semeai

I'm with you on auctions being about exchanging information, but not really during asking bids like keycard. Of course there's some exchange of information when the keycard-asker bids something like 5NT, guaranteeing all keys, but without a hand that can just bid the grand from there, keycard-responder's bids are constrained to answer the question. Do you have the rule that when the holder of 3 or 4 keycards bids on after a signoff, he may assume responder has the other 2 or 1 keycards (plus the queen of trump?), and then it becomes as if he had been the one bidding keycard, or something similar? Or are your keycard auctions different from mine and do allow give-and-take instead of just the various asks? To be cute, because I can't resist, it sounds as if here you've decided the unlimited hand has "control," even if the other hand bid keycard.

This is tough. I can see how the long diamond hand perhaps should double instead of bidding 2♦, and VM's argument seems good at this vulnerability, but 2♦ isn't so bad given that some extras will be expected at this vulnerability. The hand with both majors and the nice 109 of hearts can consider making another move opposite a partner who bids 2♦ with both vulnerable, but the misfit suggests not doing so. My guess is yes, but this doesn't seem relevant. There's a continuous spectrum of hands from weak to strong that will sit for a reopening double.

This is basically all on West, who is too weak and doesn't even have the excuse of short diamonds. East might have gone slower, but there are no obvious ways to stop below slam.

Can I spend a few seconds deciding whether it would ever be necessary to unblock the king or whether I can afford to make the more normal looking play of the Jack, which better conceals the position?

How did the responder to keycard suddenly gain control of the auction?

How about: QJxxxx x KQJ Axx or QJxxxxx x KQJ Ax Partner could have: A10xx KQ x KQJxxx or A10x KQ xx KQJxxx Might as well be extra careful. Partner will know not to pass with e.g.: AKxxx A Ax Kxxxx which is a 6♣ bid here.

Due to this sort of problem, a common style currently is to cue first or second round controls to make sure you're not off the top two losers in a suit and then "clean up" with blackwood to make sure you're not off two keycards.

Am I misreading this, or have I answered 1 Ace to Blackwood and heard partner sign off in 5♥? If so, it seems pretty normal to pass.

As far as I know, yes, just keep checking profiles. Probably the best strategy to easily find novice/beginner tables is to go to Options -> More Options -> Advanced Options and select "Show profile upon mouse over." Then go to List all tables -> Relaxed Bridge Club, and select Open Tables at the top. Then mouse over possible partners, occasionally hitting Refresh at the top if it's been a while. It's understandable that a beginner might not want to barge into an experienced game of strangers. Finding a/some mentor(s) who are willing to play with you even though you are a novice is of course a good thing to do as well. I wouldn't know how to go about doing such a thing. There's such a thing as the Beginner/Intermediate Lounge which I think does mentorship, but it also costs money, and I don't really know that much about it.

It seems more likely that you can adapt to GiB than that it can adapt to you!

This was as an alternative to 4♣. Responses to exclusion shouldn't be 1430. Stopping intelligently when partner has no keys outside diamonds was one reason I chose it. If this is a cue, it is nice to be able to learn about a ♣A, but partner may also tell us about a singleton club. I don't see enough of a benefit over, say, 5♦ (not exclusion here!) that I'd be willing to risk it being taken as natural. Does anyone have a good general rule they play here that covers the 4♠ bid as a cue or natural?

5♦ exclusion keycard for hearts over 3♦ seems okay, if you play that. It seems difficult to extract much useful information otherwise Added: 4♣ is also reasonable, of course. I think now it's between 5♦, stopping over 5♥, and just blasting 6♥. The latter is my choice, I think. I can't plan on bidding 5♦ and then correcting 5♥ to 6♥ because I may not be permitted to if partner takes too long to decide over 5♦. Possibly I could bid 6♦ instead, which likely shows this sort of hand.

How is West ever to know when it's right to bid 7S, from East's perspective? Also, I wonder if East took the double as perhaps indicating the ♥A, in which case 7S seems not too unlikely. (More likely from East's perspective is that it would indicate a club void, though, I would think.) Nobody bid crazily, I think. North might have done better to have bid 4NT, but only if North both knew such a bid existed and knew South did too.

Welcome to the forums, khall56. As aguahombre mentions, this has come up recently. Notable in that thread, in my opinion, is this post by awm, which references this thread by bluecalm, which has actual data for this question at the expert level. There's also this post by jlogic (and more by him and others, which I'll leave you to find yourself) expressing the seeming consensus opinion that most of us who are at a point where we would be asking this question should really be studying cardplay over bidding.

Even with the actual hand, East should find the spade switch, I think, assuming the auction was 1NT-3NT. Here's a good one, in a way. It's a reprinting of a letter to the editor in The Bridge World by Phillip Martin regarding one of Andrew Robson's published deals.

Thanks, you're right. I ignored the 2 spot, but of course one doesn't play a random spot when leading, but the 4th best, so this contains information. In my way of putting things: there are 7 ways to have Hxx2-Hx or xxx2-J10 and 3 ways to have J10x2-xx.

If we know West led from 4 cards and had to lead this suit, then low would be the percentage play as there are 9 Hxxx-Hx or xxxx-J10 distributions and only 6 J10xx-xx distributions. However, I'd hate to lose to xxx-J10x if GiB can lead low from 3 small. So, if the auction had been something like 1N-3N, I think I'd just stick in the 9. But there's also the factor that it's our suit and GiB knows we're 4-3 in it. Given GiB's analysis is double-dummy, I suppose this would make J10xx a less likely lead, as GiB likely believes we'll pick up Jxxx or 10xxx in its hand anyways. I don't know how much GiB's leads are based on simulations vs heuristics, though. I think if GiB can't lead low from 3 small, I play low. If GiB can lead low from 3 small, I'm still worried enough about a passive lead from xxx-J10x that I stick in the 9.

I can't help but feel that the ability to bid 1H over 1S is so good that this is much better than any other choice. The auction 1C P 1D* X is maybe more interesting. I still like the analogous method, as overcalling 1D over 1H is still pretty good, though not quite as good as overcalling 1H over 1S.

I'd think this would show a 6-4 hand.

I would not take this double as any sort of takeout. The opponents have cuebid a suit partner originally bid. My default would be that doubling such a cuebid shows that suit, i.e. some spades here, but without the desire to bid 3S or higher. Ostensibly then it would be decent hands with 3 spades and maybe some very poor hands with 4 cards or maybe rarely some hands with 2 good spades. This wouldn't be a support double. Those stop at 2H typically. It just happens that the logical default for doubling a cuebid agrees here, though of course you're not denying 3 spades by passing. It seems to me you came up with the meaning you'd like for double out of thin air somehow. Even if it is takeout of diamonds, which I already find strange given that the bid was a cuebid, wouldn't you expect at least 2 if not 3 spades for such a bid? Why would your partners take double as what you've described here? I'm not just being facetious: if you have a good answer, I'd be interested in it. I admit this hand is stuck over 2S given "double shows spades" and I don't like to pass, but it's not that great that I feel terrible passing.

Fred wrote such a program. Find it in this thread, or directly here.

I'd say 12 to a bad 16.

It's not the same thing, but here's a related question: I tense up mildly whenever declarer is on a guess, in an effort not to give anything away. Let's say he's led the J toward A109 in dummy and I played low, and now he's thinking. Is this illegal? Argument for illegality: Tensing up is a clear sign of having the queen, so when I tense up without the queen and it is in any way intentional, I'm being illegally deceitful. Argument for legality: It's clear to me he's on a guess, so I have reason to be tense whether I have the queen or not. Tensing up slightly is a fine way of coping with sitting there while declarer guesses.

I agree, this is a system loss. It is avoidable, however. It's valuable to play some method by which West can show the minors over 1D (1H), and especially so when 1D is nebulous. For example, you can play that double over 1D (1H) shows a minor-oriented hand, and that 1S shows 4+ spades (or the reverse). You'd still have a problem on the auction 1D (1S) with the example hands with hearts and spades swapped, as you need double to show hearts. You could do something like play 3C as both minors, preemptive. Whether you deem the West hand good enough for that at this vulnerability is up to you.

Strangely enough, 4NT seems enough with this hand even though it's 20 high, given the misfit. We don't want to be in slam opposite a typical seeming ♠KQ ♦K ♥/♣A. I wouldn't play 4♣ as Gerber here.