nigel_k

I would have a bit less than Justin. I would jump to 3♥ with five hearts and 10 or a good 9. 2♥ would be a good 6 to 9 with five hearts or a good 7 to 10 or bad 11 with four hearts.

1♦ but only because I have an ace and a king so my hand is not hopeless on defence. Otherwise pass then bid NT at whatever level.

I don't normally open 1NT with a five card major and would play that anything except 3♠ or 3NT shows club support. If opener does want to bid a major naturally, something like Ken's agreement sounds good. This alternative is Justin's suggestion, that you could bid 3♦ on Ax Jxx AQJxx Kxx, with a heart problem but without primary support for either of responder' suits. This will gain on the hands where responder has enough in spades or clubs to make game there when hearts aren't stopped but will lose when you have Ax Jxx AQJx Kxxx and responder needs to know about the fourth club to play a club game (or slam) and otherwise signs off in 3NT (eg Kxxxx Ax Kx Axxx).

Passing could easily be right but I prefer to bid when it is close. It's hard to choose between 4♠ and 4NT but I think either will do better on average than passing. Would probably go with 4♠.

I would say that 1NT is probably the contract where both sides are most likely to fall short of optimal (double dummy) play. If that's what the post meant then it makes sense. The declaring side will nevertheless do better than defenders on average, compared to the double dummty result. I think the explanation for Jeff Miller's findings is that declarer has more decisions to make relative to the defence as the level of the contract increases. Though declarer always has an advantage over the defence in accurately exploiting his side's combined assets, as he has more opportunities to go wrong and the defence have fewer, the defence may do better compared to double dummy. In 6NT (compared to 1NT) declarer may need to find a missing jack, drop a doubleton queen offside, or other similar decisions. While he is doing this the defence will usually just be following suit. While declarer's advantage over the defence in getting decisions right remains, the number of decisions for each side means that the defence becomes 'easier' as the level increases.

North 65%. Strongly disagree with 2NT. In general, you'll tend to have easier auctions after a one level opening and there are two reasons not to do so: 1) There is a decent chance the 1 level opening will be passed out and you'll miss a game; or 2) You have a rebid problem after a 1 level opening This hand doesn't fit the first category. The second category covers balanced hands that are too good for a non forcing 2NT rebid (i.e. a 'normal' 2NT opening) and 6332 hands that are too good to jump rebid the six card suit. Here you have an easy 3♣ GF rebid. Also, 5431 shapes are especially difficult to bid well after starting with 2NT because there are so many playable denominations. Having opened 2NT I would really want to bid over 4♥ but probably wouldn't do it. South probably should do more but the choice of 4♥ is more understandable than North's 2NT.

South 100%. North could have bid 2♠ over 2♦. I would pass but it is close. The point made earlier about partner being in the balancing seat is an important one. If the bidding went (1♦)-X-(2♦)-? then I'd bid 2♠ on that hand. South should definitely have raised instead of the final pass. There is nothing wrong with Fluffy's examples except they aren't very likely. North will usually have four spades and a card or two on this sequence. And South could be much worse than he is. For the point counters, South has 14 HCP plus whatever you count for a void plus the balancing adjustment, and an extra trump. It's a lot.

Definitely not 1♠. It is (just barely) better than a limit raise so 1NT then 3♥ is too little. On the other hand, I think 2NT suggests a better hand. Sure it can be a minimum GF and we have a minimum GF but partner is still going to play us for more than 4333 12 HCP with 3 trumps. The controls are good but we might simply not make enough tricks for the level that partner bids. Can I bid 1NT then 4♥ to show this hand?

Bid 4♥ and pass if they bid 4♠. I don't have exceptional offense or an exceptional lack of defence. A 5♥ sacrifice might be ok if they bid to 4♠ knowing what they're doing, but having made them guess at the four level I don't want to throw away the gains on the times they guess wrong.

Dunno if this is standard but I would treat the negative double as just showing hearts and would bid the same as after 1♣-(P)-1♥-(2♠), not using any special treatment due to the negative double. With four card 'support' I would always raise not double. If the negative double might not have hearts we are talking about a completely different problem so we need to know which it is. Anyway in that case I would still bid hearts as a 4-3 looks better than NT.

I think there is an important difference between saying: A. "Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it." and B. "Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger options of opener’s Multi 2♦." If the regulation is A, then responder is entitled to consider the probability of partner having the string option. When the regulation is B, that suggests to me that responder has to act if he'd want to be in game when partner is strong. I agree that this is not really playing bridge, but the time to worry about that was when creating the regulation not when applying it. I'm not convinced that the the intent of the regulation is solely to catch players who are misdescribing their multi-way bids. It's more dangerous to act over a multi that can have a strong option but you can lessen that risk by passing and bidding on the next round after the hand type has been revealed. Possibly the regulation is just intended to facilitate that. So I'd interpret the regulation as meaning responder can pass with xx xx xxxxxxx xx but not with the given hand.

I'd bid 3♥ and would not regard 2♥ as a logical alternative that is suggested by the UI.

No. The infraction was the insufficient bid, and when he chose to replace it with 2H there was no benefit from the infraction. I don't agree. Maybe he would not normally have bid 2♥, but chose to correct the insufficient 1♥ to 2♥ on less than adequate values so that his partner would not be barred. As far as I can tell from the facts, this is quite likely the case. If so, I think he did get a better result than he would have obtained without the infraction.

The director adjusts if: "without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different" Based on the description of the hand as "very ordinary 10 points, 5 cards" I think the director should adjust. All that is needed is that the player could well have chosen not to overcall 2♥. The good result fortunate lie of the cards is part of the reason for the outcome and the original insufficient bid is another part of the reason. We can't be sure without more details though.

So what next if P bids 4♦, 4♥, 4♠ or 5♣?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sj5h87dak3cakj742]133|100|Scoring: IMP (3♥)-3♠-(P)-?[/hv] What do you bid now and what's your plan?

Great answers, thanks everyone. I like rhm's auction and am also closer to being persuaded that a 2♥ rebid is best.

[hv=d=s&n=sak102h105dkqj963c9&s=s3hakj63da107cj1073]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The bidding starts 1♥-2♦-3♦-3♠. How should it continue? Please also provide an alternative if you would not start this way.

In your example you both should have bid more. But there is no easy rule that applies to this situation. It depends on: 1) whether partner bids freely or was forced to bid because your LHO passed 2) whether your RHO passes, bids a new suit or raises his partner 3) whether you are raising from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 3 4) whether you are raising a minor or a major And possibly other factors. Experts would probably mostly agree on what you need to raise but it's hard to describe what that is in every situation. What I would suggest is generate some hands using a computer where there is an opening bid followed by a takeout double and your side has at least half the high cards (or maybe a bit less). Then either bid the hands with your partner or each separately write down how you think the auction should go. Then analyze the hands and reach agreement that way. The book on takeout doubles by Mike Lawrence is also a good reference.

I may lack imagination but I'm going to win and return a spade. They have bid 6NT with a long suit so an attacking lead is called for and partner could even have the king. He is more likely to have led from king or queen than from the jack. If declarer wins the king and runs hearts I'll need partner to have something in the minors in addition to the queen of spades. If partner has king of diamonds and queen of clubs I just need to keep all my clubs so partner can let them go. If partner has king of clubs and ten of diamonds I don't think there is anything declarer can do. If we can't beat it at least I stopped the overtrick.

4♣. We definitely shouldn't rule out clubs regardless of what the other continuations mean. I've never played this way so have no real opinion about whether 4♠ is shortness or a suit. If I was weak 5-6 I would be annoyed not being able to bid 4♠ though.

2♣. I like to bid my suit first then double on these hands, but double initially would be ok as well.

Double if system permits, otherwise 2♠.

I also prefer 3NT as a good (but not necessarily solid suit) 4 of a major preempt -a better hand than opening four of a major in order to be able to preempt on those hands but also enable partner to make good slam and competitive decisions. The Gambling 3NT is not that bad though and I'd rate it better than NAMYATS plus 3NT with a 4 minor preempt. It can obviously wrong side the contract but puts partner in a pretty good position otherwise. If you make it any solid suit (not just a minor) you can right side some major games and also play 3NT with a solid major and exactly nine tricks.

I really don't like a limit raise to create any kind of force. The reason is that a limit raise need not have that many high cards. It's a statement of the strength of your hand in support of partner's suit which can be very different from your strength in defence. It's not the same as showing invitational values with no suit agreed. E.g. xxx QJxx x KJxxx If the bidding starts 1H-(2D) I'd regard this as too strong for a preemptive 3♥ so would bid 3♦. If you don't agree make it a bit stronger. In any case you really don't want to be forced to bid or double if they go to 5♦ and partner is minimum.