Coelacanth

Good point. Not insane in terms of its tactical value, obviously. I just don't know anyone else who thinks Qxxxxxx, xx, Qxxx, void is a normal 1♠ overcall of 1♥.

It was something like [hv=pc=n&s=skt62ht3dk4cj753]133|100[/hv] Obviously we make more tricks in spades; +150 was an average-minus. I think only 2 pairs bid a game; others were picking up +200 on defense. Somebody picked up +1400 on defense :lol:

Thanks for all the well-considered responses. I bid 2♣ on the first round of the auction. Absent explicit discussion to the contrary, I assumed this was forcing. I guess it's possible to play it NF but I know we hadn't discussed any such treatment. I wish I had considered the 2♠ cue on the 2nd round of the auction. Holding ♠AJ, I definitely wanted notrump played from my side. Had I bid 2♠, I don't know if my partner would have found a club bid with her ♣Qx. (I would like to think so, but maybe she'd interpret 2♣ followed by 2♠ as a strong hand with some clubs but uncertain about final strain, which is not what I have.) Partner's actual hand, as divined by mikeh, was 2=5=4=2. It was something like [hv=pc=n&s=skthkq753da875cq8]133|100[/hv] Back to the actual auction, over partner's 2♦ call I just bid 6NT. The grand is makeable double-dummy, but the clubs are 5-0 on your left so you have to start the suit by leading low to the 8 (or running the 10 or 9, I guess), finessing into the overcaller. Yeah, right. This might be a more interesting problem if my RHO had not been insane. She bid 1♠ on essentially ♠Q-seventh and out. If she had passed we could have a simple constructive auction, but if she'd bid 3♠ I have to pretty much commit to slam without knowing much about partner's hand. Or do I?

Thanks, everyone. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't the only one to think 1NT was reasonable on these cards. In discussion with my partner after the hand, she agreed with my choice and said a 1♠ overcall would have been OK too. (This after explicitly stating as we discussed style before the round "I won't overcall a 4-card suit..") I also agree with Fluffy that doubling, planning to bid 2NT over partner's expected 2♣ would have been reasonable. Now for the story... I bid 1NT. LHO bid 2♣, partner passed, and RHO bid 2♦. I passed as did LHO and my partner bid 2NT ending the auction. LHO led the ♣K. Partner put down the dummy with a smattering of quacks in the majors, ♦Kx, and ♣Jxxx. When my RHO followed with the ♣10, it became evident to my LHO (holding ♣KQ-seventh) that I had the singleton ♣A. She called the director. What she expected him to do, I have no idea. I made 3 quietly for a reasonable score.

Matchpoints, all vul, your partner is very strong but you don't have an experienced partnership, you pick up [hv=pc=n&n=sajha2dkjtcakt953]133|100[/hv] Partner opens 1♥ and your RHO bids 1♠. You do not have any firm agreements on the forcingness (if that's a word) of 2♣. You have agreed that a cuebid normally shows a limit raise or better of partner's suit. On the actual hand, if you bid 2♣ partner will bid 2♦. If you bid 2♠ partner will probably bid 2NT. In either case the opponents will make no further bids (not surprising as partner has opened and you have 20 HCP). So, plan your auction after 1♥-(1♠)- What if your RHO had bid 2♠ or 3♠, which would be more in line with her actual hand?

Playing matchpoints, you pick up [hv=pc=n&n=saq53hkj5da8743ca]133|100[/hv] I don't remember the vulnerability, so please comment if you think it matters. Your RHO opens 1♥. You are playing with a partner with whom you've only played a few times, the last time being many years ago. So you don't have a lot of complicated agreements, but when you filled out your card before the game you agreed that your overcall style was reasonably sound and a 1NT overcall is 15-18. Don't know if any of that matters. Your call? There's a story, which is why this is in this section.

1. I think W should pass over 4♥; he's shown his hand with 3♦. Given that he did bid 4NT, though, I have no sympathy for E not bidding 5♣. 2. 4♠ was aggressive but not unreasonable at these colors. W got too excited; RKCB would tell him he's off 2 keys and he can subside in 5♠. 3. Don't agree with the 4♠ opener. If W knows that E might have that hand, bidding 5♠ over the double is madness. This is a question of style; it's evident from these hands (especially the last 2) that E and W have very different ideas about aggressive bidding and neither of them knows this.

It doesn't matter in the two given scenarios. If East has SIX clubs to the jack, so that West shows out when declarer leads toward the KQT, then it might matter.

So here's the rest of the story... (thanks for the responses btw) On the previous board my LHO had made an unfortunate opening lead which gave me an extra overtrick for a top board. On this hand, I bid 4NT invitational, partner gave it some consideration and then passed. Thinking that we had missed a slam, as I put down the dummy I remarked that I may have just given them a top right back. Partner held something like [hv=pc=n&n=sq42hk842dak2ckj5]133|100[/hv] The ♣Q was wrong, so partner took 3 spades and 2 tricks in every other suit for down 1 in 4NT. (The hand can be made, but it requires taking a first round diamond finesse through ♦QJxx on declarer's right. At the table, the defense set up 2 ♥ tricks to go with 1 ♣ and 1 ♦.) One pair bid the slam, but everyone else stopped in 3NT so I had, indeed, given the opponents a good board.

Matchpoints, you hold [hv=pc=n&s=sakjha95dt984ca97]133|100[/hv] Partner opens 1NT (15-17) in 1st chair. Do you bid 3NT, invite with 4NT, just blast 6NT, maybe bid Gerber, some other slam investigation tool? I'll post the actual result a bit later..

This situation arose in our club game last night (ACBL, matchpoint scoring, if that matters). I don't remember the exact auction but the following will do as an example. EW have this unopposed auction. W E 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 2NT 3♣ 3♥ 4♥ After two passes, South doubles, ending the auction. N-S play Lightner doubles, but this is not a recently-discussed treatment, so from North's point of view it's not clear whether South is requesting a ♣ lead or if he is simply expecting to defeat the contract (with a trump stack, for example). As North ponders this while deciding what to lead, South detaches a card from hand (face down, thankfully) and asks "my lead?". North now knows that South's double was purely penalty and not lead-directing. Is this information UI? Is North constrained in his choice of opening lead?

Specific methods aside, all I'm saying is that as purely a hand-evaluation exercise, I have enough to drive to game. Whether that game is 3NT or 5♦ depends on partner's hand and what bidding tools we choose to use. The point is simply that with this hand, and a two-suiter including hearts on my right, I have a game force regardless of what RHO's other suit is.

How does partner know that you have a Heart Stopper on this hand if 2D showed the majors? He doesn't; he just knows I don't have stoppers in both ♥ and ♠. I'm not suggesting this is the best set of agreements; we just haven't discussed ways to ask- or show- stoppers over these two-suited overcalls. There are probably some meta-treatments that apply, but by bidding a direct 3NT I'm telling partner he needs cards in both majors. That's not so far from the truth; Kx is not a tremendous stopper if we need to give up the lead to set up the diamonds.

My Lebensohl agreement after an overcall of 1NT is that 2NT followed by 3NT after partner's 3♣ shows a raise to 3NT with the suits shown by the opponents stopped 3NT directly after the overcall shows a raise to 3NT lacking a stopper Thus, if 2♦ shows both majors, I bid 3NT directly. If it shows hearts and a minor, I bid 2NT, planning to bid 3NT unless something unexpected happens. I am bidding game, either 3NT or 5♦, regardless of the meaning of the 2♦ bid.

North has a weak hand with five spades and six clubs. ♠QTxxx ♥x ♦x ♣KT9xxx Over a natural 2♣, NS's agreement is that a double would be Stayman; North therefore chooses to pass, hoping to defend 2♣ (or 2♣X) at favorable vulnerability. (Of course, he retains the option to bid 2♠ should East bid something.) Upon hearing the explanation that 2♣ shows the red suits, North decides to bid 2♠ to buy the contract or force East to guess at the 3-level. (maybe they don't have a transfer available?) I'm not saying this is the best bidding in the world, but it's one possible explanation.

Declarer is in 4♥ with a trump holding of ♥AKxxx in hand opposite ♥QTxx in dummy. He has 3 unavoidable losers outside trumps, so he needs to pick up the hearts for no losers. He begins by cashing the ace and all follow small. He now continues with a small heart toward the dummy and my partner (declarer's LHO) shows out. Declarer now goes into a brief huddle...and inserts the ten, losing to my ♥Jxx.

mycroft, I think we are agreeing on the appropriate level of disclosure. If the conversation goes Me: Alert RHO: what's the alert? Me: We play Lebensohl. Partner is asking me to bid 3♣. RHO: Why is he doing that? Me: There are a wide range of hands he might hold, and I'll be able to tell you which one after his next call. RHO: Such as? of course I'll be happy to explain the likely hand-types for partner. It's just a question of balancing the need for excruciatingly full disclosure with the need to finish the round on time. In my experience (and YMMV, of course), most of the time RHO is not interested in any more information than what the Alert tells him (that 2NT is not natural). I therefore tailor my usual explanation to this level of interest. If RHO wants to know more, of course he's entitled to know more, and of course I'll answer all of his questions. By giving a relatively terse initial answer ("he's asking me to bid 3♣"), I'm not being deliberately obstructive, I'm just trying to answer the question I think RHO wants the answer to. If I've guessed wrong about his level of interest and answered too curtly, there's plenty of opportunity for follow-up questions. If I've guessed wrong and provided too much information, then I've just annoyed everyone at the table.

Perfect hand for an Astro cuebid. 2♥ at your first turn would have shown 6+ clubs and exactly 4 spades. Whether you have enough playing strength for this action vul vs. not probably depends on the quality of your opponents.

OK, we don't need to keep going back and forth on this. I think my second example of the 2♦ waiting bid after a strong 2♣ opener is much more illustrative of my original point. Which, to remind everyone, is that some bids say nothing about the bidder's holding (except inasmuch as some holdings are excluded by virtue of the fact that the bidder could have shown them with a different call). Your points about the Lebensohl sequence are reasonable, except that does not include all hands that partner might have. I don't see the informative value of saying "he might have A, or B, or C, or none of those". Look, I'm all for full disclosure. If the following conversation ensues: Me: Alert RHO: What's 2NT? Me: We play Lebensohl here. Partner is asking me to bid 3♣. RHO: What sort of hand is he likely to hold? Me: He doesn't have a penalty double, a 3NT hand lacking a stopper in your suit, or a constructive bid in a suit of his own. Most often, this is a weak runout to his suit at the 3-level, but he could have any hand with a tactical reason for wanting me to bid 3♣. Have I failed to provide full disclosure? If RHO wants to ask about other sequences and hands, I'm happy to describe our agreements in full detail. In practice, the conversation doesn't often get past "Alert". Again, this is not about this specific example sequence, which I'm fully acknowledging was probably not the best example. The question was raised: does an alert show what the bidder has or what his partner is expected to do? All I'm saying is that there are some bids, like the 2♣-2♦ sequence, that do not describe what the bidder has (apart from eliminating some hands that would have made a different bid). Can we all agree on that?

So, what you're saying is, that you cannot conceive of any hand with which he would definitely not bid 2NT in this situation? Because if you can, then he cannot have that hand, and therefore he cannot have "literally any hand". And if you can't, well I'm sorry to say this, but some basic bridge experience would be a good thing to have before making such bold assertions in a public forum. I really enjoy it when people quote only part of statements. It makes the context so much clearer. If I open 1NT, LHO overcalls, and my partner bids 2NT, yes of course there are some hands he doesn't have. He doesn't have a solid 6-card holding in the overcalled suit (he would have doubled) and he doesn't have a balanced 20 count (he would have made some move toward slam). He also doesn't have an independent suit of his own with game values. Beyond that, yes, he can have literally any hand. The only point this is intended to illustrate is that of the many possible hands he could have, his 2NT bid has not 'shown' any specific one of them. Again, that's the only point here: it's impossible for me to tell my RHO what my partner has because I don't know what he has. I know a few select hand-types (see above) that he probably does not have, and I'm happy to tell RHO what those are. I don't see how pedantically breaking down the definition of "literally" or disparaging my over 30 years of "basic bridge experience" serves to advance this discussion.

Also missing from the list is "score is not plausible given the contract". In a recent tournament I scored up 3NT making 6 for plus 990 NS. Our opponents signed off on the pickup slip. We'd had an up and down session, so I was quite surprised to see upon returning from lunch that we'd won the event. After correcting the score we dropped back to 3rd. Anyway, this is the most common error-type I see on travelers. 3NT making 990 or 650.

I agree with the 1NT-2♠ "transfer to clubs" problem. With one partner I play this sequence as a slam try in a minor, and with another it's a weak runout. I always explain the explicit meaning, because in each case partner has shown a specific hand-type. I don't want to belabor the Lebensohl example. The only point I was originally trying to make is that some bids say NOTHING about the hand that bids them. When my partner bids a Lebensohl 2NT, he could have literally any hand (constrained by the fact that I have opened 1NT and my LHO has overcalled something). I literally cannot tell my RHO what he has because I have no idea, and it seems to me that saying "he might have X, or Y, or Z, or none of these" is functionally equivalent to saying that he could have anything. Consider the (perhaps) cleaner example of the temporizing 2♦ after a strong 2♣ opener. This bid (as I play with most partners) denies the ability to make a positive, natural response in a suit, but otherwise is made on literally every possible other hand. So if I open 2♣, partner responds 2♦, and my RHO asks me "what does he have?", what should I tell him? "He's denied a positive suit response" (and I will define that for him if asked) "and beyond that I have no idea". This is similar to the Lebensohl "chose not to make a penalty double of your partner's suit, and beyond that it could be anything". Bottom line is that the opponents are entitled to your agreements, and sometimes your agreement is nothing more or less than "I'm telling partner to bid 3♣" or "I'm just keeping the auction open so partner can describe his hand". If your bid, in and of itself, has told your partner nothing about your hand, why should you expect your partner to tell your opponents what you have?

Perhaps this is just a semantic question. Our agreement is that 2NT followed by 3-anything is a weak signoff. The 2NT bid, by itself, does not say that partner has a weak signoff. Our agreement is that 2NT followed by 3NT shows the values for 3NT with a stopper in the enemy suit. The 2NT bid, by itself, promises no such values or stopper. Our agreement is that 2NT followed by a pass of 3♣ normally shows a weak hand with clubs, but may be a purely tactical competitive bid with any hand whatsoever. The 2NT bid, by itself, shows nothing about partner's club holding or particular tactical mood. So what do I know about partner's hand? He has game values, weak values or a complete bust. He has clubs, some other suit, or no particular suit to bid. This covers pretty much all hands. My point is that when partner bids 2NT, I have no idea what he has. My original point was just in response to the original statement that I literally cannot tell my RHO what partner is showing, because he's not showing any hand in particular. In response to a putative "Could he have X?" from RHO, my only responses would be "Yes, he could have X (in which case his next call will be Y...)" or "Yes, he could have X, but with that holding he would more likely have bid ..." Sometimes a relay is just a relay and doesn't convey any information about the bidder's hand. That's all I'm saying.

We may have to agree to disagree here. Partner's Lebensohl bid might show one of (many) different specific hand-types, or it might be purely tactical in nature. He could have literally any hand. Because he didn't make a penalty double, you might infer that he doesn't have a penalty double, but I consider that to be "general bridge knowledge". If you want to be pedantic about it, the correct full explanation of partner's bid is something like "2NT is a relay to 3♣, and partner's next call will clarify his intentions" but I don't think the part of that statement after the comma really adds any informational value to it. Of course, if RHO asks about specific followup sequences, I'd be happy to explain our agreements. I just don't think explaining what all of partners bids on the next round of the auction would mean is part of explaining what his bid on this round meant. Another example: with one partner I play penalty doubles of opening pre-empts. I have actually had this paraphrased conversation after my LHO opened 2♠ and my partner doubled: Me: Alert! (this double is alertable in the ACBL) RHO: Yes? Me: His double is for penalties. RHO: What kind of hand does he show? Me: The kind that doesn't think you're making 2♠. Have I provided an inadequate explanation? Certainly not.

Don't completely agree with this. Consider the Lebensohl sequence 1NT by me, 2 grapes by LHO, 2NT from partner, alerted by me. RHO: What's 2NT? Me: We play Lebensohl. Partner is asking me to bid 3♣. RHO: What kind of hand will he have? Me: A hand that wants me to bid 3♣. Have I complied with full disclosure? Absolutely. This is the extent of our agreement. Partner might be aiming for 3NT with a grape stopper in his hand, he might be looking for me to declare a 3♣ contract, he might be looking to place the contract at the 3 level in some other strain, or he might have none of these things in mind. His next call should clarify things, and I'll be happy to explain our agreements to RHO after that next call. For now, all I know is that he wants me to bid 3♣, and that's all I'm telling the opponents.