MickyB

Hm, I'd have thought this hand was all offence and no defence. soft hands like this are better for defense than offense generally (KJs and QJs) Soft honours in your short suits, yes, but I always thought that soft honours in your long suits will tend to not stand up on defence. I guess that depends on your partner's length in the suit.

Hm, I'd have thought this hand was all offence and no defence.

Having thought about this a bit more - I think that opening 1♦ and rebidding 1NT to show precisely a 5332 is inefficient, playing either a multi-club or natural 1 level openings. If you are going to open 1♣ on all weak NTs I think you need to use an artificial 1NT rebid. This is what I do in one partnership (which uses a 1♣ opener as natural or balanced): 1♦:1♥, 1N = both minors, clubs at least as long as diamonds 1♦:1♥, 2♣ = both minors, diamonds longer than clubs 1♦:1♠, 1N = both minors, either way around 1♦:1♠, 2♣ = 5♦4♥

This is close between pass and 1NT IMO. The denial of an IJO tilts the balance in favour of pass. If I play a new suit as forcing then I play a cue as promising support, if I play a new suit as NF then a cue either promises support or is game forcing.

In a competitive auction I'd expect 2♠ to just be competitive promising 4 spades.

Ah, fair enough. Bit different when the double is by an unpassed hand though.

Which hand - xxx xx AQJxx KJx? This is not worth a 2♦ overcall.

I disagree. Borrowing a king (some say ace) applies after a 1-level opening where RHO has shown weakness. It doesn't after a 3-level pre-empt where responder can be very strong with a misfit. Double in this position should show full values, because you force the partnership to the 4-level. That is obviously not the case after 1x pass pass. Agreed - I tried to make this point elsewhere but failed :) IMO the main reason for transferring a king over a 1 level opener is that 2nd seat expects his LHO to bid, so it often pays to keep quiet and let the opps bid on. Over a preempt you expect responder to pass (or worse still, make a preemptive raise) so there is as much reason for direct seat to get involved as balancing seat. That, of course, is assuming that the preempt was in 1st seat - if balancing seat is a passed hand, he can act on much weaker hands if short in the opps suit.

Yes, you are right, I should have given it an ace somewhere! The hand on RGB was:[hv=d=e&v=n&s=shaxxxdkxxxcqxxxx]133|100|(P)-P-(1♠)-P (4♠)-?[/hv] Notice we are vul against not! Richard's comment was "I would double, mainly because the hand is exactly what partner will expect. (Pass is clear if an unpassed hand.) The upside is much greater than the downside; partner can always pass (so maybe we lose 5 IMPs). On a good day, he will have a spade stack against speeding opponents, or perhaps xxx xx AQJxx KJx (for 5D) since he wouldn't be making loose overcalls at the vul."

There is a difference - it is MPs, -140 could be a lot worse than -80

Would you still double - with the intention to correct to 2C - if you don't have this agreement? Sorry, that comment was aimed at Echognome, your post got in the way :D Edit: To clarify, I'm talking about using 1C-(1H)-X as promising or denying 4+spades, not 1C-(1H)-P-(P), X

Ok, true. Of course, this is solved if you use X to deny 4 spades (or better still, X to promise 4+spades and 1S to deny them)

If you remove declarer's 8-spot, then yes, you did :D

Why would pard pass initially with that hand?

Woo, one vote for each so far :) I'd double with a queen less, maybe even a king less - pard is so well placed to choose now. Admittedly he could be choosing between -590 and -800... I think I'd like to get a double in on a 1444 11 count, but if the double could be on a singleton or a void pard is less likely to find the right action, so I'd keep schtum on that hand. I guess I would double on 05(35)s as well.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=shkj73dqj942cqjt6]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-(4♠)-P-(P) ?[/hv]

Yes, this is an obvious pass. Think I might start another thread on this auction...

Oh yes - Binky assumes that the contract is right-sided, as this is very unlikely to be the case here I suspect that this hand should be downgraded further.

Really not sure about the logic of only downgrading at MPs or not downgrading when vul at IMPs. Just bid your hand, pard will be more aggressive vul at IMPs. Of course, if your teammates are the sort that will jump on any bad result then maybe you are best trying to keep the peace, but I would rather just find different teammates! BTW, Binky evaluates this at about 16.3 points in terms of playing strength in NT. I seem to remember that I never got around to replying to a post asking me about Binky - you can find the evaluator here. The average Binky count for NT for a balanced 10 count is 3.07, 11 pts = 3.58, 12 pts = 4.09, I'm not sure quite how accurate extrapolating from these figures is but it seems unlikely to be too far off.

This is a sick hand. I'm almost tempted to open it in a minor in the hope that I won't have to bid NT first, but as that is unlikely I'm probably best off opening 1NT.

It resembles, when bidding in balancing seat, add a king to your hand. (But remember to subract it from partner's....lol) As I said recently, I don't believe this is justified. However, I am of an open mind :P Is anyone able to explain to me why this is the case? I can think of only one reason - preemptor's partner may have a huge misfitting hand, whereas once he has passed he can only have a fairly strong misfitting hand. Against this, it can be important for direct seat to get a bid in before responder furthers the preempt.

Personally, I think opening 2♠ is right! I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue, but playing normal preempts there can't be many hands worth 3♠ here as a passed hand.

No, I would guess spades. Giving a load of sample hands won't add much to the debate, but if partner is 5-4 in the majors hearts is only right when we aren't trying to draw trumps, that is we're trying to scramble tricks. Any time we need to draw trumps we are likely to want to play in spades. The two key cards you really want for play in hearts are the SA and the HK. Missing either of them is probably going to make hearts no picnic. Take away the HJ and you are really, really likely to want to play in spades. By the way, I haven't done the sums but I guess that 6-4 in the majors is about as likely (if not more so) than 5-5. What about 8 million sample hands? :huh: Peter Cheung posted a simulation on RGB that said that with 20-22 HCP, you'll take only 0.057 tricks more in the 5-2 fit. Obviously this is based on double dummy analysis - could this favour the 4-3 fits? 5-5 distribution is a bit more likely than 6-4 (20% against 15%).

I agree with this, except I don't think 5431 distribution is worth a point more than 5422 (unless you don't reevaluate for Qx and Jx holdings). I imagine a 5-5 majors hand of this strength would just bid 3♥ over the 2♠ preference?

It is not clear yet that you lose on this hand, but why do you gain if direct seat has a similar but slightly strong hand? BTW, do you apply this philosophy regardless of vulnerability and form of scoring? I would consider 3C automatic at MP's when none vulnerable, would you still pass? It is not yet clear that I lose on this hand, but I expect to - I want to be able to compete, but to do is too likely to lead to partner pushing on which is likely to be wrong. If your partner expects this sort of hand for a 3♣ bid, you'll be able to compete with less risk of partner hanging you. The opposite would apply in direct seat. Then my overcalls promise less than most, so I could compete on hands with which the majority could not. I do believe in this philosophy at all scorings and vuls, but my minimum strength for acting (in either seat) varies - at love all I am more focused on competing for the part-score, at game all I am more worried about game bidding. I guess this might scrape in as a 3♣ overcall at love all.