lmilne

I'm not 100% on the first response, but I play 1♥-3♠ as any void (and 1♥-3NT/4♣/4♦ as splinters) so I think I'd use that. After 3NT asking for the void and 4♦ showing that void, opener would probably sign off. Even if opener kicks (5♦?) responder should know about the club problem to stop. I hate responding to problems with a gadget, so other possible auctions are: 1♥-1♠; 2NT-3♥; 4♦-4♥. or 1♥-4♦; 4♥-4♠ (?); 5♦-5♥.

Saw a pretty good 29 point grand in bidding practice today. How would you bid this one? Here's our auction - as you can see we have a tough time dealing with maximum passed hands without support because we play 2♣ drury. Interested in any auction, but prefer ones beginning with Pass by North and a natural 1♠ by South. [hv=pc=n&s=saqj982hat9d8cak8&n=skhk732da92cqt743&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp1sp1n(5-11%2C%20semi%20forcing)p2c(16+%20any%20or%20natural)p2d(8+%20any)p3h(3%21H%206+%21S%2016-19)p3nppp]266|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&n=st9842hkjdqjt5c84&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1h1sp2s4h4s]133|200[/hv] If you would prefer to have bid the first time, please comment, but this problem is also interesting I think. Your opponents are experts.

Just curious, what do you do with random hands with 6 hearts where you are still not sure about strain?

Yes, precisely. We split the ranges of 1m-2M and 1m-1M-?-2M. A jump to 3H would've set suit and shown good hearts. I don't think anyone would play this auction "sets hearts" regardless, would they?

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1hp2cp2sp2np3hp3s]133|100[/hv] 2♠ was artificial and forcing to game. Is 3♠: a) A cue for hearts? b) Doubt about strain, i.e. singleton heart and a dubious spade stopper, something like Qxx x AKxxx Kxxx? c) Something else? If it matters, 3♥ over 2♣ would've been natural and forcing, so the suit-setting heart hands aren't in this auction any more.

[hv=pc=n&n=s7ha4dqjt86cjt642]133|100[/hv] Partner opens 1NT (15-17, all 5M332, occasionally 6m, includes some 14s with a good 5-card suit). Would you bid 3NT, show 55 minors choice of games, or something else (maybe something in your pet system)?

Ken, I showed a club stopper over partner's artificial 2♣ bid. I don't think he was playing me for a club singleton.

I remember reading a suggestion somewhere that after (1NT)-X-(XX, business), doubler's partner should be FORCED to pass. The logic was that when the opponents have quite a lot of points, partner is more likely to have doubled on a suit. It won't cost if you bid 2♣ scramble in these auctions, because partner will just bid his suit, but you do miss the occasions where partner has a solid 6-card suit or similar!

I chose to open the South hand 1♦ (thoughts?). The 1♠ rebid showed an unbalanced hand (this shape counts). If partner had bid 3♥ over 1♠, this would be natural and forcing to game. 4♦ over 4♣ would likely be some sort of last train, but can't be too sure. What is your preferred auction to get there playing a fairly simple natural system, preferably starting 1♦-1♥-1♠?[hv=pc=n&s=sat43hj6da8542caq&n=s8hakq987d76ckt62&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1hp1s(Unbalanced)p2c(FSF%2C%20GF)p2np3hp4c(Good%20raise%20to%204H%2C%20nothing%20about%20clubs)p4hppp]266|200[/hv]

In theory, perhaps; in practice, I think that you can often pick partner's holding either way. The other point is that you can vary your play, e.g. from JT9 you can play the T to avoid ambiguity with QJ (similar to the third seat position).

This is so true for most experts. I had a hand last week playing against one of the top 5 players in New Zealand where I led 9 from 98xx towards my AJxx, it went insta Queen... I started to think about all these things to do but eventually I gave up trying to over-think it because I just knew the guy had QTx or KQ (QT was possible but I was short of entries - obviously leading again from dummy is preferable). Anyway, to answer the question, high from 3 and low from 2 is optimal, I think. I read this in Marshall Miles' "Defensive Signals" originally (as a side note, he answers lots of similar questions very well, def my favourite defense book). A standard example where this sort of scheme gains is where declarer is playing 3N with 8 top tricks and had Kxx in hand opposite xxx, with a chance for a 9th in another suit e.g. a simple AQ finesse. He might decide (as you would!) that he can combine his chances by leading towards the Kxx first, assuming the defense won't continue the suit if the K loses to the A. You can punish declarer for this play by playing the Q from QJTxx so partner will run the suit rather than continuing whatever suit he led.

Another vote for pass the first round. That is far more important than this problem, which is a clear pass.

I would rather be bidding over 1♦ obviously (how is this a question?). I would bid 4♥ over 4♦ and don't think it's particularly close. Anything but 1♦ on that hand is pretty weird to me.

Good point. Against a competent declarer who kickbacks without much thought playing a second diamond is in fact quite likely to cost.

I understand that it's fairly unlikely to cost, but I don't see what the gain position is.

I think I would probably get this wrong at the table (although I'm not sure on my maths, I might back your line if it's a fairly big favourite). That is a pretty weird/bad play if you consider your LHO to be even vaguely competent.

Yeah, I blame partner for bidding this way with the wrong 9-count. If only he'd had xx Axxx KQxx xxx and we could almost claim 7♦ at trick 1! NB: Mostly sarcastic. I wouldn't invite slam either, but it's not because of the spots, it's because of the jacks.

A small diamond lead still beats it.

I was referring more to the hypothetical 6331, I should've made that more clear. That hand is quite good for a sacrifice because we don't hold anything outside (they are more likely to make their contract) and we have good stuff in our suit (a sacrifice won't be as costly). Something like Qxx x KJTxxx Jxx is worse for opening 3♦ as we have some potential defense. Also I don't think opening 3minor favourable first promises a 7-card suit, but maybe we are in disagreement there.

I can see why you would like to sacrifice, but you can't for reasons already covered. Because my suit is so good and it's first seat favourable, I would certainly open 3♦ with a singleton (i.e. 6331) shape and I would consider it with this hand as well. I mean, this easily fits into my partnership style for a 3♦ opening (with our 2♦ opening artificial) but I'm not so sure it would for you. But the omens are certainly good for a 6-card 3 level opening. This will make it easier for partner to dive when it's right, IMO, aside from all the other good things a 3♦ opening does.

Yeah, it basically carries no information value any more and has become a truism that is sometimes used to avoid looking deeper into a problem. I would be happy to bid 5♥ over P-P-X.

Pass. I would bid with my pointed suits the other way. Can we stop saying "preempts work" whenever we aren't sure of our answer? Or even when we are sure?

There are lots of lines that work, e.g. 3 rounds of clubs and duck a heart. Now on a diamond return we ruff, cash the ace of spades, ruff a spade low then cross-ruff the last 3 tricks with the KQJ of hearts.

Wow. You think responder is passing 1♦ when we could going off (and cold for 4♠)? Responding on this hand is completely normal - as others have said, an ace is enough, let alone the fact that it heads a 5-card major and we aren't happy with the current contract. Also, I doubt many people would pass out 1♦ either. This discussion totally misses the risks and benefits of opening 2♣, IMO.