Double !

That's a big 10-4, good buddie. (2 blasts of the horn from the 18-wheeler!) Give that man an "A". (or a cigar, or a frosty one: his choice) i.e.: agree completely

Ekeblad won something like 141 to 115: had a big 4th quarter. Next opps are the Tuszynski (sp?) team. GO TEAM FIGHT RAH! (see. Having a sleep disorder occasionally has its benefits! lololololol-zzzzzzzzzzz)

that, at imps, you can better afford a small swing than a large one, and that this might be a double swing hand. unless my P opens on junk in 3rd seat, r vs w, I might just bid 4S: my AQ of hearts looks like the AK to me, blame it on poor vision. The way I play, if P is light in 3rd seat, then the bid has some lead-directional purpose. Holding the ace of spades, that seems less likely on this hand unless rho has psyched and plans to run if you double (which might be the correct bid- I don't know). Then you're faced with the same problem when rho runs. Perhaps, if you just bid 4S, red vs white, rho might take out what seems like insurance and sac. Very interesting hand. What would you lead if you doubled and it went pass-pass-pass?

You didn't mention which system is being played. (Phantom Club?) 2 bullets and solid interior sequence in spades: I voted to push a little and bid 2S. I think I can tolerate any bid P makes.

whoa, that is some performance is this the adam in the picture with you? to Q in mixed BAM means someone had a good pard :-)

The words "were met by many eye-rolls" as Elianna reported are significant to me assuming that I interpreted her message correctly. So, I am curious to know whether younger players, teens, juniors, (perhaps even a little older) were ever even consulted or polled about this "bridge is cool" idea to elicit their feedback, opinions, and/or suggestions. Assuming that the answer to the above is essentially "NO", I am curious about whether that feedback was ever provided to the decision-makers, and whether there was even a vehicle for doing so?

Thank you for the responses so far. A few of the responses suggested a certain degree of simplicity and several respondents offered some more extensive response structures. Every response is appreciated, they demonstrate that there is no "standard" treatment, and IMO every response warranted high merit. The motivation for me to post this question actually came from my inability to remember the recommendations or structures that were suggested for such a situation in a Bridge World article from eons ago as well as having seen some disagreements occur at the table from time to time. I, too, am often looking for a better quality mousetrap and, therefore, value it when you all offer some new or different ideas.

Congrats UDAY Super-excellent job. If people check the results of the 2004 NABC LM Pairs held in NYC, they will also find that Uday made it to the finals and finished in the overalls if not near the top. Obviously he is a very strong bridge player. DHL

Agree How many recent books really surpass Reese's "Master Play" or Kelsey's "Killing Defense"? The latter has at least two full chapters emphasizing counting (to 13, if you must), and drawing inferences from counting. There is one small part in Master Play where Reese presents the concept of upside-down inferences that is worth noting. Marvelous books.

I am curious about what other people play (assume some version of an approximately 15-17 1NT opening system such as 2/1) should the following situation occur. Partner opens with 1m and your rho overcalls 1NT (non-conventional). What are your responses and agreements? It was suggested to me a number of years ago to respond as though partner had opened 1NT (doubles still being penalty, but FOC or systems on otherwise.) This has been effective on the limited number of times the situation has occurred, and has needed little additional discussion when the system of responses to 1NT openings has already been at least somewhat discussed. I believe that there is actually a name for this convention/ treatment, "As if I Bid It", but I haven't seen it listed lately in the myriad of web sites that I know or have found. I am curious if any of you play this, what kind of experiences you have had with it, the correct name for it (if any), and your assessments/ evaluations of this method of handling 1NT overcalls by opps. Thank you in advance, DHL

This is (at least) the fourth version of "Unusual over Unusual" that I have seen. The first version that I learned played doubles as a decent hand with a clear X in one of the minors, cue bid of the lower of rho's announced 2 suits as showing a limit raise or better in partner's suit, cue bidding the higher of the 2 suits as showing the 4th suit (invitational) with tolerance for P suit, and bidding the 4th suit as being GF. A second version had bidding the 4th suit as GI in that suit and cue bidding rho's higher announced suit as showing GF in the 4th suit (rather illogical to me if P opened 1H as this would make 3D by as GF in spades, and 3S as GI in spades.) I recently read an article on U/U in the acbl bulletin (I think it was by Alan Bell) where he made a strong argument for making the cue bid of the lower of rho's suit as showing the 4th suit, and a cue bid of the higher of rho's 2 suits as showing a limit+ raise in P suit. (In all variations, a bid of 3 of P's suit is competitive). His point was that, by having the lower of the 2 suits show the 4th suit, this left an extra step available between the cue bid and opener's suit that could be used as a denial bid, a bid that would deny support/interest in responder's suit (the 4th suit). Makes sense to me. This does really address the initial issue of this thread, but it says to me that, if a partnership agrees to play Unusual over Unusual, it might be a good idea to ascertain that both agree on the meanings of these cue bids. p.s.: apologies if I have incorrectly identified the author of this article.

I guess I prefer 7C because I will be able to ruff the third spade to get the count in spades and rectify the hand for any squeeze positions that might exist? In NT, I'd be guessing the spade suit. As to the question of what my chances are? Chances are that I would screw the whole thing up and get the situation backwards!

if the opps are vul, that changes the situation significantly.

I'd like to say something about this. There's some concept floating among some BBO members about first doubles being takeout and second doubles being for penalties. At least 3 players have asked me about this and now I see you are saying "not 100% penalties" when it should be "still 100% takeout" instead. Is there any idea more absurd that a hand that first has a takeout double and then morphs into a penalty double? No! If you have a t/o double your 2nd double is still t/o showing maybe extra strength or extra shape. Of course pd can pass a t/o double when he has a trump stack but that doesn't mean your 2nd double is more penalty oriented than the first one, not at all! Luis Perhaps I just chose my words poorly ("not 100% penalty"), but I thought that my following explanation clarified what I was trying to say. I apologize for my poor verbal and written communication skills.

Good point, but I am sure that beginners/intermediates are reluctant to support unless they are certain of an 8-card fit. It takes years to understand the benefits of supporting with only 3, and as you may know, it is considered a major crime to do just that in some parts of the world. Roland I am sorry I mentioned it. I don't wish to be accused of having influenced or encouraged anyone to engage in any criminal behavior.

bid 1NT at matchpoints, it's often a race to see who can get to 1NT first. It takes 8 tricks to beat 1S for +100, and if you make 8 tricks in NT, that's +120.

Can we have a 5-3 fit? Would P have not bid 2S/2D instead of 3C with 3-card spade support?

OK! I'm banned for using the F-word. Bad me! Bad, Bad! I humbly apologize and hang my head in shame and public disgrace. I beg for forgiveness. I guess the F-word is only acceptable if preceeded by the word "Reverse".

2S could be 5-card suit, a default whereby no other rebid was available such as a 5332 hand that couldn't bid NT. The neg dbl also usually suggests some tolerance for partner's suit (the way I learned it). Double 3H: doesn't mean 100% penalty, it just means I have enough strength to compete one level higher than previously indicated by my negX, but no clear alternative: good hand, no suit, can't bid 3NT, nothing left to do, too good to pass.

With a void in hearts? Is this a commonly accepted, understood, and used bid?

I Hate Jacoby 2NT!!!!! You lose more than you think by not having it available as a natural bid (even playing 2/1: you could play it as Baron 16+). Fred has some compelling recommendations and responses about this issue in his articles about improving 2/1. Worth re-reading.

4 Spades is the bid that I was suggesting in my previous post, but I didn't know how most people play 4S/3N in this sequence. Specifically, I don't know whether people play it as showing actual spade support as opposed to showing a doubleton spade (assuming P showed 6), knowing that there is an 8-card fit, and enough outside controls and strength (mostly in diamonds and hearts) to have some slam interest (ie, more than a minimum 2/1 response that also could not rebid 2NT due to lack of club stopper) I am still not clear whether or not that is how you are suggesting that the sequence of bids made by responder/ advancer be interpreted. Please clarify.

The benefits are that 1♠ is always natural and forcing for one round, and not ambiguous as in 4th suit. Accordingly, 2♠ is also only one-way: 4th suit without four spades. I am flexible, I play whatever partner is comfortable with. Roland I would bid 2NT. I have a minimum hand with spade stoppers, partner bid the 4th suit albeit via a jump (intermediate 6-3 death hand?), so I feel my first responsibility is to indicate whether or not I have spades stopped. Partner will likely/ hopefully clarify what the heck he meant by his 2S bid with his next bid. (Roland. You are always the "voice" of reason and logic on this site. So glad you post so often: I learn a lot from you. Thanks)

As I understand the question, you are asking how to make a game try as opposed to simply competing should the opponents compete by overcalling at the 3-level. There is no one right answer. Most people now play that a 3H bid by you over the opp's 3C bid is strictly competitive, to play, and NOT an invitation for partner to bid 4H even with 8 or 9 pts, or whatever would be a maximum hand for P raise to 2H. If this is your agreement, then you have only two bids available that might be used for a game try. The method that I am more familiar with is to play a double of 3 clubs as a general game try but with some values (not a singleton) in clubs making it possible for partner to convert the double to penalties with a relatively balanced hand that does not wish to bid 4H. A bid of 3 diamonds would be a general game try, saying nothing about diamonds, but simply being the only other game try I have available, probably with most values outside of clubs, possibly distributional. This approach falls roughly under the category of a convention called "Maximal Overcall Doubles" or "Maximal Doubles". It is more often associated with situations when the opps have bid the suit just under yours (i.e.: bidding 3 diamond if you were bidding hearts) and, therefore, left you with no other possible bid other than double to use as a game try. There are many web sites, such as www.bridgeguys.com/conventions, and books that describe this convention further. Hope this was the type of information that you were seeking.

What a great idea, I mean it! See how long people can endure and maintain discipline before feeling that there must be some games (or slams) to bid, and that they have been underbidding. I also think that such a game would be helpful/ instructional for some players to see how other players handle invitational as well as competitive situations. This might even turn into a contest of sorts between 1) the so-called "bashers" who just bid the game and hope to make it or get a defensive error, and the more scientific (not sure that's the correct term) bidders who would employ various game tries, as well as between 2) those who use a more constructive approach as opposed to those who use more pre-emption in their bidding (more of the trend these days).