nullve

14 cards.

Sorry, forgot. [hv=pc=n&w=sakt6haj87d73ck75&e=sj742h9dkt642cq43&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp1dp1hp?]266|200[/hv]

Opener: 13 hcp, 4423 Responder: 7 hcp, 4153 1♣-1♦* 1♥-? * Or would you respond 1♠ as if playing Walsh?

So this is a compound squeeze starting as a triple squeeze against North. A search tells me that lamford have posted at least two compound squeeze deals on BBF so far this year but I wonder how "common" (measured how?) compound squeezes really are. Maybe we should have a "compound squeeze on BBO" competition? :)

3415 and no spade stopper, you mean? (Opener has already shown 4 hearts.) A situation like this (it might have been the exact same sequence 1♣-1♦(Walsh); 1♥-2♦(XYZ)) with Opener having 3415 with no stopper in the 4th suit, spades) actually came up about a year ago, and my very good partner chose to bid 2N. After the board he asked me if I thought he should have bid 3♣ since he lacked a stopper and I told him I agreed with 2N. So I realise that was a bit optimistic.

Do you play Walsh? If you don't, then 1♥ could be on a balanced hand so 3♣ is just the standard (but very space-consuming) way to show 5+ clubs. If you do, then 1♥ already promises an unbalanced so 3♣ must show 6+ clubs.

So total trumps is a property of the deal (and here equal to 16?) but I'm still free to choose trump suits (say, clubs and diamonds instead of hearts and spades) for the calculation of total tricks? Btw, I'm not trying to disprove LoTT. (You obviously don't know me! :))

You seem to have used one pair of trump suits (clubs, diamonds) to get to 16 total trumps and a different pair (hearts, spades) to get to 17 total tricks.

GiB also says that EW can make 6 tricks in diamonds and NS 8 tricks in clubs. So if each side plays in their biggest fit there are 16 total trumps but only 14 total tricks. .

This is standard "Swedish" T-Walsh, which is also the basis for what I play. But for those who don't like the idea of putting 18-19 BAL with 4-5c support in the transfer accept, like I do, how about rebidding 1N (18-19 BAL and) even 4-5c support? To me, this is analogous to putting the (balanced?) 3c limit raise in 1N instead of 3M when playing 1M-1N semi-forcing. (The times 3M plays better than 1N are presumably weighed up for by the times 1N makes but 3M does not.)

I ate/drank my first (and so far, only) affogado a couple of weeks ago. I chose one with caramel ice cream, and the taste was fantastic!

There seems to be a common misunderstanding that passing is more like kibitzing than bidding,

I agree. The way I play, over (1x)-P-(P) a double or overcall is expected to be weaker than in 2nd seat, and ranges for all advances are adjusted accordingly. Over (2x)-P-(P), a double or overcall is expected to have same strength as in 2nd seat, so ranges are not adjusted. However, a double or overcall will sometimes be made with less in an attempt to protect the score. And hopefully overbidding to a hopeless game as a result will be better than selling out to 2x.

Interesting. GiB says there are 8 tricks in spades EW and 9 tricks in hearts NS. So there are 17 total tricks. But there are only 14 total trumps, so LoTT is off by no less than 3 on this deal. For many this must be proof that LoTT is nonsense. :)

It's also more dangerous to pass now than in 2nd seat, because over (2♠)-P-(P) partner would be able reopen on many hands that are just too weak to double or overcall with in 2nd seat. I strongly prefer to have at least a 6c suit when I overcall at the 3-level, which is the main reason I wouldn't overcall in 2nd seat. But partner's most frequent shapes contain 3 H and 1-2 S, so I expect us to have some kind of heart fit. I expect there be only 15 or 16 total trumps (suggesting I should pass) but I hope my weak spades (a positive adjustment factor) will compensate for that.

3♥ at both MPs and IMPs. Would have passed in 2nd seat.

Partial line: On a heart lead: 1. ♥Q 2. ♣2 Assuming opps win the trick cheaply (although RHO will sometimes rise with the K even when it's wrong DD) and continue hearts: 3. ♥K 4. ♠A 5. ♣Q Assuming the Q wins the trick: 6. ♣A, pitching a diamond in hand If clubs are 3-3, then 7. ♦A (Vienna coup) 8. ♥A 9.,10. ♣53, pitching a low spade and the remaining diamond in hand If clubs are not 3-3, then, assuming spades are 3-3 (which they now have to be): 7.-10. ♠KQ54, pitching a club and two diamonds in dummy 11. ♥A Edit: Some of the pitching was absurd. Hopefully corrected now.

Well, you could in theory play the transfer accept as forcing opposite some, but not all, subpositive hands. I don't buy the (much-debated) idea that it's important to stop in 1M when 1M is the limit for us. (It won't be for opps.)

In a parallel universe: [hv=pc=n&s=sat92hkt4dj76c963&w=sqj5ha987dkt43ca8&n=sk4h532daq98ckqjt&e=s8763hqj6d52c7542&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1ndpprp2cp2dp2sppd(takeout)pp(LoTT-based)p]399|300[/hv]

You don't mean to say that by including 18-19 BAL with 4-5c support in the transfer accept, it will need to be forcing even opposite a subpositive hand (by which I mean a hand that would classically pass the opening), do you?

I really don't understand why people don't include 18-19 BAL with 4c support in the transfer accept. The bidding could then go something like 1♣(1)-1♥(2) 1♠(3)-1N(4) 4♠(5)-? (1) "NAT or 12-14/18-19 BAL" (2) "4+ S" (3) "3 S or 12-14 BAL without 4-5c support or 18-19 BAL with 4-5c support" (4) "positive hand, 4S3-H, NF" (5) 18-19 BAL, 4-5 S, not 4333 [Edit: The agricultural and here very self-preemptive jump to 4♠ seems completely unnecessary, at least from a design perspective, since many cheaper bids over 1♣-1♥; 1♠-1N don't have any obvious natural meaning.] Opening most 18-19 BAL with 1♣ virtually forces partner to respond on any hand without club tolerance. But opposite a responder with xxxx Qxx xxxx xx the auction could then go 1♣(1)-1♥(2) 1♠(3)-P(4) (1) "NAT or 12-14/18-19 BAL" (2) "4+ S" (3) "3 S or 12-14 BAL without 4-5c support or 18-19 BAL with 4-5c support" (4) "subpositive hand"

In today's bridge it's highly unusual to open 1N only with classic balanced shapes ((4333), (4432), (5332)).

1♠

♥J