After a Redouble we bid immediately with any weak hand that has a preference betwee the unbid suits. Note: All immediate bids show weakness. It follows that if we have a weak hand without a preference, we Pass and play whatever suit to which Doubler runs. How do we show values? Easy, we Pass and then bid. So far, so good.

But what if we have a profound 2-suiter (e.g. 5-5 or better) and are weak? If we bid one suit we could miss a fit in the other suit--especially if the opponents are able to jump to the stratosphere before we are able to bid again.

	LHO Pard RHO You 1 Dble Rdbl 1 3 Pass 5 ???

The opponents' actions have put us to the test, and we can do little more than make a blind guess as to whether 5 will work or not. If only we had some way of showing such a wild 2-suiter earlier. Ah, but we do!

We need to bear in mind the point mentioned above: Note: All immediate bids show weakness. This means that bids which would sound strong otherwise will be weak here simply because they are bid immediately over the Redouble. Hence, we can bid a "somewhat unusual" 2NT with any wild, weak 2-suiter. This may put reasonable Doubler in a position to make a more informed call over any jump bid by the opponent's.

	LHO Pard RHO You 1 Dble Rdbl 2NT 3 Pass 5 Pass Pass 5 --- --- To recap: Over any Redouble: Pass then Pass is weak with no preference. Pass then bid shows values. All immediate bids are weak with a preference between the unbid suits. 2NT immediately over the Redouble reveals a 5-5 or better 2-suiter, weak.

"When does a cuebid of the opponents' suit ask for a stopper (i.e. a West Coast Cuebid) and when does it show one (i.e. an East Coast Cuebid)?"

This is a question that has plagued partnerships for decades. One general rule is that when the opponents have bid one suit the cuebid tends to ask for a guard. When the opponents have bid two suits we cuebid the stronger of the two enemy strains. This is close, at least, to saying that the cuebid there shows a guard in that suit while asking for one in the other.

Let us take a situation, as above, where we have bid two suits and they have bid only one. Here, we have two of "our" suits (the minors in this example), an "enemy" suit (Spades here) and an unbid suit (Hearts here). In worrying about the "enemy" suit too much we fall victim to a sneak attack in the unbid suit. Is there any way to avoid this? Answer: Sometimes. Here, yes.

Let us start with another general rule, to be used when we have sufficient strength (often with a minor suit fit) to consider Three No Trump:

East Coast Cuebids are only in effect if we are able to bid both the unbid and the enemy suit below 3NT.

In our example hand, then, 3 would be an East Coast Cuebid only because we are able to bid 3 as well.

But what if we can only bid one of those "worrisome" suits (i.e. either the opponents' suit or the unbid suit)? Now we will use West Coast Cuebids and bid 3NT ourselves if we have the enemy suit guarded. This, sadly, leaves us no way to show a guard in the unbid one.

	You RHO Pard LHO 1 1 1 2 Dble Pass 3 Pass ?? --- --- ---

Lacking the ability to bid Hearts and Clubs (i.e. both worrisome suits) here, 3 will be a West Coast Cuebid, asking for a guard in Hearts. If Opener has a guard in Hearts Opener should bid 3NT here.

When we are in a situation where the opponents have made an obvious sacrifice we face the question: "Should we Double and defend, Pass and suggest further bidding or compete (as with 5 here)?" The choice between bidding on and Doubling (neither of which suggest slam) is usually based upon the presence or absence of unshown distributional values. With anything close to a flat hand, we Pass. Otherwise, we tend to bid on. So far, so good.

But when do we Pass to suggest slam? Here, there is a formula. There are four suits in the deck. We need a disproportionate amount of our previously promised strength outside the opponents' suit in order to make slam. In this sense, "disproportionate" would then mean at least and preferably more than 75% of what we have previously promised. Since 1 promised 8+ points, we would need at least (.75 x 8) 6 HCPs outside Hearts. In fact, since 1 is 13-21 North would need about (33 - 21) 12 to consider slam. Indeed, since the Redouble rather than a 4 signoff suggested some extras, Opener might be expecting 10+ points from Responder here. Ergo, Responder should have about (.75 x 10, rounded up to) 8 points outside Hearts to suggest slam by Passing here.

6 required that Declarer guess the Club suit. Most took the natural finesse to the Jack for down one. +1100 defending 5 gained N-S 7.30 IMPs here. Trade that Ace for the Ace (10 HCPs outside Hearts) or even the Queen (8 HCPs outside Hearts) and slam would be cold. Easy game, this bridge.

When we are in an "obvious sacrificing situation"--however we define this--Negative Slam Doubles can be very useful to avoid making a phantom sacrifice (i.e. sacrificing against a contract that isn't going to make).

The trick to Negative Slam Doubles is:


• With no defensive tricks, Double.
• With 1 or more defensive tricks, Pass.

Here, North passes with hir Ace. South Doubles to deny a defensive trick. Had North held two or more defensive tricks North would Pass that Double. Holding only one trick, North must pull to 6.

If North did not have a defensive trick North would Double, leaving it to South to Pass (with 2+ tricks) or pull to 6 as a sacrifice.

And that is all there is to Negative Slam Doubles! What? Did you think this would be tough?

4 is going to be no picnic here, with 2 Spade losers and 2 Club losers. Even pitching a black loser on dummy's Ace doesn't solve the problem.

Is there any light at the end of this tunnel? Well, given West's 2 bid, at least East will not be able to get to the West hand. Now, if only we could get rid of one more black loser from our hand...

Perhaps we could toss one Club on the Ace, eliminate all of East's Diamonds and then throw hir in with a Club to force East to give us a ruff and sluff. There is one problem with this scenario, though. In order to ruff three Diamonds, we need three entries to dummy and still have a fourth Heart for the ruff and sluff.

After winning with the Ace the only way we can create a third entry to dummy will be to finesse the 9 at trick two. Two more Heart entries to dummy allows us to ruff all three small Diamonds. Now we lead out the Queen and hope that East isn't able to underlead hir Club honours to put West on lead with the 9 in order to cash West's Spade winners.

On the actual hand, Declarer played a Heart to the King and the contract was doomed. In order to make 4 we need to stop and ask ourselves what we need (i.e. three entries to dummy for the eventual endplay) and how to get it (i.e. finessing the 9). Easy game, bridge!

After South's 4-card 1 opening bid, North needs to know little more than how many Key Cards and Kings Partner has outside the Diamond suit. North cannot bid an immediate 1:4NT; Opener would show any Key Card--including the Diamond Ace if Opener had it. So Responder starts with a splinter reply of 4. When Opener rebids 4 Responder, despite this signoff, can continue with 4NT, Exclusion Roman Key Card Blackwood, asking for Key Cards outside the void Diamond suit.

"But why does this promise a void in Diamonds?" one might ask.

The reason is simple: If Responder had a singleton in Diamonds and is not willing to stop in 4, Responder should reply 4NT directly (e.g. 1:4NT).

Hence, any 4NT rebid after making a splinter is always Exclusion Blackwood or, if you play Roman Key Card Blackwood, Exclusion RKC. Sadly, the "result" above is not what actually happened at our table. After 1:2NT:4, Opener passed, fearful that Opener would hold a minimum with wasted values in Diamonds.

After Stayman has found our major suit fit, how do we invite slam? 1NT:2:2:5 is so unwieldly! So we bid the other major, as in the above auction. This cannot be anything but confirmation of Opener's major, since if we had five of the new major but not 4+ card support for Opener's major, we would have transferred and not used Stayman.

Here, 2 was the first step towards confirming Hearts as trumps. Opener's 3 would have shown 4=4=3=2 distribution if the pair were playing ST TOMAS. Without it, the bidding quickly subsided in 6.

"Stayman Then The Other Major Asks: `Slam?'", or "ST TOMAS", is a very popular and common sense approach here. It can also occur after a 2NT opening, where 2NT:3:3:3:4 and 2NT:3:3:3 both support Opener's major while inviting slam. Click here to learn more about ST TOMAS.

Gerber comes up about once a decade for most expert players. This hand, though, would fit the bill. Doubler might force with 3 but is interested in nothing but Aces. Hence, Doubler might simply jump to 4 over South's 2NT.

2NT was a tad offshape, but the alternative 3 might not allow N-S to find 3NT. 2NT should allow North to count on South for 2-3 "goodies". 4 now by North would ask for Aces, fetching a satisfying 4 from South. Now 5 by North will request Kings. South, with a lot of tricks, might now bid 6 to show either 4 Kings or a source of tricks for 7.

Countersacrifices are common in chess. One side gives up a piece for certain winning chances and the other concedes material in order to survive the onslaught. It is a far less common theme in bridge, though.

Here we see Kaltica make a lead directing 3 call. When the double is passed back around to him, Kaltica made a slight error which was to come back to haunt him: 4 instead of the weaker 3. When Kaltica subsequently bid 6 East, remembering the all-too-eager 4, bid 7.

A good "countersacrifice" by East, given the vulnerability, West's four free calls and the fact that 6 was actually going to make!