SteveMoe

1)♦A; alt= "I was going to bid that". 2)Either ♠Ax or ♠Kx (conventional). Alt: strength (9+) with no clear direction.

Pass. Missing honors rate to be offside with RHO.

Thanks Bill. Had played this in mid-chart events before but now I'm not sure it's even allowed there.

...that means partner can't miss! I have misgivings about partner making a speculative pass of a double here. Will pass partners 3-level advance.

2N 2 places to play...

Rise Ace, draw trumps and pitch a losing ♠ on the 3rd round of clubs. You didn't get a ♠ lead so guarantee 5 and win the match on the next board.

See no reason to bid other than 3♦ showing shape. (2♠=GF). Over an expected 3♥ punt can now call 3♠ setting up the rest of the auction. 3♠ over 2♠ will torture a 3=5=2=3 partner.

1) Meaning for 2♠ depends on how you respond with 4=x=y=5+ patterns. If 2♣ denies 4 spades, then 2♠ shows extras. If not then opener is simply bidding their pattern. Opener's 2♥ cue bid may be their strongest call. I prefer the pattern bid here and for me 2♣ does not deny 4 spades. 2) No real interest in Moysian given ♥ values so 3N shows this hand.

Double then ♠. Need very little from partner for 6 to have play.

Check out http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=54

Pass. My 9 losers won't make game unless partner has substantial extras. Partner needs 4-5 losers. Pass is the only way to find that out. Would consider a double IFF we need a top. Cannot find a double at IMPs.

Nope. Pass then balance. ♦Q wasted. Like partner to know if they hold 2T3 in my suit I promise an opening hand.

I've found Lawrence and Wirgren's arguments thought provoking but with a poor foundation as to why SST translates to tricks. They were irritated by the correlational nature and poor accuracy of the LoTT. Their solution is a bit too complex for execution at the table, and lack a compelling causal argument. Working Points can be hard to estimate. Steve Bloom has presented a thoughtful analysis and models tricks based on two suit fit at http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-theory-of-total-tricks-part-i-history-and-application-2/ This is the first of seven linked articles. Steve's approach is compelling because it's simple and usable at the table, with few inputs that are accurately known. He also offers a plausible cause-effect framework. Food for thought.

Pull, concerned they will find a making slam in their massive two suit Majors fit. Will bid 6♣ hoping to avoid a ♣ ruff in a ♦ contract.

LoTT is a tool for estimating available tricks. As such it applies to both versions of the game. What action you choose to take with that information will depend on the form of scoring.

Cooperative penalty showing ♥ shortness and likely 2 or more cards in ♣. We are in a GF. No takeout doubles here. Not just a pure penalty double (H(H)xx(x)) with 4 or more ♣ cards because that's too rare.

I've learned to hate 2N as pure inquiry about the minor. Instead we bid some number of ♣ pass or correct. This allows 2N to be a 3 card major raise LR+. 3♥ would be a GF raise with 4 cards. I'm ok with the auction through 4♣. Now East can simplify: [hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h2hd2n3h4cp4dp4hp4sp5cp6s]133|100[/hv] Might be a path forward. Yes, the 6=0=1=6 shape is worth one more try past 4♠.

Seems right to double 2♦ allowing partner to pass with GF ♣ hand or rebid 3♠ with 3-card invite (I'll bid 4). The rebids available allow adding the penalty double as if pard had bid 2♣ natural GF. North wont sit for this double, but there are hands where it's the best place....

1) West 2) South

Depends. For some, 3♠ shows 4-4 Majors GF. For others, 4-4 is shown by NMF 3♦ first asking partner for 4♥, 4♠, 3♥ in that priority order. This will right side ♠. 3♦ is always NMF regardless which minor opener started with. Be sure to discuss this.

The double says "I want to bid 6♦ but defer to you partner in case you can double 5♠" so partner must bid 6♦ with no defense. 6♦ is right here.

Double = Optional penalty showing 3 card trumps (with an H) and confirming balance of power (23+ HCP combined). With shorter trumps partner bids to the 3-level and doubles 3♠ if necessary.

4=4=3=2 Ought not be DISP/Cooperative as partner is a passed hand and you opened in third seat. Bid 2♦.

Like everything else, it depends on your agreements. For example a common set of agreements has: 1♦ - 1♠ F1R (Forcing One Round) 1♦ - 2♠ Weak...................Alts: Inv+ 5♠ & 4+♥; Strong J/S; 1♦ - 3♠ Splinter for ♦........Alts: Preemptive; Fit Jump 1♦ - 4♠ to play..................Alts: Fit Jump; Exclusion KCB (often a 3x jump); Some simply define a splinter as any double jump to a new strain in response to an opening bid, or a single jump in a forcing auction when a non-jump response is forcing. Then of course there are mini-splinters, mini-maxi splinters, and hidden splinters.

The issue I've had with both the LoTT and Lawrence/Wirgren is both are descriptive/correlational, not causal, in how they relate tricks to fit/shape/power. Steve Bloom did a better job in his 7 part Theory of Total Tricks series March 2013 - http://bridgewinners.com/article/series/theory-of-total-tricks/ What I believe Steve was able to do is define tricks in terms of our side's 2 suit fit and the purity of our hands. This comes closest to cause of any approach I've seen. Pure hands TT=SF+3 while impure hands TT=SF+2. Steve concludes "counting short suit losers and using second fit gives a better estimate of total tricks than counting the number of trumps".