PhilKing

1NT.

I was intending to bid 3♠ then 4♦ - that must strongly imply this shape (the "impossible" raise traditionally showed Hxx). Partner should realise his hand is a lot better than it might be now.

If it comes back at 4♠, we are better placed having opened 1♦.

a) 3♠ (seems obvious) b) 3♦

Even in Acol world, a reopening double at the three level show, of all things, a takeout double (and therefore 5 hearts) - not a balanced hand.

It makes sense to base your response structure around hands where you have made a take-out double on an eight count and the next hand passes.

That's not really where the emphasis lies. In ugly competitive auctions, responder tends to act quite light in the knowledge that he is facing extra strength or extra shape. Opener would not just reopen with 3NT just because he has a balance 16 count. This applies to any standard system that uses a weak no trump - not just acol. Not that double is a perfect solution, but I think we have reached a level where it does not guarantee the other major.

5-11 1NT. Sounds playable. :ph34r:

FWIW, I think anything resembling a decent 10 count NT hand should jump to 2NT, playing for the "Haggis Sandwich". You don't need 25 points for game when RHO is close to broke. If I can dig out the 1♦-x-(pass)-1♥ thread from a few months ago, we can see what happens when you bid a three-card suit. My view was that in that particular auction, there was a cased for playing 1♠ as an extra values scramble (suggested by Rainer). Failing that, I just think it leads to heaps of trouble. However, I can't find the thread.

FYP. B-)

In general I would pass, but against some top-level USA pairs, I would go for 4♠. One of the justifications is that our diamond length makes it unlikely that they will have the right shape for a pure takeout double, and they tend to play a style of double that, in my opinion, is way too oriented in that direction. The Dutch are the chief perpetrators of openings such as this in my database - and it is notable that they tend to loosen their requirements when playing against pairs that play a pure takeout style.

1NT - unless playing the Ostrich system. :P

If we have two winners in a major (or a probable two tricks as here), partner is basically known to be broke, so how can he guess right unless we have a firm agreement? Here, the "lead the shorter major" agreement works well, but it falls down in many other situations where partner has similar holdings. I prefer the certainty of the "lead a spade" agreement, for this generic situation. The corollary, is that when partner does not double and I am broke, I will tend to fish out a heart lead.

South has 6 losers that need covering, so there should not be too many hands that pass 2♠ where game is good. I don't regard 3♠ as being remotely worthy of even meriting discussion.

It was Mike Lawrence and Hugh Ross in Jamaica 1987.

If 2♠ is forcing, surely it is 18-30 so it's even more forcing. I would bid 2NT under the conditions. However, in my opinion, it is absurd to play 2♠ as strong here, but I know I am in a minority when it comes to doubling 1♦ with a weakish 5404 shape. While I'm at it, 1NT showing 7-10 is an example of the Ostrich system - it only works on the basis that you never get dealt fewer than 7 points.

We've seen this honour structure for North in two previous threads. I was a lone voice for jumping to 3NT as I recall, then someone dug up an almost identical hand where Fred did the same. I would suggest that a jump to 3NT should show this hand type - two aces plus a spade honour. The point is you have 9 tricks opposite AKxxxx plus the heart ace or a min suit king. It's slightly easier if you play constructive twos in a major, so 1M then 2M is known to be pretty sound. As an aside, I think 2NT over 2♠ should be forcing - if we are not playing in game, it is usually right to prefer 3♠ to 2NT, and the forcing treatment allows us to explore strain more efficiently.

I don't don't see this one dividing the BBF consensus - we are all lemmings. Easy 4♥ for me.

Maybe double followed by 5♠ (over 4♥) is the way to go if we aim high - that will get us to 6♠ or 6♣ when it's right. I think it's pretty close between that and a direct 4♠.

I don't have the functionality to do it on my database, but maybe soon.

I think it's better for partscore, game and slam! The advantage would be tiny playing Acol, where the 1NT response has the narrowest range. But as far as I can see there are no downsides when compared to Lebensohl. In Acol, 2NT nat NF might well be best.

It's not even a slam try in my book - it shows game values with 4♠ and 5+ clubs.

I think you have misread - the PASS of 3♥ is nuts (we have yet to see the hand that BID 3♥).

That's exactly what a troll would say. B-) Note - the above is an inappropriate attempt at humour.

I like it a lot. I played it as natural or weak with the lowest unbid suit. The beauty was, you can play the same response structure as you usually play with just a few tweaks. Sadly, the method is not allowed in WBF events - the wording for some two-way bids was changed recently, so methods such as a 2♦ multi overcall over 1♣ are also now illegal.