[JLOGIC]

Bluecalm:

I think of the subset of hands that you don't open 1N, you can bid 3N showing that hand type. This is not perfect obviously, but it is a small subset of hands and I'm surprised you're so worried about it.

Personally, I think rightsiding 3N is the most important aspect. Maybe you were super prime and decided not to open 1N and you still don't wanna bid NT (Axx AKTxx Axx xx). In that case, you can bid 2H followed by 3D then guess. Still not perfect, but that is why some people open 1N with those hands, to avoid rebid problems. And if you don't, bidding NT next doesn't seem best anyways, keep trying to get partner to bid NT and you keep bidding suits since your hand is so suit oriented. I mean, nothing is perfect, but I would say systemically bidding 2H with all 5332 mins and bidding 2N with AQ KJxxx xxx KTx and getting some black suit lead through when your partner declares 3N is also a problem. Nothing is perfect. I just don't think the range of hands that you open 1H and then want to bid NT and then gain by bidding 2N rather than 3N because you are scared to drive to 4N but want to show extras and didn't open 1N is a very frequent/important hand type. Just my 2 cents but I am a macho 1N opener guy

[Codo]

gnasher, on 2012-March-02, 02:55, said:

If that's true, it's a good reason to agree to open 1NT on the 5M332 15-17s. 1M-2x;2M is already rather overloaded (except after a 2♣ response); it seems a bad idea to treble the frequency of this bid by adding all the minimum balanced hands to the mix.

This style is pretty common in many bidding systems (wj2010, SEF, ForumD), so I would not agree with you. It works quite well and is not too difficult.

[jdeegan]

You presented an excellent hand for discussion, imo. I have a few thoughts:

1. The choice of whether to open 1NT or 1♥ is conditioned, in part, as to whether in your agreements a 2♥ rebid over a two of a minor response shows six or more. If not, my personal choice, then a 2♥ rebid shows 11-14, and a 2NT rebid 15+ (more or less). If 2♥ shows 6+, then you better always open 1NT, else you have an impossible rebid problem.

2. Assuming the former, then 2NT shows the extra king or more, and 3♦ is slammish since in 2/1 a semi-balanced invitational diamond hand (10-11 points more or less) can just bid 3NT.

3. Even with ♦ Jx, a cue bid of 3♥ seems right. It uses up no room. My hand is toward the top of the 15 to 19 in terms of statistical frequency. I have FOUR quick tricks. My odd jack is working. Finally, PARTNER IS STILL UNLIMITED.

4. As responder I am still interested in slam, but willing to subside in 5♦ if necessary. 3NT might get passed. 3♠ & 4♣ seem wrong to me, since in my world a hand as powerful as mine should begin by cue bidding first round controls. This leaves 4♦ - forcing since we have been flirting with slam.

5. Why not try a 4♠ cue bid on the way to more diamonds?

6. Now I can trot out 5♣.

7. 6♦. No reason to try for seven since pard has shown no sign of having a solid diamond suit. If seven is available on brute power, pard will know and bid it.

[mikeh]

Understandably, the discussion has been, as far as I can see, about the bidding, but the OP described a play 'problem', which arose after the ♦10 was led, dummy covered with the Jack and RHO played the K. OP asked if one should now hook rho for the 9 or play for the drop.

This is actually a trick question, imo, tho probably not intentionally so.

The play problem, which is trivial, came a trick earlier....when LHO led the 10, who would ever play him to have led the stiff 10? It is infinitely (ok, I exaggerate for effect) more likely that he has led from 109x or 109 or 10x, in descending order of probability.

So the correct play at trick 1 is to duck in dummy.