rogerclee

Pass was the winning action, you will collect 1100 opposite partner's ♠Axxx ♥Kxx ♦AKxxx ♣x (yes, a perfecto, though this kind of hand is an argument that you would get 800 pretty often anyway). Reaching 3N is a fairly bad score, 4♥ will make one more trick.

Another bad sentence by me, I need to cut my losses and stop posting in this thread! Obviously we will play game sometimes, I meant that we will never force to game ourselves. It is likely that if partner decides to bid game over our 3♥ call that I will have made a good decision. Still, I want to reiterate that this is unlikely given that our hand is so good. I think I initially underestimated the chances that partner had a minimum, but I am still going to pass. If partner is 4351, I am also very happy to defend, since we only have one 8-card fit. But we do have some common ground, I think 3NT is a terrible call.

Art I will admit that no bridge player would bid 4♥ on these two hands if you admit that no bridge player would pass on them.

I am not sure it is necessarily bad to pass if partner is 4450 14. I know it is necessarily good to pass if partner is 4342 18. 1. I'm sure it's bad in the long run. 2. How likely do you think this is relative to partner being lighter with shorter clubs? What in the world are the opponents bidding on? What I wrote initially did not really match up with how I felt about the problem, so I edited it while you were responding, lol. I agree (like I edited) that partner is never 18-19 balanced when we have a hand like this. What I meant was that if partner is 4450 and minimum, I admit that passing is more likely to be bad than good, but will still work out some very nontrivial percentage of the time. If partner is stronger and/or has a singleton club we are in very good shape, especially because as the previous posts have established, we are never going to play game on this hand even if it is right.

I think the hopes that partner is 18-19 balanced are basically zero, my opponents seldom bid this way with about 15 points between them and 8 clubs. What I don't get is why it is bad to defend 3♣x anyway.

Pass.

I would bid 1♠, this keeps all strains open and makes the auction flexible. Supporting hearts later will not mislead partner about my heart length, and I'm happy to play in 1N or 2♦ if partner thinks that is right.

It doesn't matter. At the table, the line of reasoning should resemble something like this: 1) Obviously ruffing low is bad, so I should either ruff with the J or discard a heart or a club. 2) Partner has shown up with ♦KQJT and did not overcall. Partner probably has 4 diamonds but maybe has 5, definitely not 6. This gives declarer 4 or 5 diamonds. Maybe this will not be relevant to the problem, but it is good to keep track of observations you make like this. 3) If I ruff with the Jack what will happen? Declarer will have 4 spade tricks, a spade ruff, two red aces, and 3 clubs. This is 10 tricks, so I will not ruff with the J. 4) Can discarding a club work? No, we know that declarer, who has 4+♦, will be able to pitch all of his hearts but one on the clubs. Then he will play ♥A and ruff a heart, then ruff another diamond in dummy for 10 tricks. 5) Okay, I'll discard a heart, since that is the only play left. Maybe this will cause declarer to lose control when she tries to get back to hand with a heart ruff... (If you go farther, you will see that discarding a heart will also not work.)

Matchpoints, All Red, Third Seat ♠KJ ♥AJxxx ♦J9 ♣KT65 1♦ - (3♣) - ? Partner is good, but tendencies about reopening doubles are undiscussed.

redoblo

2♠, 4♣ is terrible.

Even kenrexford would bid 2♥ with this.

Disagree. True, the auction 1N-3N;6N exists theoretically but there is no bridge hand consistent with both the 1NT and 6NT calls. Clearly it was this what Richard was asking about and in my opinion, there is no hand that first passes, then passes over 4D and then jumps to 5S. ...and I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. :) (The jump in question is to 5S, not 4. I've edited your response appropriately.) Give Responder an Invitational hand, particularly a flat one, and especially a flat one with D cards, and they have NO reason to take action over (4D) but every reason to do so if Opener keeps the auction alive despite Responder passing twice. After all, Opener could very well have a minimum. Responder unilaterally deciding We have enough to make game when the auction so far only gives them Invitational values is not partnership bridge. But if Opener keeps the auction live despite 2 passes by responder, they likely have a maximum with 5- losers in it for such a course. And if that action uncovers a double fit, there is even more good news. In such a case, Responder's originally unexceptional Invitational hand may indeed "grow up" to be worth far more than it looks in isolation or after the first round of bidding. Richard's 10 count becoming an ~20+ count in terms of playing strength under such circumstances is such an example. So YES, it may be rare; but IMHO there are hands where pa-(pa)-1H-(4D);pa-(pa)-X-(pa);5S Could make perfect sense. So many words, so few example hands! AND THE ORIGINAL HAND BECAME A 20-COUNT? lol ok, I am afraid to see your "example hands."

You don't play that takeout doubles promise either takeout shape or extra values?

No, partner could have cuebid and chose not to. Just to clarify, I would also not cooperate with a cuebid, it is very unlikely that we have slam on opposite a PH.

OleBerg, your curiosities have nothing to do with bridge.

I would pull, but wow, this is such an overbid! Our 6 card suit is horrible, and with bad breaks, we could easily go for a number here when we were beating 4♠. Calling this hand 1 trick in defense is also just wrong, our JTx is worth a trick opposite any spade honor, not to mention the possibility that we score a ruff.

Please run a simulation, Han. There are two bets I want to take in this thread!

1NT seems like a standout to me, don't like 2♣.

4♥, impossible.

Agree with this, this hand is much much closer to a (North American) reverse than the previous posters seem to think. Also I don't understand why 2♦ is a reasonable bid, 2♠ has much more to gain and doesn't lie about our diamond length.

In the cleegiates I wouldn't read too much into this, Q xx 98xxx Kxxxx would be normal for some people. In real life I would assume LHO is at least 6-5.

LOL

I assume you mean RHO opened a 12-14 NT. Redouble by partner is not possible. Now I would pass.

Partner's pass just denies the ability to make a penalty double and is not forcing. Now I would just pass.