Rebound

What I really have to do is rewrite those articles. Theory in this area has advanced a lot since the time I wrote those articles (as have my own opinions about things like 5-level cuebids and cuebidding 2nd round controls). I don't really have time for writing about bridge anymore, but if that changes at some point I will probably write a new series of articles about these topics. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com That would be most appreciated, of course. Here's hopin' :-)

FWIW I am also of the opinion partner shows a spade-diamond 2-suiter with this double for the same reasons Winston has given but I am a bit more open to partner having less strength although I can understand this may be a minority view.

How about finessing in diamonds and then ducking a round. This gives time to find whether either clubs or diamonds is 4-triple-3.

What if there was a way to open your friends list to select your partner, e.g. a "Browse Friends" button? Just an idea. It's not so much that I'm that lazy, but it's faster and that can be handy if, say, entering at the last minute. Just an idea. Thanks for already doing such a great job. Kerry

To me, this is completely a matter of style. The question, I think, is whether you prefer to overcall with 2♣ intending to double next to show precisely this shape since with 4 spades you would have doubled the first time, and because a double followed by 2♣ would show a strong single suiter, or, do you prefer to double immediately, on the off chance you may end up playing in a 3-3 fit in 1♠ since this gets across your shape and values more precisely the first time around. I prefer the former, but that's just my taste. There are pluses and minuses to both imo. [Edit] Oh yeah, and 2NT and 4♦ were rather, um, uh just plain bad.

Going for the odds-against play of K of ♦. It looks like I'll be needing the ♣A later on.

Fluffy, it seems to me that you and Frances are in agreement. It appeared that the post was intended to typify the end position, not explain how to get there.

Seems to me I read this once a long time ago but had totally forgotten it. When I read it just now, I was thinking about the counter-argument that the information could be gained by going more slowly in the auction, such as starting with FSF. However, I now realize the benefit of this treatment is that it removes as much as possible the opponents' ability the make lead directing doubles and the like.

If I may interject, I totally fail to see the purpose of transferring to clubs then bidding hearts. I have always thought that on a hand where you have slam interest, it is best to keep the bidding low unless the alternative gives a lot of extra information to partner.

FWIW I also chose pass for both. I can only echo Justin's reasoning except in that I would add that I prefer to play that free bids show extras as often as possible. My favorite partner usually knows when it is right to re-open. I mention this only as it relates to bidding 3♥ on hand 1. At IMPs and red, I think a free 3♥ call should show a better hand, e.g. more encouraging distribution, max in high cards (I'm assuming 1NT is 12-14). 3♥ will not be fun with the given hand if partner has, say, a weak hand and a few spades.

Sounds like bs to me.

Thanks for the reply.

Granting the greater wisdom of those above, I thought 3♠ was sufficient and that was my vote. I would echo Mikeh's argument that partner can make the move to 4♠ and in fact with our heart holding, it may even be right to defend 4♥. However, I've changed my mind and now agree with 4♠. The very same heart holding suggests you will never get to defend 4♥ in any event since partner's presumed shortness will usually lead him/her to raise to 4♠ over 4♥ with almost any hand at this vulnerability. So, why not get there now? Just my 2 cents.

I'm afraid I don't see a problem here either.

Um, not to hunt for gold in a dung heap lol... but none of you actually mentioned if you would have made this play - just curious, mind you ;-)

Last question, would the player Phil is playing with be able to get a transcript of Phil's commentary?

Thanks, but I feel pretty dumb now lol... Of course, Phil is the inestimable pclayton right? Secondly, I just read the other thread. Sorry, but I came to this one first lol :P

FWIW I'm no expert, as I have said before, but I disagree. 2♣ has an advantage over 1♦ in as much as it preempts the entire 1-level. I don't think any more strength is required than for a precision 2♣ opening. In fact, my only problem with such a treatment is that a 2♣ overcall of 1♦ may turn out to be weaker than a typical 2♣ opening in precision. I would be quite happy to overcall 1♦ with x xxx QJx AKxxxx. That's just an example hand, and it may be that you would open a precision 2♣ with this, but I would not.

I love this idea, thanks.

Ok, who's Phil Clayton and what will he be talking about?

Apologies, Fred, but I have not seen these threads. I was just now wondering whether it is possible to just add filters to the lobby list instead of the current menu choice system.

Ditto. I think Hammonds rule applies. 4♠ might be right but you might end up trying to ruff on the short side. Or 4♥ might be right as long as hearts break. But the 9-trick game seems the best chance to me.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s1097hqj7d9ckq9864&e=s42hk10daq10643cj72]266|200|Scoring: IMP Auction: (1♠)-p-(2♠)-3♦-(3♠)-p-(4♠)- all pass. 2 of ♦ lead to your Ace. Declarer plays the 7. Now what? [/hv] What I did is hidden below. Please choose your play then take a look and tell me what you think. : Incidentally, I think the 3♦ call may not have been too bright, but I'd still like your opinion please B)

This is strictly an inexpert opinion, but I would try A and another ♥ now. At the very least it keeps declarer playing the suits.

Ditto :)