ARTjoMS

lol, you are talking about arguments after your previouats post? Now you are giving an argument that says playing 1N doubled or redoubled is not going to get positive score and only conclusionthat comes from this is that one should look for alternatives in 2nd level. Your argument is, however at least 2-sided from which one you like to ignore: opponent is leading in the dark and in strong hand, he might as well blow up a trick. One must be careful giving such a statement, especially if you don't have a data to support them (not DD obv). If there is something i dream about in nights then these are woman, a dream of non vulnerable 1Nx-1 for -100 earning an IMP is yet to come. Yes, i am convinced. However i doņ't get your statement about objectiviness. Time ago when i was playing pass=''to play'' i was objective, but after testsing and improving methods, discussions and excessive numbers of analyzed/played hands i come to conclusion that some other method is clearly superior...and now i am subjective? I doubt you can say that you are being objective, and saying someone is not objective while he is not objective himself is ridiculous, just shows lack of intelligence. I find this very optimistic after your lead initiative argument. I wanted to say in your lead directing argument that hands i go for 1Nxx might not be same as those that you go for 1Nx (and you shouldn't assume so), but now i see they really are pretty much same. Dude, you are the one giving arguments that there must be way to go for 1Nxx. Opponents will chicken out more often, opponent errors and you say no word about possibility to go down for more than 1. I guess these were those ''noobs'' other poster mentioned.

+100 is ridiculously good score for opponents (not to mention +300)in such an auction, they didn't need to risk playing in 2nd level to get plus and opponents might as well be making something easily in 2nd level.

I think it is pretty obvious that using words like ''gamde bidding'' i clearlly meant IMPs, (not sure why someone quotes me and makes arguments based on different scoring) if someone wants to build his system for MPs he can do it, i don't care, however most systems if they are not universal are built for IMPs. 1N-[x]-P-[P]-xx-[P]-P-??? you must be kidding me, +200 or -560 opponent is thinking... no pressure lol? he is far more likely to pull somewhere rather than after responders pass suggesting to play, where he is safe not to give away much, while safely keeping chance to collect a number. Also runouts after this method is far way better than after Pass=to play. To helene_t, but you do realise obvious downside that opponent will be immediately forced to decided if he wants to play XX or not,... before knowing whether opponents are really going for redouble or just running. I wouldn't make such an ageement and have never heard anyone using such.

1N X -1 is very unlikely to be a good score especially vulnerable, you are likely able to make more tricks in suit contract and it is more difficult for opponents to double. It is plainly stupid to play 1N doubled if you think you have no chance of making, but if you think you have chance to make you want to go for +560 or +760 instead of +180. It is like bidding game, just with way better percentages. Opponents will be under way more pressure after 1N-[X]-P-[P]-XX-P-P-? comparing to 1N-X-Pass(to play).

No. You don't want transfers in this situation, especially to minor. 2♣ is too rare. You should pay more attention to 4M4m+ hands as well as looking for a possibility to stop in 2nd level with 5card minor.

What south had in ♥?

Douh. Get life. This hand was posted as a play problem in other forum without mentioning bidding. I'm not even sure if this hand was ever really played in real life. And cherdano already gave the right answer.

This. But i will add that exactly ♠5-2 is the problematic layout, and taking into account vacant spaces odds changes to something like 4:3.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakthak2dkqjcak32&n=s432h43dt432ct654&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=3nppp]266|200|Lead: SQ[/hv]

Pass. 5♣ needs a lot from partner, if we have them partner is likely to bid something anyway. Also we don't have high enough ODR to aim to win part-score battle, i think it is obvious that it is more likely that both 3♠ and 4♣ goes down comparing to both making. Besides LHO is in comfortable position to double us (or evalulate his hand better whether to bid 4♠ or not). And.. even if we have game, 3♠ will probably go down more than 1, so we can't talk about 37,5% game bidding.. not even close.

It is not about 4♠ making or not, it is about whether we have 10 tricks after it goes Pass-Pass-Pass, respectively partner passes. I dislike ♦ xx, opponents will lead there and if partner doesn't have singleton (in which case he is likely to act anyway), there should be 2 fast losers. Of course he cannot imagine that we have that good ♠ suit. But we are 5421 13-count. I think this is clear 3♠, if we have 4♠ partner will bid them most of the time anyway. And it keeps 3NT in picture.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqjt3h5d76ckt86&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3d]133|200|Pair tournament[/hv] I bring this here from local forum, where the most respected players said that 4♠ is the bid. Is it?