Tramticket

Interesting - I would judge hand 6 to be stronger than hand 4?

"no judgment involved" - Really? Are you saying that you don't use judgment on opening bids? What do you do - count the points and follow a rule?

The thread by 0deary was interesting, but I feel that the example given is an easy opening for most of us. I thought it would be interesting to try and see where BBF members draw the line on opening bids. Below are six hands, similar to the hand in 0deary's post. If you played your favourite system with your favourite partner at IMPs, which hands would you open and which would you pass? (Binary choice please): Hand 1 [hv=pc=n&s=s86543hkj2dkqck63&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv] Hand 2 [hv=pc=n&s=skq86hkj2d654ck63&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv] Hand 3 [hv=pc=n&s=skj864hkj2d65ck63&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv] Hand 4 [hv=pc=n&s=skq864hk62d65ck63&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv] Hand 5 [hv=pc=n&s=skj864hk62d65ck63&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv] Hand 6 [hv=pc=n&s=skjt64hkt9d65ckt9&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv]

This is an unlucky hand where partner happens to hold a void in your five-card spade suit. The opponents hold an eight-card fit in your longest suit. The real lesson from this hand is that you want to defend on misfits. Unfortunately you can't afford to sit around being over-cautious thinking "it might be a terrible misfit" - you will miss out on to many making contracts your way. Imagine you pass and partner also has a twelve count and a five-card spade suit - you are missing out on a likely game. It's a bidders world (but very occasionally it isn't:)).

1. I hate the 2NT response. Just make a waiting bid with 2D and allow partner to start showing his suits at the two-level. 2. If you must bid 2NT, transfers don't apply. 3. But I prefer: 2C, 2D; 2H, 2S; 3D, 4D; ..... Opener has shown both suits at the three level and responder has shown diamond support. You can then continue with your favourite slam methods.

the first thing to say is that Goulash is not bridge and basing bidding systems and judgments on these freak deals is counterproductive. They don't happen in real life. If in some strange world I was dealt this North hand then I agree, that I am not considering anything other than spades as trumps. My problem with opening 1♠ and rebidding 4♠ is that you have even more offensive strength than partner will expect - you have a three loser hand with a nine-card suit and two voids. You are showing a strong hand - but this strong??? I would probably rebid 5♠!! Of course it works horribly here, but that's what comes of Goulashes. :)

What else could you do? Nobody is passing this. Change it to weak NT and four-card majors and I open 1NT.

Since partner bid 3S, instead of 3NT, he doesn't have a diamond stop. Bid 4C now. You were prepared to bid 4C anyway and it has cost you nothing to have investigated 3NT first.

If those are the only options, I agree. But as I have already suggested, it is quite common in a Weak NT / Four Card Major structure to play a double as showing values (i.e. a strong NT type hand).

Interesting. I'm guessing that without the interference, you were about to show your balanced, strong NT hand be rebidding 1NT (or probably 2NT as this is worth much more than a superficial 16)? And you would have used some form of check-back to find a major suit fit? I prefer to also show the balanced shape immediately after interference. But it is easier for us, because we would open a major before a minor.

It is relevant and does make things easier. Support doubles etc. don't really apply in a weak NT context. The double of (say) a 2♦ intervention is better used to show a 15+ balanced hand without a stop. The double over 3♦ shows essentially the same hand. Note that there is not the implication that you hold a four-card major when you double - with four spades you would either open 1♠ or hold an unbalanced hand and plan to rebid spades. Given this context I double :) (If I were playing a strong NT I would be inclined to bid 4♣ - but what do I know about strong NT?).

A responder's jump in a new suit takes up a lot of bidding space, you need to show points (traditionally 16+) AND certain tightly defined hand patterns. These are traditionally: (1) A strong self-supporting suit. At least 6+ length, good honour strength and will play well opposite a singleton. You will rebid the suit, if necessary, to show this type. (2) A good 5+ card suit and support for partner's suit. You will support partner at the next bid. (3) A good 5-card suit in a balanced 16+ hand. You will rebid NT at the next bid. In each of these hand types you are giving partner useful information and have a clear vision about the final denomination. The worst thing to do is to jump with some random 16+ hand, take up bidding space and fail to help identify the final contract.

Took me a few minutes ... now I see the blockage! :)

Agreed. And I have no real knowledge of what is standard in America.

You must have led a sheltered life. I have seen a large variety of response structures to a 2NT raise (which may or may not have been described as "Jacoby"). For example Heather Dhondy in April 2016 wrote an article: Mr Bridge. EDIT: Also a David Bakhshi article from October 2009 English Bridge I'm not suggesting that this is "correct" or "good bridge" - but I would not assume any response structure and would ask further. Using names of conventions in responses to questions is just wrong.

I'm attracted to a 3NT bid in a masochistic sort of way. the 3♣ bidder probably won't have a running suit (they might open 3NT). So either partner or RHO has a club honour and it is more likely to be partner since he is showing some values. Of course partner's club holding might be ♣K or ♣QX ... but if you bid it confidently he might lead something else. :) Risky. But I might do it.

This is clarified in law 55: LAW 55 - DECLARER’S LEAD OUT OF TURN A. Declarer’s Lead Accepted If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand then either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53 or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently then the option expressed by the player next in turn to the irregular lead shall prevail.

This is nonsense of course. (1) The double is not for penalty. How can you have a hand that was not worth a 2♥ bid on the last round and is now worth a penalty double of the opponents' hearts? (2) Even if, in some strange world, you played the double as penalty the implication that you are calling partner a liar if you pull their penalty double is ridiculous. You said something similar here and I let it pass. Doubling for penalties should be based on cooperation, not a one-sided decision by one partner. If you never allow your partner to pull a penalty double (and use terms like "liar" and "reading the riot act" in the process), your double will need to be rock solid and you will never make enough penalty doubles.

I would have thought that AK109X XX XXX AKX is just as likely. Bidding 2♠ looks reasonable and might often work out better than 3♦. Is this IMPs or MPs?

I could have shown the second suit by bidding 4♣ over 3♦. But since we had a nine-card fit, I was hoping that it would be more useful to show the shortage.

[hv=pc=n&s=sajhk7654dkt3ck92&n=skq6hdqj8642caqt5&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1n(12-14)p2n(Transfer%20to%20Diamonds)p3d(QXX%20or%20better%20in%20Diamonds)p4h(Splinter)p4s(1st%20or%202nd-round%20control)p5c(1st%20or%202nd-round%20control)p5dppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs System Weak NT We play 2NT as a transfer to diamonds, 3♦ shows support (at least 3 with one of the top three honours) and if we followed up with a new suit it would be natural (at least 6-4) (Stayman followed by 3♦ would show 4M/5♦). A few questions arise: (1) An alternative response to 1NT would have been 3♦ - natural, setting diamonds as trumps and suggesting slam potential. Do you prefer that? (2) Given our methods and auction, Should we be in slam? If so, who should have bid six. (We haven't found out about the crucial ♣K) (3) Most seem to play that a new suit after the transfer shows a shortage and we are discussing whether we should tweak our system (it would save a round of bidding here). We are open to tweaking the system, but not fundamentally changing it. The good news: we gained on the board as our team-mates defeated 3NT! I'm interested in your views.

Thanks Mike - I will discuss with partner.

Is it that you disagree with trial bids generally? Would 1♥, 2♥; 3♦ be a trial bid for you? or is the problem more specific? i.e. partner has already shown invitational values (say 10/11+) and it is trying to be too precise and scientific to make a return trial bid? If it is this, then I tend to agree. 3♦ in this auction is pretty pointless as a trial bid. But we don't have any other use for the 3♦ bid - so if partner bid 3♦ I would interpret it as a trial. What would you use 3♦ for?

If it was a pick-up partner, then just shrug and move on. If it was a regular partner, you need to discuss, as it is a common sequence. You can agree to play the cue-bid as forcing to game. Personally the cue bid is "invitational or stronger" (F1) in our partnership (4-card majors / weak NT). The 3♦ bid is a trial bid and 3♥ is a sign-off. We would cue-bid here rather than bidding 3♥.

Thanks, challenging hand! Its interesting that west chose to lead a club rather than a major.