TimG

Totally agree. I'm not convinced the alternatives are necessarily good things. I agree that penalty doubles of strong no trumps are not frequent. But, neither am I convinced that being hyper-active over their no trump is a particularly good thing. It's possible that penalty doubles gain by reducing one's options and thus acting less frequently. Playing as I do double is 4 major 5+ minor (among a host of other possible options) is much more frequent than a penalty double even without being ridiculously aggressive. Plus it's a bid partner occasionally passes, so you still get some penalties. It also adds definition to any other overcall. By your argument my sister is a safe driver since her being in a car prevents her from jumping off a cliff. Strictly speaking there is logic in that argument, but I don't really consider it rational thought. I would think of it more along the lines of: taking public transportation rather than driving makes her a safe driver. As someone else pointed out, it is a matter of discipline. How frequently we can interfere is not necessarily the same as how effective our method is. If double showing 4M and 5+m nets us -.10 IMPs per use while a penalty double nets us -0.5 IMPs per use, we're way ahead playing penalty doubles because they come up less often. Then again, maybe we score -.25 IMPs per board when the opponents have an uncontested 1NT auction. Anyway, it's not enough for the method to come up frequently, you need the method to produce beneficial results when it does come up. My opinion is that getting into the auction without a real chance of buying the contract (or getting partner off to the right lead) will help the opening side considerably.

Totally agree. I'm not convinced the alternatives are necessarily good things. I agree that penalty doubles of strong no trumps are not frequent. But, neither am I convinced that being hyper-active over their no trump is a particularly good thing. It's possible that penalty doubles gain by reducing one's options and thus acting less frequently.

What do you do against the Woodson 2-way NT? 1) I think it's not ACBL legal (the range is legal, but not the followups), so I'm unlikely to have to deal with this in a tournament here. 2) x = penalty, obviously. 3) It sounds like such a bad agreement that I am okay with anyone playing this against me in any event. The major drawback to the Woodson 2NT (in my experience) is getting to 2NT too often.

I think any televised event would likely have simultaneous play of the boards -- that is board 14 doesn't move around the room -- and barometer scoring. It's rare that "several thousand" people tune in to watch a vugraph show and I suspect only a small percentage stay for the whole thing or are actively watching rather than having it on in the background.

What do you do against the Woodson 2-way NT?

I think I'll bid 4♦, I don't want partner to mistake 4♣ for some sort of encouragement. And, partner should be prepared for me to return to my suit, it will be a common action over his 3♥.

From a television point of view, there is more than one golfer on the course, playing more than one hole. That "empty" space is taken up by jumping from hole to hole, golfer to golfer. Maybe the same thing could be done with bridge. At least in a MP event.

Why, indeed!

Isn't double, followed by a cue-bid, followed by a suit (even a raise of our suit), forcing? If so, intervenor doesn't need a 3♦ cue-bid in the cue-bid sense. Maybe it's natural?

I bid 6♠, but I can imagine passing 6♦ being the winning action.

Partner has Qxxx KTxxxx x xx, but didn't want to open 2♥ 2nd seat read against white with that suit (and the side four-card major). He maybe should have waited for your reopening double rather than bidding 4♥ directly, but was thinking "game before slam" and was concerned that the opponents might bump it to 5♣ before you get a chance to reopen the bidding.

A new entry for the ACBL's Defense Database! Seriously, at least be happy that you are allowed to play the method...

Given the variety of methods involved in these hands (and the subject line) I doubt this was in an ACBL event.

I think you need an agreement about what 3♦ shows. I would expect that with a runout hand, partner would simply pass over 3♣ happy that your side is off the hook. So, 3♦ must be a hand that was going to pass out 1NXX -- at least an invitational hand here. If he was going to gamble on 1Nxx, he should just pass and hope the opponents have guessed incorrectly. I would have bid 3N over 3♦, trusting partner to have an invitational hand (though I'm not especially proud of my 13 count). Having passed, I'll pass 4♣.

I expect that the suggested defense said something like: "in balancing seat, 1NT = 12-15, respond as you would over a normal balancing NT (or respond as you would over a normal 1NT opening bid)" And, this pair has been confused by that.

Seems to me that slam could be good. I'm guessing partner doesn't have wastage in spades -- with Qx, Ax, Qxx, Axx partner might have tried 3♠ over 2♠. Then again, we could be off two aces: x Qx KQxxx AJxxx seems to fit the bidding. I think I'll stall with 3♥. But, that's probably just delaying the decision.

What did 2♦ show?

What does it mean when partner opens 1♦ then bids and rebids clubs? Could partner be 1345? Why wouldn'the have ever raised hearts? Could he have a 4cM plus 5 clubs? Why didn't he raise hearts or spades (or bid some number of NT over 2S if he didn't think it was natural)? What would a double of 1♠ shown? I think we need more information to figure out what we would do here.

4NT: Turbo, showing an odd number of keycards (hearts have been agreed).

I believe that you can and should alert this cue-bid. Occasionally you will find an opponent who insists that no cue-bids are alertable, but he is wrong. It sounds to me like you are doing what you should to properly disclose your methods. You shouldn't worry too much about opponents who don't ask when they should or assume incorrectly.

What, no double cards?

But, you need to invest in computers.

Couldn't opener's heart stop be something like KJx, making 3NT more attractive?

Just delete your flag... How? In your BBO directory on your computer... Folder 'Flags' perhaps? :) Ah, I was still looking for an "option". Thanks.

I think 3N was the primary culprit.