Double !

No, Richard, not on Crack ("crack is wack"). But, believe me, where I work I could probably get my hands on some in less than 5 minutes/ always see broken crack vials on sidewalks. (south bronx vs. mem. drive and kendall/central square---OK, maybe take 10 minutes around there lololol) I was just trying to make the observation that our selected panel is not exactly shabby, and to give the panel members my vote of support and compliments. We have some pretty darn fine players and analysts among the forum members and posters: They might not be Solloways et.al., but we have a pretty good overall base of knowledge among the forum members. Good grief, mon. "Chill" !!!!!

Ben: Is it possible that you mis-read the bidding? (or else I did, so shut my mouth) As I read it, your partner dbl'd lho's 2 diamond bid, rho passed, and now it's our bid? My plan is to first bid 2NT, unlikely to be leb, (it really doesn't matter, I have the values) Even if P interprets it as leb, that's all good. I can then bid 3D over P's expected 3C bid, asking him for his better major), and then bid/correct to 3S if he bids 3H. Hopefully P will get the message of a near opener with wasted diamond values and only 4 spades. With 5 spades it's just possible that I might have responded 3 spades initially. (BTW: I personally wouldn't open this hand one diamond even though i can rebid 1S. In addition, only 24 zars if I got count correct.)

This was a good post. Thanks for the kick in the u-no-what about the need to brush up on some of this. The overall topic including the hands in question can be found on pages 64 thru 67 in Ruben's book, still IMO one of the best books ever written about evaluation and decision making. Tx Lukewarm.

Just noticed the list of suggested panelists. BW MSC should be so lucky to have a panel of such a high caliber.

I see the nominees for the Al Roth role. Pray tell, who gets nominated to play the role of Barbara Rappaport (such a beautiful woman)?

Alain Thank you so much for you description of the 2D structure in SEF. (I tried to write en Francais but can't spell anything anymore.) The reason this issue is important to me was described in my previous posting. However, I also happen to be one of the few people in my area who actually like and/or use Benjamin 2-bids. One of the major problems in most american-style bidding are the hands that one might wish to open 1M and then rebid 3M forcing. Used to be but hasn't been longer treated as being forcing for several decades. Now one often has to invent some sort of jump-shift or artificial relay, potentially creating distortions that are difficult to recover from. I suspect that Schenken and, later, Precision club systems had the issue of resolving some of these types of hands among their purposes. It is also possible to go in the opposite direct, making suit opening and rebids relatively stronger by using something like Goldilocks 2-Bids (See ETM). But who plays them? I have been working on developing my own homegrown system, and this information might prove to be very helpful. If I've ever had the privilege of playing against some of you when playing with one of my frequent BBO partners, then you might be familiar with what I've been working on---a system that is very natural and where minor suit openings are, like majors, often if not usually 5+ card in length (or else the hand has 4 spades or extra values. Is still a work in progress, but some more ideas are being considered. So, again, my sincerest appreciation for your response and information. Don

Just a thought... Could it be that the advent, development, and refinement of the negative double provided a sufficient alternative to help avoiding missing 4-4 major suit fits that the gains of 5-card majors outweights the liabilities, especially when matchpoints necessitates having a better idea of the degree of trump fit in competitive situations?

Ben No more venom, anyway, spoke to Rain, so no problem. lololol hey, you're the one who got me started with this posting stuff in the first place, to refresh your memory lolololol and I thank you for it. You do a masterful job/ glad you no longer so bored good to hear from you Don

I voted to leave it blank, although you might want to just tally the number of posts the person has made. FWIW, I kinda enjoyed Rain's food lisitings, and I think it's unkind to her to get so down on them.

what? we're supposed to bid 3S on hand one, telling partner we have dbltn honor and an escape to 4D is it's wrong, and let P then bid 3NT with hearts stopped? Actually, that's not such a bad idea.....lololol Partner might very well be on a 6 card suit with not that good a hand, like a wjo. Didn't the italians play roman jump overcalls, suit bid and next higher suit way back then? hand 2 = pass. Partner will still have a chance to force me to bid, like with a double. I might just then chance 3NT.

Phil I agree with most of your last post to double with the 7-4 hand is just looking for disaster, IMO I wonder whether double would even be a consideration if it weren't for the matchpoint training of never missing a major suit game hadn't been drilled into us? And if leaping michaels shows 5-5 or 5-6, i don't want to have to explain to partner that I felt the 4 hearts (not five to handle taps) were 4 good ones after he took a preference to 4H on 3 small. I'm still wondering if there might not be an alternative to an immediate 5 club response. Like I said, this hand does have a number of holes.

Ben: At the risk of me appearing stoopid, please define the criteria for a weak jump shift as I know of two school of thought on this. 1) one school says it (usually) a 6 bagger with 0- to some low number of hcp 2) another school has it more structured: 3-7hcp plus or minus, semi-constructive, in order to better clarify the range should responded respond in and then rebid a major (invitational). Thank you in advance. Don

Justin: I know that. I'm just saying that, to adulterate a song, "Nobody knows the doubles I've seen. Nobody knows but..............." And nobody knows the number of times I've seen the poor unfortunate, learned player, whose reasoning was exactly as you just posted, get reamed by his self-righteous, soon-to-be ex-partner for making the only lead to give the contract away when he (so he thought) had the hand set in his hand if only partner hadn't made such a "stoopid" lead. I think you now see my point. That's why the longer the actually hand doesn't get posted, the more suspicious I'm becoming about what's going on with this hand? Please note that I posted leading a club when this thread first appeared.

Thank you, Hannie. I appreciate it.

A wise sage once said to me (OK, more than once) two things: 1) I bid when I have a reason to bid. & 2) Avoid making bids that partner can criticize to which I might add, "the purpose of this game is to take tricks, not count points" where is the trick-taking potential of hand #1? OK, maybe a heart ruff. This whole issue about balancing "support with support" with the idea that a bid might also suggest some potential defense or offensive support via a high card or two still seems to be wide open. I see trick taking potential on hand 2 in terms of a 4th trump, and a potential ruffing value. NV, 3 spades is reasonable, I guess...never vul. hate - 200, 500, 800, but that's another story. As for a single raise with this hand? matter of partnership agreement/ is the hand good enough to make game opposite an opener who has just under a 2C or 2N hand?----could be.

Got an interesting (to me) question. If partner had opened 1 heart, then the impossible 2S would be theoretically available of this auction... Is there something similar that's available if the opening bid is 1 spade to tell partner "YES! You hit me big time with 2C?"

getting more concerned. vote so far seems to be about 7 to 1 for a club lead why is this hand being surveyed? I have my suspicion that the doubler had 2 red aces and doubled because he was going teach that 6 spade bidder a lesson and get double penalty bonus points (more imps/ "greedy"), but partner, instead, interpreted it as lightner, led a club, and presented declarer with 12 tricks before the defense could get two. And then the doubler yelled at opening leader, made typical comments, and abruptly left the table, never acknowledging that he/she had triggered the disaster by doubling because P was leading a red card without the double. If this scenario was indeed the case, then I would love to see the chat log that followed (to check for spelling errors, vocabulary, grammar, 4-letter words, etc.)

I don't really have a preference in terms of response systems to 1M, but I strongly feel that whatever approach one chooses needs to pass a 6-fold test. 1) are you and partner in agreement about what all bids mean and the requirements for the bids? Does your structure allow for expansion or modification if the partnership so desires. Especially, do you have the same understandings of the meanings and follow-ups to the various conventions that you select. (for example, I know of at least 3 different variations of the convention "Unusual over Unusual", and at least three versions of Ogust responses to weak2 bids.) 2) without interference, does your structure get you where you want to be more accurately and efficiently than other options that your partnership has considered or attempted to use. Do you have the tools you need, and does the partnership use them well? (I remember a famous quote, so famous that I forget who the person was who said it, that said "It is better to play a poor system well than to play a good system poorly".) 3) does your structure still allow you to get to where you need to be when the opps stick their 2-cents in and compete? (recently upgraded to 2-dollars or 2 euros due to inflation) Does your structure permit you to make relatively well informed decisions in competitive situations regarding whether to pass, bid, double, and have you discussed the meanings of various actions in as many of these potential situations as you could. How pre-emption-proof is your structure. What are you giving up versus gaining by changing the meaning of certain bids? (see Fred's comments about the sequence of 1M-2NT in his superb work "Improving 2/1 GF" etc. Does your structure make any attempt to make it more difficult for the opps to compete or interfere, and/or reach their par. What decisions and agreements have you and partner made regarding how "aggressive" your overall approach will be (where on the pressure bidding--constructive/ accuracy/ risk-reduction bidding continuum does your approach fall? Are you happy with it?) 4) do you and your partner have the time, the attention, the ability to retain and recall all aspects of your agreements (i.e. memory), especially over the long haul of a multi-session event, and similar levels of motivation to work at the partnership. (The latter, IMHO, is a very important consideration for partnership success.) Many people do, and many do not. What is the potential capacity of your partnership combined in these areas. 5) Is your selected structure permitted where you play. (Yes, I know that this was not supposed to be a consideration when answering this poll.) For example, it is my understanding that 1M-1NT GF is not permitted in acbl play although some get around this restriction by adding that the 1NT response is not always GF because it could contain a weak raise in the major. 6) is whatever structure you select to play fun for you and your partner? Do you enjoy playing that way, is your approach successful both from a competitive-achievement perspective as well as from the need to feel a sense of accomplishment/ mastery and pleasure from the game? And, very importantly, do you and your partner like and respect each other? If not, well.....if one thinks that he/she is far superior to the other, welllllll.................destruction! Ego does not a successful partnership make. Another issue IMO is how often will you need to pre-alert, to hit the blue plastic alert strip, or remember to make the appropriate announcement or risk receiving procedural penalties? My opinion is, Don't be a hero worshipper and feel that you MUST play something just because current world champions are playing it. What works for some might not work as well for others. There are likely infinite other factors and variables that have contributes to their successes. I suggest trying various styles or response structures with your various partners and then selecting what works best for the partnership, not what some poll says is best or that the majority prefer. Where is it written that you have to go along with the majority. Most bridge players are pretty intelligent people. I say, "Feel free to use your ability to think and be creative. Chance are high that many bridge players have an idea or 100 about various bidding situations, defense, and (dare I say) issues related to rules and regulations". I don't know you. Maybe you are a professional, a current or future international champion, offspring of a champion, inventor of systems, and have a star on the BBO lobby. Chances are that you are far more accomplished than I. I hardly ever play live bridge anymore due to multiple factors, and if it weren't for Fred and BBO, well, who knows if I'd be playing or even care about the game at this time?............ I am really speaking from the viewpoint of someone who knows he will never win an NABC event in his life although I have had a number of across-section tops in the course of the few LM Pairs events that I have played in (i have a superb/ superior partner). But, I think I know what is best for me and my partnerships. I believe that knowing oneself in terms of a realistic appraisal of skills, potential, knowledge of self and of partner both in terms of personality, motivation, reactivity, interpersonal behavior (I can't stand arrogant players who are so "full of themselves", and I have known many who fit that category) and both cognitive and emotional monitoring and self-control, especially when things go sour, are very important to partnership success, stability, and weathering the down times without breaking up. The issue of partnership compatiability and all of it's ramifications can not be over-emphasized IMO. Bridge is so much a relationship thing, too, if one stops and thinks about it. Even partnerships where individual skill levels are somewhat different can and have endured and succeeded when other partnership factors have been intact. Having the knowledge base of what approaches are now out there and being played, however, is invaluable. I will never forget a hand I played against 2 Polish international stars during the semis of the LM pairs who were playing Polish Club. They had a normal bidding sequence to get to a normal contract. It worked out that I had found the potentially most successful opening lead but, because I was unfamiliar with their methods or so I thought, I suddenly lost trust in my initial judgment, didn't follow-up as i had planned, and screwed up royally as a result. (9 more matchpoints along the way and we were in the finals!) I don't believe that this would have happened had I been more familiar with the system and didn't permit myself to be intimidated or psyche myself out. My personal approach is to try to play as well as I can, within my current abilities, consistent with my and my partner's beliefs and styles, and to try to minimize personal and partnership errors. For me, and for many other people I know, these issues often prove to be more important to success or lack of success than trying to play the best bidding structure. [i refer the reader to comments that Fred shared about why he prefers to play strong versus weak 1NT openings at this time. Is this the best structure or use of the bid? His answer was that, for him, he preferred it and he listed a variety of reasons why. And we all read what he had to say.] Yet, many others play differently including many nationally and world reknown and respected players. Sorry for the unsolicited and, probably unwanted dissertation. I might not be a top-flight player or even close, I am definitely not an expert per BBO criteria, and i am certainly not someone who should be regarded as an authority on bridge per se. I do believe that I know a little something about people, how they interact, how many react, and how they do or do not communicate and behave including when it comes to playing bridge. My credentials are having become a LM in my mid-20's, (I stopped playing a few years afterward for the most part because I couldn't stand the rat race and had a family and career- so to speak) and having performed on stage during the 1970 summer NABCs in Boston. I even sang the finale - heaven save us all). I will likely never have a star after my name, but I have been around this game to various degrees for a long time, have seen, met, spoken to, played against, and have known a lot of people including many players and other people who came out of the Boston area who now (and then) have stars next to their names. I am sure that many of you have more compelling credentials, experiences, and have seen and known just as many people of your time. I just hope that some of my experiences (and failures) from long ago and some more recently, and information might be of benefit some someone who reads the forum. If not, Uday, Ben, other yellows, feel free to delete the post. Maybe a lot of what I have shared doesn't apply at the highest levels, and probably many of you couldn't care less about what I've shared. So be it. Then just ignore my posting. If what I wrote is of interest to some, then i am happy for that. Whatever your decision, peace to all, be well, be safe and,....................wake up!, it's your bid! Best regards, Don

Glad you mentioned Schenken 2 diamonds-a very interesting and helpful bid for the freaky hands that went the way of the dinosaur. I still have the book. Can you think of some way to incorporate that response system into some variation of Benjamin 2-bids (yes, I like them) or even improve on it? Would be VERY interested in suggestions. Thanks

I would open the hand 1♦, but that's not so important. I play a homegrown 13-16 1NT system where a 1NT rebid also shows 12-16, either an absolute mini 12-13, or 12-15/16 with a flaw such as stiff in partner's suit. Openings in minors are sound, usually show 5+ in the suit, openings in majors might be lighter. The consequence is that initial responses tend to be slightly sounder, as well. Two cools things about this approach are that bidding is often quite natural, more so than 2/1 or sayc (except for our 2D opener). If 1m is opened, one usually has either at least a 4-card suit, usually 5+ cards in a bid minor or else extra values, and (IMPORTANT) that 1m opening is rarely a balanced minimum. Yeah, it is an imperfect system, be the first to admit it, and it has some problem hands like really good balanced 16s, but it is a lot of fun to play and, so far, have done just as well with this as with 2/1. I like the 13-16NT because it is harder to compete against, or so I think. So, with the hand in question, i would not rebid 1NT playing my way, but have no objection to rebidding 1NT 17-18 with a singleton in partner's suit, provided the possibility has been discussed and opps are alerted to the possibility. This is a hard hand to assess and bid because a lot of it's value depdns on partner's internal structure and distro. 2C rebid is fine because i get to hear P's rebid, possibly still at the 2 level, and I can still "catch up" from the 2C rebid if need be.

I bought the book and started reading it----didn't get that far, kept getting interrupted by all of those success-story sample hands that split up the meat of the text, but soon realized that I wasn't sure if parts of the system (such as 1M-1N GF) would be permitted in acbl events. To those of you who have read and used the system: how good a system is Viking at matchpoints? Are the frequencies with which the many various specialized sequence occur worth the brain drain and drill needed to implement them? ...and, has the system resolved the problem of wrong-siding NT contracts after 1C openings (1NT resp = 8/9-14), and missing 4-4 major fits after a 2 club opening? From what I've read so far, I suspect that the answer is "no". But, the system has a lot of cool names for relays such as sidestep, '54 pick-up, six-shooter, crash, trigger.

I would bid 3 clubs. If opener takes a shot at 3NT with 16-17, are you so unhappy with such a bid? Most of your cards are in partner's 2 "suits", always a good sign. I wouldn't want to be asked to tell what I observed should responder take a false preference to 2 spades---Wouldn't that constitute being asked to "bear false preference witness"?

It's refreshing to read such unanimity of opinions over one hand including whether or not the 5-5 hand should be opened or not. Should the other hand rebid 1NT? (Maybe the problem was the 1NT range being played.) And then to sentence the poor pair to having to play together again. This is gross injustice, a kangaroo court, and cruel and unusual punishment! Be more merciful, please..... such as sentencing both to having to watch HGTV when there's a major football game on TV.

If I initially pass this hand, i bid 2 spades over 1 diamond in less than a heartbeat. What better hand could I have for a fit J-S: 4 controls, and a stiff. And, yes, J-S by passed hand = limit raise (aka fit J-S) is pretty standard last time I looked. What is the problem?

If you're not trying to jolt partner and communicate something special via the double (e.g. lightner), then why dbl. If you pass, you have a middle: heads you win, tails you tie.