SteveMoe

2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - 3♥ showing control card 3♠ - 4♣ 4♦ - 4♥ 4♠ - 5♦ 7♥

If the first double is penalty, then so is the second. If it is responsive, then the second suggests greater strength. Classical is penalty, modern is responsive.

You missed the ♦ pitch on the ♣Q

Opener looks to be 1=4=3=5. Trump cuts ruffs.

Check this out - http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/1c-or-1d/

Ace and another. Good players don't bid 2♦ on garbage. The lead allowed us to rid a loser. NO reason to risk a ♣ ruff unnecessarily.

Sure, you have to have the ♣K onside and you have to hold trumps to 1 loser (edgy missing the K & 10). Not sufficient success likelihood to bid it (Marshall Miles advocated bidding any slam that is a WORST on a finesse), but this will be far from the worst slam you'll ever find yourself in. Maybe I am influenced too much by the double dummy presentation, but conservative play should make six, no? On the lead of the ♥4, I'd be thinking that someone is short - because I have ALL the tops. So you win in dummy and lead a trump toward your ♠QJ. RHO will likely duck. Now a ♣finesse (this has to be there) ♣A and ruff a ♣. ♠ to the A (noting the 3-2 split and the fall of the 10) and the 4th ♣ ruff. Now play out ♥s. RHO can win the trump K whenever. Dummy is high and you can get there. (If LHO wins the ♠K I play RHO for 10xx). Since I am in a poor slam and can "afford" one ♠ loser, I might as well play that suit to maximize my chances that I get only one loser. As for the bidding, I do not like the 4♦ splinter bid for reasons stated by others. However there aren't many other alternatives. Perhaps 2♥ lying about my ♣ length then followed by a jump in ♠ - maybe partner will field this maybe they wont. However it will stop partner from thinking you have more in the Black Suits.

♠ A poll perhaps?

If double is relay, then south has to be ready to reopen with a double when LHO is preempting and South is short. Have to pass and hope partner reopens with that double. Might consider if relay should be on only when LHO does not preempt.

Assuming (1♦}-X-(1♥)-1♠ (P) - ?? 1) The minimum for partner's 1♠ response to a TOX is 3-7 HCP and 4 ♠ cards. Matter of agreement. ♠Kxxxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣xxxx is a fair, stretching minimum. With ♠Kxxx ♥x ♦xxxx ♣xxxx not so much. 2) 2♦ by the doubler is the strongest rebid possible - usually showing 20+. If partner returns to their original suit ♠ then intervenor can pass. Any further action by intervenor is GF. the hand you show is too weak for this. 3) 2♣ would be 17-19 natural. Can ELC apply when we are not at an equal level and opponents have mentioned 2 suits already? Don't think so. 4) Whether a responsive double by partner shows 4 ♠ or fewer is again a matter for partnership agreement. Many play the free bid shows only 4 so the responsive double denies 4 ♠. Regardless, you have a choice between pass and a simple raise to 2♠. Arguing for pass, you have a lot of power in their ♥ suit. On the positive side you have a 5-loser and working values. I'd raise to 2!S. I side with those who prefer a TOX here because your hand can play in any of three suits, and it makes major suit exploration easier. 2♣ would imply a 6-card suit and an opening hand. Even with ♠Axx ♥AQ10 ♦xx ♣KQ10xx i prefer a double to 2♣.

Pass and await the opportunity to balance. If I were to act now it would be double, not 2♣

Double, values with no clear direction. Aka Negative.

Recall some recommend 2N to show that hand in case that's the last playable place. 3♣ is then pass or correct. Followup (flag bids) can identify the minor for game or slam.

2♥ Might be on 3 cards. Max 14 Support Points. 7 losers. Balanced or unbalanced. 3♥ Minimum 4 trumps. Likely Balanced. Generally 15-17 Support Points. 5 or 6 losers. Some say must be 4225 shape. Depends how you use jump reverses.

♣A then ♥3 appeals (more than a trump from the table).

Over 2♠ this can well be a cooperative penalty double, showing a max 1NT call and asking partner to look at their hand and decide. This goes hand in hand with 2N as "2 places 2 play". Over this double, partner can return us to 2N or bid a minor at the 3 level when right, or pass for penalties if 200-300 is in the offing. Playing this as pure takeout is a bit incongruous as you have already announced values (and modest length) in this suit.

2/1 1♠-P-2♠-P 3♣-P-3♦-P 3♥-P-4♣-P 4♦-P-4♠-P 4N 2 Keys without 7♠ Once north fails to cue 4♥ south can accurately place the 2 key cards.

I would bid 1NT (Forcing) and jump to 4♦ unless partner shows ♥ or extra strength. I am absolutely certain that when the bidding goes 1♠ - (P) - 1N - (P) 2♠ - (P) - 4/5♦ - AP partner will invariably put down: ♠KQ9876 ♥J97 ♦ -- ♣AQ94

Hi Patroclo, One book (or pair of books) by Max Hardy (2/1 Game Force) defines hand strengths and fit lengths, and recommends ways to bid them. What I haven't seen is a full comparison of major raise approaches contrasting the plusses and minuses of each approach. Have you tried searching the archives of this site for help?

I'd originally thought that the prohibition was not about opening 1N with 4441, but about using any conventional responses when that is the agreement. I found the definition of a natural 1N to be a hand with no void nor singletons, and no more than two doubleton. If the agreement allows these features then the bid is conventional and requires an alert. Now it appears an agreement to open a 4441 as 1N is not permitted (unless 16+ and ostensibly forcing). Did I miss something?

See: http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1-NT-With-Singleton.pdf Sep 14, 2013.

When playing penalty doubles of 1NT, doubling in the balancing seat should be takeout. You values sit under opener's and it is more important to land in a 7+ card fit at the 2-level than let them play 1NT. DOUBLE.

This question is deceptively simple but impossible to answer accurately. Whether to attempt a squeeze depends on reading the cards and on whether the plan for the hand can find the necessary tricks with standard play. On those few occasions when the normal plans leave us 1 trick short, a squeeze or end play might be the only viable chance. Sometimes running long suits can induce a defensive error. Sometime the guards are split between both hands and the wrong hand discards the single guard, unaware partner had the other suit protected. Sometimes a squeeze works when a split or a finesse would have worked just as well. Usually I look for a squeeze when I do not have sufficient tricks, or suspect an overpriced might be lurking. I also look for squeeze possibilities when I can afford to postpone my choice. Finally squeezes can be useful to mitigate risk inherent in finesse and suit breaks. Keep in mind that squeezes by defenders are possible but very rare (managed to do it twice in over 12 years). The long and short for me is they are another tool in my toolkit. Like any tool, they are best used for the specific purpose intended. A good GLM says that average players would do better playing flawlessly on the 98% of hands and not worry much about the 2% that have squeezes and exotic plays in them. I am not sure where he got his statistics. I think the advice is sound.

Pass this takeout double. Thinking is an overbid. You have no ruffing values, and power in their suit. Expect carnage. Partner may act under pressure so shape might not be ideal for takeout.

Tempting to bid 4!h here especially at IMPs. However, all those small minor cards suggest we will not have finesses working. Pass seems unilateral, settling for less than our game bonus (we might take only 1 trump trick if partner is void) and opponents might make, as RHO's minor suit honors are working for declarer. I like 3NT here as it should land our vulnerable game bonus. This also tells partner that much of my hand is in their suit in front of opening bidder. That might be useful if partner has slam aspirations.