mfa1010

For me 4♣ here is a slam try. I would bid 4♦ showing a good fit there, which is not a slam try but a descriptive bid aimed at helping us coping with further competition. When I later double 5♣, partner knows that I think the board belongs to us and that he is invited to bid 5 over 5 or I wouldn't have bid 4♦ on the way.

I would never waltz in with 3♥. Partner could have horrific hands easily here since I'm so strong, may I suggest Jx, x, Kxxxxx, xxxx? Double of 1♠ was possible. I think I would. But else I think I would have to live with never getting in the bidding.

Pass to 4♠ was clearly forcing. I think S could have 18-19 bal or long clubs here. It looks wrong to double 4♠. To add one minor thing that has not been mentioned: with only 2 hearts S can see that opps have a heart fit on the side, and this should on average scare him further away from double. I like to read about other systems and how they handle the problems posted, btw.

I think the hand is a little too weak to bid 3♥ opposite partner's 11-12. I would just sign off in 3N after hearing about minimum. Obviously we could have a slam, but it seems we don't have the methods to investigate in details, and I think it is against odds to just shoot it. Yes, he could have xx, xxxx, KQx, AKxx, but also xx, Qxxx, Kxx, AKxx or xxx, Jx, Kxx, AKxxx. I can't tell. Since 4♦ was the best possible response I could get, and I have all the controls but no way really to investigate further, 3♥ would not make sense in the first place unless my intentions were to drive to slam after 4♦. But 3N for me.

My partner and I made the same agreement about 10 years ago after a 3N 'disaster' where we were on for some minor suit contract I can't remember now. But the silly thing is that neither of us has used the 3♣ gadget even once since. :D

Why? As long as you know about the misfit then splinterbidder just has to have an appropriate suit for his bid. Same as 1M-1N-4x if that is agreed as autosplinter. In my system I would think 3♠ was splinter for diamonds, because we play 3♥ forcing. But it would be undiscussed. In standard, where 3♥ would be inv, I would assume 3♠ was an autosplinter with hearts. Thanks for the problem - I will clear this with my partner.

Not really an ATB problem, since east has an automatic double and west is left alone with the full high level decision to make. I think pass was fine and likely the percentage bid. Say we take out to 4NT, then we will be praying that partner chooses clubs because 5D will not be right very often with that empty suit. And even 5C might not be so hot if it is just a 4-4. Close decision for west.

I have not heard about playing 3♣ as a "forcing" response, in standard lebensohl it is invitational. In standard lebensohl 3♣ is a pretty big underbid here. 3N directly as "natural but no spade stop" is an unplayable method after a reopening double. The opening lead will be through the potential stopper with declarer having nothing in the suit.

Does he? Any action starting with 2N without a stopper would be bad. So would it usually be to bid notrumps with ♠Ax(x). This is not so easy.

@ jallerton You are likely right about the details. I posted from my bad memory :lol: @ JLOGIC Sorry, we sucked in 2&3 so it was not good enough to play well in 1&4.

I have never seen anyone play in 3♦XX after a 2NT showing a 5-4 fit in a major ever. So until it happens to someone I am not going to fear that. I tried the dubious double, because I thought I couldn't stand a black suit lead - certainly not a spade. Well done mike777 who guessed the theme. I hit partner with SIX diamonds, but after the double I suspect declarer thought I also had the length in diamonds so he finessed my partner for ♥Qxx to make 6♥. It felt annoying because with 6 or maybe even five very strong diamonds, I could have made a 3♦ overcall after 2NT nv vs vul to insure the lead.

Thanks mike777 and JLOGIC :)

Spingold is going really fine so far, and tomorrow we are (hopefully) going to have Lynch for lunch :) We survived an unusual disaster against Amoils today (won by 4): [hv=pc=n&s=s754h6dkq65cj6432&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1hp2n(GF%20fit)p3c(Min)p3d(Ask)]133|200[/hv] Double for ♦-lead or not?

Jumping directly to 5♠ would be pretty insane.

I don't think that layout is especially surprising. We do have four hearts ourselves and they have not guaranteed a fit in this sequence. 4♠ is not an obvious call. Say if we double then partner can see himself if he has a singleton in their suit or not. Of course this is easier to say now when we can see what we'll buy.

I would pass also. 3-3 minors is very flat. We will have a lot of losers there or alternatively perhaps 3 tricks against 5♥ if partner has cover cards. State of match is irrelevant. This board is swingy already so there is no need not just to follow ones best judgement.

I have never heard of that treatment before but it sounds very reasonable. It probably takes a little work to figure out how to proceed, just as you say. I often play weak NT and then opener has a problem with a good strong NT hand and four spades. A bad strong NT could just bid 2♠, but that would be an underbid with say a 17-count, if 2♠ shows nothing more than a decent minimum. 2♥ as you suggest then has the disadvantage of wrongsiding the hand.

That is true.

I think it is probably theoretical best to have 2♠ as showing extras. The point is to avoid sequences like 1m-1♥-x-p-3♠ down, which is so terrible on a 4-4 where we'll practically never have law protection in opps having a makable contract. When they don't raise the hand tends to be misfitish. I know that 1m-1M-3M down on a 4-4 is terrible too, but that problem is hardly a good excuse for not optimizing the system after a neg double. We have a lot of space after 1♠, so we should be able to handle that it is wide ranging with both 3 and 4 spades possible. We can clarify later and still stay low if we want. I'm used to a 1♠ response showing 3 or a very bad 4, and 2♠ a respectable minimum. But I think that this is only part of the way to the best treatment.

Why not? Preemption gets more effective the less precise the opening bid is. In 4th seat we can afford to be a little heavy since partner is passed. It makes sense to me to preempt even more often when 3rd hand is an undisciplined opener, since they will have tougher guesses.

I'm not so sure that the heart length provides evidence for what double should be. But it does provide evidence for what our unknown partner with unknown bidding style and unknown bidding quality meant it as, if one should find that thing interesting. I'm familiar with the idea of double as a "I have a 4♠-bid, but just in case..."-bid, and give me 2♠-X-3♠-4♥-X or 2♠-3♥-3♠-4♥-X and I'm with you (and others) on the approach. But not in the actual sequence. Here I need to have a penalty double.

Partner is in 3rd seat and could have random things for his 2♠. The double should be penalty without me having to look at my heart length. Some might have Axxxxx, Kxx, x, KJx (sing lead). Others Axxxxx, QTxx, x, Kx. I don't know, maybe we need to catch up or something, and the hand could be worse. Note again that 4♥ is also a gambling bid by itself, so we don't need a lock to have decent odds for turning the cube. It is not like I am much of a doubler. But I would hate not to have the option of whacking them when I think they have been guessing a lot and are going to go down. -790 is not the end of the world (at imps).

Penalty. West is guessing in this sequence and might be stretching quite a bit, everybody knows that. So partner just thinks west guessed wrong. Make them guess and make them pay. The odds of a close double with good defense and just a little surprise for declarer are pretty good.

I would assume top of sequence, top of internal sequence (J from KJT etc.), low from 2, middle from 3, fourth from 4 to an honour. From four small it might mean second highest or fourth - I would ask. If they play Rusinow from honours (J from QJ etc.) then "2nd/4th" and nothing more is misleading imo to the extend that redress from TL is in the picture.

Nice point, never really thought about that.