nigel_k

No blame. I don't know if 3♥ is better than 2NT with North but neither is particularly attractive and I think 2NT is ok. Hands with (13)(45) shape are a problem when responding to 2NT, but I agree with the decision to use minor suit Stayman (assuming that's what 3♠ is) and risk losing a 5-3 heart fit.

I don't really understand why - can you explain this more? We won't be able to play a 6-2 spade fit after a 2NT rebid but we can still play a 6-3. The gains from rebidding 2NT are when 9 tricks in NT are easier than 10 in spades, or if the 2♠ rebid leads to wrongsiding 3NT, or if partner is broke and there is no game but we can make 2NT. All of these could easily be the case IMO.

2♣ and rebid 2NT over 2♦. This is definitely an awkward hand. I don't really like 1♠ because I am going to raise a 1NT response to 3NT (unless playing something like Gazzilli) so wouldn't gain anything over just starting with 2NT, and could miss a game if everyone passes or wrongside 3NT. I value this as slightly closer to 23 than 22 so will go via 2♣. Opening 2♣ and rebidding 2♠ would be ok as well. There are some hands where you have to accept you could get too high after opening a GF when partner has absolutely nothing. But on this hand I think the chance to stop short of game and describe our general hand type outweighs the cases wehre a 6-2 spade fit will be better than 3NT.

Agree 100%. Don't pull with balanced hands ever at IMPS. Maybe if it's matchpoints and you're NV, -180/-380 isn't good and they could let you off the hook if you bid. But normally you should pass.

But with the other options included in the 2♦ opening, you could not play 2♥/♠/NT with the 4441 hand unless opponents help. So you would be effectively be starting at 3♣ on a hand with a few as 16 HCP and no long suit. In some cases you would even have to go to the four level to play in your best fit when responder has nothing. You'll be worse off than if you had just opened 1♣ and rebid a four card major or 1NT with a singleton.

Definitely 3♣ for me too. But I'd like to be able to use 2♠ to show this hand type (among others).

Limit raise even if the hand was slightly weaker, e.g. without one of the jacks.

Is it forcing? I would upgrade quite a few 19s (including this one) to open 2NT and would be happy for partner to pass with a minimum 1NT response. Anyway the reason that I opened 1♠ instead of 2NT must have been so I can now bid 3♦.

2♣. Minor suit partscores are underrated and 1NT is really not attractive as it doesn't figure to play well and we'll be poorly placed if they raise spades or rebid diamonds and partner has clubs.

Depends on who partner and opps are. If opps are the sort who will not double then probably you can double this. OTOH if you have one of those partners who will never pass it out unless they are 4333 and even then will consider 2♠, then most definitely pass this. Assuming all experts I would pass.

1♥. People respond light and you can still make games in this situation. So I think 2♥ is too much of an underbid unless we have specifically agreed it's intermediate. We could have a lot less, even r/w.

After a 2♣ opening you're not really trying to find out if you have a game. You're looking for slam or maybe deciding which is the best game. So the responses are tailored to help achieve that. Usually it's good for responder to keep the bidding low and let the 2♣ opener describe what they have, hence the high standards for a positive meaning most hands respond 2♦.

2♠. Good problem as either pass or 2♠ could easily be right. I suspect probably our expectation is a bit higher defending 2♦X than playing in spades, but in close situations I prefer the choice that doesn't end the auction. Also, I'd like partner to feel comfortable about reopening next time so I don't want to discourage him by gambling on a pass with a marginal hand.

Just enough to bid 3♠ for me.

Prefer 3♣ to 2NT. At first I was leaning towards 2NT for similar reasons to gnasher. If partner has rebiddable hearts or a club suit it probably doesn't matter. If not, then he could easily have a good hand with three diamonds and we could get too high if I rebid 3♣. But I think partner will quite often just raise to 3NT with 2524, especially if the clubs are only Qxxx. And if he has three diamonds, e.g. 2533, then it's quite possible that nothing makes anyway plus he could still let me out at 3NT. As a side issue, do people think there is any merit in playing 2♥ as GF in this kind of situation and just double with less. If so, maybe 2♠ would be best here.

The actual hand is an easy game force anyway. But to answer your question, you do need two ways to show a single suited minor hand and less than a game force because the range is much too wide if you respond 1NT and rebid the minor on all of them. I would definitely play 2/1 then rebid as GF and the hands where you want it as GF are actually quite common. A direct 3♣ or 3♦ response is one option but I prefer to use those for other things. IMO you can manage just starting with 1NT as follows: After a 1♥ opening it's a bit easier because you have 1NT then 2♠ available as an artificial bid. Probably most people play 1♥-1NT-2♦-2♠ as a diamond raise and better than 3♦ directly. But you could also include the stronger single suited club hands in 2♠ and opener bids 2NT to find out whether you have clubs or diamonds. After a 1♠ opening and opener rebids 2♣ you can use Bart with a good diamond hand and just bid 3♦ with the weaker one. After a 1♠ opening and opener rebids 2♦ you don't really have an answer so either agree to bid 2NT with good and 3♣ with bad, or to bid 3♣ with good and just have to pass or give preference otherwise.

A agree that you should pass and partner should double. If your partner is a non-expert, probably you just need to suggest to them that in the balancing seat it's a good idea to act with a king less than they would need in the direct seat, and he will do that in future. It is a harder problem with the N/S hands switched and you could pass out in 2♥ in that case without anyone doing anything terribly wrong. Though 3NT would be a poor contract then, 5♦ or 2♥X would still be better than 2♥ undoubled.

Aren't we choosing between pure attitude and pure count? Surely either can be done quickly. And if dummy's cards were different you might have Qxx where you need to choose between showing attitude and count while I am just showing attitude all the time.

A slight problem with Tim's formulation is that is doesn't require the converse to also be true, i.e. it should say 'if and only if' instead of just 'if'. Anyway: (a-c)/(b-d) > c/d d(a-c) > c(b-d) (this is valid since factors are assumed to be > 0) ad - cd > bc - cd ad > bc a/b > c/d And this works in reverse as well.

I agree with this. Strangely enough, I actually had an almost identical situation two nights ago. Partner had AKxx, dummy QJxx and me xxxx. I played a high one on the ace lead and he later tried to cash the king. Playing high works when it's always right for partner to switch unless you have xx. Playing low works when it's always right for him to continue (whether at trick two or later) unless you have xxxx and he is able to differentiate xx and xxxx, but not xxx and xxxx. And if he really does need to continue when you have xxx, setting up dummy's suit, then declarer probably has enough tricks anyway that it doesn't matter if he also continues when you have xxxx. So I think that playing high with xxxx is right much more often. This was precisely what happened on the hand - declarer ruffed but had enough tricks regardless. Another benefit is you normally show attitude on the ace so it isn't necessary for you both to agree on whether dummy's holding creates an exception on the particular hand.

I think this is borderline but would slightly prefer 2♠. This is really just based on overall hand strength. I think there is enough defence for a 1♠ opening and conversely the side ace doesn't put me off opening 2♠. But at the vulnerability it's more likely we get too high if I open 1♠ and rebid 2♠ than we stop too low if I open 2♠. And anyway I like to preempt.

Fred, if you have any left could you send one to Wellington, New Zealand? Thanks. :)

Partner is always going to evaluate better if you bid a suit you have instead of one you don't have. When you bid 2♣ then support spades you are probably going to get too high on the first hand and stop too low on the second one. AJ10xx x AJxx KQx AKxxx Axx Axxx x

3♥. I expect either three hearts or two spades to make and this takes away the three level if they wanted to make a game try. 4♥ is too much and they have already exchanged enough information that they won't just take the push to a bad 4♠. As to whether it is obvious, I'd like to say it probably is obvious but I don't know if that even makes sense.

Also 4♣ over 1♣ and 2♣ over 1♠. I would never play 2♣ constructive over a strong 1♣ though. Just pass with good hands and bid to the limit immediately with weak hands.