TimG

I even have made a post in that thread, so I obviously read at least part of the thread. I guess it didn't impress upon me. It seems to make perfect sense today, however.

Nope, I don't. But, I was wondering if there was some subtlety with 43 vs 34 that I was missing. I guess if I am missing it, I am not alone!

Yes, both are worse than the original hand, but I wondered if 43 rather than 34 in the majors made a difference and further whether 44 in the majors would make a difference. Maybe I should have tried: AQxx xxx Tx A9xx and A9xx AQxx Tx xxx

Switch the majors and wouldn't you have bid 2H on the previous round?

I don't think it is typical to respond with 1273 zero counts.

How about xxxx AQx Tx A9xx or xxxx AQxx Tx A9x ?

I agree (so I voted "something else"). Many beginning texts separate opening bids into minimum (~13-15), medium (~16-18) and maximum (~19-21). For his 3rd round jump (especially opposite a limited responder), I don't think opener logically be in the minimum range. So, the "maximum minimum" poll options seem to be out as far as I am concerned. Unless you meant "medium" by "maximum minimum". I'm curious about what shape/strength combinations responder could have to bid a non-forcing 3♦. Not four spades, not four clubs and not six hearts, for sure. And, with a minimum and three spades, responder would pass 1S some significant portion of the time. What about diamond length? Can responder have four diamonds? Something like 2443. Does 1D-1H; 1S-2D say something different than 1D-1H; 1S-1N with regards to values? I think responder would pass 1S if he is 35(23) and doesn't want to be in game opposite opener's 3rd round jump to 3C. Would a weak responder with 2533 shape rebid 1NT or take a preference to diamonds? Maybe that is what he can have to want to bid a non-forcing 3D now. But, I would tend to think that the diamond "fit" is enough extras for the partnership to want to be in game. I put "fit" in quotes because opener could be 4144, but I think he will tend to be more conservative with that shape (rebidding 2C instead of 3C with more minimum medium hands).

Once partner supports diamonds, I would bid game. I don't care whether 3♦ is weak, mixed or limit (well, if it's limit, I might worry about missing a slam).

and what stat by pair would you suggest they put their faith in then? Who says you have to put your faith in any "stat by pair"?

Won't partner bid 2S with some 42(43) hands? no dude, NFB shows a goodish suit with 5+ cards Won't partner bid 2S with some 42(43) hands after Sambolino reopens with a double?

Won't partner bid 2S with some 42(43) hands? I prefer not to play negative doubles after 1H-(2C) so that may influence my thinking. But, I would bid 2H.

I'm confused. From the opening post (and Phil's later post), I thought the auction was: 2♦-3♣-DBL-3♠

Second: I think it is a little odd to hold four trumps, not super-accept and then make a slam try (or accept a mild slam try). Third: I know many people are not fond of double-dummy simulations, but this seems like a time that such a simulation could yield some useful results.

Is this just a technicality in that you charge for the data, but not the software?

Suppose we look at all hands where dealer opens 1S and 2nd hand doubles with 4441 shape (within some point range). We have no way of knowing whether these doubles were by partnership agreement or were an improvisation. We don't really want to lump those two situations together when analyzing the results. Further, when trying to determine the merits of doubling with this shape/count combination, we need to also determine how this agreement affects other auctions -- both those that start with double and those that don't. I'm not suggesting that a double-dummy simulation can address these points. But, I don't think this is one of those situations where looking at actual results will be particularly helpful.

There are methods that include transfer followed by 3NT showing a weak major-minor two-suiter. I'm pretty sure that Roth outlines one such response structure in Picture Bidding. Unfortunately, these response structures usually include a conventional direct 3NT (which seems to me to be an easy bid to forget in the heat of battle).

MP, V/NV, you hold ♠QJT852 ♥- ♦4 ♣KQ8432. Two passes to you, what is your opening bid? Or, do you try a sneaky pass?

No wonder we only lost an IMP even though we gave up a doubled over trick... "Gold Star" means very little in my experience. I wonder: what do you think when you see a Gold Star player whose name you do not recognize?

Once upon a time, long, long ago, my opponent was in a not cold 6C and mid hand went into the tank. I had nothing and wasn't sure what declarer was thinking about. I put the remaining cards from my hand on the table, fiddled with the quitted tricks, checked my score card, looked at the clock, etc. until declarer came out of the tank. I picked up my hand and played to the trick, and the next one... trouble was that I had picked up the wrong pile of cards and was replaying the cards that I had already played to tricks 1 through 5 or 6. I don't remember how the director sorted things out, but I do know that the end result was declarer made his contract.

I don't think passing the redouble is to play. But, this is a situation where special agreements are useful in landing the intervening side in their longest fit.

As dealer (IMPs, NV/NV), you hold ♠AK93 ♥K8752 ♦9 ♣K97 and see this auction: 1♥-P-1N-P 2♣-P-2♦-2♠ P-P-3♣ 1NT was forcing. Do you agree with opener's pass over 2♠? Would double be penalty or takeout? If responder had balanced with a double instead of bidding 3♣, would that be penalty or takeout? Having gotten to this point, what is your guess for responder's shape?

P - 1C - DBL - 2C 2S - P - P - 3C 3D What do you expect the relative lengths of advancer's pointed suits?

Two-way transfers still give the opponents that extra space. They can double or bid the transferred to suit, or wait until opener rebids and the auction gets back to them. They can't do all that if 1N-2H is natural and non-forcing.

I'm not playing transfers after my weak NT. I've seen too many good results from this to return to transfers... Don't you feel you are giving up some accuracy as a result? While you get some good results from not playing transfers, there must also be some instances of troubles arising from the failure to play transfers.

Yes, but this is IMPs where the difference between making and down one (or two) is much more significant than the difference between down one (or two) and down three.