MABC Bidding Forum

   March 1999 Answers

Several members of the panel ask for clarification of a bids meaning within MABC Standard. These clarifications will be answered as we go along and noted on both the MABC Standard page and convention card. Also, if anything is added, that will noted also.   To view the bidding system used click here.

To see a chart of the panel and how they answered - Please click here

Go to problem#  One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six | Seven | Eight | Nine

1. Match-points; E/W vul, North Deals
ª-9 ©-AKT85 ¨-Q9752 §-J8

N	E	S	W
1ª	P	1NT	P
2¨	P	?

This is a very interesting hand in that the "right" 13 count (Spade Ace, Diamond AK, Heart Queen and stiff club) makes six almost a lay down and the "wrong" 15 count (Spade King-Queen, Diamond Ace-Jack, Club King-Queen in a 5-1-4-3 hand) makes any game problematical.

Some asked why the opponents were not bidding with their big Club fit (why? opener could be 5-0-4-4) and some values (why? opener might be just short of a jump shift) . The top choice is not as clear cut as it seems...most panelist bid 3¨ HOPING their partner would bid 3© with a three card suit or take another call with the right maximum..

Lazarus " Invitational...still a change to get to 4© if partner has 3 hears and a max.."
Bart:"3 diamonds; giving up on heart partial, hoping if partner has enough to bid again that he will bid his 3 card heart fragment if it exists."
Pettit: "3¨, partner will expect this type of hand and will bid a 3 card heart fragment with game interest. Will cue bid over any cue by partner"
White "3¨. Best value bid. Partner should bid 3© with acceptance and a 3 card heart suit, thus not missing hearts as the proper strain."
Glickstein: "3¨ -...wide range and we are at top. There is no other bid that is more descriptive"
D Afdahl: "3¨, Invitational values. You could have game in hearts, but it is unlikely you will be able to find it. Two hearts is not forcing and you do not have the values to bid three hearts. Show partner your fit and let him take control.
K Afdahl: "3¨..no spade fit...need extra for 3NT. Only other game possible is 5¨".
Hurds: "3¨, lacking a specific understanding, you must raise to 3¨ showing five Diamonds and a 10-count. A better solution is to play 3© showing hearts and diamonds (and, since you bid 1NT earlier) an invitational hand. Those who play 3© here shows a 6-bagger in hearts with a 10-count have a reasonable try but it is a bit dangerous.

Well thought out – one of the big advantages of not playing 2/1 as a game force is that you can use 1ª-2©-2any-3© to show the invitational hand with six (+) hearts. This would allow the jump to show this type of hand AND 1Major-1NT-2any-any unbid suit would be a much weaker hand with a long suit.

Only one made a jump bid in hearts and he jumped all the way to four (Colker " Four hearts. With a heart one-suitter good enough to play game I would have responded 2© and then continued rebidding hearts. I hope this auction carries the inference of a diamond fit, offering a choice of red-suit games. The alternatives of 2©, 3¨, 3© and 4¨ all have flaws. Partner would pass 2©, 3¨ and 3© holding ª-Axxxx ©-x ¨-AKxx §-xxx, where 5¨ is an excellent contract. And while he'd raise 4¨ to game on that hand, he'd pass holding ª-Axxxx ©-Qxx ¨-KJx §-Kx, where 4© is an excellent contract. This is the only way I can think of which has a chance to get us to the right spot.")

The 2© bidders included;
Steve Robinson: "2©---At matchpoints its important to play in the major. At IMPs, I would raise diamonds. Even if partner has a singleton heart and passes 2 hearts, I can scramble enough tricks to get a good score."
Sukoneck: "This hand is typical of hands which arise in matchpoint torture. This hand supports the philosophy that a bid of 2© shows 5+hearts - not 6+. Hearts and diamonds are both possible strains, if we are constrained by not being able to show hearts, system flexibility would suffer. We will bid 2© and hope the auction has more life. In this partnership, 2© promises 5+ hearts so playing the 5 -1 fit is highly unlikely. 2©."

The ability to bid 2© and then 3© as an invitational bid is supposedly one of the big advantages of not playing 2/1 game force so 2© over 2¨ should show a non invitational hand with a long suit.

The Chattanooga folks went a little future in diamonds.
Hermann: "4¨...likely make 3-4 or 5...choose middle road asking partner for more input"
If that’s the case, why not 4§ to indicate shortness...both bids go past 3NT.
Smiths "The alternatives seem to be 3, 4, or 5 diamonds. 3¨ is too little, 5¨ too much, so 4¨ seems about right. Partner should bid 4© on the way to 5¨ with 3 hearts."

Making a value bid and trying to sell a convention at the same time.
Parker "4 diamonds - this hand is too good just bid 3¨ and bidding hearts is a crap shoot, since pard will never guess you have 5 diamonds. A good partner will bid 4© over 4¨ with 3. This is a good example of why a convention called Bart works so well. Bart starts with a forcing 1NT over 1 spade. Pard responds 2§ with say 3/2 in the minors and not 4© hearts or 6 spades, then 2¨ asks how many hearts he has. If pard has 3 hearts he bids 2©, if not he bids 2 spades, or 3 clubs with 5/5. This way you don't have to guess if he is 5/3/3/2."

Top of page

2. IMPs; N/S vul, West Deals
ª-A95 ©-83 ¨-KJ9743 §-J5

N	E	S	W
			P
1§	2ª	?

This would not even been considered any problem ten or so years ago, everyone would pass and make some kind of strength showing bid (cue bid or Diamond jump) IF partner reopened with a double. Nowadays at least there is a thought of bidding with this hand, but only a few of our panelist went so far as to actually make a forcing call.

Pettit "3¨ – very pushy, but it is IMPs"
Lazarus " 3¨ – a better bid than waiting until partner doubles then having to make a choice."
D Afdahl "3¨, One round force. Partner may expect more, but if you pass and then bid three diamonds over partner’s reopening double, he would expect less."

Several made a bid that could be passed, but would it?
Joyce: "2NT - This is really a tough hand. We don't like our bid or any others that we can think of. 2NT, at least, limits our hand and might meet with success at the table."
Glickstein: "2NT- constructive, but non-forcing".
Parker " 2NT, since your notes do not state what a new suit free bid promises in competition, I assume it promises at least a rebid. 3¨ will get us to 4¨ or a gambling 3NT since you will be stuck over 3©. 2NT limits your hand and lets you either pass 3§ or correct to 3¨."

The passers though a lot about what they would do over a reopening double and no one said what they would do if opener reopened in a different manner. Partner may not reopen with a double unless he is VERY short in spades as the odds are against a trap pass on this vulnerability and form of scoring...then what?
Hermann "pass...both 2NT and 3¨ too much"
Colker: "Pass. If partner reopens with a double, I'll bid 3¨ directly to show a good hand (2NT would be a lebensohl-type relay to 3§, after which I'd bid 3¨ with a bad hand -- e.g., the same hand with the ace of spades switched for a low one). The problem with bidding immediately is that it will get us too high in many cases: to game when partner holds a routine minimum opening hand or to slam when partner has a good hand and where game (or the five-level) is our limit.
Good-bad 2NT is a very playable convention, but is still not widely used.

Hurds: "Pass for now. When Partner re-opens with a double, bid 3¨.
What you bid without the Spade Ace? Surely this hand is better than such a simple call..it is IMPs, you are vulnerable and not likely to have a penalty double. These two seem to have a plan.
K Afdahl: " Pass, 3¨ would be forcing and make a difficult bid for partner. After reopening double, you can bid two no-trump (source of tricks and spade stopper.)"
Smiths :"Pass. More of a problem is what to do if partner reopens. If partner reopens with a double, 3NT seems right."

Since the question was "What do you bid now" these answers don’t look forward.
Sukoneck ". On the surface a simple problem. Pass seems to be a stand out. Other alternatives distort hand type. Pass."
Only one ask the rhetorical; Turoff "Pass, what’s the problem?"

Top of page

3. IMPs; Non Vul, South Deals
ª-AK ©-532 ¨-98642 §-AKQ

N	E	S	W
		1NT	2© *
3©**	P	?

* = Natural
** = Stayman, no stopper

Two part question:

a. Do you agree with 1NT opening ?
b. What is your call?

The choice for an opening is sort of a nothing problem, but done to settle a bet. At the table the opening bid was 1NT and N/S got to 5¨, which went down one [at the other table they opened 1¨ and stopped in 4¨]. North criticized South’s opening and South made a bet that if the hand were given to 50 experts ALL of them would open 1NT. Well, it looks like he was right with 100% of our panel going for the 1NT opening.

Although all said that 1NT was the ONLY correct opening bid, there were a few who made a comment about this hand.
Gookins: "Least of evils" and
Pettit: "This is a FLAWED 16"
Kovacich: "Don't like, but would have opened 1NT"

These saw something of a problem. But no one had any problem of what to bid at their turn and 4¨ was the big favorite.
Colker: "4¨.The last I heard, bidding a five-card suit naturally was still legal. Opposite a typical balanced game-force such as ª-QJx ©-Jx ¨-KQxx §-Jxxx, 4¨ is our limit. Switch the diamond king to the ace and we'll need diamonds to be two-two; switch the diamond queen to the ace and we'll need a two-two split plus the finesse -- none of which figures to work."
We don’t THINK most partners would think of Stayman with that hand, but it surely could be a winner – ah, those 4-3 fits

The big question seemed to be how high the partnership was forced. Have you and your partners discussed this and could you get out at the four level? This player thinks it is forcing.
Sukoneck: "....4¨-forcing. If partner passes, he will get what he deserves. Is 4NT choice of minors over 4¨?"
I don’t know – with this hand it would seem to be the only explanation, but on a somewhat different layout partner would like for it to be RKC if he held something like ª-KJxx ©-x ¨-KQxxx §-AJx.

Here is one who thinks the 4¨ call could be passed.
Glickstein "If partner is 4-2-2-5 this will give room to bid 5§...if 4-3-3-3 I’m rooting for a pass."

Turoff "4¨, where are partner’s points – diamonds. Partner also know were my points are"
Why – couldn’t you have the Queen of hearts instead of the King or Queen of Clubs?

D Afdahl "4¨...not spades...don’t have heart stopper. Even if your diamonds don’t look like a real suit, it is all you have."
Parker "you are forced to bid 4¨. No other bid shows any sense of sanity and partnership trust".

One opener REALLY like his hand for diamonds; Spencer Hurd "5¨..hard to find a 10 count for partner without good diamonds"
How about ª-QJxx ©-xxx ¨-AKJx §-xx?...that’s a pretty good ten+ count. But since it seems that most will get to game it might be right to bid the most likely game – probably better a 5-3 Diamond fit than a three-four Club fit. "

Top of page

4. Match-points; E/W Vul, East Deals
ª-AQ ©-KJ2 ¨-64 §-AKQT85

E	S	W	N
P	?

The panel sees the real question here is as between 1§ and 2NT for the opening. There is a lot to be said for either call and I am quite sure that there would be more 2NT openings in third seat. The more conservative openers did think about other calls.
Hermann: "1§, conservative as opposed to 2NT which is very reasonable. Some would even choose 2§ as the opening bid."
Pettit: "1§, second choice 2NT, which could easily wrongside a no-trump contract."
Colker: "One club. I know there are some cowboys out there who get off on opening these sorts of hands 2NT or two clubs (strong), but do we really have to cater to that sort of thing? After a 1¨ response a 3NT rebid seems appropriate. After a major-suit response a jump-shift (2ª after 1©) or a reverse (2© after 1ª) followed by club rebids look normal."
Sukoneck "Not a problem. 1§. Opening 2NT is a significant distortion. If partner passes 1§, the auction will probably not die, of course we don't know if that's good or bad."
Kovacich: "1§; 2NT is CLOSE second choice."

One made a pretty good guess as to the panel’s choice.
Wisdom "I’m sure the popular vote will be 2NT, but I live by sword (20-21)".

The 2NT openers seemed worry that partner would never expect this hand if they opened 1§.
Hurds: "Open 2NT. This is the kind of hand with which you may shade your usual 20 points - 19 points plus a source of tricks. Not good enough for 2§, too good for 1§."
Joyce "2 NT - The ten and the sixth club convince us to fudge a point, although we don't like to do that. Another consideration is that, if you open 1§, any rebid (2N, 3N, or 3§) is inadequate for this hand."
D Afdahl "2NT - Sixth club makes this hand equal to 20 HCP."
Smiths "2NT. We might be cold for 6§, but 2NT seems the more practical bid due to the rebid problems and the appeal of the lead coming up to South." 

One suggested another reason to open 2NT.
Turoff "2NT...make sure the hand is played from the right side –mine."
Eleanor and Randy didn’t see eye to eye on positional advantages for this hand!

And yet another reason for 2NT – keep out the competition;
Parker "2NT, this will be a popular 1§ followed by 3NT over pards 1ª response, or 2NT over his 1© so you don't miss a 5-3 fit. The problem is letting the opponents into the auction over one Club. At the table I have found that opening 2NT on these type of hands will get you to the right contract and keep the opponents from messing in your auctions.

If 1§is not enough, then how about this?
Glickstein: "2§, this hand has so much playing strength...will describe it as balanced 22 count".    and that would probably be everyone’s choice if the long suit were a major.

Top of page 

5. IMPs; N/S Vul, East Deals
ª-8752 ©-KQT95 ¨-3 §-KJ9

N	E	S	W
	P	P	1¨
Dble	1©	Dble	R-X*
P	2¨	?

* = 3 card support

It would appear that East is trying to pull our leg with his heart bid and now we must find the right level. Some think this is a game forcing hand, while others want to invite if partner fits well.

Turoff "2©...showing the fifth heart and a good hand"
Is it forcing? Do you think partner may play you for longer hearts and less values?
Kovacich: "2©  ; partner would have bid 1ª  with four..."
Even with a mini and three or four hearts?

Others thought about bigger bids – get to game with this hand;
Colker: Three hearts. Bid what you have. I would have jumped to 3© after a raise to 2¨ the first time by East, so I guess I'll just do the same thing now that I've found out how the adverse trumps will split. How else can I convince partner to go ahead and bid our heart game holding ª-AKxx ©-Jxxx ¨-xx §-AQx?"
Sukoneck: "Partner made a take out double of 1¨. He either has heart support or a big hand. If partner had a big hand he should have acted already. Cue bidding will just confuse partner. It's time to describe this hand. 4©."
Smiths: "They have obviously psyched 1© on our left, so the question is how many hearts to bid. 4© seems about right; opposite most T.O. doubles there should be a good play for it."
Are the four heart bidders sure that is better than 4 spades...YES! - there is a slight chance of a heart ruff if you play in spades.
Gookins ‘4¨ – choice of games"

Others choose non-forcing calls to let partner help make a final decision.
Lazarus " 2ª, partner already knows you have hearts. 2ª is non-forcing".
Hermann "2ª...shown hearts, now I need some input from partner. opponents have found a home after the heart psyche."
Spencer Hurd: "2ª...already shown your hearts. Partner will pass with a minimum and four spades. If he bids again...4©"

The cue bid was popular and it seems that these players will drive to game in partner’s long major.
Pettit: "3¨ – bring both majors into play. If east isn’t psyching, which he is, the North has a very strange looking powerhouse."
It is not likely that partner has a strange powerhouse as he would probably have acted on the previous round. But, couldn’t he have a minny such as ª-KJxx ©-Axx ¨-Kx §- Q10xx ? Wouldn’t he pass the redouble with this type of hand?
Glickstein: " 3¨, someone has psyched and I believe it is East...if partner bids 3ª I will raise to four...
otherwise 4©".
Robinson: "3¨---I plan to force to game and might as well find out which four-card major partner has.¨
Parker: " 3¨...willing to overbid a little with a possible 3 suit fit...partner may pass a 2© or 2ª."

This panelist doesn’t think that the cue bid commits the hands to game;
D Afdahl "3¨, Sounds like east psyched one heart. You have five hearts, west showed three hearts, and partners double should show at least three cards in the unbid suits, unless he has a suit of his own and 17+HCP. Three diamonds shows support of the unbid suits with invitational values

Top of page

6. IMPs; Both Vul, West Deals
ª-853 ©-AQT7 ¨-5 §-AQJ96

N	E	S	W
			1ª
P	3¨*	?

* = 4 card spade raise, limit raise values

Since a King in either round suit gives you some play for game (and 2 round Kings make a slam possible) it must be right to do something with this hand. The question is how (and possibly when) and what do competitive bids mean when the opponents are using Bergen raises.

Although the pass received the most call the tenor of the panel was for immediate action.

Some choose their shorter suit and thought about what they would do over opener’s 3ª call.
Gookins:"3© and then 4§ over 3ª."
Spencer Hurd "Since you know Pard has a singleton or void in spades, you can take modest liberties. I prefer bidding 3© here. Over 3ª by lefty, and pass-pass back to me I call 4§. Actually, I expect somebody to bid 4ª, and am still trying to decide if I'll bid 5§. I'm sure 5§ is right, I just don't know if I have the nerve to bid it."

Other put their faith in their longer suit.
Hermann: "4§ – lead directing and unambiguous...partner might bid five."
Parker:" 4§, I feel you should always bid when you can help your partner on lead. Double will just confuse pard as to the meaning. They never stop to double these sequences.
And they might be sorry if they did!

Still others tried to bring both suits into play.
Pettit: "3ª – hearts and lower ranking suit, probably not diamonds since double was available"
Would a double show hearts and diamonds or just diamonds?
John Hurd: "3ª (Michaels), the best bid by far. I am lying by one heart, but no other bid is available."
Sukoneck: "If the three of spades was the three of hearts, a Michaels cue bid would have been the universal choice. We think bidding on this hand is mandatory - the smallest lie is 3ª."
Robinson: "3ª --- Seems like we are going to have a good fit so I should bid. Since I think double of 3diamonds shows diamonds, I have to find another call. 3spades showing 5-5, hearts and a minor seems the best description
of my hand.
Smiths "This is a tough problem. The alternatives seem to be 3©, 3ª, 4§ or pass. Pass seems akin to "sticking you head in the sand", (even though you may end up –1100 with another choice). 3ª seems less unilateral, so that’s what we’ll do, although one of us is more than a little nervous about 3ª. We’ll let you guess."
K Afdahl "Double-takeout"

Most of the passers had a lot to say about why they choose that call.
Colker: "Pass. Partner figures to have long diamonds, possibly be something like 1-3-6-3, 1-3-5-4 or 1-3-7-2, so we've no guarantee of a fit in either round suit. Vulnerable, with the opening bid behind me, and with the opponents possibly having game-going values, I see no reason to force us to the four-level. We could easily go for more than the value of their game or for 500, 800 or more even when they have no game. I'll be a hero on some other deal. Besides, the auction isn't over yet."
Don’t know why partner could not have just four diamonds and be something like 1x4 or even 1-3-4-5 and surely it is possible for him to have a couple of picture cards...we only have 13 HCP and LHO probably has somewhere around ten, which leaves room in partner’s hand for a few goodies. It seems to me like it is safer to do "something" now that try to guess if it goes 3ª-pass-pass and any call you now make gives them a fielders choice.
Lazarus: "Pass and double later or 4§...most don’t have understanding of what a double of 3¨ means, hence it would show diamonds. Therefore, pass and bid later."

It would seem that with many partnerships using Bergin raises one should have some sort of defense.

Glickstein: "Pass – one alternative is to bid 3ª (Michaels) showing at least 5-5 in hearts and a minor. I think this is wrong for several reasons. First, it might push the opponents to 4ª which could make. Second, it may encourage partner to take a bad sacrifice in 5©. If I pass, LHO will choose to either signoff in 3ª or bid 4ª, which I will defend and hope for the best. However, over 3ª I will balance with 3NT and expect partner to read this a some 2-suitted takeout with fewer than five cards in one of my suits"
Turoff: "Pass, we might have a fit, but too risky to jump in at this level. Partner has very few points".
D Afdahl: "Pass, Double should be takeout of spades and you can’t support all three unbid suits.

Top of page

7. Match-point; N/S Vul, South Deals
ª-A ©-KT975 ¨-AJ72 §-AQ5

N	E	S	W
		1©	P
1ª	P	?

A lot of points, not very good suits, a stiff in responder’s suit – that adds up to a problem rebid. Some force to game with a jump shift. The answers to this problem shows how expert players make choices when the "book" bid is probably 3¨."

The jump shit to 3¨gets the power of the hand across to partner.
Hermann: "3¨ – marginal jump shift, but better than 2NT or 3NT holding stiff Ace in partner’s suit"
Perhaps a good point – if partner jumped to 4ª over a 2¨ rebid, would you think you had something extra in the tank?
Spencer Hurd: "3¨...over 3©/ª ...3NT will show almost your exact hand"

Some were more conservative, but choose to rebid in Diamonds.
Pettit: "2¨–second choice 2NT. There are no tricks. If partner bids 2©/ª over 2¨, then 2NT"
White: "2¨ – suits not good enough for jump shift."
Colker: "2¨ - if partner bids 2©, I'll invite with 2NT. If he raises diamonds, say with ª-Qxxx ©-x ¨-Qxxxx §-Kxx, I'll investigate 5¨. The problem with bidding 2NT is that opposite a minimum 1ª response, such as ª-QJxxx ©-x ¨:Q-xx §-Jxxx, we'll be counting in 100s for the undertricks. If partner has a better hand, say ª-Kxxx ©-xx ¨-Qxx §-K10xx, we'll still reach 3NT after his preference to 2©."
Sukoneck (and also Kovacich): "Lots of points, but no tricks. 2¨. If partner passes 2¨, we will be quite content. If partner peeps, we will show a little more life. for now 2¨ is sufficient.
Parker: "2¨ - too much wasted in your short suits to have a good source of tricks. These hands seldom play well with out a fit or source of tricks."
Joyce: "2¨- Randy touted this conservative action; acting alone, Kay would have gone for the value showing 2NT.
Turoff "2¨, if partner takes another bid will then bid 2NT"
Smiths: "We do not rebid 2NT with a singleton, so it is between 2¨ and 3¨. We elect to bid 2¨ since if partner cannot muster a bid over 2¨, we are probably in the right place. Over 2© we can bid 2NT. Three diamonds may not get us to 3NT, even if it is right.

Partner will probably not expect 18 HCP for a 2NT rebid, but those making that call have some good points.
Glickstein "2NT..not good enough for jump shift and 3¨ will too often end the auction. I will be conformable with any bid that partner makes over 2NT".
D Afdahl "2NT, Right bid on HCP. You would like another spade, but two no-trump shows your hand".
K Afdahl "2NT, If partner has hearts, we’ll get there. He heard me open. This hand is wrong for a jump shift rebid (Not great suits, no known fit.)."
Robinson: "2NT, right on point count and stoppers, just short one spade"

All good answers – the main thing is do you have enough extras to bid again if partner bids a game in no-trump or spades?

Top of page

8. IMPS; Both Vul, North Deals
ª-Q1072 ©-AQ10953 ¨-6 §-J3

N	E	S	W
1§	1NT*	?

*=15-18 HCP

It looks like our hand in high card points, but they may have enough tricks to avoid a big penalty if we double 1NT. In addition, they will probably run and in fact if we double we may next be thinking about what to do over 3¨!! It is also nice to have an agreement as to the meaning of competitive bids over the 1NT overcall.  

The system uses Cappelletti over opening bid of 1NT and it also apply after an overcall of 1NT, so the bid of 2© should show hearts and a minor and really does not deserve the top ranking. However, it appears that many of the panel did not check this - that is why the 2¨  bid with it two votes also received a top score.

Those who double can foresee a problem later, and it might be an opening lead problem.
Hurds: "Start with a double. Somebody will run and the real problem will start."
D Afdahl: " Double, followed by bidding hearts below game should be invitational. You could be getting a big penalty number, if opponents bid one of your suits.
Both of these players assume that someone will run and USUALLY they will be right. The rest of the time there is a fair chance of –180.

Here is one ready with his lead
Kovacich: "Double; lead 10 if passed out, bid hearts if they run to diamonds."

Some feared the worse and got in a bid in their long suit.
Hermann: "2©-more conservative than double, but they might come to 7 tricks in diamonds and a couple of other cards...double very suspect."
Colker: "Two hearts. Without a known heart fit (even a doubleton), and with side entries limited, double feels too risky. My reading of MABC Standard is that 3© would be preemptive. (If it's invitational, it's too aggressive anyhow.) At this vulnerability and form of scoring 2© shows some values. Partner will raise with a good hand and a fit, so this may not be as much of an underbid as it looks. If partner puts down a dummy like ª-Axx ©-x ¨-KJxx §-KQxxx, I'll be glad I was this circumspect in the bidding."
Joyce: "2©-Any of several actions could be right here; we chose the uninteresting middle ground.
Smiths: "2©. Double is too dangerous. On a heart lead against 1NT doubled, they might take the first 7 or 8 tricks."
Parker: "2©-no other bid describes this hand. Double may work if pard fits hearts, but then they have a good diamond fit. This should be a good part score (contract)."
Lazarus: "Not happy about defending 1NT doubled since declarer may have 7 tricks with a major suit lead –
bid 3©"
Robinson: "3© - should be stronger than two."

Others choose a Cappelletti type call.
Gookins: "2§-one suitter"
Sukoneck: "2§, unspecified single suited hand. Doubling first is possible, but there are significant risks. After our 2§, partner with heart shortness and five or six clubs will probably play 2§. Ah, well."
Pettit (& Glickstein similarly)"2¨, showing the majors. Over partner’s expected 2ª response I invite with 3©..."
Another forcing call – this one must show some sort of two suitter.
Turoff:"2NT- FORCING"
K Afdahl: "2NT, ...if partner bids spades, I’ll raise, if not, I’ll bid hearts".

Top of page

9. Match-points; N/S Vul, East Deals
ª-J975 ©-AK8753 ¨-9 §-J6

N	E	S	W
	P	P	P
1ª	2§	?

Looks like we may have a game and maybe the opponents have a great save. The question here seems to be best how to describe out hand so that partner can help make a competitive decision that might even come at the five level.

There cue bidders, it seems that two plan on raising regardless of what opener does – what will they do over a four no-trump or five club call by LHO?
Gookins "3§, but 4ª at IMPs".
Does not mean you will pass if opener rebids 3ª?
Lazarus: "3§, intend to bid 4ª later, but trying to show a maximum pass with a spade fit".
Turoff: "3§, limit raise or BETTER. Only strong bid I have."

Some jumped all the way to game, but does that show this hand?
Hermann: "4ª – partner’s 4^th seat opener should be sound [rule of 15] ...we have very few losers. What a fit!"
The opponents might also have very few losers!’"
Parker: "4ª-Hang him. All pard needs is AKxxx of spades and we have a great play for game. Give him a real opening and we should be able to claim. Bidding heart with a known fit will lead to partnership agony when you have an easy bid. Make it easy as possible on pard.
Pettit "4ª...splinter wrong, but playing strength is huge. Cue bid followed by signoff is random...E/W may save at these colors"
Since it is match points would you rather be 650 than 500?
Robinson: " 4 - -  - Don't want to give the opponents extra room in order to find a cheap save."

Some choose to bid their long suit, intending it to show a fit.
Colker" 3© This should show a fit. (MABC Standard says this would be weak if partner opened a minor; thus, by inference it shouldn't be weak after a major-suit opening. Since I'm a passed hand and didn't open a weak two-bid or other preempt earlier, fit-showing is all that's left.) It can't be right to force to game opposite a potentially weak third-seat opener (such as ª-AQxxx ©-x ¨-KJxx §-xxx).
It looks like he misread the problem (partner opened in fourth seat), but even then this hand adds up to the rule of 15 that John mentioned above. I think that most would open this hand in fourth seat at match-points and some would also open it at IMPs.

If 3© is fit showing, how about 4©? At least one panelists thinks so;   Hurds: "4©, specifically showing 6 hearts and 4 spades (the so-called "fit jump").
But some might think 4© is a splinter. What would your partner think?

It appears that fit showing jumps in competition are become more the norm, and in this case it would really help partner to know you had long hearts and a spade fit if your LHO called 5§ at this turn. Thus we will incorporate fit-showing jump shifts in competition into MABC Standard. I would take 3© as a fit showing bid here, but I would think 4© would be a splinter.

One choose to splinter, but with reservations – two would have used a fit showing jump shift.
Sukoneck: "Our review of the MABC system seems to leave a hole where fit showing jumps could have appeared. Within that context, the hand is worth a splinter raise. We have lots of tricks for a slam going partner. 4¨."
Joyce: "4¨-This is Kay's payback for going conservative on problem 7. Influenced by partner opening in 4th seat, the fourth trump (no other bids gets that message across quite so clearly), and the playing strength of a good side six-card suit should leave partner well placed to make the game with minimum values. (BTW, does our system include 3© as fit-showing here?)"
It does now!
Glickstein: "4¨...want to be in game, and on a good day, slam. Partner will judge whether this is a good day."
Smiths: "4¨ (splinter) There are plenty of minimums that can produce a lay-down slam. If, by chance, 4¨ is not a splinter, 3§ (showing spades) followed by 4©."
One who splintered mentioned the possibility of having opened a weak two bid.
D Afdahl: "4¨, splinter. Your hand is too good to just bid four hearts. As a passed hand, partner should not expect any more values. Seems like I should have opened two hearts.
Very few would choose a weak two with four cards in the other major, especially in second seat. However, you would really have an easy rebid on this hand.

Top of page