Constructive: Responder
Robert Todd
(587) XYZ

When the auction begins 1X – 1Y – 1NT (where X and Y are different suit bids), the modern treatment is to play Two-Way New Minor Forcing.  This approach uses both 2♣* and 2♦* as artificial and forcing bids by Responder.  2♦* is an artificial game forcing bid, while 2♣* is generally used to start invitational bidding sequences.

(587) XYZ
Constructive: Responder
Robert Todd
(586) 2-Way New Minor Forcing and Wolff Signoff

New Minor Forcing is an excellent convention for continuing the auction when Opener has shown a balanced hand that is weaker than opening 1NT. But after a New Minor Forcing bid, the auction often gets complicated if we don’t go straight to game.  It can be confusing whether we are inviting game or trying to make a slam try – which bids are forcing and which bids are non-forcing?  2-Way New Minor Forcing is an upgrade to New Minor Forcing that allows Responder to better describe their hand and simplify and clarify the rest of the auction. 

(586) 2-Way New Minor Forcing and Wolff Signoff
Constructive Bidding
Robert Todd
(585) Modified 2-Way Reverse Drury

The concept of having a conventional bid like Drury available to show a limit raise in support of partner’s Major suit when we are a passed hand is a regular part of most partnerships’ passed hand bidding structure.  Given that making a 2/1 bid into a minor suit is not that attractive (or even possible!) by a passed hand, it makes sense to allocate both 2♣ and 2♦ as artificial raises of Opener’s third seat (or fourth seat) Major suit opening bid.  Many partnerships that play Drury play 2-Way Drury, using one bid to show a 3-card limit raise and the other a 4-card limit raise.  But a more sophisticated structure can allow us to describe even more hand types in the same bidding space.

(585) Modified 2-Way Reverse Drury
Constructive Bidding
Robert Todd
(584) Exclusion Keycard

When we are interested in slam in a suit contract but have a void in one of the side suits, it adds some complexity to our slam bidding.  We may be able to make a slam missing two Aces (or a grand slam missing an Ace), if partner does not have the Ace opposite our void.  When exploring slam, we want to know if partner has that Ace or has the “good Aces”, the ones opposite our losers.  One way that we find out about the location of partner’s Aces is by using control showing bids. This is especially effective if we use them to show first round control (if we play that our control showing bids could be 1st or 2nd round, then we know less about which Aces partner hold).  There is a gadget that we can use in some auctions that allows us to try to solve this problem.  This convention, called Exclusion Keycard, asks partner for their number of Keycards (or Aces if we play Blackwood), excluding one particular Ace – the place where we are void. This Exclusion allows us to find out if partner has enough of the “right Aces” for us to make slam. 

(584) Exclusion Keycard
Constructive Bidding
Robert Todd
(583) Problems with Kickback Keycard

Kickback is a convention that can make slam bidding easier, in that it gives us more space to ask partner for the Queen of trump, but it can also cause problems for us in the bidding.  Any time we make a game contract (like 4♥ or 4♠) a conventional bid, there is danger that we have an expensive mixup with partner.  Here we look at some classic danger auctions that may come up if we choose to play Kickback and then discuss some of the common partnership agreements or philosophies for how to handle these dangerous auctions.

(583) Problems with Kickback Keycard

(58) Hand Evaluation II: Size of Trump Fits

(58) Hand Evaluation II: Size of Trump Fits

After an active July where we worked on Hand Evaluation (primarily focusing on HCP and re-evaluation) we are continuing our Hand Evaluation discussion in August.   But this month we are moving in a different direction.   The goal for this month is to help us understand the value of fit (trumps) and how it help us produce tricks!