louisg

FYP. Did no one just open 4NT with this hand? Everyone that I know plays this either as Blackwood or a specific ace ask.

In fact, they were not. The actual hand was 97 KQ976 J65 Q65.

Just to set the record straight: 1) At the other table, South bid only 3♥ in response to Michaels, and North raised to game. I was East, and my double was intended to show transferable values, though of course partner will pass most of the time at this level (I'd have doubled 2♠ with a purely defensive hand). My partner might have bid 4NT over it with his actual hand, but I have a lot of sympathy for his pass. 2) Par is 5♦x down 2 (not 1). After the singleton club lead, North should switch to his spade while he has trump control, and then both defenders get a ruff. Of course, an unlikely spade lead at trick 1 also works. 3) Certainly a disappointing end to the day, but we'll get them next year!

Why? It's much more comfortable to overcall 3♠ when partner hasn't announced that his hand is all clubs than it is to overcall 4♠ when he has. Even if it does go 1♥ - p - 4♥ (and it probably won't), a 4♠ bid has a much better chance of success than it does on the actual auction.

You are joking, right? If South bids 4♠ he deserves to find partner with x xxx xx AQJTxxx and go -1100 (if trumps split).

Thanks for everyone's comments. In retrospect, I agree with those who say that 3♦ was an underbid. AKx is just too strong a holding, and given the likely source of tricks that it represents, some stronger action was called for. I must strongly disagree with those who suggest that the 2♣ bid was misguided though. 4♠ in a 6-2 fit is hardly "remote", and could be a much better contract than 3NT. Consider a hand for responder like Ax Kxx xxxx Kxxx. 3NT looks to me to be a big underdog (even if the opening lead is not optimal), while 4♠ requires nothing more than 3-2 trumps. And, of course, partner's clubs need not be even this good. To answer Zel's question, a 3♣ rebid by overcaller is not specifically defined in our notes (GF hands would either jump in a red suit or go through 2♣ if not prepared to place the contract). Therefore, I would expect partner to take it as natural (good 5-5 in the blacks).

If partner is leading the systemically correct card, declarer can not hold stiff ♦K.

[hv=pc=n&w=sj98642haq9dak3cq&e=s5h72dq8642cakt54&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1c1sp1np2cp2dp3dppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs. Relevant agreements: 1NT=natural, 8-12, usually but not always a club stopper (2♦ instead would have been constructive but NF) 2♣=artificial and forward-going, usually a broken 6 card spade suit with game-invitational or better values, forcing to at least 2♠ 2♦=5+ cards (typically exactly 5 since no 2D bid at first turn), ambiguous as to strength 3♦=natural, NF

[hv=pc=n&n=sakhajt3d82ca9762&e=sj94hk8765daqt3c3&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs. Partner leads the ♦7 (3rd best from 4, 4th best from 6, lowest from odd) to your Ace (please comment if you would prefer to play the Queen) and declarer's 4. What do you return?

I suspect that the "default beginner or intermediate interpretation" is different in different parts of the world. I certainly don't believe that most Americans would agree with you about this.

No, you miss the point that 2♣ is nonforcing. You will play your 4-2 fit, not to mention not get the chance to show your extras, when partner leaves you in 2♣ (as he should) with something like a 2=5=2=4 7 count.

This is highly non-standard. The standard interpretation of 2♣ here would be natural, with something like 4=0=5=4 distribution, expecting that 2♣ or 2♦ will be a better contract than 1NT.

LOL. If you bid 2♠, and the East and South hands were switched, you wouldn't be any happier than if you had made a penalty double. Despite the result on the actual hand, I think a case can be made for passing over a 15-17 NT with the North hand. I do agree that a 2-suited overcall, if available, is safer than bidding a natural (1-suited) 2♠.

"Forcing pass" should not be treated as a convention that one plays or doesn't play. It is a concept that stems naturally from the fact that it makes no sense to let the opponents play in an undoubled contract once our side has shown the values to force to game. Some N/B players may not be familiar with this concept, but they should be exposed to it as soon as possible (certainly before conventions like 5NT = "pick a slam"). I agree that making a forcing pass, followed by bidding again if partner doubles, is usually treated as a slam try. That doesn't contradict the use of a forcing pass to show extra values and give partner the choice between doubling and bidding on. When I make a forcing pass over 4S with the North hand, it is at that point simply a request for partner to say whether his hand is more offensively or defensively oriented in the context of what he has already shown. Here he is more offensively oriented, and has extra values of his own, so bidding 6D is a reasonable guess (but I wouldn't criticize a 5D bid instead).

I agree, but to play it as not game forcing puts opener under a lot of stress when he has some extra values but no clear direction. Imagine a hand like xx KJxxxx Ax AKx. If you can't bid a forcing 3H with this, then what do you do? Even if 3S is interpreted as a stopper ask, it doesn't show the 6th heart, which might be very important. I understand if a partnership wants to agree that 3D is not GF, but I don't think that is mainstream. Would it be surprising to find that responder's hand is something like Ax Kx Kxxxxx Qxx? Now 5D is at the mercy of a 3-2 diamond split, while there is an easy 300 or 500 available against 4Sx. That's another advantage of agreeing that 3D is GF; it allows opener to avail himself of a forcing pass if opponents compete further.

I'm sorry, but if this is intended as advice for the N/B forum than it is quite misleading. You and your partner can agree to whatever you like, but it is virtually universal (and quite logical) to play that, once a GF has been established, the opponents do not get to play a contract undoubled. That makes the pass over 4S forcing by definition. The corollary to this, not quite as universal but still most common and logical, is that a double discourages partner from bidding on. Typically in an auction such as this you would double with wasted spade values, an overall minimum hand, and/or a misfit for partner.

In all fairness, this may depend on the partnership's rules for cuebidding. This may be too detailed for the N/B forum, but in my partnerships 4H would not only promise heart control (presumably the Ace since the King would be of little value after the overcall), but also a hand interested in cooperating. I'd be hard pressed to imagine such a hand that didn't include at least the ♦King or QJ.

a) 1S. Assuming a standard 5-card major system, this is routine. b) Pass. South doesn't have the values needed for either a negative double or a diamond raise at this level.

It's worth noting that North can save some space by bidding 4D instead of 4H. This must agree hearts, otherwise North can't assume that any contract above 3NT is playable. The actual hand, with immense heart support and a side source of tricks, needs to make a more encouraging bid than a simple 4H. I realize though that this doesn't address the issue of how South should proceed after either 4D or 4H. However, by hearing 4D instead of 4H, South can be more optimistic that North has the cards needed to make a grand slam (hAQ and dAK). In a good partnership, I would go so far as to say that over 4H South should give up on 7 due to the fact that North did not bid 4D.

Yes. Some people might consider opening 2NT as well, but I think 1D is best. For one thing, it gives you the best chance of finding a fit in any of your 3 suits. The bidding might very well go something like 1D-1H-2S-2NT-3C, etc.

I will assume that West's 3S bid is nonforcing, since I think that would be the common treatment. Even so, slam is possible for EW opposite a hand like Kxx Axx KQxxx xx. I would bid 4D, which must be a slam try showing help in diamonds since spades have been agreed. If opener now cooperates with a 4H bid then East can continue with either 4NT or 5C.

Agree with this. Opener should now pass, which is forcing (since 3D was GF) and therefore shows a willingness to hear partner bid on but no clear direction (both 5D and 5C would be too committal). Responder now knows of extra values in opener's hand and some tolerance for diamonds (without which opener would be doubling or bidding one of his suits). A singleton spade is likely given both the opponents' bidding and the forcing pass, but is not assured. 6D is therefore probably the percentage action at this point, but comes with no guarantees. 4NT is also possible if you expect partner to take it as some form of Blackwood. Not everyone would assume this in a competitive auction where no fit has been agreed however. This is a complicated subject.

Hi Medtor. I've done some online teaching in the past, and would like to see if I could help you out. I'm also on EDT, and can be available most evenings. I can also send you a summary of my tournament record so that you can verify my credentials. Please send me a private message if interested. Lou

IMPs [hv=pc=n&s=skhaq92dajt973ct5&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1cp1s]133|200[/hv] Please explain your reasoning.

In your second layout playing a club does not let them make. Further, if South has the spade ten, a club is necessary if declarer is going to guess the spades. Likewise if South's clubs are Kxx. Would East have encouraged clubs with Axxx xx x QJxxxx? Something to think about. I'm not saying that the CA is correct, just that there is more to this hand than you have considered. Yes ok we still beat it if they have SK CQ on a club shift. I know that they are on a guess if they have the ST, but we have let them make 100 % on the club shift. There is not really "more than I have considered" my point is that a heart is always right, and a club lets them make sometimes. It is not a hard hand. You don't always have to do something active on defense, sorry! But a heart is not always right (KT AQxx AJxx K/Qxx). And should East, with spades bottled up, signal so emphatically for a club?