SteveMoe

Sometime the random play happens in your own pair.... In the Finals of a 2-session barometer pair event at the Indianapolis Regional in March we jumped off to a 2 board lead. I found myself not wanting to look at the scoreboard after that because I wanted to stay focused and continue playing at the edge, not beyond it. Mid-round, we erred and the impact on our score caused 2 more in quick succession - we succumbed to the temptation to overcompensate (big error). We got back on course and managed to finish second OA in a reasonable field, one board behind the leaders. Had we ignored the scoreboard - who knows. I was surprised how the format became unappealing to me as our game strengthened. I did not enjoy the distraction that access to the scores caused me. I looked at the board the first round and not once after that, even with my partner pleading that I do so. I was not surprised how most pairs could not keep their eyes off the scores posted after every round. That said I think it's a great form of the game and it does induce unexpected variation - not all from the opponents!

I think the right perspective is to consider your possible rebids when partner makes an inconvenient response. Holding ♠AQ2 ♥2 ♦K432 ♣K5432, a 1♥ response might seem inconvenient but many would continue with 1♠ comfortably... With ♠2 ♥AQ2 ♦K432 ♣K5432, a 1♠ response is cumbersome but 1N rebid by opener offers only modest distortion. It's the 2=2=4=5 hands where opening 1♦ helps by preparing a rebid when the major doubletons are weak. With Kx Kx in the majors a 1NT rebid is not a distortion. With xx Kx you have to hope for a ♠ reply or risk 1N with xx there (ugly). ...all to avoid rebidding a 5-card minor, particularly when Hxxxx or similar. So the answer is a matter of context, not rule. It's fairly easy to play that 1♦-1X-2♣ by opener shows 4=5 or 5=4.

Can make several approaches work. Here's a simple one: 1N = 8-11 balanced no fit. 2N = 12-14 balanced Cue bid (decide style): 1) Limit Raise or better (Fit promised) or 2) Limit Raise or better -or- any GF (Fit implied) Some play jump cue bid as constructive 4-card raise (7-9 w/4-card support). I've played jump cue as 4 card invitational raise, leaving simplle cue for 3-card support and GF hands.

Too bad opener didn't risk a 2♣ rebid. Tough hand. Imagine the auction: 1♠-1N 2♣-2♥ 2♠-3♦.... Opener appears strong enough to bid as a "strong" 6=4...

Concepts like Short Suit Total and Working Points as they translate to total tricks can be very interesting. Wirgren & Lawrence is a source and so is Andrew Gumperz. Check out Evaluating Hands for Slams.

Interesting variations from the previous posters. I play 1m-3m as preemptive in m, and 1M-3M as stopper ask. Once had the auction (1♣)-3♣-(4♣) all pass. Opener has 2, partner had 7 and responder was void - go figure. Ugly better describes their mood more than the result... (I thought the deck had at least 18♣s).

Negative double - when followed by freely bidding the OM we imply a tolerance for partner's suit. Pass-then-new-suit or WJS are available with no tolerance. (With a fit, I'd raise first and worry about ♠ later).

You've convinced me! Thanks for the insight.

Garrozzo's rule: It's not a singleton if I don't lead it.

Codo, we play 3♥ - 12-15 minus with 0/1 ♥ and 4♥ as 15 plus with 0/1 ♥

I'd feel pretty foolish if I duck a ♦ and they are 4-1. Better I suspect to cash ♦AK and if 3-2 pay a 3rd. That gets 10 tricks immediately. If not then we tightrope to 3-3 ♣ and finish with the ♠ finesse. I make the line to be 67.8% + .18(32.2%)= 73.6 or so. Returning a ♥ immediately might work to squeeze N in the minors, but then I can't test ♦s. It does produce 9 tricks whenever North holds Hx AND south cashes out - If south doesn't we have work to do...

We are saying the same thing. Forgive my poor words. By passing the double partner converts my sacrifice intention into a penalty. I do not expect partner to have much for the pass because of earlier bidding. However I do not want to unilaterally walk past the opportunity to play 5♦ doubled if partner has the hand for it and thinks it's better there than at 5♠ doubled. ♠ void comes to mind.

That's the ticket! What Mbodell says....

I'm agreeing and changing my answer to penalties. Had checked references and M. Bergen advocates Cooperative while Wolsey advocates penalty, implying shortness in partner's 2/1 suit. I think Kit's and your approach is better.

Double will tell partner I have a 5-loser and want to sacrifice but would respect a penalty pass.

We open 1M aggressively in all seats. I've played Reverse Drury Fit 2♣=4, 2♦=3 card support with good effect. With one partner we like 4 or 5 card majors in 3rd seat, so we play (2♣ shows 3 and) opener's 2♦ rebid reveals a 4-card Major (2M would show 5 cards in a sub-minimum opener).

Partner might be on as little as KQxxx xx KJxx xx for a 1-level overcall. 2♣ to see if s/he has a 7 loser hand before committing to 4♠.

You guessed it - I missed the original pass. Come to think of it I too would have opened this hand initially. There is an active discussion in Bridgewinners on doubling after passing RHO's opening big. My mind was still there... no offense taken.

Assuming Natural Bidding only: 4-9 HCP and 5+ ♦ cards. Weak-constructive and denies a fit. With xxxx xx AQxxxx x, 2♦ likely better than 1♠. Redouble 10+ implies no fit (might contain 3 card limit raise). 1 level forces 6+ HCP 4+ Cards, as if the double never happened. Note: Kaplan and Sheinwold advocated playing 2bids here are natural and forcing. Not see many do this anymore. Bergen Raises over Major and Double (BROMAD) changed the landscape a bit. So have transfer responses over takeout doubles. Both these approaches add value with fit bids that distinguish between weak, constructive, and invitational hands.

Not mandatory - purposeful. I always invite interference since I expect to gain more than I lose. Asking bids are cool if used with discipline. When they become a silver hammer, beware. You know you're holding a silver hammer when everything looks like a nail.

The hand shown is about a K too light to double now - this delayed double is a penalty oriented call, showing 14+ HCP and primary ♦. It is not a weaker or offshape takeout double. Doubling in the first round would be a flawed call but a better one compared to the delayed double. This hand is clearly off shape for a first round double. I am not advocating an immediate takeout double, just comparing the severity of the distortion. Some people overcall in a 4-card major at the 1 level. If you feel compelled to take an action with this hand, a first round 1♠ call seems better than either double, but I would prefer a Q or K more. Net, I would pass both times and hope partner can lead a ♠. Declarer has a rude awakening in ♦. BTW, the 1NT bidder likely holds ♣s.

Cyberyeti, Thanks. Since partner passed, I agree 2♠ cannot be forcing. That 1♦ is not forcing is irrelevant (see 1♦-P-1♠-P-2♥ = GF, though 1♦ is not forcing). With the hand you show, partner should pass. Over 2♣-3♣-dbl-[5cl] I can afford 5♦ with little downside. Over 2♣-3♣-Pass-[5cl] I can bid 5N pick a slam. Nige1, I might have missed something but 1♦-P-P-1N = 10-14 balanced and does not promise a stopper. In Precision, after 1♣-P-1♦ I do not think 1N is likely. Assuming 1N is bid, then I would venture a 3♦ bid.

I generally find that playing Italian asks work better in constructive auctions than in competitive auctions. If the interference does not change the level of the auction we play systems ON. If the interference changes the level of our bids, then we revert to natural bidding. You can always keep 4♣ as beta, too. So: 1♣-1♥-1♠-pass Opener can use the tool kit. You need to decide what 2♥ by opener would be here. 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♥ Natural bidding ensues. Practical experience says to turn off the asking bids in competition - easier to remember and avoids bigger errors.

Precisely. What we want is a way to differentiate pure penalty 4=3=4=2 or 4=3=5=1 from misfitting strength - 3=3=5=2 / 3=3=4=3. we can make a forcing pass with ♠ length expecting partner to reopen. We can double with 3 card ♠s to show a strong misfit. I apologize if the term BoP misdirects - not my intention. Partner's 2♣ bid establishes BoP and a force. This double is more useful as cooperative penalty. 3 trumps and tolerance at best for partner's suit. Rarely taken out, but responder should not expect a trump stack.

No. Given the circumstances I will bid 2♠ a reversw, and forcing on partner. better way to show my approximate shape. I intend to rebid ♦ inless partner raises or bids ♥s. If partner introduces ♣ i will rebid the minimum number of ♦ possible. Partner doesn't need much for 6 in a pointed suit to be possible. I prefer to open this 2♣. I strongly prefer to open this 1♣ precision....