PhilKing

If I could be sure they never lead the ♠9 from K987 or similar, then I would drop the ♠T at trick one. The problem comes when North finds a diamond switch with ♠KQx ♥JTxx ♦QTxx ♣8x or similar, in which case I will struggle somewhat.

This hand produced a lot of hot air on Bridgewinners. Most of the comments focused on the alleged fact that North did nothing wrong (I broadly agree). But the main point for me is that had North explained better or not at all, declarer WOULD have made the contract, and surely that is what matters.

I think you need a new compass.

Why the poll? This is simply a matter of fact. From the booklet: "After opener rebids in a suit, a new suit by responder is forcing."

But what is your point? The sequences are essentially symmetrical (except they aren't, but bear with me) so what is the benefit. The difference is that my way avoids languishing in 2♥ when cold for slam in another denomination. I get to show hearts by bidding them and three suits by doubling - you do not always get a second chance when you overcall this strong. And the reason the methods are not symetrical is that at some point, a 4513/3514 hand becomes too strong to overcall whatever your style. I like to double when 2♥ can lead to playing there when cold for a grand somewhere else, this may be old-fashioned, but it stops the silly results. My method of of double followed by 4♥ if they boost to 4♦ is unambiguous - it DENIES 6 hearts (if it gets me to a 4-3 spade fit now and again, that is fine). Yours promises six hearts (or the equivalent) so you sometimes have to double with this shape and miss the 5-3 fit. Conversely, if I overcall 2♥ and then double, I promise 6 hearts and 3613 or similar. Also the 3631 hand strong enough to double then bid hearts is rare - it's a useful sequence that is massively underused in your scheme. I've produced booklets from my database generally consisting of 60 hands for nearly every preempt under the sun for my various teams which we bid and then compare with the original auctions, and by far the biggest technical error of even world-class pairs, is the massive underuse of takeout doubles on shapes like this (the biggest non-technical error is rampant overbidding with "slam invitations", but that is another issue).

I would typically be 3424 18+ or FG any for the sequence you describe. For me 3♥ after 2♠ shows " Good hand, maybe belongs in spades, maybe belongs in hearts, maybe belongs in game or maybe doesn't." B-)

I'm going to bid 4♥ - sue me.

I think double followed by bidding hearts should show this kind of hand - it is never done on a one suiter. After following with, say, 3♥, partner should not be inclined to raise on a doubleton. I don't object to 2♥ that strongly, but I know if I did it, I would play there with 7♣ making. :(

There's no significant difference I can fathom in p-p-1s-p-p-1NT and p-1s-p-p-1NT. I did a search on that auction and the results were pretty similar. I may post the hands later.

In the absence of a systemic solution, I try 3♦.

Sorry, edited.

Update: playing 1NT as the minors by a passed hand is definitely not standard at the top level. I did a search for this exact auction on "the database" and it occurred 7 times. Six occurrences were natural and one was for the minors. ♠KT72♥AKT4♦543♣T5 Result: -50 2NT (it was cold, but declarer took a no play line). 1♠ was making. ♠K62♥J98♦KT♣AT973 +430 in 3NT ♠KQ72♥K8♦T876♣K73 -200 in 1NT with 1♠ scoring 110. 1NT was unwise, imo, since we are short in the other major. ♠Q64♥KQ8♦8754♣A52 This auction occurred twice, resulting in +150 and +600. One of the two partners invited with 2NT holding ♠JT32♥AJ72♦A2♣QJ9. Game was a little fortunate in that diamonds were 5-2, but basically it's right to bid low count games when you are playing two against one (this is known in some circles as a Haggis sandwich). ♠J975♥AJ42♦J95♣KQ +120 as opposed to collecting +100 from 1♠. ♠QJ92♥QJ987♦J2♣ A3 An easy +630 with opener being the filling in a classic Haggis sandwich. Anyway the silver bullet is the hand where 1NT was used to show the minors: ♠K3♥J3♦8764♣AJ752 -420. The opponents gratefully bid up to 4♠, which was a good contract and cold on the lie because of their secondary heart fit. The bottom line is that if you protect with a moderate hand with fewer than three hearts you are highly likely to get a bad board. Think about it - if partner had 4+ hearts and a decent hand, he will generally have acted on the first round, so just be grateful the opponents have not found their best contract yet.

3NT is natural here because we have a great chance of shutting out the hearts if we have Axx. On the actual hand, I try 3♠, because I am lousy at guessing which minor to bid. I expect it to play pretty well, and 4♠ may be difficult to defend.

We've had this discussion before. I agree with GIB - 1NT should be 10-11 nat. Protecting with the minors is a rookie error imo - you are opening up a can of worms. You could usefully play it as hearts and a minor, I guess, but seriously, anything other than minor suit trash.

Against myself I would play for the squeeze, since there would be a zero % chance of the finesse working. Seriously, did people even read the auction?

Nice 2♦ opening. :blink:

FWIW double is not for takeout here. But anyway, I pass.

I feel like Gszes. :ph34r: Although he usually votes for "other".

LOL - I am the only 5♣ bidder.

Going up to him and telling him he missplayed it was possibly not inspired, particularly since it was the wrong Bilde. :ph34r:

I thought that was what Bayes' was for (applying it to real life - not the obfuscation bit, although that is clearly more common, and is in itself probably a good example of the Bayes' in action).

Most people I know play 2M as NF (notionally constructive) opposite a weak two, and partner is only supposed to bid on with a fit. With that in mind, nothing bad should happen if we bid 2♠. However, the "Dutch approach" of just blasting 4♠ a seemingly absurd tends to work very well on similar hands I have seen. It sounds crazy, but think of the problems it will give them if they play a takeout double style.

If you don't think partner is bright enough to work out that double followed by 3NT shows this hand, then you should overcall 3NT in the first place. Both players erred imo.

I think 2♦ then 3♥ (over 2♥) is right on values, but wrong on a more practical level. Partner will assume a singleton or void diamond is a bad holding and Qxx or Kxx is good, when the opposite is true, so you will get to game when it is bad and partscore when game is excellent. And 3♥ over 2NT is wrong for a more obvious reason. B-)

Bidding here with a weak hand is simply a rookie error. The standard meaning is that it shows 18-19 balanced (other agreements are available). With a weak hand it is normal just to pass.