lalldonn

It's very important to include whether or not partner is a passed hand, in my opinion. (I will use that as my lame excuse to not answer yet)

How could it be preemptive? That makes no sense. One opponent couldn't respond to an opening bid, the other opened 1♦ then passed over 1♥. I understand it's not some balanced 13 point raise since that would cuebid, but it still has to be an invitational type of hand. I would take it as a good playing hand like Kxx Jxxxx x Axxx, a limit raise based on shape. Also saying "by agreement" is a cop out. Who has an agreement about this auction? If you had to apply some agreement though I think it would be logical to consider it the same type of hand as P P 1♥ P 3♥, if you have an agreement for that one. That's another auction where there is a more common strong raise available and there is no need to preempt.

I suppose I interpreted your comment of rho finding out his partner has the red suits as suggesting they would find a bid at the 5 level. Obviously you meant it as helping him on the lead. I am also not totally concerned about that. He might find out his partner has the red suits and lead a diamond to let us make. He might lead a heart and find that lets us make (qx into declarer's kjx, kx i to declarer's ajx). If he has a 3C bid and you jump to game over it he will probably not lead a club since he will not think he is leading through your kxx or anything. I also think you underestimate the chances that they are in big trouble. They don't always find their best fit on these auctions. They may even be in the middle of a major misunderstanding leading to a disaster, rho making the same bid he would have made without partner's double, lho thinking this shows a genuine club suit and passing with the red suits. Or maybe 3C does show a genuine suit but lho doesn't pass with his 2551 and his partner is 2227. There are a lot of ways they can be in big trouble here.

Double then bid spades. Easy rule: When it goes (preempt) pass/double (new suit), doubling or bidding shows the same as if responder has raised the preempt instead. So double here is just takeout of hearts (or 3♠ would be natural), and you double followed by bidding a suit to show a good hand. I have yet to regret having this rule on a single hand ever. It also makes psyching by them a big losing strategy, since all he has done by bidding 2♠ rather than 3♥ is given you more available bids without taking away a single bid from you.

If you don't want to defend 3♦X then you can still bid 4♠ later. But maybe they will get to 3♣X or 3♥X so why not give them a chance first? I just don't see the point of bidding game now. What's the rush? Will the R/W opponents be able to successfully bid 5 of something on a hand they would have passed had we bid 4♠? That sounds extremely farfetched to me, in fact I think I'm being kind.

I much prefer double now to bidding 4♠ at this vul. We don't need many tricks to get a big penalty, we can always bid 4♠ later, and at this vul I hardly think they will bid 5 of a red suit.

Not sure that this matters, but the 2♥ bid showed 5+ spades 4+ hearts, not 5+ hearts 4+ spades. I know that seems contradicted by west's pass on the second round but it is true. West passed to try and force north to make an immediate decision and leave him more bids to make (indeed he chose 2♠) rather than send it back around to south.

Preemptive but very sound, then I would give an example hand that is typical or that he recently opened 3c with.

If I had played the way I did in my forums vs jec match we would have lost by 100 :P

Right, and obviously you want to run the reds opposite the blues, but the blues can't be opposite the platinums, so the suggestion of running reds opposite platinum would never work.

I just rebid 2NT always and keep things simple. They didn't overcall my weak suit so maybe the length is on my right and they won't lead it if I don't pinpoint for them. Also if I reverse and then partner rebids his major and I show three-card support in it, I don't want him to assume I'm short in the fourth suit. Jlall I had no idea you do this! I was gonna say Marshall Miles is the only one I know (knew) of who rebids the other minor on hands like this.

This kind of exemplifies the point IMO. Even though there was a similar amount to gain and lose, to win at MPs you can afford some 37% boards but you can not afford zeros.

Yes pass. Even if saving is right it will still lose to pairs that bought it in 4♠X, so going for a really good score by beating them has to be right, especially since it seems somewhat likely.

Not just underbid, but huge underbid? It looks completely normal to me.

I'll join the thick crowd. Might they not, just occasionally, bid 5♠ over 5♣? Might this particular south, just possibly, have bid 4♠ even if east had passed over 1♠ thus allowing east to double for penalty? Please don't flame me, remember I did say west should double instead of bidding 5♣! I will admit I'm in no position to criticize the new sim, because I got as far as "North at least 5 spades, at least 10 HCP" then laughed so hard I had to stop reading.

It sounds like you aren't very good at setting constraints on your simulations if they get that many complaints. But if it makes you feel better I can most definitely assure you, had you published the constraints without any results I would have made the same comment. (I do appreciate your creativity in shielding yourself from any criticism though. If anyone criticizes the sim they must be resulting!)

Nah it's just a matter of style. Think of it this way, if you hold this hand then any bid could be considered a "lie", so if 2NT is alertable then every pair should have to alert at least one bid on this auction. Besides, it's a natural bid. It shows a balanced minimum.

Lol at misleading opponents by showing them your hand. That is so incredibly harmful to them to see your hand! Now you get to be assured they won't lead the suit solving your 2-way finesse, instead they will lead another suit and stop signalling as well.

Um yes? Lol

After seeing hand in other thread, double was lol.

Oh sorry on my phone i didn't see all the replies. I guess I just don't want to be barred from doubling if I don't have support is the problem.

I want to know how gnasher would define it. i'm genuinely curious since it is an idea that may have merit.

That is one of the worst constraints for a simulation i have ever seen. And east's double is still awful.

3nt and south not doubling 3nt (and then 4d) are the worst calls imo. The defense just strikes me as lazy. Thinking about declarer's hand should lead to south getting this right and collecting his 200, but if he looked only at his own hand without thinking beyond that then I can see why he thought yay I will set up hearts with all these entries!

(I mean 5♦)