Double !

ditto, agree with mr1303

if there is an approach out there that doesn't use limited 1-bids and where reverses don't promise one more bid (not necessarily extra values than already shown), I have yet to find it.

Greetings old friend. ETM Tops appears to be much more complex than Gold, although there are two versions if my memory serves me well (which it often doesn't). Knowing you, you'll be teaching the system to others in a day or two. Best of wishes. DHL

Children, behave! Play nicely!

I'll make whatever bid allows me to ask P for the quality of his/her hand, all of those nice controls makes just bidding 4S reasonable unless P can have a yuk.

aha feature-ogust how well does it work? and, do the benefits of RONF out-weight the liabilities?

Time out! It might not be game forcing (debatable), but did partner not promise at least one more bid when he/she reversed?

out of curiosity, to what degree does the range of your 1NT openers influence your decision? If playing strong NT, then it's possible that P has a balanced minimum although unlikely. P might then have no bid, even on a minimum minor suit oriented hand. One's partner is a factor. If P will make the pressure re-opening double, then there is more to be said for passing, providing that lho doesn't up the ante by bidding 4H. 3S seems to me to be a risk, but passing or making a negX seem to be larger risks.

In response to "if you have only three parking places, you can't park 8 cars": Luis, when was the last time you were in New York City? and you pay through the nose for it!

Curious about how many ascribe to the principle that the negX'er should have at least tolerance for opener's suit (e.g.: dbltn if P opens 1M) or extra values for safety?

Alex: if you find the rest of that manequin you might have the makings of a movie.

agree that xyz makes life easier. the issue of the weak 5-6 is more important to me: it indirectly caused me to get 0 points for my created reverse on BPO-00D, I think (qTxx,AK,AKQTxx,x. I maintained then and maintain now that the hand is too good for a 4C or 4D rebid. The idea of 3M as splinter is fine if that's the common interpretation. I might have suggested that bid instead of a reverse of 2H, in response to the hand BPO-OO2 D. C'est la vie. (That's NYC street talk meaning that I want an appeals committee lololololol). Muchas gracias, Sr. Fluffy

If you are considering sound weak 2 bids, you might wish to look into Goldilocks 2-bids. An advantage to them is that they raise the ranges for suit rebids and jum-rebids (the latter can be played as forcing- solves the problem of what to do with an acol 2-bid 1-suited hand). See ETM/Bridge Matters sight for more info.

why didn't I rebid 3H? now in impossible situation, but might as well show the diamond ace, P doesn't need trump support from me on this bidding. lol, P keeps saying "tell me more", can I pass 5C? maybe there is some value in playing (no throwing rocks, please) strong jump-shifts. There are just some hands that one needs to be able to "get off one's chest".

I voted for other, (you don't want to know my bid) but would not raise clubs because of possibility of a manufactured 3C bid on a spade hand that's not good enough for a 2C opener. This whole sequence is a problem for a system that can't rebid 3 of suit and have the bid be forcing.

one vote for Double P has majors, I have a very nice lead to make, unless P has KQ6th, AK4th or 5th, x,A(x), I question whether or not P can avoid a club loser. Yes, partner's pass (to me) is forcing, and Ax is a very strong holding in P's suit. If S-Ace is all that P needs for 6, might not a bid other than 4H over 4D have been made? Just trying to learn over here

Question/ pardon my ignorance, but Why is partner hitting 5D for a lead with Ace of diamonds and out in that suit? The bidding suggests that declarer isn't very worried about diamond losers. KJTx is reasonable, as is AKxxx when declarer has a stiff. If the latter, and I lead the queen, I am on lead at trick 2 and might have a good idea what to lead then. As usual, my reasoning is probably demented but that's my thinking. I would also want to know if the opps play lho's bidding as a shape raise?

I play both, but it then creates the need for discussion of how to show GI or GF 4-6 when playing 4-suit transfers with pre-acceptance. I have my own ideas, but they run opposite of "traditional wisdom" (is that an oxymoron?) or commonly accepted "expert" bidding. I have yet to try the 5-6 jump-reverse that K.W. wrote about. Would be curious to hear from people who have or do play it.

A vote here for 2 ♥. This suit is raggy but very playable opposite Kx or Kxx, but the other high cards are quacky, unsupported, and difficult to assess at this time. The hand is 7 1/2 losers (adjusted LTC- "points-schmoints"). 2H could be good, and might (emphasize "might") result in missing occasional good game. BTW, I feel that a solid wk NT, especially with a supporting high trump honor, is worth a game try, especially playing some form of Ogust responses (am I obsolete or what?). I guess I'm out of date, obsolete, a dinosaur when it comes to the topic of weak-2 bids. With all due respect to many who have repeatedly emphasized the difference between a pre-emptive and a constructive bid, I do not regard a weak 2 bid (unless thoroughly discussed with partner) as a pre-emptive bid. I regard using a weak NT hand as the foundation or base around which all other bids are structured (even if playing strong NT), I consider a weak 2 bid as a hand that would, at worst, invite game opposite a strong NT, and would invite game if at the upper end of strength opposite a strong NT. I would also like the hand to be able to tolerate partner leading the suit, since the psychology of making such a bid is such that it at least suggests having that suit lead. The downside to this approach? Not getting in the first punch or helping the partner to quickly bid a game or compete should the opps be inconsiderate enough to bid or pre-empt. I have seen many a matchpoint and imp lost when someone has made a weak 2 on yuk and then having P lead the suit. Weak 2s can be difficult enough to handle without complicating the situation by striping it of it's (originally) theoretically semi-descriptive nature. I'd like partner to be able to trust my bids, at least a little bit.

Could it not also show a GOSH that is actually too good for a 4S bid/ direct overcall, a hand that is able to play at 5-level should partner make an inconvenient response to double? I do not agree that a simple 3-level overcall is almost forcing (although displaying a certain avatar and then using the phrase "like kinda pregnant" by one forum member raises some questions). Ya gotta compete when appropriate.

Speaking about Karen Walker: she wrote a series of articles for the acbl bulletin a while back about bidding 5-6 hands with limited opening high card count values (no mention of zars or ltc's, etc to my recollection). If memory serves me well, she presented the idea of playing a jump-reverse into the major as a method for showing such hands (versus splinters, min-splinters, etc). I am curious if anyone out there is playing this style? She also has an entry in her web site about bidding weak 4-6 hands (4M-6m) after P's 1NT rebid. (e.g: 1D-1M-1N-3C = weak 4-6, to play in 3C. How many of you play this? Does anyone play the sequence 1NT-2C-2grapes-3m to play (a weak 4-6)? If yes, how do you show GI and GF 4-6 hands?

Speaking as someone whose bridge game can easily range from quite respectable and competitive (never expert) when playing with favorite (very strong) partner even at relatively high levels such as LM pairs, to submoronic and illogical (on most days), I find this increase in activity very enjoyable and enlightening. I truly value the responses and input from all of the people that respond to various postings including those with credentials that are at the high-expert and world class level. I learn a lot from you all, regardless of skill level. The reservoir of information and resources that we collectively bring to the forum far surpasses any bridge library. And not everyone has the resources to go out and buy a plethora of bridge books, much less read them. Despite having played for many years when younger, I have learned that there is still so much that I don't know. (Hate to tell you how much I have forgotten.) There are a lot of topics discussed in this forum that one can not just go out and easily find the information and read about them---like I have the time? I also find that many answers or responses are helping me to better structure my reasoning process (aka, not just to "thimk", but how to "thimk"). I personally find explanations of the reasoning processes that people go through in order to derive their answers to problems very helpful. I still lay claim to the #1 spot of someone who can play one hand very well (assuming I am awake enough to count and remember what has been played) and then repeatedly fail to make contracts that the rest of the field has made, sometimes with overtricks, and receive a sympathetic "gtp" from my dear partners. While many of you are working out permutations (not sure about the significance of the embedded word "mutations") and simulations, some of us are still trying to correctly count to 13. BTW, I would find the results of a survey asking how many of you who post are or were either Math majors in college or professionally, are/ were involved in professions that are highly Math-oriented, or are/ were in the computer programming field. I strongly suspect that the percentage of affirmative answers would be quite high. Another possible factor contributing to the increase in postings, I suspect, is the advent of the BPO quizzes. I absolutely relish them although I am disappointed with the scoring for one hand in the last set. Bring on some more.

Hey! I thought the auction 1NT- 3NT- 5NT asks partner to bid 7 if he/she has 2 of the top 3 NTs!

Hey!: I made the right non-switch (heart continuation) to help declarer rectify the count. Of course, was half asleep at time. Just goes to show, partner switched for a reason and led LOW spade (encouraging), not an intermediate or higher spot. Who was it who said that the longer one thinks about a play, the more likely one is to make the wrong play? Well, here's a sample to enter into evidence for the prosecution!

rule of thumb? Double only when you are prepared for anything partner might bid?