PhilKing

FWIW I play 3♣ as GF here. This is how it works for me: 2♦ = puppet to 2♥ (opener bids 2♥ by default, breaks show outliers) 2♥ = invitational 2♠ - GF with ♦ values/suit 2NT = bat GF 3♣ = nat GF after 2♦-2♥: 2♠ = GF with spade values/suit 2NT = inv 3♣ = inv 3♦ = inv 4-6 There is various other exotica, but that is the gist of it. Back to the problem - I lead the diamond ace.

OP will probably go to hell. :ph34r:

Maybe Napoleon was right after all.

I don't think it works very well at all. Basic example: 1♣-1♠ 2♥-2NT 3♦ Where opener is too strong to bid 3♣. Now you have lost a round of bidding (and often wrong-sided 3NT) when responder had, of all things, a forcing 3♣ bid and you have also made subsequent bidding ambiguous. In lebensogh responder can bid 4♣ to show real filth with no diamond stop, but here you have to cater to responder having strength as well. Now if you were suggesting: 1♣-1♥(spades) 2♦(hearts) you would be cooking with gas.

Doesn't work so well with screens. B-) I quite like the method in weak or average fields, but it is basically flawed.

I think playing pass as forcing a redouble is really bad. It's not just that sometimes we are happy to play 1NT double when we have a moderate hand that might make and has nowhere obvious to run, it's that we give the fourth player a free pass when they have an awkward decision. Say they have balanced smeg - no problem. They can pass and see what happens, since sometimes their partner is very strong and we are running. And if it goes redouble-p-p they can bid 2♣ showing that exact hand (a weak hand with a five card suit runs immediately).

Yum, yum!

There are a few sequences like this where I like to play double as penalties - not because I think it will ever happen, but merely to stop partner from acting on horse manure.

I might be being a bit thick, but in my mind, a simple Bayesian analysis is a contradiction in terms. Take the -1.2 player: to achieve this against run-of-the-mill players would be an astounding feat, but to do so with a weak client against world-class opposition would be standard. For every "pro" that takes on the best with his donkey, there are 10,000 astoundingly bad players but they are usually playing against eachother - that's Bayes', and that shifts the odds.

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you have any proof? FWIW I have evidence from "the database" to the contrary. Lauria/Versace, Meckstroth/Rodwell and Helgemo/Helness, for example, play the sequence as a splinter, but they are all fish. :rolleyes:

Amazingly, they could manage it - after all, they are not stupid. But they believe it is better not to.

Best use for 3♦ imo is to show exactly 18-19 bal with 4 hearts (if such hands open 1♣.

There have been a few exceptions. Sometimes the director upgrades based on the quality of argument, and sometimes he upgrades because some of the other voters said they had sympathy with action x, but it is certainly rare.

If you think they might score 190, it pretty much proves you don't pass often enough when pard doubles 2m.

Anyway, I have seen worse. In the Bermuda Bowl quarters, Forrester perpetrated a splinter after the same start with: ♠J♥KT97♦AQ653♣AQ4. It did not end well. :ph34r:

I think 1♥-1♠-3NT should show this type of hand: six hearts, circa 20 points and stops - it shouldn't promise great, or even decent hearts. Since loosening up the requirements for this bid, I have seen about 10 good hands for the treatment, none for a tighter style, and it cleans up our jump shifts in a suit.

FYP.

Lacking a top trump you can bid 4♦ to deny a club control as well. Classifying higher bids as non-serious, serious or whatever is the bad part. The point is that if partner has limited his hand and I make a try, I ain't just blowing smoke.

There's no reason to just assume that all partner's cards are in the majors (although it is quite likely if East is solid). Just double. If Partner doubles 5m, sit it. Even against a rock who holds ♠-♥x♦AQJxxx♣QJxxxx), you can collect 1400 if partner has four trumps. If partner passes, we can then follow through with our read that he has length and strength in the majors. Don't bid an inept 6♥ though - you may go off on a ruff (and good pairs don't even need to double for the lead). With all the cards now "marked", you have 12 tricks in 6NT. Edit - Cherdano made the same points at the same time. :blink:

By bidding, er, 3♠.

Playing step 1 as non-serious when partner has limited his hand seems pretty bad to me. For me, 3NT is a trump cue bid, so I do that.

FWIW I would bid 4♠ here on a two card suit approximately never. I would double. Penalties is too strong a word - double shows a normal 2 over 1 with defensive values/shape.

Opposite a weak no trump, I would jump to 4♥ immediately. There's no particular reason to get opener to play it, and they may have a profitable spot in 4♠ (as here).

In the 2/1 auction, it is better to play 2♠ as artificial and waiting and 3♣ as a spade slam try (3♠ shows a spade raise with about 12 to a bad 15). 3♣ as 4th suit is not too bad - the situation is worse if our auction has started 1♠2♣2♥, since 3♦ makes it impossible for partner to give preference to clubs and still keep no trumps in the game. Partner tentatively assumes an anti-positional stop but if we have a sequence such as: 1♠2♦ 2♥2♠ 2NT3♥ pard knows we are scratching around for a moysian fit, eg we get to 4♥ with: ♠AKxxx ♥KQTx ♦xx ♣Qx ♠Qx ♥AJx ♦AQxxx ♣xxx With better spades, we can still get to Four Spades, and lacking either we take our chances in 3NT.

Why does pard have a void?