pstansbu

I suspect this might have been covered but I couldn't find anything really. I generally play Multi-Landy but increasingly playing against strong NT people where X=penalty typically keeps this card in its box. Two questions therefore: What do people recommend for the double instead? Is this worth extending to weak NT bids? My thoughts on the first question are 4M 5m is an obvious candidate but not sure how we should continue as we have 2 unknown suits. On the second I'm tempted to do something other than double for penalties. I can't remember when I last claimed any penalty points against a reasonably experienced pair, opponents either run to somewhere relatively safe or partner is weak and we run to somewhere relatively safe and, therefore, this ends up as a fairly "negative" auction. Wouldn't we do better making a "positive" bid where we are looking for a fit and to go somewhere good rather than away from somewhere bad?

Playing MP pairs [hv=pc=n&s=s976hk76dj63cq954&w=s8hqt985dqt2ck632&n=skjt32haj32dk98ct&e=saq54h4da754caj87&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1sp1np2hdppp]399|300[/hv] Partner leads the A♦. Firstly I wasn't expecting an unsupported Ace lead after this auction so it seemed reasonable to encourage the continuation, but playing the 10 with the Jack trapped didn't feel great. Since we only likely had 3 rounds to win before needing to switch (or if partner had 5 diamonds declarer would be forced to ruff) this didn't feel bad. Playing the 2 would surely lead to a club switch and I'd rather keep the Queen covered and not have partner broach a frozen suit - though, on the bidding it might not be frozen and he could have AJ10♣ to lead. Such was my thinking at the table and I elected to play 10♦, partner followed with 4♦ and I was briefly optimistic he wanted to be on lead for the 3rd round :( Partner's view was that I should have discouraged in diamonds as the Queen is a slow winner we'd probably get anyway and we clearly needed to force declarer in clubs. I'm not convinced by the logic of either statement (from what I could see) so would like some further views. Thus said, I can see that the extra club length does suggest this is the better suit to force declarer with, also wondering whether clubs could be frozen give that declarer holds at most 2 of them?

You both allude to a point I was pondering - our agreement is to play count if we can't cover RHO's card. This makes complete sense when this is quite a small card, but a King? At this risk of complicating life are you saying there is merit in agreeing a cut off - e.g. for Q/K show attitude - for J and below show count? I like the Smith Echo, I'd like to introduce this but partner not keen. The hand is a good real world demonstration (with attached pain) on the merits. However I can support partner's reticence on the basis if we misinterpret the current signals adding Smith could compound our woes :(

Played this hand the other night (MP Pairs - we play 4 car Majors) [hv=pc=n&s=s5hqt75dk2cak9763&w=sj3h842dq9843cqj5&n=saq764ha963dt7c84&e=skt982hkjdaj65ct2&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1s2cp2np3nppp]399|300[/hv] Partner led 5♦ with King played from dummy I played the 3 (standard count). Opponents attacked clubs and when I won the third round I played 4♦ having been torn between this and J ♠. Partner won with the Ace and switched to a spade. Things didn't go well from there. Partner is adamant I should have played Q♦ so he knew where it was. This scenario has come up a few times - leading an unprotected honour so partner knows where it is. This feels awkward here for all sorts of reasons, I presumably have the longest hand and don't want it blocked, I would probably switch to spades without the Q ♦, I have no other entries. I'd appreciate the usual, helpful comments :)

Playing the other night I had recently messed up by bidding 0314 Blackwood rather than our agreed 1430 and just a few boards later was dealt the following: [hv=pc=n&s=sq4hakqt98dk65ca8&w=sak8732hdtcqjt962&n=sjt65h65432dq92c3&e=s9hj7daj8743ck754&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1h3cp4c4h5c5hpp6cppdppp]399|300[/hv] This is probably 2 questions (at least) in 1 - not sure if I'm best posting separately, but will keep it here as they relate. I intended my bid to be a 2 suiter (highest and lowest, weak or strong) but partner failed to alert. I did then wonder if I had it wrong regarding our agreement as we had been discussing some 2 suited options and I couldn't say for certain our card said Questem. Therefore didn't comment, nor were any questions asked by opponents. With hindsight I think I should have informed opponents (prior to lead) that I thought partner should have alerted this, but couldn't remember for certain and left them to check our card etc. Am I correct on this? I also thought I needed to proceed with my bidding as if partner put me with clubs and spades (5-5) although his silence suggested he thought I had made a weak jump overcall in clubs. Given that he could have passed with a simple preference for clubs or corrected to spades I assumed his 4♣ showed club support and values and felt this supported my decision to bid on to 6. This contract makes and yielded a top (Match pointed pairs). They led a heart and I can't see any case for any adjustment or changes in their bidding, lead or play (our card did show Questem). Finally, do people feel 3♣ is a reasonable bid with this hand?

deleted duplicate post - received an "Oops something went wrong message" - resubmitted and had two copies :rolleyes:

Interestingly I received similar advice off-line (a seasoned national level player) who also uses 1NT for a 2 suiter. Their rationale (and applies to t/o double too) is that since partner has passed 1C with every available option open to them you need to consider that. Show your suits (single of 2 suiters) quickly but consider defending when balanced- particularly if your values are scattered. The stronger your balanced hand the more you can gain by letting the auction unfold and then decide. Frequency of actually having a real 1NT bid after both opponents have bid was a key driver to using the 1NT for something else.

Thanks - forgot the jump option - this also works with Ghestem, Questem etc. With regard to bidding 1NT do you just worry about ♥ being stopped (residual risk that ♣ or ♦ might also be held)?

Not sure on the best forum approach - there was a decent thread in 2015 here on BBO. Firstly things might have moved on in 2 years, secondly I could only see talk of 2 bids when I'm trying to work out meaning options for 3. So I decided to start a new thread rather than resurrect that. After a transfer (1♣ - 2♦ for example) it seems there are 3 bids with optional meanings: X "cue" of bid suit ( ♦ in this case) "cue" of target suit (♥ in this case) What are people's views on the pros and cons of different defences?

That's a very good point - not support doubles in this partnership but elsewhere and trying to encourage partner - so I overlooked a good option on the night and in either case I should have included a double. I would eliminate the support double as a distortion but without this convention the double leaves partner choosing between showing the extra spade or the extra heart - either would work really well if we can buy the contract at the 2 level or push them into 3♦.

This one produced a range of contracts - interested in viewpoints on the auction (MP pairs): [hv=pc=n&s=s52h75daq9632cjt4&w=saqhkq632djt8ca65&n=skt9haj9d754ck982&e=sj87643ht84dkcq73&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1hp1s2d3cppp]399|300[/hv] I was sitting West - 4 card Majors, weak NT. South play a multi 2♦ hence the pass. My planned NT rebid was no longer on should I: Bid 3♦ (Directional Asking Bid - shows half stop) 3♠ too risky - could even be 4-2 and I hate lying about Major shape 3♥ as above - partner would expect 6 3♣ still a lie but at least confirms my heart shape pass and see what partner has to say - on pure points I'm too weak for a 2NT bid, but this is borderline As it happened 1-off was worth 40%.

Thanks all, obvious when pointed out that you can assume the other Major is their suit and cue bid that - leaving 3♦ intact as natural.... When using 3 ♦ as forcing is this in the context of playing all new suit advances as forcing or even mixing them up - and playing them as forcing when it seems we have the strong hands but non-forcing after a normal 1 level opening?

This one didn't end well (Matchpointed duplicate pairs): [hv=pc=n&s=skthtdt865ckt8762&w=s62hq975da742caj4&n=saqj853h32dj3cq93&e=s974hakj864dkq9c5&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2d2hp3dppp]399|300[/hv] The 2♦ bid contained a weak 2 in a Major and several strong options. Whilst we hadn't discussed this sequence, nor do we have a specific defence to a multi just play naturally (including an overcall in ♦). Setting aside the undiscussed sequence partner remains adamant that natural should mean natural and any ♦(or cue of any artificially bid suit) should show the suit. My preference is to use Leaping Michaels over a Multi, but not in this partnership. I can't really see any good case for this being natural, and see showing a good raise as more useful and frequent, but wondered what views others held.

Many useful remarks, I was placing my cards correctly rather than stacking (but hadn't realised the legal requirement around this) and they weren't in need of straightening (so no excuse really). Also the way my hand was placed I wouldn't have seen a card had I raised the edge, but partner might so that's a risk. Apparently it's not something I've done before so hopefully have nipped it in the bud. Funnily enough I did notice (much as you notice similar cars if you have changed model or make) other people doing something similar a few times on the same night.

Playing the other night an opponent pointed out that I tended to fiddle with cards from previously played tricks and asked me if I could stop doing this. I wasn't aware of doing this and happy to stop out of courtesy. By "fiddling" I mean resting a hand on top and running a finger over the edge - not doing anything noisy or rearraging the cards (e.g. to change the layout of those won/lost) and just doing this whilst thinking of the card to play. Just curious if this is just a matter of courtesy / etiquette or anything more to the request?