bftboy

If we're going to bid 4♠ with this hand, what do we do with something like AQJ10xxxx _ xxxx x.? That looks more like a 4♠ bid to me exc at unfavorable. I agree that the example hand isn't worth a x, then a ♠ bid, but it's not that far off, either. 1♠ for me. Suppose LHO bids 5♥ over 4♠. How does P make a good competitive decision when we could hold either hand type for our 4♠ call? thx, :rolleyes:

There is nothing wrong with occasionally being max for a bid, so I'd bid 3♣ comfortably, but I'm curious as to how much better people think the hand should be to bid 2nt. would a couple of 10's do it, esp. ♥ 10? :rolleyes:

If we bid 2♥ and P raises to 3, what would 3♠ now show, or I guess the better question is, what should it show? <_<

the timing is better if you ruff ♦ lead in hand, ♣ to Q, and ruff a 2d ♦. then cash a couple of high trumps. if trumps 2-2, then any 4-3 ♣ division will work, or 3-3 ♦'s. If trumps 3-1, then you need someone to have Jxx in ♣, or 3-3 ♦. ;)

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s7642hjda765432cq&s=sakj53h642dcak1052]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♠ by you, x by LHO, and 4♠ by P. Needing a swing on the last board of a swiss, you blast 6 ♠. whatever, it's a play problem. LHO leads ♦ K. You get a much better dummy than you deserve for your crummy bid, so what is your plan to make it? B)

thx for responses. You've convinced me that 3♥ is the right call with the example hand, and I appreciate awm's example of slow stoppers in the blacks as a contrast. :)

I'd like to pick up this topic (which was discussed elsewhere) in more detail. You hold 10xxxx, Kx, Kxx, and K10x. The auction has proceeded 1♥ by P, 1♠ by you, and now 3♦ by P. In the other thread there was almost unanimity that responder's call now should be 3♥, not 3nt. Why? what agreements are in place that makes 3♥ the correct call, and not 3nt? in particular, how do you then reach 3nt when it is the right contract? just trying to understand the methods. thx, :ph34r:

I'm a strong believer in aggressive leads against slams. But on this auction a ♠ lead simply seems more likely to cost us a trick than to build one. The actual result of any lead selected is interesting, but immaterial to the problem. :blink:

good lesson hand. the more I think about it, the more I agree that x should show almost exactly this hand type and these values. P can judge whether to leave it in, altho certainly will at these colors at MPs. 3♦ which I voted for is wimpy. :blink:

I lead ♣ 9. P didn't x for a ♦, and a trump is silly. Odds are against P holding ♠ Q, so I'll hope to score the ♠ K later, perhaps along with a trick somewhere else. :unsure:

As a longtime standard player, I'd add that there are 3 big areas you must agree on with P to play 2/1 effectively. First, are all 2/1 auctions truly game forcing? If not, which ones aren't and what do you do with them. 2nd, does a simple rebid of my major after a 2/1 promise 6 trumps or does it show a minimum balanced hand? and 3d, do we play reverses after a 2/1? To me, the answers are no, balanced, and yes, followed by suitable discussion. Also, IMO, 1NT forcing is the cornerstone of 2/1 and I wouldn't play 2/1 without it. If you have these agreements in place, then I believe 2/1 will obtain better long-term results at any form of scoring than SAYC or standard with comparable agreements in place. I agree that the emphasis in 2/1 in in reaching biddable games and slams is esp. valuable at IMPs. :)

this, except I'd change "will often" to just "may." :D

K♦. I don't see a compelling reason for the risky ♠ lead. if P has a ♣ trick, he may be able to shift to ♠ profitably from his side. If not, we still might score 3♦, 1♥, and 1♠ to beat the contract. B)

to sum up the 3 competitive problems I posed, there is a clear consensus to first do the right thing, that is, bid what your hand tells you to bid. Don't overthink it (which is what I've been doing). then once you do the right thing, stay disciplined and do the right thing again. thx all :)

4♠ indeed looks pretty obvious, might even make on a good day. LHO now bids 5♥, which is passed around to you. Your call? :)

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=saj2h7d764ckj9643]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1NT (15-17) by LHO, 2♠ by P (DONT), 3♥ by RHO, described as game forcing values without a spade stopper. what is our action and why? btw, I appreciate the discussion of these competitive situations. I think it is already helping me to get more of them right. :P

pretty obvious agreement on this one. We bid 3♠, and LHO bids (a.) 3nt, or (b.) 4♥. In both cases, P passes. what action now and why? B)

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=sa87h65d10987ck532]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] lho bids 2♣, P bids 2 ♠, and rho x's, which is alerted as "weak hand." Your action and why? :rolleyes:

Or if 2♥ goes down 3, or if they have a better fit in a minor we let them find, or if they compete and then partner over-competes expecting more offense. I think the trick on hands like this is to not get too concerned with outcomes, just go by what your hand says. You have a defensive hand that likes the opponents in hearts, so let them play in hearts. That being said 2♠ could work of course, but I don't like it. nicely stated, I think that's exactly what I did. 2 ♠ could make, but P didn't find the line to make it. thx, :rolleyes:

wow, I'm surprised at the consensus. obviously, defending 2 ♥ only makes sense if 2♠ is going down. Why does everyone think that it is, esp. if N/S play sound openers? not being argumentative, I just would appreciate your thinking. :)

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sj8hak104d762c9854]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] At MP, lefty passes, P bids 1♠, rho passes, and you bid 1NT. Now lefty bids 2♥, passed around to you. What action do you take and why? :(

At MPs, even with 4-3-3-3, I almost always accept the transfer because, at least according to what I've read, I am considerably more likely in the long run to make 10 or 11 tricks playing the major than I am to make 10 or 11 tricks playing NT, or to make exactly 9 tricks. P's doubleton prevents them from running a suit that they could run in NT. At IMPs, I obviously want to bid the safest game, and if I judge that our combined hands will take 9 tricks more safely than taking 10 in the major, then it is ok to play 3NT. It's not so much than I'm exactly 4-3-3-3 opposite exactly 5-3-3-2, but that certainly is a reason to think that NT MIGHT be safer. :P

I agree with an initial dbl and then the plan as described by dicklont, exc. that if P bid 1♠, I'd bid 4♦. We need very little from P for game, and even slam isn't impossible, altho it may be impossible to bid. Over the actual 1nt response to the dbl, I'd bid 2♠. If P raises, at MPs, I'd probably pass as I'd be concerned about likely wasted ♦ values. :unsure:

I bid 3Nt with the hand and got hammered when P had only 4 ♠ to the KJ, and ♥ were 2-2-7-2 and righty ducks opening lead. At least it was only MPs! I think if I have it to do over, I'd dbl with the actual hand, and bid 3NT with something like Q10x, Ax, AQx, KQxxx. The ability to hold up once in ♥ is critical. Still don't know what I'd do if I dbl and P bids 3♠. At MPs, I'd probably pass and hope it goes plus. :)

A discussion in another thread makes clear that at least some readers are playing inverted minors much weaker and much more preemptively than I now do. For ex, I think that after 1♣ - P, some of you would bid 3 ♣ with, say, xx, xxx, xx, Jxxxxxx. Is that about right? If so, 2 questions. On the same auction, how do you handle something like Qx, xxx, Kx, Qxxxxx? I guess you bid 1nt? How does that work in practice? 2d question, what is the best hand you could hold for this very weak inverted raise? thx, B)