S2000magic

When our younger son was about 5 years old he observed that dogs' taste buds were different from ours because if they were the same, we'd like dog food. There's a restaurant in Yorba Linda, CA that serves wonderful posole. I'm headed home tomorrow and will have to go there for lunch next week.

Pass and lead a high heart. I have the ♣K as an entry, so I'll lead high.

Both 2♦ and 2♠ show this? Seems wasteful.

How about a double, or either cue bid (2♦ or 2♠)? As you can see, I'm trying to narrow it down to it-can't-mean-that-because-this-other-action-would-mean-that. Thanks for all the good posts, by the way!

If 3♣ shows this, what would 2♣ show?

I gotta agree: I'd use 3♠ competitively (not as a game try) here. There are other (and better) invitations; you don't need 3♠ to invite game.

While I agree with you that it's a style that is playable - and has its share af adherants, including some of the best players in the world - the argument that "if they play it, it must have merit" isn't particularly strong. The strong argument would be to outline those merits.

I should be taking notes, shouldn't I?

RHO deals and opens; here goes: (1♦) - Dbl. - (1♠) - 3♣ Without having discussed this auction with your partner (this is the first time you've played together), how would you interpret partner's 3♣ bid? Put another way, what do you believe is the "standard" interpretation of 3♣ in this auction?

You have a PM.

After opener bids over the double, I wouldn't dream of bidding 2♠ on this hand, but I concede that it's a matter of style. (Partner will have another chance to speak, which he'll do if he's strong.) If my partner knows that I'd 2♠ on this hand (and he's not a lunatic), we're probably fine.

I, for one, would not have overcalled 1♠; the suit's too weak for my taste. Move the diamond honors to the spades and I'd overcall. As for what to do now, this is interesting in light of a conversation I've been having with my favorite partner about adopting an idea of Robert Ewen's: a balancing double is made with the same shape/strength requirements as a direct double. (I won't go into all of the arguments and ancillary agreements here; he presents his ideas well in Doubles for Takeout, Penalties, and Profit.) With that agreement, partner wouldn't have strained to double, and this is a fine 2♠ bid. Partner will know that I'm bidding because I have something worthwhile (the 2♣ bid relieved me of the obligation to bid), and if he raises me to 3♠ (showing 17 - 19 points or so) I'll happily continue to 4♠ as I would have bid as I did without the ♦K. Opposite a partner who might have strained to double, I'd still bid 2♠ (knowing that it might be too high); I'd expect partner to raise to 3♠ only with 17 - 19 points, so I'd carry on to 4♠ over 3♠.

February 29, 2012: The Monkees' Davy Jones. He brought a lot of joy into the world.

On that auction I'm pretty sure that redouble isn't a game try. ;)

I can't see anything beyond a double at this point. Your hand isn't unbalanced, partner's hand doesn't sound unbalanced (no ♦ or ♥ bid), so you're better off defending.

So . . . where's this other hand? (I need to capitalize on all opportunities to offer sound advice; I so rarely do. ;))

Sorry about that. See my edits above. I was commenting on multiple topics simultaneously and got my "streams crossed." :-) All the funnier when you notice that you quoted my post before I realized that I'd written "doubleton diamond" when I meant "doubleton heart". ;)

Well, 8, but your point is right on the money. (If you're counting each 10 as 0.5 HCP then you're even more precisely on the money.) A = 4 Q = 2 K = 3 Total = 9. ;) (But thanks for the "right on the money" comment.)

With only 9 HCP, only fair spade support, a doubleton in hearts, all my HCP points in 3-card suits, and a horrible 5-card suit, I'd pass.

I'd forgotten about this, but you bring up a good point. I've found that giving them examples of famous people who are (or were) bridge players helps: Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Martina Navratilova, John Wayne, Chico Marx, Omar Sharif.

An algebraic topologist is a combination of the topologist and algebraic geometer - don't let them anywhere in your home, ever! Ouch!

You missed algebraic topology, which is my favorite branch of mathematics.

Pass. Quietly.

If you blast sometimes and use science sometimes, does that make you a Scientologist? ;)

I describe the game backwards, and leave out a lot of details. One of the players will lead a card, players have to follow suit in order around the table, the highest card of the suit led wins, and that player leads the next card. That's a simple idea to grasp. Then I'll mention that there could be a trump suit, and that one of the players' hands will be face-up on the table. After that I'd describe the bidding in general terms (you and partner are trying to decide how many tricks you can win, and what suit should be trumps). I would never try to explain the scoring to a non-bridge-player who asked casually. While it's unquestionably the heart of the game, I think that it adds too much complexity for a beginner. I'll mention the scoring, and that there are opportunities to increase the stakes (those familiar with poker, blackjack, craps, or even backgammon will find that a familiar note), but not explain any of the details.