raist

ok this is a really simple question but recently I've found my conception of these 2 bids shaken, so I really need an idiot check right now can someone please confirm definitively the strength of these 2 bids? for the avoidance of doubt, the bidding sequences are: (1c) -dbl-(pass)-1h (pass)-1N (1c) -dbl-(pass)-1h (pass)-2N

indeed i'm just trying to gather opinions cos i had a disagreement with my partner after she ran, thinking that her tricks may not be cashing "because her hand was so distributional" but it wasn't very much more distributional than she advertised (65 instead of 55) and they were quick tricks

your hand is - xx AKxxxx AJTxx you are white, opps are red you open 1D, and the bidding goes 1D- (dbl)-1H - (2S) 2N*-(dbl)-pass-(pass) 3C- (4S) -dbl-(pass) pass-(rdbl) do you run from the rdbl? how clear is it? *2N is good/bad, a relay to 3C to show a distributional hand without extras if it matters, you are playing against unknown opposition

all red, and you pick up: Kxx AKJTxx Kx Kx you open 1H, LHO calls 1S, partner raises 2H, RHO passes to you do you bid 4H or 3N? (let's say 2S is out of the question) the actual hand is not exactly important, but i'm more interested in this "type" of hands in general (say you change one of the Ks to an A, still same idea) my question is: i see some players like to bid 3N on this "type" of hands (Semi-solid 6 card major, semi balanced with stoppers) and sometimes 3N= and 4M-1 or the other way around and i'm wondering how do you decide which is the better bid? are there any guidelines that can be articulated beyond "table feel" or "experience"?

those who bid 1S, why not 2s? those who bid 2S, do you really think your internal suit solidity is sufficient?

your hand is Axxx T98x JT9xx - all red, partner (1)opens/(2) overcalls opener's 1C with 1S, rho double. what do you bid and how clear is your decision? to clarify: 2H = good Spade raise (usually 8-10, 3+ cards) 2S = rubbish spade raise (5-7 on these colours, 3+ cards) 3H = mixed raise (6-9, with 4+ cards) 3S = pre emptive raise (0-6, with 4+ cards) i don't think any other bid makes sense, but just in case, fit jumps are on oh i forgot. how man of you bid GAME? in either situation? btw this is sort of like an idiot check. i have a good idea what should be the right actions, but i have difficulty convincing my partner

Certainly double of 3♦ shows a good hand. But in order to choose what to do about that, I would need to know what 3♥ would have meant, instead of double. Possibilities: Double=undisclosed good hand, 3♥ natural. Double=willing to defend, 3H not willing to defend. Double=penalty request, 3H=all game tries. What responder now does with that information would depend on the agreement. i have put the information in the edited first post now 3H would be game try with H values (natural-ish) double is undisclosed good hand, sort of like a random game try (if hand is defensive you can pass for penalty)

QTxx Axxx xx xxx partner opens 1S, you raise to 2S, LHO calls 3D, partner doubles, showing good hand. now it comes back to you. what do you bid and how clear is it? does the vul affect your decision? bonus qn: would you have made a bergen raise originally with that? why or why not? EDIT: additional info as requested 1. we don't play constructive raises, so 2S can be a crummy 5 to a lousy 10 2. 3H would have been game try with H values 3. double is just showing general good hand, also sort of a game try

sorry you are right, i assumed gazzilli was common enough knowledge. on hand 1, partner's 2H rebid denies (1) a hand that is worth a good 16+ playing strength and (2) a 5S-5H hand worth 14-16.

no, with the first hand you gave, partner would bid 2C gazilli with the 2nd, either gazilli if upgrade, or 3h showing 5-5 14-16 that's why i specifically mentioned that there is no need to keep hand 1 alive

i use all jump shifts as FIT JUMPS EXCEPT when it is a jump shift to 3M-1, then it is a mixed raise (giving up the fit jump for that particular bid) i was sold on fit jumps by the people who wrote "partnership bidding at bridge" although it seldom comes up

you play 2/1, with gazzilli (so you don't need to keep the hand 1 alive) HAND 1 ♠Tx ♥xxx ♦KT9xx ♣Axx partner opens 1S, bidding goes: 1S-1N-2H HAND 2 ♠xx ♥AKJ ♦KJx ♣Qxxxx you open 1C, bidding goes: 1C-1S-1N-2H how strongly do you feel about giving prefence on either hand?

yes i know the hand is between either a sound raise or a mixed raise immediately to the 3 level what i'm interested in is with such a hand, which is the more descriptive bid? probably not all hands with 4 trumps and 6-9 hcp is worth a direct raise to the 3 level (unless you are a strict adherent of the Law) sometimes it may be better to make a sound raise first. and then compete further a mixed raise may be more appropriate on more offensive hands whereas this hand is a good all-round hand, even on defence

KTxx QTxx xx Axx all red bidding goes (1D)-1S-(dbl) what do you bid with this? do you show a sound raise (by cuebidding diamonds or bidding 2H as a transfer whichever your method is) or a mixed raise (whichever your method is)? why? 3S right away is pre emptive so that's out and how high do you intend to compete if partner passes hereafter? 3S?

sorry you have a 3352 hand what you said sounds reasonable though

yes we play 1♦ NAT (for now anyway) and 1N is 8-10 we were playing IMPs 3D feels pretty dangerous to me with 3 spades

all red partner deals and opens 1♣, bidding goes 1♣-(P)-1N-(2♠) pass back to you on balancing seat JT9 Axx KQTxx xx what do you bid and why? does 3D come to mind? does it matter that you play a prepared club where partner opens 1C systemically even with 4Ds and 2Cs, for example? i feel like 3D is quite a poor bid but i can't quite articulate why to my partner any suggestions?

earlier at the buffett cup, this happened... without looking at either hand, what do you think this is happening in this sequence? 1D-(dbl)-rdbl-(1H) 3D- (P) - 3H - (P) 3S- (P) - 4H - (P) now let's reveal responder (redoubler's) hand. ♠ATxx ♥AK ♦T9xx ♣ATx who thinks 4H is a good bid? who prefers 4D? for me 4D is vastly superior as it removes any ambiguity. 4D shows D support with SI otherwise would not have bid 3H

you are red vs white in 4th seat. before you finish counting your points, LHO opens 3D and it gets passed over to you... what is your plan? ♠x ♥AQTx ♦AKQ ♣AKQJ9

playing a 2/1 style where: 1. 2x can be on 4 2. 2M rebids is the catchall bid (does not promise 6) 3. 1M-2x-3x promises 3 card with extras 4. 1M-2x-3y also promises extras in this style, after 1M-2x-2M, the 2N bid is usually used as a sort of "asking bid", trying to find out more about opener's hand shape, since 2M is a catchall bid. very often, if the bidding goes, eg, 1S-2D-2S-3D, and opener holds, say: AKxxx xxx Kx AQx, he does not know whether to rebid 3N or raise to 4D 3N could be the last making spot, or 5/6D could be where you should be, and responder may not be able to make a move over 3N if opener chooses to rebid that over 3D i like to play that if RESPONDER bypasses 2N (after 1M-2x-2M) as the asking bid to either rebid 3x, or show a 2 suiter by bidding 3y, it should signal to opener that it is safe to bypass 3N and raise either 3x to 4x or 3y to 4y. so in the above example, opener would not need to agonise, but instead feel free to raise to 4D. this means that with ordinary 6332s, or 54xx, responder would not bother to show the 2nd suit immediately after 1M-2x-2M, but instead rebid 2N "asking". by bypassing 2N, responder is showing an unbalanced/strong hand that is prepared to go beyond 3N sometimes you may wrongside the 3N, but i think it is a minimal price to pay (and in any event, you already run that risk anyway) any thoughts?

to put things into perspective, the issue is (A) strong offensive hand vs (B ) submin hands (usually weakish hands opened based on shape) there are basically two ways to show either hand, and both ways seem to be equally possible. that is: 1. 1X-(dbl)-rdbl-(1Y); now pass first, and bid later 2. 1X-(dbl)-rdbl-(1Y); now bid immediately which sequence should show A and which sequence should show B? sequence 1 retains possibility to penalize, sequence 2 does not. hand type B almost surely prefers not to penalize, whereas hand type A, even though offensive, could still want to penalize (penalizing opps is usually quite profitable) so by that reason alone, it seems that sequence 2 should show hand type B however, another sequence could have happened, partner could have been unable/unwilling to penalize 1Y, and bids something of his own. in this event, it is important that partner knows whether you are submin or full opening+ and if you pass first, partner doesn't know which (because you had no chance to takeout his penalty to show the weak hand you intended to show). your rebid over his rebid is uninformative because you could have made the same rebid with a strong hand as with a weak hand but if you bid first to show weakness, that certainty is already transmitted to partner this is yet another reason sequence 2 should show hand type B

constructive raise usually refers to 1M-2M being "constructive" (usually defined as providing 2 to 2.5 "cover cards"). with less, even with a fit (even with a 4 card fit, particuarly on 4333 hands) you go through f1NT before making a preference back to 2M personally i prefer non-constructive raises PROS: 1. game tries are usually safer. you end up in 3M-1 less often than if the raise is a poor 6 pointer. 2. competitive decisions can be easier to make for partner knowing that your hand is worth a good raise CONS: 1. you may face some problems in competition if bidding goes 1M - (pass)-1N-(2C) pass- (3C)- you had a non-constructive fit. do you bid over 3C? partner may have a good hand, may not have a good hand. and he was unable to re-evaluate his hand knowing about the existence of a fit. having said that, experience players may not have that much of a problem. and you can play DBL by opene over 2C to be generally strength showing instead of strictly t/o to "solve" this problem 2. with 1M-2M being wide ranging, you tend to end up going down in 3M more often after responder rejects opener's game try 3. it has a slightly greater blocking effect. note the sequence in point 1. if the bidding had gone 1M-(pass)-2M, now LHO can't bid 2C. and may be forced to pass. you could end up buying the hand in 2M when otherwise they could have competed. there are probably some more niggling pros and cons but i think these are the major ones i think the advantage of showing a fit asap to allow partner to re-evaluate hand is particularly important when you have opponents who like to compete.

ok the actual sequence is not so important, what i'm really interested in is the theoretical underpinnings. your hand is J9x K9x KQJ9xx x playing 2/1, you choose to open 1D (i disagree with the opening, but to each his own) now bidding goes 1D-(dbl)-rdbl-(2C) back to you. a few points to note: 1. generally, rdbl shows a good 9/10+, usually with desire to penalize 2. rdbl is generally forcing to... either a penalty of opponent's contract, or 2N(?) now. what i'm proposing is that the rdbl is forcing to 2N UNLESS opener shows weakness. and here, i think the proper way to show weakness is to rebid 2D immediately over 2C passing 2C would be forcing, and thus should promise full opening values at least bidding over 2C shows no desire to penalize, suggesting a weak hand type (usually a submimimum type hand that you chose to open based largely on distribution) if you pull partner's penalty double of 2C, it also shows no desire to penalize, but for a different reason. perhaps your hand is offensive/strong and you think that making your own game/slam is more profitable than penalizing the opps. my questions are: 1. is my reasoning sound? 2. someone suggests that bidding over 2C directly actually shows stronger than passing 3. the same someone suggests that pulling the penalty double should be the way to show weakness 4. if i am right, the direct 2D rebid should then no longer be forcing any comments/thoughts?

i can sort of understand doubling with 4-4 in the majors as you are likely to find a major fit with partner but what about 4333s? (with 3 in their minor of course) how many of you would reguarly double with 12-13 counts of that shape with no J or Q in opp's minor?

I have a qn regarding "modern" takeout double styles it seems that many double with balanced 12-13 hcps these days over a 1minor opening without really having shortness in the the minor suit very often with 4333 shape or so i understand that the "modern" style of light openings can be quite effective i'm wondering if the "modern" takeout double is also an effective style? or is it just ill-disicplined and poor bidding? anybody can say from personal experience or with some semi-conclusive proof from running simulations ?