nigel_k

Am I the only one who thinks it's better to have a run-out mechanism instead of system on even after a 15-17 NT? Anyway I agree with pass first and then 2♣ when it comes back.

The Bowles evaluation method* values this as an opening bid. The people who suggest it's a pass are either Kaplan/Rubens addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand. Doesn't that make just as much sense as what you posted? * This method consists of looking at the hand and deciding how much I like it. Heh. I suspect one difference is that Kaplan/Rubens is designed to get to contracts that most of us can make while the Bowles method is designed for getting to contracts that only Andy Bowles can make. Still, this is really quite a bad hand. Before using K/R I looked at the hand and decided how much I liked it and the answer was 'not much'. K/R is just a shortcut way to attach a number to the things that make this hand bad.

You have to jump to 2♠ with KQxx xxx Axxx xx. The jump is not forcing and shows about 8-10 or a bad 11. In no way does it suggest a five card suit. 1♠ would be around 0-7 or bad 8. This is not some expert tactic, it is standard bridge that I would teach to beginners. Anyway this is a good hand with an ace, a king and a working queen so jumping to 2♠ would be ok even if 1♠ can be up to 9 HCP. If opener passes, the doubler needs extra values (eg balanced 16 or good 15) in order to raise 1♠ to 2♠. If opener bids again then it is tactically better for doubler with four card support to raise with a bit less. Your example hand ATxx Kx Qxx QJxx is a pass though. On your examples, I would definitely jump to 2♠ with T9xx AQx x Q9xxx and it would be ok even with T9xx AQx xx Q9xx. With T9xx AQx x K9xxx it's definitely a maximum 2♠ and maybe a cue bid is better as you could miss a game bidding only 2♠. With AKxx Jx Axxx Ax partner should raise 1♠ to 2♠ and 2♠ to 4♠. With Kxxx Jx Axxx Ax partner should pass 2♠ and could maybe raise 1♠ to 2♠ in competition only but it's a bare minimum for that action.

1. 2NT. Not close. 2. Somewhat close but I would always double. 3. I suppose I have to pass but I don't like it (or the system that got me here). 4. 3♠. Pass could be right but I don't like 4♦ because partner could easily have a pretty good 2425 and will take us too high. If our style is to open very light with 5-5 majors then maybe I could chance 4♦ though.

I would bid 2♥ which could be a problem if 1♠-2♥-4♥-4♠ is a cue bid, but will be ok in most other sequences and is best at helping partner evaluate. I doubt it needs to be alerted and the conditions suggest you have no partnership agreement anyway so there's nothing to alert. I'm pretty sure that Jacoby 2NT is in SAYC but you can use google. If the first few hits all say the same thing then that is probably the answer :)

Kaplan/Rubens values this at 9.05 The people who suggested 1♠ are either point count addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand. It just doesn't qualify unless your requirements are much lower than standard. The choices are 2♠ or pass.

I would upgrade. The KJ of diamonds is a minus but I'd consider it close to an upgrade if the diamonds were Kx and having the jack instead makes it clear. People may disagree about the particular hand but I really don't understand these people saying they don't upgrade (or downgrade). Point count is only a rough approximation of value and you just have to look at other factors if you want to bid accurately. Choosing not to even try to exercise judgment and following rigid rules instead is not an option IMO.

South 70%. It's interesting how good players have completely different ideas about how to bid over preempts. I consider double with South completely wrong and would be quite content if it went all pass. Much prefer double by N and pass by S as Cherdanno suggested. After South's double, it is a choice between pass and 5NT for North. At MP I would just take the 500 and expect that other tables will either miss slam or bid the wrong one. At IMPs against good opponents I think it is very close though. I don't hate North's 6♣ but South will often bid 6♣ over 5NT with four of them and there aren't that many hands where 6♣ will be best when he has only three. You want to give parter options if possible since he is under pressure and could also have a good hand with a doubleton club eg Qxxx KJxxx Ax AK.

These Stayman replies are not any kind of Acol that I have ever heard of.

I would bid 2♣ over 1♦. We don't have the vul but I'd probably do it regardless and could get flamed for suggesting it vul in these forums. Double or pass over 1♦ are also ok though. To answer the actual question, I doubt there is much mileage in playing it for penalties in this particular sequence but there are other similar sequences where the penalty interpretation would be the standard one. This really needs partnership agreement - e.g. double over the opening bidder is penalties if partner has acted but takeout if they have passed throughout.

This problem has no good answer which is why people play weak NT. You could go for 500 or 800 against a partscore or unbiddable game, or you could have game your way. Even if 1NT fails, the defence to beat it may be hard to find. I would bid with your methods but agree with others that a penalty double is definitely better at IMPs and maybe at matchpoints. With a different defence where I could show hearts and another but not play clubs at the two level I would probably pass but still wouldn't like it.

The arguments for each side are pretty obvious - but it's the weights you attach to them that are hard to work out. I prefer a three point range for both the opening and rebid but don't feel really strongly about it. I do agree with 1eyedjack that the rebid doesn't really cope with a wider range any better than the opening does.

4♣ splinter. 4♠ is also possible but since both opponents have passed and I am limited already I can fairly safely choose the more descriptive option. If I had agreed not to splinter with a void then I don't see why this hand would be an exception so I'd just do whatever the alternative is in the system. Would not consider stopping short of game though.

I wouldn't open 1♠. Whether you open 2♠ is a question of style and tactics. If you want to make a bid that describes your hand in a way that allows partner to make the right decisions then 2♠ is wrong for the reasons Justin gave. But if you open 2♠ in order to make life hard for opponents and accept that sometimes partner will have a problem, then I think 2♠ is ok on this. In third seat I think it's good to vary your preempts as the downside of finding partner with a good hand is removed so I would definitely open 2♠ in third.

I ran a simulation assuming partner has a balanced 6-8 HCP and no five card major. With less than 6, you'll play 1NT even if you show 17-19 and with more than 8, he'll invite opposite 14-16 so you always play 3NT. Obviously this doesn't include all relevant hands - if he has a five card major and a stiff club you are going to be sorry you downgraded. But it covers the most common hands where showing 14-16 vs 17-19 will make a difference. I did 10,000 hands for each of 6, 7 and 8 HCP. 6 HCP ------- Less than 7 tricks: 9.72% 7 tricks: 45.54% 8 tricks: 37.54% 9 or more tricks: 7.20% 7 HCP ------- Less than 7 tricks: 3.74% 7 tricks: 24.42% 8 tricks: 52.90% 9 or more tricks: 18.94% 8 HCP ------- Less than 7 tricks: 1.79% 7 tricks: 11.87% 8 tricks: 44.54% 9 or more tricks: 41.80% So if you show 17-19 and partner has 6 and invites you'll play 2NT, breaking even 45% of the time and losing the other 55%. If partner has 7 he might just bid game sometimes opposite 17-19 but let's say he always invites. Then you still play 2NT and break even on 71.84% and lose on 28.16%. Opposite 8, you'll play 1NT if you show 14-16 and 3NT if you show 17-19, so gain on 41.8% of hands and lose on the other 58.2%. Even allowing for the usual caveats about declarer's advantage etc, I'd say that the 14-16 valuation looks like a clear winner. Even more so at matchpoints.

I would. Good players evaluate accurately and then bid aggressively based on that valuation. If that means downgrading then so be it. This is easily closer to 16 than 17. If a good player would open a 14-16 NT with an average 16 then they can do it with this too.

The first question is what kind of strength 4♦ shows. IMO it needn't be a lot extra but I wouldn't do it with a bare minimum 4♠ bid. The following is based on that assumption. I don't agree with South bidding 6♠ instead of 6♦. Possibly North can infer ♦K from his own hand on the theory that it would be hard for South to cue bid a diamond shortage with no other king or the queens that North has. But I don't see why South shouldn't have something like AKQJxx Jxx - 10xxx. If South has shown ♦K already (and it looks like South at least thinks so because they didn't bid 6♦) then I think North should bid 7. The worst case is AKQxxx xx Kx xxx and you need both finesses which are probably on. With AKQJx xx Kx xxxx South should not bid 4♦ IMO.

I think raising is underrated on these kind of hands. But here you have a decent heart suit with the intermediates and you are better than minimum which means: i) You can bid 3♦ over 2♠ or 3♣ next without stretching (much) ii) Partner will pass instead of bidding 2♥ on quite a few of the hands where you have a 4-4 heart fit and enough to make game or outbid opps. iii) A 4-3 heart fit may play well So I'd bid 1♥ but it's not a wtp. I would be happy to bid 2♦ with xxx T9xx Qxxx Ax. Even xxx QT9x Jxxx Ax would be borderline.

What's the 2NT rebid?

What was your partner's hand? Probably he misbid but maybe he has something like KQx xxx AKQxx xx and he didn't want to bid notrump and wasn't sure how to make a strong diamond raise. Although partner really should have four spades, I would have passed 5♦ with your hand because only a three card spade suit can explain partner's jump to 5♦.

IMO any kind of formulaic approach cannot work for slam bidding. Point count more or less works for game bidding because weakness in one area can be compensated for by strength somewhere else. Also, you typically don't have space to investigate in great detail. In slam bidding, two losers in one suit is a fail, regardless of how much you have in the other suits. Conversely, hands that fit well can produce 12 tricks with less than the normal HCP or LTC. And in slam bidding there is often space to find out about such things. The way to bid slams well is to imagine the kind of hands partner might hold and develop the auction so that you can distinguish the ones where slam is good from the ones where it is not, or provide partner with information he needs in order to do so. The visualization needed to do this well comes naturally to some people, but others can develop it with practice.

1) Since pass is to play if 2♣ bidder has five clubs, 2♦ will only be hands with better hearts than clubs, typically 4342, 5332 or 3352 but could also be 5251 maybe. 2) If you do this to avoid a 5-2 club fit at the three level then the 2♣/2♦ bidder should probably show the longer major first so that responder with 3-3 (or 4-3 or 3-4) in the majors can always hit an eight card fit. That will then lead to a need for the scrambling situation you described. 3) I use: immediate 3♣ over 2♣ as GF enquiry and 2♦ then 3♣ as a signoff in opener's minor. This only works because 2♣-2♦-2♥ is known to have a minor since 4♠ and 5♥ is ruled out. That leaves 2NT as natural whether direct or delayed, but the direct one is more encouraging.

Hidden:

1) After 2♣-X-P, the issue is whether the 2♣ bidder is supposed to pass with five hearts and four clubs. So I would define the pass as either to play opposite four clubs, or to play opposite five clubs, rather than just 'prefers clubs to hearts'. If it is to play opposite four clubs, then you can't play 2♣ with 4-5 opposite 2-2. If it is to play opposite five clubs, you can't play 2♣ with 5-4 opposite 1-3. But at least in the latter case the 5-1 may be tolerable so I would go with that. I would play redouble of 2♣ by the responder as just a puppet to 2♦ followed by a signoff, leaving all others as correctable. Redouble by the 2♣ bidder should be long diamonds or spades, 2♦ 5-4 with diamonds and 2♥ 5-4 with clubs. 2) I also like to start with 2♦, not 2♣, with four spades and longer hearts. Then you can pass the 2♥ relay and play your best major fit. It is difficult if 2♣ can be longer in either major. So your scrambling example would not come up as the 2♣ bidder cannot have spades. With four they wuld start with 2♦ and with five they would bid 2♠ not 2♥. I would just play this as weak with spades and the immediate 2♠ as natural and constructive (or forcing if you prefer). 3) I would use the direct 2NT as invitational as a 4-5 maximum with diamonds can just pass 2♦.

LHO's 2♥ bid should be a pretty good hand since he has already captured many of the advantages of overcalling by bidding 1♥. To now bid 2♥ suggests he is close to making eight tricks opposite a passed partner. So RHO with a medicore hand and long diamonds may have chosen to pass but is now happy to try 3♦ knowing that partner is stronger, e.g. xx x KJ109xxx Qxx. Anyway I think it's more likely 3♦ and 3♠ both make than both fail so will bid 3♠. Probably could try 3♥ instead since we have a good maximum and partner may bid game sometimes.