maartenxq

What awkward hand. I am minimum but have an easy 2 ♥ rebid. If partner supports we are in game, after 2 ♠ or 3 ♣ I convert to 3 ♦ and see what happens then. Pass only in a rubber partnering Mrs Guggenheim. Maarten Baltussen

It is very close indeed. I consider my pass as rather timid. A lot depends on partner, opponents and the field we are playing in. If partner is a good declarer and hates to miss game I surely bid game. Same if opponents are sloppy defenders. Partner can easily have 5 ♥ which improves game chances considerably. Will 3 +1 score enough. In a good field probably not. Maybe I should change my vote to close but bid on. Maarten Baltussen

If south overbid his hand he has no doubt some major one or two suiter. His side needs also only 60 for game and rubber. If south has a long suit I would like to compete up to 5 ♣. I can achieve that by bidding 2 NT now and some number of ♣ later. If south is 2 suited p may have some unpleasant surprises for him. I will therefore respect my partners dbl on 4 level and should maybe pass something like 2 ♣ 2 ♦ 2 nt 3♠Already enough for game) 4 ♣ 4♥ but that is difficult. In mps and imps I would bid on the same lines. I will not bid an immediate 4 NT because this may be totally wrong and more important I want to emphasize that my ♣ are way better than my !d. Maarten Baltussen

In my view this is an impossible problem. Anything I do can be disastrous. 3 nt may be lay down or down 3, dbl provokes 3 !h by partner, bidding my minor might be in opponents suit. So I pass and hope for the best. Maarten Baltussen

Indeed and +800. Maarten Baltussen

I am very old fashioned and play both dbls as business. Cannot see why something else would be better. Both of us can see vulnerability and make a sensible choice between penalty and any NT. Maarten Baltussen

1 ♠all the way. At MP's and IMPS this is obvious in my opinion. True, partner may get the wrong lead against NT, but I feel we must compete. The big downside is south having a big penalty against spades. Especially at rubber bridge this could prove to be very expensive, but even there I am willing to take the risk. Maarten Baltussen

This is a nasty problem. If the scoring is imps and responder is 7+ there will probably be 9+ tricks so no problem. If however mps and/or minimum by responder my lead matters a great deal. Ms are out of the question, if partner has length there i cannot reach him. Club king will be in the strong NT hand. So I will try ♦ and hope that partner has q10xx or even better. Maarten Baltussen

I prefer 2 ♦ multi or 22-23 NT and 2 M 5-5 weak. But this only with a partner with whom I agreed how to proceed. Without agreements weak 2's are much less accident prone.\ Maarten Baltussen

I agree with 3 ♥, but I understand your question. The big draw back of bidding properly my self could very well be the opponents bidding properly to: ie a sharp but making 4 ♠, because my 3♥ enables them to reevaluate their hands. Even pass might be the big winner. Maarten Baltussen

I surely would have called the director and insist that he makes a decision based n what happened. I would not appeal. This is as this incident occurred in a more or less serious competition. In the club I would let it go, depending on circumstances. If opponent would be a beginner I would explain that this is not the way bridge is supposed to be played. If on the other hand he was the clubs self declared expert I would let him pay. Maarten Baltussen

As far as I can see the trouble begins with the opening. For me this is a 2 NT. Now North should realise that the contract must be in his hand and could/should bid 6 ♣. As it went south has an awkward bid now. Pass should be forcing, 2nt 12-14, 3 nt 18-19. If south bids the latter north could make the same evaluation as before and venture 6 ♣, without thinking of 7. Maarten Baltussen

Assuming you did get the right explanation, which I doubt very much, opps are playing a silly system. In these conditions I thin you partner should pass. If xx is strength he can/must bid 1 ♠. The doubler should realise that partner may have only 3 crd support and may be very weak. As it went I think competing to 3 ♠ is way too much. If partner does not move after his first bid even 2 ♠ is already too much. You bid your hand thrice. Maarten Baltussen

This is 1 ♦ and not 1 NT. You have 2 or 3 flaws: wrong distribution, minimum count and trump oriented hand. At least 1 flaw too much. Imo this dbl should be business. I can see however that p thinks differently. As no vulnerability is given I pass and hope for the best. I can stand any lead from p and do not have a good bid available. 3 NT could have no play at all when p stops clubs only once. Maarten Baltussen

If partner is to be trusted this is at this vulnerability an automatic pass. I suggested a good lead and we should be + 500 or more. Most would play this double as take out however. Then 2 ♥runs to me and I dbl with same result. Maarten Baltussen

Difficult problem. Looking at my cards it seems we are heading towards some unmakeble game. Therefore I could pass, but this will undermine our partnership, especially if wrong. 3 NT is a bid that does not take partner serious. I will bid 4 ♦and pass 4 ♥if partner might bid that. Maybe I should even bid 3 or 4 ♥directly, as this could very well be the last making spot. Maarten Baltussen

I presume the dbl shows ♠ and minor. That being said, I check our agreements. If pass is business I bid 2 ♣, pass or correct. I correct 2 ♦ to 2 ♠. I pass is forcing I do that and proceed likewise. I is a moot point if I have to compete up to 3♣ if parnter turns out to have them. Maarten Baltussen

Former dutch international and manifold national champion Kees Tammens uses to comment on problems like this: you cannot ask me questions about 8 cards and more. Having said that I think I would have bid 4 ♥ planning to bid 5♦after their probable 4 ♠. Now I pass not sure what to do if 5 ♠runs to me. Maybe I should even correct to 5 ♥ as I will be short immediately after their spade lead. If ♦4-1 this will be a disaster. Maarten Baltussen

East could/should dbl for take out, but as it is pass should be good enough. EW do not miss any game or even part score as far as I can see. On the other hand, if it goes 2 ♥- p - p - dbl is automatic and will be let in. Maarten Baltussen

I lead what I have not what p might have, so K of ♣. This can be very wrong but that is true for all the other leads. Maarten Baltussen

Playing winning bridge against opponents who cannot bid or are confused about agreements is hardly remarkable. In this deal responder has a clear reopening dbl if they play support dbls. If not opener would already have dbld. Agressive pairs may reach 4 ♠but any competent pair will reach a spade contract. On a bad day the dbl of responder stands and you will suffer. Enjoy your sucess meanwhile. Maarten Baltussen

Imo dbl of 3 openings should be take out. That being said, north has a somewhat awkward decision to make. Everything can be wrong. Some pairs play 4 m as m and the other major, but this should be 6-4 or better. 3 NT can be disastrous if partner has virtually nothing. Dbl provokes almost certainly a 4 ♦from and is imo the worst choice. One could correct to 4 ♠and hope for the best. Maarten Baltussen

I do not consider myself an aggressive bidder, but with responders hand I bid 2 ♦ and then ♥reverse up to 4 ♥. Maarten Baltussen

I bid 6 ♣, what controls outside ♣do you expect partner to have? Maarten Baltussen

Hi, this is a nasty situation. Any bid I make can lead to a bad score, certainly in a field where most could open 1 nt. Anyhow I pass, reasoning like this: If I would have opened 2 ♥ and partner asked me min or max I would have responded min. So I do not have the values to bid now. downside is that partner does not know of my 5t and 6th ♥. He knows however that I have some values and that he can lead ♥. If partner doubles I pass. Maarten Baltussen