Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Paul Hightower
1 2 3 4 ... 21 22 23 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume you are playing Ogust, so 2 followed by a 3 reply to Ogust seems OK. I suppose the two working tens make 1 reasonable.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2-2NT; 3-3; 3NT-4; 4 pass looks right to me. I agree that a new suit after Ogust is a control bid.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Nick: I would open only your second example. I deduct a point for no Ace.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 appears to be the value bid, but we would be banking heavily on partner actually having 5 diamonds, and even then our spade holding is of questionable value. I'll underbid with a simple preference to 2 – a decision that took only a moment – and look to accept any game try, or penalty suggestion.

No one has bid hearts so 2NT might work, but I'd rather partner bid notrump.
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Borderline - I would not open 1NT. The extra ten and nine are nice, call it 14.6, but if you upgrade for five card suits you must be a bit cautious on flatter hands. Otherwise you are effectively playing with more than 40 points in the deck.
15 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Silent? He responded.
Feb. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would assume U-over-U without discussion, but Stayman and transfers probably make more sense.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Systemically I'm not allowed to open 1 and rebid 1NT (would be OK with a singleton) nor can I expect an up-the-line 1 on a minimum hand. The system allows judgement about opening 1 on minimum 4-5 hands, so that is acceptable. But there are no tools to avoid playing in diamonds on 4-2 after a routine sequence such as 1-1; 2=2. Mu judgment is that I'd like partner to assume I have five diamonds and may have a strong hand for that sequence. Rebidding clubs will get us to the correct strain more often than opening 1.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are a heavy favorite to have a diamond fit. 2 clues partner in about that and limits our hand. If they bid 2 and partner does not raise, we can compete with 3.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmm, I was thinking 1 would be an opening bid when I wrote that. But I still like 1 as an overcall, and prefer to play a style where advancer can freely bid a four card major at the one level. In any case we likely have the best hand at the table and likely have a heart fit; partner is not especially likely to be on lead and we may welcome a heart lead against no-trump anyway.
Feb. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That 3 implies a five card suit is obvious. That it is forcing is a bit less so. A good meta-agreement is that three of any suit after an invitational 2NT is forcing (i.e., accepting the invitation) unless the bidder had a clear alternate way to force. Another way to look at it is that opener cannot be sure responder has even a doubleton heart; responder might have KJx x Qxxxx K10xx (stronger or lighter to taste) over a 15-17 notrump, for example. So there is no safety at 3 and the bid must therefore offer a choice of games rather than be a unilateral decision on which part-score to play.

I started to give an example with 4153 shape, but in fact responder should rebid 2 in that case. I think the 2NT rebid logically should either promise a four-card major or deny one. If you insist that it could be either, then opener should bid SPADES first with 4-4 majors, followed by hearts, allowing responder to bail out in a 4-3 fit at the three level. “Hearts first” clearly assumes responder will bid spades when they have them.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Might that be a balanced hand with no stopper or a partial stopper? Perhaps we should play lebensohl here, but the situation is apt to be unfamiliar so I'm going to stick with general principles and not try to invent the perfect bid at the table.
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It looks like no one has a fit, but -50 or -100 at 1NT will beat -80 or -110 at 1S, and if we can beat 1S we may make 1NT – think 14 total tricks. Of course, against some opponents South passed a near-opener and we balance them into game :)
Feb. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry, the only agreement I've ever played or seen in print is that double-then-cue-bid equals a 2 opening. That logically makes 2 game forcing here. Using 2 to check on a stopper with below 2 values is a plausible agreement, it just requires remembering an exception on a rare sequence, or defining the cue-bid in some other way. I also note that (1D)-dbl-1NT; 2NT appears to invite game, so perhaps 16-17 hcp, but why didn't doubler bid NT himself? Presumably lack of a stopper. So it does not appear necessary to cue-bid with less than about 19 hcp – but then it might be preferable to stop in a part-score if we have no stopper and no major suit fit.

If you trot out 2 in this sequence on non-2 values without having explicitly discussed it with partner, then at some point in the future you will be passed after (1D)-dbl-1S; 2D-2S; 3S when responder actually has Kxxxx in spades.
Feb. 22
Paul Hightower edited this comment Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Change “will be assumed” to “should be assumed.” Bid 4 this time, talk about it afterward.
Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At matchpoints 2 looks right. We are a heavy favorite to have an 8+ card spade fit, we find our spot immediately and force them to grope at the three level. At IMPs the risk is high, but I would certainly open AQ109xx and probably AQ10xxx .
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We certainly expect to beat 2 two or more tricks, but this still looks like a slam hand. I don't expect +1100, though that is possible.
Feb. 21
Paul Hightower edited this comment Feb. 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The bidding appears to follow BWS principles so far, with 3 forcing and opener's 3NT denying spades. As 3 could conceivably have been based on a 4414 10 count, I think 4 is best as a slam try unless you have previously discussed this situation and are certian partner will take 4 as promising long clubs. (That may be logical but I would hate to assume partner would work that out at the table.) If I had doubts about partner reading 4 as forcing, perhaps 6 would be best, or 4NT – partners who think 4 is passable are likely to think 4NT is Blackwood. And yes, partner might have the wrong Ace, but can't have the correct Ace with none of them, so please spare the comments about Blackwood with a void.
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Why not..?” How about because transfer-then-new-suit shows shortness per the agreed method (Bridge World Standard.) Most of the answers so far assume non-BWS methods.
Feb. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've always treated 2 as equivalent to a strong 2 opening. This is not necessarily game forcing, but since 1NT promises some values, that would make 2 game forcing in this sequence. I note that Bridge World Standard says:

“After a noncompetitive advance, doubler's strength-showing cue-bid does not promise another bid if advancer makes a negative bid no higher than two of his original suit, but the cue-bid promises another bid if advancer bids higher than that (but below game). That cue-bid may be used with four-card support for advancer's major suit in a hand too strong for a direct single raise.”

This seems consistent with a not quite game forcing 2 opening or double-then-cuebid sequence: advancer's suit bid might have zero points, but 1NT is supposed to be 7-10 (in BWS), so there should be enough values for game, perhaps even without a fit or diamond stopper, since we rate to have 29+ combined hcp.
Feb. 21
1 2 3 4 ... 21 22 23 24
.

Bottom Home Top