bucky

Because hearts may not be the right strain. Say I hold x, Axxxxx, AKJ, AQJ, why do I have to insist on hearts? If partner has stiff heart and 6-card minors, I want to be in 5m. More often though, the doubler will have 1543 or similar shape. The point is that, double-then-bid shows more flexibility in strain than direct suit bid.

1) Flat hand and possible bad break and possible 2 spade losers. I'll go low and bid 4H. Preemptive bids work, at least I can expect to take plus score. 2) I think the question is, what would X from partner mean? I tend to think X from partner shows hearts (to expose the pysch). Then it is still possible that partner has 4 spades. For now I am going to bid 5H here, the real problem comes next round.

I am a bit confused. What do you mean in the last sentence? When an opp bid Landy, shouldn't that show majors 100% of time, and clubs 0% of time?

Assuming that you are playing 5-card major (therefore quite nebulous 1♣ opening), partner ought to be 5-5 or better in black suits for the fit-jump. Slam can be on if partner holds only SA. You may have a decent grand slam if partner has HK in addition. I think 2NT is awful (it doesn't even sound forcing). Either 3♦ or 3♥ is fine, but 3♦ preserves most bidding room.

Double with a void in a side suit (let alone a major) is a bad idea. After opp's weak 2, double then bidding own suit ought to show flexibility playing in other strains, since with a good hand and good suit you would jump overcall at proper level. With the actual hand your partner has, I would simply overcall 2♠. I also don't understand the final correction to 6NT.

3244 is not shapely enough to correct to diamonds. For example doubler could have 1633 in the first sequence (with rather weak hearts).

Nothing wrong with that, as long as everyone enjoys the game. Some people like to play inside their own league, some want to step out and test water. What's discouraging is some of the game format that DOESN'T allow beginners to play against better players.

well IMO hand 1 should go thru forcing 1NT. Hand 2 meets my definition of a LR while Hand 3 meets my definition of a constructive raise. That is pretty standard (although the limit raise with hand 2 is borderline). Many people who are religious on "constructive raise" would go through 1NT with hand (3) as well, and make a constructive 2♠ raise on hand (2). As a result, 1NT becomes more overloaded, but 2M and limit raise hands are more narrowly defined. I personally think this treatment is somewhat inefficient, because the narrowing of limit raise has diminishing return, while the downside of further overloading 1NT cannot be ignored.

Good write-up.

I thought this is called Kokish Game Try in my area. Maybe I am wrong. I frequently heard the discussion in new partnership like "do you play Kokish game try?" and I would like to know what that is.

Fair enough. If I can count on LHO not to have the 3rd heart (no raise over my initial X), 3NT would be very appealing.

Double then bidding 1NT shows a higher range than direct 1NT overcall. Just like doubling followed by a new suit shows a hand that is too good to make a simple overcall. As for the spade fit, if partner has enough value, he can still find the fit by stayman.

If partner cannot make a move after 1NT overcall, the contract is probably high enough. Yes the tenaces are nice, but how many times can partner get in to make them work?

Being forcing is clear. The next question is how many spades are now promised? NMF is often based on 5-card in the first responded major, does 3♣ now cancel that message? If so, then what do you do with 5+ spades and a slammish hand? Maybe if you play strong jump shift this would not be a problem (as you would have bid 2S earlier with good spades and clubs), but what if you don't?

Partner's 3H shows some flexibility. Most likely it is a big hand with 3 spades. If partner has a huge hand with just clubs, he would have bid differently, by either bidding a direct 3H, or bidding 4C following the initial X. Since your 3S bid after RHO's X shows some positive feature with spades, I think partner's 4C here is a cuebid in support of spades. Of course you didn't have what you are supposed to have for bidding the free 3S, so this creates an impossible problem at this moment, I'd just sign off in 4S and get on to next board. If RHO didn't X and you bid 3S (pretty much forced), and partner bids 4C, it is different. Now I think partner may have something like 3145 or 3136 shape. I'd raise to 5C. BTW, I hate doubles with insufficient length in the other major. With something like 2146 pattern, I'd start with 3H. So I always count partner for 3-card support, especially after the flexible 3H cue.

3NT is indeed odd. If you cuebid 3♥ and partner does more than 3♠, doesn't that suit you just fine?

South starts with X. If North bids 3♣ (showing some value), it should be easy to reach 6♣. But playing MP, North probably would choose 2♠. Bidding might go: X 2♠ 3♥ 4♣ 4♥ 6♣.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't find these guidelines, they are probably buried somewhere and I didn't do an extensive search. One thing that particularly puzzled me is the "expert" rating. It is apparent that many self-rated "experts" are at best no better than average BBO players. Do they all have success in national? I highly doubt it. Maybe I am just being naive, but I think that, had the guidelines been spelled out more explicitly (and made known to everyone), this kind of phenomenon would occur less frequently. I mean, being unaware of one's true level is one thing, but being a liar is a totally different matter, I certainly hope the majority of bridge players won't want to intentionally lie.

Partner is probably very weak, 1NT may not play very well (doubled). Even with 18-19, you will want to get out in a 1-level suit, which is much harder for the opps to double. The way to do this is by XX.

I think over 1m (1M) P (P) 1NT, it is better to play partner's response as natural. The reason is that you want partner to be able to take you back to 2m, knowing that you have 3+ in the suit.

Under the set condition "4H is a distributional hand with usually 5 hearts and 6-9 HCPs", you don't. But yes, it is a heavier condition than my way.

I think these comments are a bit too harsh. Yes, I am surprised to see a pair landing in 3H at top level game, but that doesn't deserve words like "barely intermediate". In fact, this is a very subtle area of bidding inference and agreement. In general, when the advancer bid spades then hearts, he/she is offering 2 places to play, presumably 4-4 in both majors. On the other hand, if the hand with 4-4 is good enough to jump to 2-level initially, maybe for some partnerships it is good enough to cuebid first, for other partnerships it is not. We know that bidding screw-ups do occur at all levels, and I wouldn't hasten to deliver the judgment based on one bidding disaster in a not-so-familiar sequence for many partnerships.

Small slams and grand slams are very different. The reward/risk ratio is such that you need higher chance of success for grand slam, even at kitchen bridge. On top of that, there are quite a few things you can do in play of small slam (e.g. throw-in, or duck one round to establish a suit) which are not available in grand slam play. So in short, even if partner bids a small slam and you suddenly find an extra ace, it is not clear that bidding grand is right. And you certainly don't have an ace more than what you promised!

Rare consensus.

Dup