a) 1♣ – 1♠ 2♦ – 2N* 3♣ – 3♠ ... b) 1♣ – 1♠ 2♦ – 2♠ ... Does it really make sense to end up at a higher level with a worse hand? In auction “a” we woodenly follow the weak relay sequence and end up at the three level. With auction ”b” we can contract our part score for less risk. I would gently suggest the more effective Auction b approach. ♠: x ♥: Kxx ♦: KQJx ♣: AQJxx paired with ♠: KQJxxx ♥: xx ♦: xx ♣: xxx Auction B is the pair's last chance to reign in this horse. If one accepts this, then a 3♠ invite makes no sense: the reverser already knows the responder's hand -- a mangy 6 or 7. In addition, the 3♣ acceptance of the relay usually reveals the lesser reverse (16-18). So with a stronger reverse (19-21), opener simply bids game. ♠: A x ♥: x ♦: KQJx ♣: AQJxx paired with ♠: KQJxxx ♥: xx ♦: xx ♣: xxx Cheers.

I agree with the need to post this sort of incident when nothing seems to have done. One thing: Why not post a screen image of the incident. When certain Israeli and Italian players were caught using secret signals, Bridgewinners.com posted the entire detail of how the cheating was accomplished along with Kit Woolsey's expert analysis and of course the names of the perpetrators. No expert advice is needed in this case, but identifying the offender is. Nothing serves a perpetrator of wrong doing more than anonymity.

Hiya JoAnne: ACBL guides directors on what constitutes the psych of a 2♣ opener, which is forbidden. Since you didn't post the opponent's hand, you'll need to review this yourself via the ACBL document at this URL. Barring the psych, this result is just the breaks and tests our skills. And yes, I have yet another BBO constraint file that may help you and your "weakish" partners get stronger on exactly this topic. See Two Club Opener Derailed Cheers.

I authored a convention for just this hand type after seeing a lady world champion friend of mine and her world class partner struggle to find the right spot with just such a hand. Ogust is a well known convention for inquiring further information about the weak two bidder's hand. Ogustus is my add-on to Ogust. See the slide show that explains it in detail at My web site. Cheers.

Steve: See http://tinyurl.com/yatudd9f Try this version of the hand in DeepFinesse. You'll notice that contrary to a previous post, a 4-3 trump break is entirely plausible and consistent with the auction as are many others, of course. Also notice in the linked hand, that no matter what you do, they can set you on any red card opening lead. Bottom line: I wouldn't feel too bad about the double dummy outcome, just review such hands in Deep Finesse and judge whether the necessary line reminds us of something we learn out of the book, like a cross-ruff; or on something we usually avoid, like finessing a spot card on the first play of a suit. Seconding some of the previous comments, as declarer, the puny rank of South's spot cards (trumps) would be enough to make me consider a modified cross-ruff at the outset.

Rather than recreating the wheel here, I suggest taking the following write-up to heart. Hand Evaluation Richard Pavilec was one of those top professionals during the 80's and 90's. See his WBF listing.

If there's one thing this game rewards, it's patience: don't jump the gun with immediate key card asking. Step 1. The Splinter. Inform partner that you do hold a possible slam complement in clubs and do not have four heart cards. Partner will most likely take it from there. Step 2. Kickback by your partner. I'm surprised no one has mentioned it so far (so many top players use it). Your patience will pay a differing big dividend depending on partner's vision of the two hands. 1. ♠ A x x ♥ K Q x x ♦ x x x ♣ Q J x Partner may try to sign off in 3NT with such a mangy balanced minimum, but your 4♣ continuation will inform him that you have a slam opposite such a minimum but are staring at a Blackwood No-no (the lack of either the queen or jack of trump). Partner is better able to know to get to 6♦ and not 6NT because of the spade situation you informed him of. Four clubs as Minorwood does have this built in problem of not being able to insist on clubs without violating the Blackwood No-no rule. 2. ♠ A K J x ♥ K x ♦ J x ♣ A Q x x x Here, your splinter is gorgeous and partner envisions his hand being master; thus, 5 club tricks, a diamond ace, ace and king of hearts, two top spades and two spade ruffs. He will employ the RKCB continuation (See SSA) to inquire about an extra diamond control. And yes, SSA is easily adapted to Kickback. Seven ♣ easily bid. With so many other possible opener hands, you can see how important it is not to take control on the first round of the auction.

Contrary to the assertion that "there is no way to bid this scientifically;" there actually is: the Schenken 2♦ convention. (1) The auction proceeds as follows. [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2dp2sp3cp3np6hppp]133|100|[/hv] 2♦: Game Forcing, ace asking, usually a bizarre one-suiter. 2♠: Spade ace and no other ace. 3♣: King ask. 3N: Club king and no other king. Yes, we sometimes have to hearken back to ancient history so we don't repeat the failures of the past. And, yes, of course you'll have to decide whether the easy handling of bizarre hands like this is a better trade-off than whatever currently occupies the 2♦ slot on your convention card. In addition to the little tome shown in the citation below, the first round of the convention is reproduced here. 1. Howard Schenken's Big Club. Simon and Schuster. 1968. LOC 68-25753. p. 134.

The answer here is Duplication of Value -- a void opposite partner's first-bid suit being the worst case scenario. For other non-trump suits, we tend to downgrade our hands less when partner has bid a Suit of Convenience (such as the convenient minor) or when a suit has not been bid at all. Navigate to a bidding or teaching table and use my constraint file Charles's Shortness Constraint To force hands where one partner will have a void, change line 13 from ( shape(south, any 0xxx + any 1xxx ) or shape(north, any 0xxx + any 1xxx) ) to ( shape(south, any 0xxx ) or shape(north, any 0xxx ) ) You'll often sing the sad song of Duplication: "Oh woe is me, if only the x of y were the x of b." For example http://tinyurl.com/y7hxa9tv If only that ace of hearts were the 2 of hearts and the 9 of spades were the ace of that suit. You'd make seven instead of having to settle for six. And BTW, we never show a void as if it were a king. That's a sure fire recipe to find yourself in a 7NT that doesn't make where the ruffing value opposite of the void allows 7 of a suit to make in a walk.

What many do not realize is that one of the key purposes of shortness asking/showing bids is to diagnose duplication of value that may exist in the hand opposite the shortness. So whether it's Jacoby 2NT (asking) or a splinter (showing), adjusting the value of the other hand is crucial to knowing how to go forward in the auction. Try my constraint file on this topic. After you upload it, change the switch value: aStiffHonor = 1 to get only hands with a singleton ace or king. Hand after hand, you'll see just how insidious it is to find honors in that suit on the other side of the table, which if transposed to some other suit make the hand much better. Yes, this experience will prove that a singleton, even an ace, needs to be shown to allow partner to downgrade for duplication. And by the opposite token, when partner diagnoses that there is no duplication, you will have found one of those seeming miracle hands that fit perfectly.

You suffer the same challenge that most players do: Fourth Suit Game Forcing is one of the least well documented conventions in all of bridge. In addition, the published versions are either the “one-round force” version, or are as incomplete as the link you posted. You can tell the ACBL doc is incomplete because there is no mention of raising the responder's quasi-artificial fourth suit when opener owns four of them. According to my world class source (someone who was in on the original design of 2/1), most experts abandoned the published, invitational version of 4SF about 20 years ago. It's 4SGF all the way now. So partnerships must achieve(design?) an in-depth understanding of all the possible continuations, all the way through three rounds of bidding, including how to prioritize all those many the choices. If you send me your e-mail address via BBO chat mail, I'll forward you my outline that does all of the above. At my table, the auction would proceed as follows. http://tinyurl.com/ycw6awtm P.S. #1 Also, I strongly recommend that you take up Kickback with your best partners. It will save many auctions, especially 4SGF ones, from getting too high. P.S. #2. You and your better partners can practice those myriad 4SGF hands with my constraint file designed for just such hands. See http://www.charlesandgerry.com/bridge/constraints.html#4sf

Constraint files to the rescue once again. Go to Penalty Pass Constraint. This code lets you deal out lots of hands where you own a stack of the opponent's suit (4 or more). The pattern soon emerges as to just how ineffective a low level penalty pass will be when your spots are mainly from the lower half of the ranks (2 thru 8), even when you own five of them. Also keep in mind that whatever you do, the auction isn't necessarily over. The pushy opponents may bid higher or into a different suit. The constraint will show you plenty of examples of this, too.

Whether 3NT is a good bet depends on two things. 1) What suit quality can you depend on from your dear partner? 2) What's the likelihood of finding an entry? I have posted a new constraint file so that partnerships can test their knowledge of each other rather then waiting to guess this at the table. See 3NT after partner's preempt And by all means, do try this at home. :rolleyes:

The real answer: Defense! There are three boats that need to rise together: defense, declarer play and bidding. Most players load up their convention cards long before they learn good defense. Defense tends to be the most neglected third of the game for players below the Advanced level. My game took an order of magnitude leap (in the 1970's) after I devoured Eddie Kantar's book. It has certainly stood the test of time.

D. Open 1NT. If your cc says 15-17 then your Aces and Tens deserve an upgrade of one point, bringing you into this range. Read all about this via Richard Pavilec's blurb Aces and Tens. Opening 1NT limits your hand immediately and makes your partner the captain. Responder will proceed via Stayman, transfer or splinter depending as usual on the cc. It's worth saying once again: The main reason for the splinter is to allow the partner of the shortness shower to evaluate duplication of value. Your king of hearts needed to be the king of something else to make this hand work well for partner. You cooperate in this effort by giving partner one discouraging call after the splinter. There is no such thing as "sign off" since you are not the captain. I have a BBO constraint file that will allow you and partner to wile away the hours practicing just this sort of situation. See Shortness Showing.

Beyond the weak two's preemptive value is its constructive value. Consider these two hands. North: ♠ 7 6 ♥ K 5 ♦ K Q 9 6 4 3 ♣ J 10 8 South: ♠ Q J 10 9 ♥ A 9 8 2 ♦ A 5 2 ♣ K 3 The point-counting novice sees merely 9 HCP in the North hand and 14 in the South, well short of the "opening hand facing an opening hand" game requirement that Goren wrote about. After North's "weak" 2♦ call, a trick-counting South envisions the possibility of six diamonds, his ace and two more tricks from anywhere else in the hand, depending on whether or not the quality of the weak two is closer to the top of the range. Because of this potential, multiple conventions have been authored over the years to take advantage of the cheaply stolen but constructively bid 3NT game (Feature, Ogust). And this also goes for weak twos in the majors. So despite the relatively poor preemptive value of 2♦, system designers need to consider what all they are giving up before they try for the potential gain to be had by giving the 2♦ opening some other meaning.

Everyone, please get a free copy of a wonderful utility: SuitPlay from http://home.planet.nl/~narcis45/suitplay/ You can tell it the card combination, the number of dummy entries, the number of unknown cards in each opponent's hand as was the question here and more. I won't spoil it for you except to say that in this case, SuitPlay reveals that there are four different ways to play this suit in these circumstances that have a statistically equal chance to be effective (4 tricks / 72.9%) Cheers.

Namyats is one viable choice here, but freaky one-suited hands can also be had in the minors. For the truly thorough, I suggest looking up the Schenken Two Diamond construct. From the very first call, the freaky hand holder discovers his partner's specific aces, kings and even queens if needed. I couldn't find a good recitation of it online, but Schenken's book is still rattling around at Amazon. Also, you and especially your partner can practice such hands at a BBO bidding table using one of my handy-dandy BBO constraint files. See Bizzaro!.

Stretching the boundaries of 1NT openers has been a popular pastime for decades. Back in the 1970's I recall and few hardy souls testing their luck by opening 1NT on ♠K9 ♥Q2 ♦KQJ9873 ♣KQ. The problem: They temporarily forgot that bids that limit your hand to a 3-point range make partner the captain. After taking this mistaken route, there aren't enough bids in the Captain Responder's bag of tricks to diagnose such a wonderful suit. They found themselves missing minor suit slams. Yes, there are hands that will make six clubs easily where NT makes only four or five. I agree that your original example points to a less disciplined approach.