PhilKing

Since the chances were already 100%, they could hardly rise further.

Double is 18-20 balanced for me. 2NT = 6+ diamonds inv+, 3♦ = competitive. Wrong-siding is an issue, but worth it imo. All balanced 18-20s open 1♦ so something has to give.

Yeah. For me, the 2♦ relay is consistent with 5♠, 4+♥ GF, so we bid 2♥ with four or five hearts in order that partner can set trumps with slam interest.

2♦. If partner is 12-14 4432, opponents will bid to 3♣, and we will have missed a marginally profitable position for competing to 3♥ (I think we will go off more often than not). If partner is 4432 18-19, it should be easy enough to recover, and if he has, of all things, diamonds, I will be happy I raised. Doubling with the intention of removing spades to diamonds shows a slightly better hand for me. Most of us don't open 1♦ with three cards and a weak no trump, so the problem does not arise.

The 95% figure, if true, is a priori. The fact that there has been a 2♣ overcall increases the chance that partner has two, and the absence of a spade bid, combined with the fact that we hold only two, greatly increases the chance that partner holds four.

It would be helpful to have the auction - I need to know what they know about my hand. Plan 1) Win the spade lead on the table and play a low diamond. If East plays an honour, run winners and then do the right thing. If East plays low, stick in the nine. If West did not feel like leading a club from the king, perhaps he will not play one now. Plan 2) If West know I have club shortage, run major suit winners immediately. We have a legitimate chance against West when he has AJT of clubs and either four diamonds to an honour or QJx. He is caught in a weird strip-squeeze. Plan two also works against AK clubs with East with Qxxx, Jxxx or QJx(x) in diamonds, where the position is more basic. I'm favouring line two regardless, but I feel that a play problem without the bidding is incomplete, whatever Krystof Martens thinks.

Looking at this one again, there seems to be at least one psycho at the table, since I am having difficulty constructing a layout consistent with the bidding. And I hope it's not me. The only one that make sense is righty has a fairly light 4??6 shape, lefty has a light 1♠ response and pard has some sort of ???1 shape. That's just fine, because pard will pass the double with a few decent high cards and kicker in spades, else pull to 4♦. I can't imagine why anyone would think this sounds like a penalty double.

With, of all things, a giant hand, I am going to know what to do. If I am balanced, I double (penalties - I could even have a GF heart one suiter against plenty of opponents) or bid 2NT (strong balanced but not penalties). If not, I am going to go try something novel such as bidding my longest suit, or bid 3♥ with a 4054 24 count, which has never happened in the entire history of bridge.

A major plus a minor, as described in OP. It's yet another crackpot home brew, but as I understand it, West was showing clubs, diamonds, or one major with one minor.

Standard modern practice is to pass 2♣ and double 2♦, which describes the hand rather nicely. There's just no need to gamble an under-strength off-shape double of 2♣.

You can't just go around expecting people to bid their suits naturally in this auction. Surely you should expect them to foist some home-brewed absurdity when it comes to obscure positions like the second round of bidding. B-) To Iviehoff, if one bids, of all things, a five-card major over 3♦ (and imo xxxxx can qualify), a raise to four by a 2♣ opener is hardly a sign-off - one should go on with a any reasonable excuse. If I've got KTxxx xxx xx Kxx, I'm bidding 5♣.

I am available to play with my partner (Cameron Small).

I'm pretty sure 120248 is their Jannersten Bridge Supplies serial number.

Reading between the lines, 120248 is a bidding box, researching their family tree.

I expect partner to take a double out about 60% of the time in principle. When I hold this exact hand I expect him to leave it in about 60% of the time. Edit, with this many Milton's, the chances of partner being distributional must rise, so I still expect a removal most of the time.

Let's start at the beginning: 1NT - Not my choice, but it's fine, so no blame. Dble - Entirely clueless with such a poor hand. What was he intending to if pard bid 2♦? 2♥ - Immaculate. Pass - Clueless and lily-livered, but more analysis below. 3♦ - From South's point of view, North had to be able to stand any response at the Two level, so at worst he should be 4342 with weak spades. A double by North would be penalties, so I think it is right to bid 3♦. North can't hold this hand, or any other where 3♦ works badly. Double by South should be for penalties imo, and I would be happy to do that with secondary length and strength in clubs or with a third spade. In my view, North's pass is forcing, and is consistent with a 3442 seven or eight count. How the auction should have gone after 1NT: 1NT 2♣ Pass 2♦ Pass 2♠ Pass Pass Dbl All Pass Or: 1NT 2♣ All Pass With South working out that West likely has spades and diamonds.

4♥ shows, of all things, a hand that wants to play in 4♥. Yes, partner has to have at least a mild slam try, otherwise he would just have insisted on heart, but he can be turned off by spade values. What about? ♠- ♥AKJxxx ♦Qx ♣JT9xx He might have the same hand with the diamond king instead, so I bid 4NT, DI for clubs. If you don't play that, obviously you should bid 4♠ to beg for a diamond control.

2NT is not natural for me.

Looking at this hand again, it seems implausible that I answered 3NT.

Yep - he can.

The database never lies.

I am available, but for preference with my regular partner (who has a grand total of about 4 posts). I could play some with him and some with someone else if desired.

I have never seen this construction. If we have a weak hand with a five card fit and both opponents have passed, it's short odds that partner is strong balanced. The chances of him having an unbalanced natural opener are very low indeed.

Who is one trying to preempt?

I wasn't asking for an opinion as to what I was or was not deliberately doing (which I knew), and I explained which law made me think I should do so. I wanted to know which law invalidated my standpoint (which a few people have now addressed).