kfgauss

Several partners of mine like a treatment where 5♥ and 5♠ are both queen asks, but with the difference that, even with 3, partner passes 5♥ without the queen (and responds to the queen ask with 3 and the queen, passes with zero). On the surface, this seems illogical, as if you only have 1 keycard but no queen (i.e. the holding where this "non-forcing opposite 3" queen ask is useful) then you weren't prepared for a 5♠ response showing 2+Q, but I guess the reasoning is that you'll occasionally "know" partner has at least 3 keycards and be willing to risk keycarding anyways. In any case, it doesn't give up much (it does move your normal queen ask and your king ask one step higher, but I don't think we've ever felt pain here, whereas the NF queen ask has come up occasionally). Andy

Pass is indeed the winning action. I was the 4H bidder, and held QJ AJ108752 1053 6 and was displeased because 4H went down 1 (essentially because the heart finesse was off) and this opponent hadn't buckled under pressure and bid (4S and 5C are both down 2). Any opinions on the 4H call would be appreciated. My hand is certainly good enough to bid 2H..3H I think, but I hoped applying pressure would have a big enough upside to recommend it over that course of action. Andy

I wouldn't recommend this as something to do often. At best, you should only do it when your hand is very notrumpy. Given this (i.e. that it's so infrequent), I wouldn't change your notrump structure based on it. Recently, my partner tried this on AQxx AK8xx Qx Qx to great effect when I showed up with KJ10x J9x A10x AJx and raised him to 3NT. In contrast, I think that most 15-17 2-2-4-5 hands (all but those that are very suit-oriented) should be opened 1NT. Andy

Playing matchpoints, you hold, in 1st seat with both vul: 1098652 K63 2 J108. You pass, and the auction continues: P 1D 2C 4H ? What's your call? Andy

As a mathematician, I find this a bit unfair. While we may have fun reducing problems to previously solved problems, I don't think we reduce non-problems to previously solved problems. :o (Or maybe this is a harsher critique than I'd originally thought. :lol: ) There are many versions of this joke. A nice variant goes something like: An engineer wakes up and sees that the house is on fire, grabs a trashcan, fills it with water, and puts out the fire. A physicist wakes up and sees that the house is on fire, sees a fire hose, calculates the precise trajectory [etc etc physics nonsense] and puts out the fire. A mathematician wakes up and sees that the house is on fire, sees the fire hose, says "Aha! A solution exists!" and goes back to sleep. Andy

This has been a serious suggestion. I think a writeup appeared a few years ago in the ACBL bulletin. Seems rubbish to me though. --------- In a sectional game yesterday, my opponents had a lovely Gerber accident against us: 2N - 3H (transfer) 3S - 4C 4N - 5C 5S - 6S Opener thought 4C..5C was gerber. Not the least likely time to play it, of course, but his partner held Q109xxx x xx A9xx, not that this in any way resembles a 4C bid. I'm not sure what possessed RHO to try 6S, though (or 5C, for that matter), having heard partner either bid a discouraging 4NT and then appear to be 2-2 in their suits, or having heard partner use blackwood (?!) and then sign off. Andy

Think it is 11 hcp and 12 hcp, you wouldn't want to be in 3NT with fewer than 25 points. Remember to use (this) system on over a 1NT overcall. As long as this isn't used in a Walter the Walrus sort of way, the thought of having a mild invite and a strong invite really isn't so bad. In fact, with some partners I use 4♠ as a strong invite to 6NT (as well as for hands in search of suit fits to play instead) and 4NT as a mild invite to 6NT. Perhaps the point is that 2♠ has significantly better uses, while 4♠ may not. Andy

Very good. Make sure all 4♣ bids are Gerber. (And personally, I think straight gerber would be even more useless than actually having it be RKC gerber.) Might as well have all 5♣ bids be super gerber while you're at it. Andy

Conclusion: [hv=d=w&v=n&w=sakqjxxhqxda10ckxx&e=sxxxhaxxdxxxcaqxx]266|100|Scoring: IMP -- P 1S 2C 4D 4H 4S P[/hv] Not so terrible to miss this slam, but it is roughly 70%, and cold on a heart lead (and, while the 4th club means it's still almost 70% on a diamond lead, without that 4th club it's still quite good on a non-diamond lead [since cold on a heart lead and 50% otherwise].) I'm not confident that the auction will go well after 3♣. My partnership didn't have a nat GF 2NT available, but I suppose 2♦ and then cuebidding if partner bids at the 3-level and, at worst, reverting to the splinter if partner bids 2♠, is a decent plan. In any case, I (the 4D bidder) hoped partner would be able to bid on with a hand like East's, and that I'd done enough. If my hand is willing to push to the 5-level frequently, starting with 3♣ (or 2♦) looks rather more attractive. Though the splinter isn't perfect, certainly, I will note that opposite Josh's example with the ♦Q, xxx KJxx Qxxx Ax, slam is very good on a non-diamond lead even if partner doesn't have the Queen. (Though, admittedly, my 4S bid over 4H wasn't getting us there.) Andy

This depends a lot on your style of doubling/removing doubles of 4H. If partner likes to take out your takeout doubles, I'll pass now, but if partner thinks he needs reasonable shape to take out your doubles of 4H, then 5S is very tempting, but I'm still not sure I could bring myself to bid it. [Part a also depends on this consideration: if partner likes to take them out, sure I'll double, but if not, I would have passed. I suppose this means that in no case would I now be bidding 5S, as I either would've passed initially or I'd pass now.] Andy

How about bidding this hand the standard way: neg. X followed by 2 or 3D, assuming you play a new suit at the 2 level as forcing? So to answer your question: this hand is certainly not a 3D bid. With kind regards Marlowe A negative double is possible on this hand, but I certainly hope it isn't mandatory, especially with those 3 small spades and the stiff heart. Andy

That hand makes 7S cold. [Edit: and 7N. Also, Miron, you seem to be giving hands that are on a finesse *for the grand* as well.]

Six key works well, but there are times you won't want to or be able to use it, just like normal RKC doesn't make jumping/raising to 5M ineffective in single-agreement auctions (a frequent case is when you have a void). A benefit of doing it with two agreed suits, though, is that you're in fact looking for suit quality *or pitches* -- for example, this Nov 1989 Challenge the Champs hand: [hv=d=n&v=e&w=saxxhkqj109daxxcjx&e=sj1098xhaxxdxcakqx]266|100|Scoring: MP -- 1S 2H 3H 3S 4C 4D 4H ?[/hv] I will be the first to admit that making agreements based on CTC hands isn't great, but this agreement seems very logical and is hopefully easy to remember because you're actually bidding the suit you want to play (the reverse is basically unplayable). Andy

Try to forget partner's hand . . . You hold AKQJxx Qx A10 Kxx in 3rd seat. P 1S 2C 4D 4H ? You splintered at your second turn, and will have to live with it. What do you bid now? [in case you're wondering, this hand splintered for several reasons: a. our methods had no general slam try over drury (you could make a long suit try [in clubs I assume] and then plan on cuebidding later) b. this hand judged that most hands that make slam opposite will need stuff in hearts and clubs, and not so many hands with the ♦K make slam c. it's lead-avoiding Feel free to comment on this.] Andy

In a bidding room, we had trouble with one of these, and my partner suggested (and possibly thinks is the standard meaning) that, when you've agreed both majors, a jump (or raise) to 5M in one of the majors should ask about the quality of the other major (assuming you've cuebid both or neither of the minors so it isn't needed for asking about a control in a specific minor). This makes a lot of sense to me: you get to play the major with better suit quality if partner passes. Is this something you've have heard of before and/or think is standard? (If not, is there a standard?) Do you like this treatment? Andy

This is reasonable, but my impression has been that 3H tends to show a solid minor, not just a one-suited minor hand. Bidding 3H with e.g. Ax x AQJxxxx AKJ (or similar) leaves you with no clue what to do over partner's 3NT. Of course, you have to take a loss somewhere, and guessing over 3NT with this sort of hand isn't so terrible. I do think that over preempts, correcting to a major suit after doubling shows a flexible hand (else you just jump in the major to some level). For minor suits, I'm less certain what the meaning should be. Andy

I agree that 3H shows extras, and the "extras + extras = game" principle seems reasonable, but I'm not certain here because 3D doesn't have to have that much extra: what about hands like xxx x KQxxxx xxx (is this a 3D bid for you?). I suppose you can simply end up playing 4D then, though. Andy

What does: 1H (1S) P (P) X (P) 3D (P) 3H show, and how forcing/encouraging is it? Andy

You hold xxx Axx xxx AQxx in 1st seat, and pass. The auction proceeds: P 1S 2C 4D (2C = 3-card drury, 4D = splinter) What's your plan? (You're playing imps, but it presumably doesn't matter.) Andy

Imps, white vs red, 1st seat: -- AKJ874 A4 106432 1H 3D X P; 4C P 5C P; ? Do you give it the bump? (For better or for worse, I bid 4C, and you'll have to live with that for this thread. If you wish to complain about [or support!] 4C, do so in the original thread.) Andy

I did bid 4♣ at the table. I think 4♣ shows extra shape or strength, but is not quite forcing. With your example hand, I'd probably shoot out 3NT (partner shouldn't have nothing for double of 3♦ here) at imps and pass at matchpoints. An example of a slight change would be K2 KJ652 x Axxxx, and I'm ok with this hand and my actual hand making the same bid, though I'm certainly not really happy about it. I do think partner should often correct to 4H with 2 to try to play game. 4H is certainly a viable option as well. Perhaps this approach is overly game-oriented on potential misfits, but note that 3S on three and 3H with a good 5-card suit (KQJxx e.g.) are available for other variants of your hand (though I still might try 3NT/pass on some of these). I'll be away for a few days, but feel free to discuss how silly you think my ideas are without me and I'll see what you've said when I get back. Also, see the follow-up thread for your next decision. Andy

Additionally, Roland's method isn't allowed in the ACBL (at any level) as dual-message signals are only allowed on the first discard. Andy

Imps, white vs red, 1st seat: -- AKJ874 A4 106432 1H 3D X P; ? What's your bid/plan? Andy

Another suggestion is to (in addition to other means) write a Bridge World letter to the editor on this subject. I'm not really sure how influential these are, but Bridge World editorials seem associated with changes that have occurred over the years. Andy

What are people's defenses to nebulous 1D openers? Do you differentiate based on whether 1D is symmetric with respect to the minors (which it usually isn't, but e.g. Adam plays this way commonly) or on minimum length promised? My current agreements with most partners include treating it as a normal 1D opener (2D michaels, diamond bids are cuebids at the appropriate points, etc) for ease, with the understanding that a takeout double is mostly for the majors (ie club support can be lacking, but this is somewhat standard over natural 1D openers anyways). Note that this means I check both the "natural" and the "michaels" boxes on the ACBL convention card under direct cuebid over artificial bid, something I've never seen anyone do before, even people who play 2D as michaels here. Andy