SteveMoe

Anthias-Bird speak to choice of suit, not a type of lead. What card to lead once the suit is chosen is on the convention card. I am quite sure we don't have to lead 4th from longest and strongest simply because we have a long suit. It has been expert practice to lead to partner's assumed "5-card suit" when defending 1N-3N (say) holding Qxxxx xxx xxx xx, a weak hand with no side entries. It's more likely a ♥ will set up winners partner has entries to cash.

IOU 1 Queen ;) Point well taken Mike.

A simple statement that delayed alerts have occurred allows the opponents to ask what they want to know. Offering unsolicited explanations seems wrong, but I might be splicing hairs here.

a.k.a. Rose Double - and right to the point! :blink:

I'm with the 2♦ bidders. Have always had concern when my suit is lower ranking than theirs. Doubling postpones and compounds the problem at my 2nd turn as this post shows. Have always considered o'call then double to be the equivalent power range as double then overcall, but not the same hand pattern. Overcalling then doubling implies 6 cards (with support/tolerance for the 2 side suits) while the double first (then new suit) implies 5 cards and implies nothing about the 2 side suits. Not sure how the auction will proceed with the 2♦ overcall, but I am willing to rebid 4♣ if necessary to anticipate showing the strong hand 6=4 pattern in the minors.

Yesssss.....should have said 6♦ Glad Ahydra et al. got it right... :blink:

Have only played Jump reverse = Splinter as GF - too much space used for invitations. Not sure if playing invitational strength here how best then to handle GF and GF+ hands of similar shape.

Generally respond to help based on loser count in the target suit. With 1 we go, with 3 we sign off. With 2 we can choose to counter help showing concentrated values 2T3 usually...to invite partner to help make a close decision. Of course, the counter has to be lower than 3M, otherwise we've forced game and told the opponents too much...

Yeah, mike777. I agree with the BW this time. I think language has failed to keep up with meaning. They have a point - standard terms no longer reflect what meanings are in context. This makes describing agreements and treatments less than clear. I also think the Takeout, Cooperative-Takeout, Cooperative-Penalty, Penalty classifications proposed are a step in the right direction. How many doubles can you name? Penalty, takeout, cooperative, cards/Balance of Power, responsive, maximal, negative, rose, thrump, positive, stripe-tailed ape, support, Lightener, bust(negative response to partner's 2♣ opener), invitational (5-7 HCP after partner's precision 1♣), lead directing, Ace showing, Rosenkranz, Snapdragon, unbid suit lead request (double of a splinter), find my ace partner, matchpoint, speculative, slam, ... Just clearing up how we talk about the first 5 on that list makes sense to me...

Yes, double. No thought of any other call.

My preferred NT response structure has 3♥ and 3♠ as 3=1=45 and 1=3=45 respectively, looking for slam. I would have expected to see something like: 1N-3♠ 4♦- 4♠ 4N - 5♥ 6♦ Having a mistake land them in an impregnable slam when the field can't get there is definitely unlucky.

Granted a pass is forcing, but opposite a LR+ hand, this hand is making 12 or 13 tricks. A 6♥ call by me now will "guarantee" a void in ♦ and show my 4 losers. Partner will know that slow strength in ♦ is wasted and will be able to advance to 7 with primes in the other 3 suits.

2245 is semi-balanced. 20 HCP and 4 losers. Primes in minors should alert us to the possibility of a minor suit slam. While 2N gets the value and approximate shape right, we can have our cake and eat it too by opening 1♣ and reversing into 2♦. Besides, if partner passes, we will be happy we didn't open 2N won't we....

Ben, The movie does a reasonable job presenting TO Doubles in a structured way. I quibble with the lack of detail how to handle problem hands for doubler and advancer. Nothing is discussed about 4333 hands with 12-14 HCP. Nothing is discussed about when a TOD in the 12-15 HCP range might be right with a 5-card suit. Nothing is discussed about double then new suit compared to overcall then double by the intervenor. The NT response ranges presume a very strong TOD compared to modern style (4441 and 10 Working HCP). The raise to 2M by doubler is shown as offering 4 card fit, not showing 17-19 HCP as many play. Little is discusses about competitive auctions. Nothing is defined about single jumps, double jumps (preempt or showing 5+ cards?) though there is much implied in the approach shown. Finally, the use of cue bids does not differentiate between auctions starting with 1 minor compeered to those starting 1 major (1 minor can be 9-11 44 majors or 12+ GF). There is no discussion of ELC, but that's not a beginner topic. There is no discussion of 1 level overcalls on 4 card suits to compensate when TOD is wrong based on shape. The bigger outage in my mind is the author does not discuss could be more explicit how TODs and O'cals work together in the intervenor's toolkit. Regards, Steve

Ben, Google Translate can give a rough idea of the text: (frame 1) The East forgot to do game try in ♦ and chose an aggressive epanadilosi ... 4 ♠. Unfortunately, the West had the ♣ A ♦ A instead of ordered by the East while purchasing the mans! Adam trump and East invited to make the shot. To get the contract must lose no more than 2 tricks in red color ... See how it actually played the performer! (frame 2) The East has already "died in MOP" ... and jammed her hand! But why? Probably because NOT MADE OF THE PLAN! Just scared .. not lose the ♣ A and pulled him throwing the fourth ♦ her hand, which could maitrarei as you see ... Let us see the sequel ... They way I see it, the text does little (even with a bad translation) to identify what the right plan should be (and how to think about getting there) and where the declarer went wrong. (I assume new text could be added trick by trick if the author wanted to). Not worthy. Regards, Steve

Agree to chorus - south is fully to blame. Adding one perspective - South could have redeemed a bad 3♣ rebid (2♠ is much much better) by bidding 4N instead of passing (18+ Balanced). North can count 6-7 tricks and will bid 6N.

What Steven said.

Hmmmm... I've got 3 strong cover cards (In and out valuation) Partner has 7 losers at worst. These are the limit raise hands that bid 4♥ opposite partner's 2♥ rebid and make.

No double. ♥ A. No tells.

Following Justin, I'll also cater to partner's imaginative raise on ♠xxxx ♥xxxx ♦AQ10x ♣x and bid 4♠. Partner simply saw the complementary singletons...

Win lead, small ♦ to A, push ♥10 toward Q (81.3% line for 5 ♥ tricks). Win return, draw trumps, ♠, ♠ ruff looking for ♠Q. If no 2 pitches on ♠, take ♣ finesse. Otherwise pitch ♣Qx on ♠J10. I put the probabillty at 81.3%(54% + 1/2(46%)) = 62.6% ...therefore I want to be in it regardless of conditions... BTW, guessing the singleton J with LHO or the singleton K with RHO is too much for me....

There's a lost approach that works well here - bid 2N showing 1)minors 2)Strong 2-suiter Then over partner's/opponent's continuation bid ♠ If opponents carelessly bid ♥ you can make a Michaels bid. 1N-2N-P-3♣/♦ P-3♠ (Strong 2 suiter) - P - Raise/3N (ask other suit)/Pass

Two variations suggest themselves: 1N-3♦ (55+ GF) 3♥ - 3♠ 4♦ Minorwood - 5♣ (2+Q) 5♦ - 5♥ 5 NT - 6♦/NT - Not have ♣Q Pass 1N-3♠ (splinter to BOTH minors...GF+) 4♦ Minorwood - 5♣ (2+Q) 5♦ - 5♥ 5 NT - 6♦/NT - Not have ♣Q Pass Not like the ♣ finesse for 7

Give partner 10 minor cards (55 or 64) and there are still 3 major losers to account for. Pass, hoping we can score our ♥K. Then discuss 1) The difference between X-Y-X and X-Y-Y patterns 2) Playing strength required for a 4-level free bid. Beginners want learn. I'd dwell on that more than the actual result.

NO. Never mislead in 2nd seat. Never take undue risk 2nd seat unfav. NO.