kgr

DBL of 3♣ would have been take-out

See OP. Not 2/1..you open then?

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakq43hjt873d76c8]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] You play some kind of standard american, not 2/1: 1♠-(2♣)-2♦-(3♣) Pass-(Pass)-3♦-(Pass) ?? 2♦=forcing 3♦=non-forcing Do you agree with opening this hand 1♠ and passing the 2nd round. Do you pass 3♦ or bid 3♥ to show your ♥'s.

..then the name is probably Romex Stayman.

agree 100%

You can't call this a balancing DBL?

No. While there are 3 winning cases for the 1 finesse variation (HHx, HHxx) vs. 2 for the 0 finesse variation (Hxx), HHxx can't be picked up with only 1 finesse. And because a specific 2-2 is more likely than a specific 3-1, cashing Ace first is superior if you have only 1 entry. Is cashing Ace first not the same then finessing once, with only one entry. cashing Ace wins if East has singleton H, finessing once wins if East has singleton x.

Play for 5 tricks with enough entries: AJTxxx vs xxx I East has: KQx KQxx ..then never 5 tricks, so not included in comparison 1) finesse twice looses 2 tricks if E has: KQ 2) A followed by J looses if W has: KQx KQxx KQ with E versus KQx or KQxx with W => 1 is better 3) 1 finesse followed by A looses if E has: K Q KQ with E versus K or Q single with E. => 1 is better => With suitplay (I would be surprised if I calcuated this correctly): 1) 76% for 5 tricks 2) 66% for 5 tricks 3) 72% for 5 tricks ...And now the question: Is 72% coorect for 3? I think it is a priori correct, but is it still correct after first finesse looses to West? Or is this lower then 72% because of restricted choice?

Opps open 1NT and you DBL that. (standard, showing strength). Then opps run to a suit. How do you play a 2nd DBL: takeout, penalty, optional (eg 4 card)? ====examples===== Actual bidding: (1NT)-DBL-(2C!)-Pass (2D)-DBL?? 1NT was weak NT DBL was minimum 14 pts. 2C=transfer to D. =============== (1NT)-DBL-(2X)-Pass (Pass)-DBL?? =============== (1NT)-DBL-(Pass)-Pass (2X)-DBL??

...Corrected the bidding above by adding a (3D) bid

I like this I hate it. If you bid this way with this hand how do you bid when you have 18-20 HCP and six spades. I thought it was 'standard' that 1♠-1NT-4♠ is showing long ♠ and 11-14 pts? So again I ask, what do you do with real game values? In my system I would bid a forcing 2♣ over 1NT. In standard I would jump to force the bidding and rebid ♠ later (Or jump to 4-level in a singleton). With a 7- or 8-card ♠ and strong, I probably would have bid in my system either of: - 4D: namyats - 2D-2H-3S: Semi-forcing with S - 3D-3H-3S: GF with S With a real good hand you open 2C in standard. I don't know what you should rebid. What is 2C-2D-3S; 2C-2D-4S? 1S-1NT-4S I would expect an 8-card S and 11-14 pts, but a 7-card is also paossible.

I like this I hate it. If you bid this way with this hand how do you bid when you have 18-20 HCP and six spades. I thought it was 'standard' that 1♠-1NT-4♠ is showing long ♠ and 11-14 pts?

[hv=n=sajxxhakqdqxckqtx&s=sxxxhxdakxxxxcjxx]133|200|[/hv] We play Romex: 2NT-3♣ 3♦-4♦ 3♦=No 4-card ♥, No 5-card ♠ 4♦=slam interest with 5-card ♦ or: 2NT-4♦ 4♦=slam interest with 6-card ♦ After both starts North should bid 4NT to give a bad hand for ♦'s and the bidding will end in 4NT?

[hv=n=sxxhqjxxxxdxcxxxx&s=skqxxxhaktxdajtxc]133|200|[/hv] The bidding: (1♦)-1♠-(2♣)-Pass (Pass)-DBL-(Pass)-2♥ (3♦)-DBL-(Pass)-3♥ All Pass I was sitting North and I'm not used to 'heavy' overcalls. With my previous partner the max he would have was like 16 pts. I should have bid 4 ♥ anyway (Partners 1st DBL is promising a 4 card ♥?). Q: Is an advantage of starting with 1♠ not that it is easier to show 4 card ♥ if partner is weak (...1♠...DBL.. versus ...DBL...1♠....) or is that not important? Edited: Added 3D bid

[hv=d=n&s=sxxxhxdakxxxxcjxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Partner opens 2NT, 20-21. 3NT, 3C/4D (D slam invite), or 6D?

[hv=d=e&s=skqxxxhaktxdajtxc]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] (1D)-?? Do you start with 1♠ or DBL and what is your plan?

Thanks for the link. ...Still not sure if the system is horrible. It only proves that you win some and loose some and not clear if you loose more then you win.

Do you have more info about this analysis ...? There was a hand where someone 2♣'ed vs. 1♠ (with about 9 hcp) and caught partner with 7 card heart support with a good hand - he forced to 5♥ and was actually thinking of redoubling. The commentators of vugraph laughed remarking that the 7 card heart guy must have been 100% his partner has forgotten the convention. You can see the hand in the bulletin (not quite sure which one, it was a match against France I think). I was not in the room when one of your compatriots bid michaels with a 4-4 hand and 11 hcp. That was quite costly. Again this appears in the bulletin. Some later time Barry Rigal said something like 'we are used to seeing the Belgians finding exotic fits on high levels'. I, for one, think he's a funny person, he makes funny remarks about everyone, even top players if they make mistakes. He also says 'well done' perhaps more liberally than it would be absolutely deserved. If you wrote down every criticism he ever said, it could look offensive but in practice almost nobody minds (not even teammates or npcs of ridiculed players). All I wanted to say was that it was funny seeing your favourite conventions in action and the vugraph commentators' opinion was a good plus. Not sure of your post if the comments about the system were positive or negative. These overcalls are played by one of the top Belgian pairs (The won Belgian pairs this year, the main Belgian tournement for Pairs), who play in my club. That is why some players of that club also play that system. It allows to overcall with 2-suited hands more frequently (the requirement we have for that is same strength as a 1-level overcall because we have a 2nd suit to fall back on). Typically the lower suit is better then the higher one. eg. 1S-(2D) = D and H, normally 4-card H and better D but it can also be a 5-card H if not enough strength for a 'natural' 2H bid. ...It would be interesting to study if it is really a better system then natrual (I expect that it is slightly more frequent, but that is only a feeling).

Do you have more info about this analysis ...?

1♠-2♦ 3♣-4NT In another post, almost everybody agreed that 4NT is quantitative. If playing SAYC (not 2/1), What about: 1♠-2♦ 2♥-4NT Now: - 3♥ is not forcing - You can bid 3♣ (4th suit) but cannot set ♥ under game if partner rebids e.g 3NT. => is this enough reason to make 4NT RKC? (Any link to a good set of rules for 4NT quantitative/RKC?)

I don't remember; ...Something like: ♠KQxx ♥xxx ♦AJTxx ♣x (An offensive hand with good fit that has a good chance for game opposite a decent 1♠ overcall).

I thought that if East has JTx and wants to falsecard he will 50% of the time play the J and 50% the T. Therefor 4.44/2

Working on suit combinations. Can you verify below logic, Is it 100% correct and complete?: AK9x vs Qx You first play the Q and East drops the J. Following relevant possibilities: East has: 1) J 0.48% 2) JT 0,73% => Divide by 2 because of restricted choice: 0,365% 3) JTx 4,44% (Falsecard) => Divide by 2 because of restricted choice: 2,22% ==> 0,48% for finesse vs 2,585% for Drop. ...But if East is not a strong player and will never falsecard then: ==> 0,48% for finesse vs 0,365% for Drop ...But if East is not a strong player and will never falsecard with JTx but always play the J from JT then: ==> 0,48% for finesse vs 0,73% for Drop Thanks, Koen

2N. I assume it is not forcing.

Thanks for the answers West had: ♠Qxxx ♥Kxx ♦KJTx ♣64 I started with ♥ finesse and did go -1. I wondered if it was best to start with ♥ finesse or start on cross ruff. (West's ♦s were not very good for his DBL).