OleBerg

You hold: [hv=d=e&v=b&s=s5hk108daq1072cak82]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The bidding goes: 1♦ - (2♥)- 2♠ - (Pass) ??? Edit: If it matters, your opening showed an unbalanced hand with diamonds. (Marmic or 5+ diamonds.)/Edit. 1) What is your bidding-plan if 2♠ is gameforcing? 2) What is your bidding-plan if 2♠ is 10+? Hidden continuation: If you bid 3♣: If you bid 3♥: Bonus question: Unaccustomed as I am to 2-over-1; Is 2♠ gameforcing in 2-over-1?

I actually play it opposite. I do agree though, that it doesn't matter much. The argument for going the other way around, is when dobler has a strong hand. You are less likely to get in the way with an inconvenient jump, when you have game-forcing values. This is more importent when you want to force with a minor. Anyway, this is all so low-frequent, that it is possibly best to go with what is easy to remember.

Playing with somebody that would double on the rag I would, I settle for a "good" 3♣. (Edit: Nah, having thought about, I wont bid 3♣, simply to pessimistic.) If I feel my hand is to good for this, it is 2NT followed by 3NT, showing a gameforcing balanced hand without a stopper. (I play virtually the same Lebensohl here, as I do in 1NT - (2♠) - ?)

Maybe this belongs in the B/I-forum, but I want the experts answers: When you have bypassed 4NT by cuebidding, how do you check aces? 5NT? Is the answering-scheme the same? Is anything considered "Standard"?

That's a challenge if ever I saw one [hv=n=sakqxxhq82d42cj10x&w=sjxxhkjxdaxc98xxx&e=sxhaxxxdkqjxxxcqx&s=s108xxh1096d1095cak6]399|300|[/hv] OK it requires - partner to open 1NT on all 5332s in range - RHO not to be playing any form of conventional defence to 1NT - us not to lead or switch to a heart against 3D and it still wasn't easy [hv=n=sakqxxhq82d42cj10x&w=sjxxhkjxdaxc98xxx&e=sxhaxxxdkqjxxxcqx&s=s108xxh1096d1095cak6]399|300|[/hv] 19 total tricks. (Okay, I've been convinced pass is the right bid, but shh, please don't tell anybody.)

Your example hands looks so much like a a take-out-double, it's scary.

3♠. Highly likely one of the contracts will make.

Partner shows a maximum overcall, well suited for 3NT. Something like: [hv=s=sakqjxxhxdaqxcxxx]133|100|[/hv] I'd only bid 3nt however with a little more help, so 3♠ is my bid. (Once my hand hits dummy, the defence vs will simply be to easy.)

I am far from certain, that my partnership would reach 4♠. But I would ever, never sell-out to 2♣. Worst-case scenario leaves partner with 7 hcp, but that would mean opponents are close to game. In many of these cases another try would have been made. Even if we assign full values to the opponents, game is not that far-fetched.

I still say 2NT should/could be Lebensohl. When the 2♣-transfer (or 2♦) bid can be made with very few points, our bidding has to be constructive on 2♦. Thus, if we had bid the first time, it would have shown genuine fit, and a little more than we have now. Partner will still need to know how strong we are, in the context of our first pass. With a fourth club, I would have bid a "good 3♣". It certainly has it's merit to play 2NT as natural or scrambling, but under me agreement: "If it can be Lebensohl - then it is" that's how I would interpret it.

Assuming that 2♦ and 2♥ are "reversed", thus 2♦ showing hearts, and can be minimum.* Still, south's first 2♥ bid is an underbid. Game could be fine facing ♥AJxxx (or a lot of other hands where North will pass.) Now after 4♦ South is has become afraid of his own shadow, as he has unshown values. Problem is, that these values are excellent for game, but mediocre for slam (few controls). South could have bid 3♥ the first time, then a cuebid sequence could have been initiated, and the missing spadecontrol, combined with a missing ace, could have kept NS out of trouble. * If 2♦ cannot be minimum, 2♥ is truly a monstrosity. If 2♦ has two or more possible meanings (only rationale for 2♥ that springs to mind), a better follow-up scheme is strongly recommended. Ps.: Does the word "unshown" even exist?

2NT, Lebensohl.

I purposely didn't hide the 2. Why should I expect hearts are 5-2 with the 3 lead? Why wouldn't I tell RHO, "hearts are 4-3", please attack clubs. Count your tricks. You're going to need one of the black suits to produce an extra trick to get to 8. Its #9 that is the problem. Maybe I wasn't specific enough with plan 1: I have: 3 Spades 1 Heart 1 Diamond 2 Clubs. That is seven tricks. I play for one of the black suits to produce an extra trick, and for the ♦K to be onside, or singleton off-side. Or for both black suits to produce an extra trick.

Declaring is not my strongest side, but I'll give it a try. I think it would have been wise to falsecard with the 9 and 10 of hearts, to hide 2 from West. Doing this, the information we have from a duck or non-duck in trick 2, would be more reliable. Two plans come to mind: 1) Rise with the ace, take our black tricks, hoping that at least one comes in, and that we do not set up more than one black trick for East. After this we lead towards the ♦'s. 2) Using the Queen. If it hold I take the ace immediately thereafter, hoping East will not unblock form Kxx, giving me the option of going for an endplay, if clubs doesn't break. Good table presence will be needed. I go for plan 1.

Yes. The redouble established a force, as it was in fourth position. Even if it hadn't, the double of 4NT would do the same. I double now, as I have no extra offensive values.

Whoops I forgot to mention that it was in a weak NT context - i thought everyone played that ;-) I love the double negative. Changes matters for me. In weak NT context, I force to game.

Don't particularily mind the rebid. If I play this style, double now will show my hand. (Ax in spades would be ideal, with the three point from the King elsewhere. But you cannot wait for the perfect hand.)

2♦, unbalanced raise. If partner steps on the brakes, I will let him of the hook. (Preferbly in 3♣.) Might easily be wrong, but might easily be right.

2♠ hoping it is constructive, but I bid it either way.

Show my suit and take another initiative. The main advantage would be x-4-x-5 hands, where you never miss the 4-4 fit. A smaller advantage is the x-x-4-5 hands, where you can get to 1nt. This also makes your 1NT rebid more pure. The idée is that you can use all all your normal agreements, which I find quite easy. All you have to do, is remember the five lines. But to bad if it is not easier, because that was the general idée.

I'm not saying passing won't work out, but to say that 1♦ - float is a non-existent problem isn't being objective. Okay, maybe I was a little, but just a little, fast. So let me rephrase: I bid 1♥, not because I fear that the opponents will pass, but because I fear they will bid.

Will pard reopen r/w on: Axxxx, xx, xxx, Axx, KJx, Qxx, xxx, Axxx, KQxx, xx, xxx, Axxx I'm not saying passing won't work out, but to say that 1♦ - float is a non-existent problem isn't being objective. These are all easy re-openers. If you change the ♣A into the King, I would consider them to be minimum. (I'd probably re-open on worse thrash than that, but I would feel like an overbidder.)

Much like this. I'd be very tempted to raise 2♠, with some partners.

No, he doesn't balance lighter than everybody else. On a few occasions he does. :D Anyway, the risk of being passed out, and it being wrong, is virtually non-existant.

1♥ Pass is tempting, and "distributional correct", but in sequences like: (Pass) - Pass - (1♦) - Pass (1♠) - Pass -(2♠) - X (Pass) - ??? partner will Lebensohl on to many hands where we have game, or he might be pre-empted by 3♠ from responder, or by opponents bidding up to 3♦ (which might not be the party it looks like.)