Lobowolf

I took a wrong turn at the gas station and ended up here by accident. Is this the thread for posting why big club systems are superior?

I open 1♦ when 4-4 in the minors. If your negative double can show ♥ & ♣, then it seems to me that 2♦ should be a reverse; if partner doesn't have ♦, he's got to go to the 3-level to find a playable spot, which is the rationale for 2♦ being a reverse in the auction: 1♣-1♥; 2♦

I don't buy that for a minute. If I don't have the strength to X 1NT to show the minors, I don't have the strength to balance into the three level. I have never understood the logic of "I can't interfere because one hand is unlimited". It's the opposite. If one hand is unlimited, then you may get away safely because they have to explore for game, or you may be doubled and go down, but it's fine because they were making game but stopped early to double you. The reason why balancing is safer is because they have a fit, so you're more likely to have a fit. But here, they may not have a fit. When you balance here, you're just begging them to double you when they don't have a fit. You're at the 3 level, they have no game interest, why shouldn't they sit back and collect their money? If nobody was vulnerable, it's still better for them to double. On occassion, it gets them 100 instead of 140, but so what? It's one IMP, and when they set you two, they get it all back and then some, and there's no guarantee they're making 3 of a major. To give a much more common auction: 1♥ 1NT 2♣ 2♥ P If you're using 2NT at this late point of the auction as minors, opponents are going to love you to death. Short of having a monster hand that your defense didn't allow you to show before, I can't imagine why you'd ever make that bid. ONE reason that balancing is safer is that they have a fit; another one that you're apparently overlooking is that the fact that the auction is dying indicates that my partner has values. That's the relevance of the limited vs. unlimited distinction. Not only that partner's lack of values means bidding is less safe in terms of going for a number, it's also less USEFUL. If partner is broke, and responder's next bid is a jump to game, all I've done by coming in earlier is help declarer play the hand. The three level is safer when you know that partner has values than the two level is when he might not.

I'd be happy enough that partner took a preference to my "real" minor.

So do you automatically pass 1NT with your 5-card spade suits as responder?

I'm lazy, and you're an enabler.

My bid is 2C, a call that Max Hardy once told me was "an easy one." I don't know about all that, but I think it's interesting. In the last several years, I've played in two 3-3 club fits when I had a 4-4 heart fit available. This one ties into the question of 5-3 major suit fits, and how you uncover them (when responder has the 5, of course). I deny a singleton or void with my 1NT rebids, leaving responder free to rebid a 5-card major over a 1NT rebid; we're either in a 5-2 fit, which is approximately breakeven with 1NT, or we're in a 5-3 fit, which is superior. The reason I say it ties in is, if the auction: 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT might show 3 spades, or it might show a singleton, then responder has the unattractive choice of passing 1NT with a 5-card suit and missing 5-3 fits, or rebidding a 5-card suit and "finding" 5-1 fits. On balance, I find it preferable find bids other than 1NT as opener for that reason. One way to mitigate the 5-3 fit issue is to raise more often with 3-card support, but I'd rather only do that with a singleton in the hand (as opener), or a worthless doubleton. If I have Hx in a side suit, I prefer to rebid 1NT. 5-2 fits play about as well in the suit as they do in 1NT, but 4-3 fits don't, so if you have to "risk" a 7-card fit to find most of your 8-card fits, I think the 5-2 fit is the one to cater to (except when the 4-3 fit comes with a sure ruffing value in the short hand).

ok, you caught me...I deliberately left my bid out.

Unopposed auction: 1♦ - 1S; ?? ♠x ♥KTxx ♦KQ9xx ♣AJx

I agree that sometimes you'll play 2♦ when you should be in spades, but I think a fair portion of the time you're in 2♦, it'll be a decent spot. Partner knows it's matchpoints, too. Also, some of the time you bid 2♦, you'll get another shot over the opps' reopening 2♥ bid. While 2♦ may get you some 110's and 130's where 140's and 170's are available, I think it's more likely to get you to 620, which is a good score, even at matchpoints. Yup, it's 13 points, but it's also a 5-loser hand. Maybe I should stop guessing and run some DealMaster Pro hands to check my judgment, but I'd guess that on a comfortable majority of hands where partner has 6-9 HCP and two spades, we have 10 tricks available. And on almost none of those hands will partner have a second bid over 2♠, but he will have one over 2♦.

I have to admit, 2♣ did not occur to me.

I'm with the 2♦ bidders, mainly because I don't think any number of spades is correct. Given partner's tendency to "correct" to spades on hands with a doubleton spade, I think if partner sits for 2♦, there's a decent chance it will be right. If partner bids 2♠, I'm raising at least to 3♠. If I had a gun to my head, I'd rather raise 2♠ to 4♠ than pass 2♠. Using the guideline of "a suitable minimum," and looking at cards for partner like ♥A, ♦QT, it's just too possible that we have a game that partner won't be able to even catch a whiff of. Yes, even at pairs, where 170 could be good. It's a 13-count, but it's also a 5-loser hand. But LTC is only useful when there's a fit. So before I commit to any number of spades, which will necessarily involve an evaluation on my part of how hard to push the hand, I'm going to give partner a chance to tell me whether there's a fit or not. That's another reason I like 2♦ -- it shows a wider range of hands on my end, and it's still not clear to me what this hand is worth. I'm rebidding 2♠ over 2H, showing 6-4 with a better-than-minimum (since I didn't rebid 2♠). This wasn't a hand I played, but one I kibbed. Opener's rebid was 3♠, which I think is about right if you have to bid some number of spades. But it could still miss a game easily if partner has a fit (doubleton), and it could still go down if he doesn't. I thought it was an interesting hand, and posed it as a panel question. There were 2♠, 3♠, and 2♦ bidders, and more 2♠ calls than I expected, from some very good players (though it wasn't universal). I still think 2♠ is too conservative, though.

When I posted the above, I overlooked the conditions (IMPS, red) as is probably obvious from my comments. There are still hands I'd take the delayed action with, but fewer (obviously). Though you have some protection based on the fact that you're giving partner two choices to find a suit, and many opponents are reluctant to double partscores at IMPs. To look at it another way...both sides have about half the deck, on the auction. There are almost no hands I'd want to be in 2NT on, but distributional values might create a situation where I'd be comfortable being in 3m. North could certainly be 5-5 for his actions, too, unless you race to bid 2NT immediately with any ol' 5-5 hand, which is a very poor idea for a couple of reasons I originally mentioned (suggesting a bad sacrifice, telling declarer how to play the hand).

With respect to point 1, there are many, many hands that would take action in the balancing seat that would not take action earlier. Partner could certainly want to compete against 2♥, especially at matchpoints, with a hand far less than the 5-5 hand he'd want for an immediate 2NT call over 1♥. I'd balance over 2♥ with a lot of hands that are 4-4 in the minors, especially at pairs. I'm not "showing" the minors with a hand like that over 1♥, and I'm not doing it over 1NT while my LHO is still unlimited. It's only after 2♥ comes back around to you that you know partner has some values and you can bid for both hands. If RHO's second bid had been something like 3NT or 4M, you won't have wanted to bid and suggest a poor sacrifice, or give declarer a hint about the distribution. It's only when the opponents are willing to pass the hand out at the 2-level that your action can be construed as purely competitive. With respect to point 2, I imagine double would be takeout as well, but maybe with more defense to cater to the possibility that partner would leave it in? I don't think north can have a unilateral penalty double, but it's more likely than having a natural 2NT. You just don't want to be in 2NT with half the deck. Here's a hand I'd bid as North did, at least NV at pairs: ♠Jx ♥Tx ♦KQxx ♣QJxxx

Yup, minors.

red vs. red, matchpoints. Unopposed bidding. Your rebid, after: 1♠ - 1NT (forcing); ?? ♠AKQxxx ♥x ♦KJxx ♣xx

1NT here, as well.

As I see it, the problem with RKC isn't getting into a bad slam, it's not getting into a good one. If we're not off two keycards, partner must have something resembling a trick outside his AKQxx of spades. He did bid 4 hearts. The problem is, if partner has something like AKJxxx in spades, and something resmbling a trick. I'd go for the keycard anyway, as partner will sometimes bid AKJxxx as if he had the queen. The alternative could be 5♠ if it asked partner to raise only with solid thrumps. I wouldn't dare bid it without a specific agreement. An aside: Is it obvious that 4♣ is a splinter? Why is it not just a cue? What do you bid with a hand that is simply to god for a direct 4♠? And what would 4♥ have been? With respect to the last questions, with a hand too good for 4♠, I'd bid 3♠, inviting partner to cue. In my regular partnerships, 4♥ would be a splinter as well. As for what's obvious in a pick-up partnership...hard to say, but I would have taken 4♣ as a splinter. One of the "treatment" discussions I try to have with pickup partners is that bidding one level higher than a natural, forcing bid in a suit is a splinter. 3♣ and 3♥ are natural and forcing, so 4♣ and 4♥ are splinters. 3♠ is stronger than 4♠ on general principles.

Agree with the pass-not-close. Using losing trick count to evaluate the hand suggests that as far as playing strength goes, there's nothing extra as an opener (and in fact, it's on the poor side). Unsupported minor honors in the short suits aren't helping it. Q: What's the difference between MPs and IMPs? A: Sometimes 170 is good at MPs.

Last caveat - I agree with Fred regarding opening 2NT; I was only discussing the auction AFTER the 2NT opener. I've found that at the intermediate/novice level, players REALLY try to contort themselves around sequences where it takes more than one bid to describe a hand. What if someone overcalls or preempts before I get to jump to 2NT? What if partner bids at the 2-level, then 2NT wouldn't be a jump? If I just add one little point, I can tell my whole story now...except for the part about having 20 points, of course. There is a group of players at my local club who open 2C with 18-19 for this reason, and 2D for 22+. Not a good method, to say the least, but they're just really uncomfortable with opening a hand that strong at the 1-level.

When I say the auction "should" go 2NT - 6NT, I mean a simple, straightforward auction; pairs may also use methods to see if there's a 5-3 major suit fit, etc. A Puppet Stayman auction might go: 2NT - 3♣; 3NT - 6NT. (3NT denying a 4- or 5-card major).

Were you playing 4NT as Blackwood? After a 2NT opener, the standard treatment would be that 4♣ is ace asking, and 4NT asks opener to either pass or bid 6NT. Here, with a balanced 13, responder knows that the partnership has 33 or 34 points (well, North THINKS (s)/he knows that), and the bidding should go 2NT-6NT, as N has no independent, reliable source of tricks. That being said, the same type of thing could happen after 2NT - 4♣, so the hand is good for teaching a valuable lesson...when it comes to bidding slams, aces aren't everything!

I don't like 1NT for a variety of reasons. The biggest reason pertains to finding 5-3 major suit fits. You'd also (presumably) rebid 1NT with something like: ♠ QTx ♥ KJx ♦ ATx ♣ K9xx You could rebid 2♠ with that hand, but it's generally not a good idea to raise as opener on 3-card support without a ruffing value. So now, consider responder's problem with a minimum response and 5 spades after: 1♣-1♠; 1NT - ?? If you're rebidding 1NT with your 1-4-4-4 hands, partner has the unattractive options of passing 1NT and possibly missing a 5-3 spade fit, or bidding 2♠ and possibly playing a 5-1 fit. Ugly. So I would suggest opening 1♦ with a minimum 1-4-4-4 hand, and rebidding 2♣. In my regular partnerships, 1♣ - 1♠; 1NT denies a singleton. Now responder can rebid a 5-card spade suit in comfort, as a 5-2 fit plays about as well as 1NT, and a 5-3 fit plays better.

As has been suggested, the answer to #1 is yes, and there are a couple of ways to look at it. A) What do you need to tell your partner that he doesn't already know? You've opened the bidding in diamonds. You don't have extra HCP beyond what partner already knows you have. You also don't have a spade fit (given that you only know about 4 spades in partner's hand), or a second suit to bid. The only thing you really have that partner doesn't know about is a 5th diamond, and if partner has a diamond fit, he won't pass out 2♣. B) When the opponents bid your long, strong suits, that's generally the best time to defend. High card points are good on offense OR defense. Long suits (for the partnership, i.e. fits) are good on offense, not defense (because your length implies shortness in the opponents' hands, meaning your high cards will get ruffed if that suit isn't made trump. In other words, barring some reason to think that you have enough combined strength for a game bonus, you'd want to keep bidding with a fit, or a potential fit. With length in THEIR suits, be happy to have an opportunity to defend. Your RHO sure isn't going to like that KT9x behind him.