daveharty

On 1., what kind of hand would you expect partner to have if he had doubled 2S, the transfer bid? On 2., I don't expect anyone will bid game of course, I'm just wondering if anyone would consider converting the double at matchpoints, and whether that decision might be contingent on knowing that LHO was a "sound" bidder or not.

1. [hv=pc=n&e=s653hqj42dq82ct92&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=pp1c1np2s(transfer%20to%203C%2C%20to%20POC%20to%203D)p3cp3ddp]133|200[/hv] What is this double? Is it unequivocally takeout of diamonds? I only include the East hand in case it affects your opinion of what's going on at the table. 2. [hv=pc=n&e=s543hkj94dk984c97&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1sp2s3hdp]133|200[/hv] Partner's double is maximal, his only available game try. What's your call? How much would knowledge of LHO's tendencies affect your decision? EDIT: Both hands scored at matchpoints.

No.

I don't really get why people think that 1C-1H-4H "shows" this hand. I know that the book meaning for the 4M rebid is (or, as Phil points out, at least "was") a balanced 18-19 with 4 trumps--but to me this hand with zero ruffing potential and so much beef outside just screamed notrump. The reason I asked about the possibility of correcting to 4H is that partner told me after the hand about another partner of his, who makes the "value" rebid of 2NT with such hands but then corrects to 4H (apparently to distinguish such hands from lower-HCP/higher-playing strength hands with which he rebids 4H directly), and I wondered if anyone else played something like this. At the table I passed 3NT and South led a club. The 1968 bidders were definitely right on this one: [hv=pc=n&s=sj964ht2d542ckt82&w=st3hkj86dkt873c95&n=sa875ha75d96cq743&e=skq2hq943daqjcaj6]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints.

My thinking at the table was similar to mikeh's--that this double carried no lead implications, partner simply has to be able to double here if he thinks the opponents have bid shakily and are running into a bad layout. I thought about leading a diamond, a heart, or a trump, but finally decided that a diamond lead was "expected" on this auction and partner must be prepared for it, so that's what I chose. As you can see this was not a success: [hv=pc=n&s=sahq85432dq43ck93&w=skq52hakjdjt5ct76&n=sjt98763h9da2caq2&e=s4ht76dk9876cj854]399|300[/hv] Partner was of the opinion that the double called for a heart lead, which I don't buy, but I probably should have led a heart anyway for the reasons that phil and others have outlined.

:D

[hv=pc=n&e=skq2hq943daqjcaj4&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp1cp1hp2np3np]133|200[/hv] Agree or disagree with 2NT? Now do you pass or correct to 4H? EDIT: Matchpoints

[hv=pc=n&e=s4ht76dk9876cj854&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1sp2hp2sp3cp3sp4sdppp]133|200[/hv] In the opponent's style, 3S is weaker than 4S would have been at North's third call. Your lead?

How are your HCP "badly placed"? AK AKQ seems pretty well-placed to me, even with the strong hand on your left. Anyway I think I would have bid 3C the first time around, but that might not be best. Now you're really stuck, considering you are probably making ten tricks in hearts opposite as little as xx KT9xx xxx xx. Agree with Hanoi5 that double is kinda ugly but that's probably what I would try.

:blink: Bit of a disconnect here JB. I would recommend that you ask your partner to actually learn the convention before classifying it as her favorite. That really isn't meant to sound harsh; I just don't understand this mentality of adding "gadgets" to your convention card just because you can. Conventions are supposed to SOLVE difficult bidding problems, not create them.

I don't understand your thread title Ben, were you expecting "lead the ♣4" or something? :P

What jmcw said. I would double, planning on rebidding 1NT over any 1 level response except 1H. Anyone who bids 2NT directly with such a hand is indeed playing a very nonstandard treatment.

EW lost the board, I think both players are partially to blame. I'm not really high on the 4H bid; a 5332 hand often won't play as well as you think, and isn't really a preemptive shape. I would have treated the West hand as a four card limit raise. East would certainly have bid the fourth though, given the chance. Maybe West's bid somehow influenced East's thinking, but I still can't understand bidding on with an excellent defensive hand like East's.

As others have said, of course you should not reprimand your teammates for "missing" 4S. To me, the only pair that really deserves criticism in the postmortem is the EW pair from the other table, for inexplicably selling to 2H; that is a far stranger decision than not bidding game with the EW cards.

2S. Fibbing a little is okay if you have no good alternative, but here that isn't the case. This hand looks more suit-oriented anyway with all those nice controls but no spots. You can get to notrump if that's the right strain.

This doesn't follow. In the example hand you cite, 1H promises only four hearts, so the support double allows responder to know immediately whether there is an eight card fit. In the OP's hand, the 1S bid shows 5+ spades, so it's OPENER who knows immediately that there is an eight card (or better) fit. It's a very different kettle of fish. As for whether the double in the OP should or shouldn't be a support double, I don't really know. Without discussion, I would assume as wyman and others do, that it's not; but I also don't see any strong reason not to play them here as well, since, as Frances alluded to, it might be valuable in the face of further competition for partner to be able to distinguish an eight card fit from a nine card fit.

1. [hv=pc=n&s=st4h754da2cqt7642&w=saj9832hkdj75cak5&n=sq7hqj9832dt93c93&e=sk65hat6dkq864cj8]399|300[/hv] What do you think of partner's chosen sequence? We don't play Serious/NS 3NT, so he was probably worried about making a move over a possible 4S bid from me if he had bid 3S rather than 3C. Obviously it's a marginal slam but it does have the virtue of making. At the table I passed; +480 was the result at almost every table, and nobody bid the slam. 2. [hv=pc=n&s=sa97haj8d8cqj9732&w=sk86432h63daqtc65&n=sjtht742dj764ca84&e=sq5hkq95dk9532ckt]399|300[/hv] It looks to me like 3S is the right answer double dummy, but double would have gotten all the marbles at the table, since declarer managed to hold himself to seven tricks. I think I should have predicted that. I passed; +100 was a poor matchpoint result. 3. [hv=pc=n&s=saj843hqj83dj7ct4&w=sk6hakt7542dat86c&n=s75hdk94cakq98762&e=sqt92h96dq532cj53]399|300[/hv] Do you think East has enough to double 5C to warn partner off? Obviously I didn't at the table, but I thought it was close. FWIW, neither of us believed this was a forcing pass situation. Partner elected to pass out 5C; +200 was, again, a poor result.

The only reason to open anything other than 1S in first seat is if partner is barred from the auction for some reason. Then I would open 4S.

I agree completely; rather than strategical considerations, however, against this particular opponent, my partner might feel (and I would agree) that it's important for constructive reasons to make a bid that reasonably describes your hand before he has a chance to muck up the auction by making a two level vulnerable overcall on Jxxx, or bidding and rebidding a three card suit, or any of the other things we have witnessed (those are both true stories BTW), even if the bid falls just a bit outside the usual parameters for the partnership. Some of his shenanigans can be put down to poor eyesight (I have several times seen him put down dummies with suits misarranged, where the actual distribution bears no resemblance whatsoever to what he described in the auction).

How about Spinal Tap's "Break Like the Wind" instead?

Last night I played with Bob. Steadiest guy I know.

Maybe you misread the auction. West's third bid was 3C, not 3S.

To Gerber, or not to Gerber, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler at the table to suffer The bids and misbids of outrageous conventions, Or to take arms against a sea of complications, And by opposing end them? To go set, to misplay, No more; and by a misplay to say we end Our partner's anguish, and the thousand terrible auctions That the partnership is heir to: 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wished. To go set, to misplay; To misplay, perchance to squeeze one's self -- aye, there's the rub: For in that butchery of contracts what endplays may be missed, When we have shuffled off these matchpoints onto the floor, Must give us pause -- there's the respect That makes calamity of so long a session at the club. For who would bear the taunts and scorn of partners, The director's wrong, the pseudo-expert's contumely, The pangs of ignored suit preference signals, the Law's misapplication, The insolence of opponents, and the spurns That patient merit of the LOLs takes, When he himself might his contract make If only he could count to thirteen?

Well, it's Friday, which means that my partner and I had the chance to butcher a few hands at the local club last night. Actually we got most of them right for a change, but there were a few close decisions. Matchpoints: 1. [hv=pc=n&e=sk65hat6dkq864cj8&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1dp1sp1np2d(art%20GF)p2sp3cp3np4sp]133|200[/hv] Are you worth a move? 2. [hv=pc=n&e=sq5hkq95dk9532ckt&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2spp3cpp]133|200[/hv] Partner favors a sound weak 2 style, but he might take liberties against these particular opponents. South is the most random player in the club and a very poor cardplayer. Whether you agree with East's initial pass or not, what now? 3. [hv=pc=n&w=sk6hakt7542dat86c&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=4cpp4h5cpp]133|200[/hv] As aggravating as it is, that's how it went. North is a poor player, and vulnerability probably didn't figure into her decisions thus far. Anything more to say?