Double !

Dwayne: You made the understatement of the year. There were several times when I felt like "show me my partner's hand and maybe then I'll be better able to tell you what to bid". There were a few hands where i vacillated between two bids and really am still having second (and third, and fourth) thoughts about my selections. I feel like someone who just came out of a major exam and wants to go around to others and ask something like "what did you answer for question 3?", or "did you get question 5?", etc. Evil set of hands....wicked... Best wishes to all for a wonder and Happy New Year :huh: DHL

OK, I shared my views. Hopefully my reasoning makes sense. Don't know how much mikeh will decide to use or present for public review and consideration. Just one request: no laughing and no derogatory comments! Season's greetings and best wishes to all. DHL

hi mike just pm'd you my answers. please check your BBO Forum inbox and let me know if you received them n.b.: please forgive my dissertations. Thanks: have a happy DHL

Most of my partners on BBO don't play fit-jumps, but i selected "other" for fit-jump. However, I see nothing wrong with playing 4C as a splinter, and i need not have a spade stack behind the 1S bidder. I could very easily have a 4441 hand (or 3451) with good heart honors. That might make it easier for partner to evaluate his/her hand in terms of where losers might be and how high to go. I believe that either use is fine, just know what you're doing. I don't know what the commonly accedpted differentiation between 3 and 4 club bids is. Ben's way of playing it is good, probably the way to go. One could also use the two bids to differentiate between 3 and 4-card trump support. In addition, there are still those who would play 3C as a weak jump-shift (in comp.). DHL

Does the Captaincy Principle apply here? I think it does and that, since you chose to open this hand 4H (not sure that this is my choice: how many zars? about 31?), you need to accept the fact that partner took over and placed the contract. Granted that partner is not going to expect this type of hand from you. DHL

I selected Pass, but I think it's important to know how likely partner is to make a light takeout double over 1 spade with good shape on this hand. The hand has pluses (such as 2 bullets) and some minuses including a possibly poorly placed spade king. 2 hearts could be right, but double is not a consideration. I can think of an argument for 1NT, but I don't anticipate much support for the bid. Could be wrong. I try to not risk going for telephone numbers, especially versus a partscore, at imps. I also wonder what the other person holding my cards might be likely to do? The decision is easier for me if not vul because I like 13-16 1NT overcalls NV, so partner's pass rules out some hands. DHL

IMO, a lot depends on my partner and bidding system. I selected all as being a weak 2 bid. I guess I'm not ready to give up the semi-descriptive and semi-preemptive nature of weak 2 bids yet. My other option is to play multi (including a strong, bal. hand) and something else for 2M. But this loses some of the benefits of knowing asap which suit partner has. DHL n.b.: read Glen Ashton's interview with Eric Rodwell at Bridge Matters.

I play the bidding on hand sample #1 as showing a reverse and as being forcing 1 round. Therefore, I might open a hand that's 4-5 in minors with 1 diamond as a prepared opener that will permit me to have a rebid. Suit qualities will be an important factor: I try to keep minor suit rebids as showing 6+ card suits as much as possible. I might be in the minority on this; the bidding dinosaur in me strikes again in terms of a prepared opening. I would interpret the bidding on hand sample #2 as showing some sort of 5-6 with good suits. Hand #3 could be one of several types of hands including a strong balanced or semibalanced GF hand. In one of my partnerships, the possibility of having a solid, running minor and some outside cards (that is too good for a jump-rebid of the suit) was included as possible hands that would bid 2S. I believe that 3 diamonds here doesn't necessarily shows 4+ diamonds although I believe that it should show at least a diamond stopper and give partner a chance to bid a 5+ card heart suit should partner have one. )I don't know how many will agree with me on this; there are some bids where I don't necessarily agree with the traditional or mainstream interpretation.) This is not an every-day bidding situation. DHL

Agree Even though the vulnerability is favorable, IMO, one needs to maintain some degree of structure or discipline to 1st or 2nd seat pre-empts because partner might have a very good hand that will need to be able to estimate slam potential. Becoming too undisciplined in the name of pressure bidding might win some hands, but IMO it might also result in partner getting the partnership overboard if he/she bases further action on the assumption that the 4H bidder has something that approaches a theoretical template or typical hand for a 4H opener. It can be helpful if partner has some idea of what you have in your hand. If partner is a passed hand, then just about anything goes. Disclaimer: This opinion is not meant for players under the age of 30 years (including juniors). DHL

Just curious. What ever happened to the third possible meaning of multi 2-diamonds (a weak 2M, a strong, balanced hand - pick your hcp range), or an acol 2-bid in a minor? DHL

I would interpret the 2 club bid as being natural, showing decent clubs, and not some sort of cue bid. RHO opened 1C which could be on a 3-card suit (for some, even a 2-card suit). If I wish to make some sort of cue bid to show extra values or ask partner to bid his/her better major, I usually cue the suit that was bid to my left (assuming that the bid was not artificial). The reason is that I am much less likely to want to play in a suit bid to my left, sitting behind me, than in a suit to my right where I am sitting behind the person who initially bid the suit (finesses are more likely to be successful in the suit). I can't state for sure that there is universal agreement on this, but it seems logical. Consider the following bidding sequence (somewhat related to the topic): LHO bids 1 club, partner passes, rho bids 1 heart, and you bid 2 hearts. This is natural, showing a good heart suit and a reason to bid. Again, you are sittting behind the person who initially bid the suit. Hope that this is helpful. Can't wait for everyone to disagree with me. lolololol. DHL

I have a similar problem, and would appreciate help. I have been invited to play in certain games/ tourneys, but have been advised that i can not be registered as "Double !" because my screen name has a now illegal character in it, specifically the "!". I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to either log in under any other screen name including trying to create a new one, and have repeatedly received the message stating that "Double !" is barred until so-and-so date. I do not know how to rectify this problem. I don't want to have multiple screen names. If nothing else, i would just like to generate a second screen name that doesn't contain any "illegal characters" for the purposes of playing in some tourneys. (Or find some way that the people running the tourney can register me despite the "illegal character".) I would appreciate guidance re how to address this problem. Thanx in advance, DHL

agree with adam and mikeh (especially about need to discuss the meaning of a 2D rebid after rebid of 2C). interpretation depends upon the meanings of 2D and of 2H rebids by responder. With that as a premise, i selected that 2H shows 4 hearts. DHL

Well, did you make it (6?)? DHL

i think i played it once. not enough knowledge about pros and cons of signal to offer an opinion i don't like to waste spots, and i have other priorities for initial card played in opps suit. sorry DHL

Agree with 1♥, and agree that pass does not imply willingness to defend 1♦XX. Given the fact that I hold 4 hearts, I can not risk passing and have partner save by bidding 1♠. However, reverse my major suit holdings and I might pass the XX (not saying that I would pass). If P rescues to 1♥, i can correct to 1♠. I can't do that with 2-4 in majors. Several people have added a WTP to their comments. The "problem" so to speak, to some people I know is the impact that the bidding might have on partner should partner be on lead against some contract by the opps. What would you bid, given the same auction, holding KJT, Txxx, xxxx, xx? What to bid holding this type of hand is a common point of disagreement among many players and is a matter for partnership agreement. DHL

This is "Oh Hell". I have also heard it called "Up the river down the river" in a version that goes from one card to ten cards and then back to one card. I have played this game with many different forms of scoring. I am sure you can do an internet search to find a common form of scoring. With from 1 to 10 cards per player I have played: 10 cards - 10 points per trick 9 cards - 20 points per trick ... 1 card - 100 points per trick You have to get exactly the number of tricks you specify. Failing to get the exact number scores negative at the current rate for each trick you fail by. I have also played: Score = 10 points + the number of tricks you aim at and zero if you fail. In one version we state how many tricks in turn around from the dealer. The dealer at his turn is not allowed to make the number of tricks equal to the number of cards. So at least one player must miss out. In another version we all simultaneous indicate the number of tricks we wish to get with our fingers - "on the count of three ..." I am sure you could make up your own scoring system. Oh, like I said, I didn't recall the name of the game. well at least this seems to be a reasonably known game. Thanks for the feedback, Wayne. I didn't know what "Oh, H___ was. DHL

First name was Doug or Douglas. Passed away in 1967.

I don't know if this is the real name for this game, but there is a game that 3 people can play that also involves the concepts of trumps, of tricks, and trick-taking potential. We call the game "17". There are 17 (or less if you so choose) hands that are played. For the first hand, you shuffle the whole deck, deal each person one card, and turn over the next card. That card designates which suit is trumps. Then you look at your card are decide how many tricks you can take with that card (i.e.: 0 or 1). You can bid 0 tricks or as many as you think you can take on any given hand, 1, 2, 3, etc. For the second deal each person gets two cards, for the third hand each person gets 3 cards, and so on until you reach the point where everyone gets 17 cards. For each hand, you can bid from 0 tricks up to as many tricks you think you can take. The cards get shuffled before each hand. I can not remember how to score the game. I remember that you get a certain number of points for making your bid (maybe twice the number that you bid: I don't remember), you get a point for overtricks, but you also lose something (maybe 5 points) for over-bidding. I wish I remembered the actual name and how to score. lololol This can be a good game for an 8-year old because it permits you to play up to the limit of an 8-year old's interest and attention span. It's also fun for an 80 year old. And, like bridge, it can become boring if you keep getting bad cards lololol DHL

yes, it should be forcing. DHL

Pass What expert insight am I missing on this hand? Enlighten me, please. I'm not looking for the "right answer" but, instead, for the reasoning process behind the decision making. DHL

You have caddies that deliver chocolates? I envy you. How about M&Ms/ commonly used as reinforcers during operant conditioning or behavior shaping. DHL

I would appreciate further clarification regarding which bid shows a better hand on this auction (a pass vs. 2S when P cues to show limit raise or better and lho doubles) and how good is "better"?. I honestly admit that, while I know what I play, I don't know what is the more commonly accepted differentiation between the two possible actions. In addition, how do you all play a 3-spade bid by the 1 spade bidder after you cue and lho Xs? And, what would a XX by partner mean to you? TIA DHL

I lead either a low wheel or a low racket (the names of the other 2 suits in a 6-suited deck of cards: yes, they do exist.) I never get these problems correct. The 4S bidder could have anything up to close to a 2C opener. I don't want to give declarer an extra trick by trying to see through the backs of his/her cards without the help of Luis' sunglasses. Probably wrong, but I'm leading a trump. Leads from the other holdings seem to have too much potential of giving away a trick, maybe declarer's 10th trick. Here is what I think I know about the hand: Partner is unlikely to have more than 2 spades, possibly less. P did not open with a weak 2 or a pre-empt. P, therefore, rates to be somewhat 2-suited or 3-suited. If 2-suited (i.e. 4-4,5-4, 5-5), then P might be short in diamonds, my 5- card suit. Not good for a diamond lead. If declarer happens to be 2-suited (known to happen), then I might be preventing a ruff in the second suit with a trump lead. With partner having (theoretically: my theory, lol) relative length in 2, maybe 3 suits, declarer might have difficulty setting up any secondary suit he/she holds. If declarer has more of a 1-suited hand, then I lose a timing element versus potentially giving away a trick. I guess what I am saying is that I'm not clear at this point that any tricks that we have are necessarily going away on a long suit in dummy as long as P has some honor in that suit. So I lead a spade, and finesse partner out of his Qxx and screw up the defense. Actually, I am interested in the reasoning behind others' choice of opening lead so I can see all the places where my reasoning has been faulty. DHL

Have you ever tried to put thread through that little hole in a needle in order to sew something? It requires precise eye-hand co-ordination. I am not a lexicologist but, "threading the needle", as I interpret it, means (in general) doing something with increased precision, or make finer or more refined decisions (increasing accuracy to a level greater than usual). Don't listen to me. I always got lousy grades in English or Language Arts. lololol DHL