bluenikki

And yet, two experts this week made doubles that seem like madness to me, which contributed to blowing leads. Apparently, they think it's winning tactics.

My question about winning on balance was not about lead-direction doubles in general. It was about doubling with a broken suit.

In 1974, my team reached the Grand National Teams knockout stage for central New York. It was unflighted in those days. My wife and I were very inexperienced, but our teammates were very good. Opposing was the team that was had dominated imps events in the area. But at the half, we had a useful lead. And then, early in the second half, I heard a Jacoby transfer 2[diamonds on my right. I held KJxxx in the suit, and it seemed a good idea to double. Redoubled, making 4. We still won the match. As I said, our teammates were very good. That was a life lesson for me. Two lessons actually. First, be certain you want the lead. Second, be sure you have enough solidity in the suit to stop the second overtrick. But then came the last quarter this year's Soloway semifinals. A player on the team with the lead heard a Kokish auction 2[clubs - 2[diamonds ; 2[hearts - 2[spades ending on his right. He held AJxxx and out. He doubled. -1040. And then, in the last quarter of the Soloway finals, a player (with the lead again!) heard 2[clubs - 2[diamonds and chose to double with KJ9xx . He had two queens and a jack on the side, so there was only one redoubled overtrick. Still, a 7 imp loss. Clearly, experts today disagree with my life lessons. Does this really win on balance?

Yes. But the objective is to get to a non-silly contract before the doubling starts. Not necessarily the best contract. By the way, it has always seemed to me madness to bid spades artificially when it's the opponents' hand.

transferring to the minor gets you to 3.

Here is another consideration. If responder intends to pass opener's rebid, opener would do well to bid their _stronger_ major. Facing a weak 4=4=5=0 or 4=4=4=1 that won't matter much. But what about 3=3=6=1 ? Strong notrumpers may be willing to pay off to these rare holdings. But the holdings are much less rare facing a weak notrump.

I thought the guideline was simple: Strain to overcall with a singleton or void. Strain not to otherwise.

Would opener also have bid 3NT with KJxx in diamonds? How about KQxx? Forgive me for bringing in ancient history, but here is how Kaplan-Sheinwold handled the forcing single raise in a weak notrump context. There, the single raise's minimum was "possible game opposite strong notrump." . Opener's 3NT rebid showed 18+ and guaranteed a 3-card opening. Their 2NT rebid showed balanced 15-17 and *denied* a good 4+ holding in the suit opened. The rebid of the suit opened denied 15+ hcp. All other bids promised 15+ and a hand suitable for a high contract in the minor opened, including a not-bad trump suit. Why this digression? Because your 3-club limit raise removes opener's ability to distinguish good hands with bad trumps from those with good trumps. Is it worth it to reserve the single raise to hands worth game opposite any unbalanced 12-count?

All of these discussions evade the crucial fact: Advancer must must must bid a suit when weak. And they must be prepared to bid a 3-card suit in tempo. As far as I am concerned, 8 points including distribution is weak. But I believe in light distributional doubles.

Long ago, Jeff Rubens made a compelling case that the 1NT advance should say "I'm worth a jump, but I have no good suit." So 9-11, including length points. As soon as west opens 1♠, south should begin thinking about what they will do if partner doubles. Or bids a suit, for that matter.

Yes. I'm being dragged kicking and screaming into Blackwooding unsoundly, to prevent the bot from taking over. Similarly, the bot has lebesohled me so often into Jxxxx that I'm going to start passing 2NT.

Yes. I'm being dragged kicking and screaming into Blackwooding unsoundly, to prevent the bot from taking over. Similarly, the bot has lebesohled me so often into Jxxxx that I'm going to start passing 2NT.

Partner's pass over 2♦ denies 7+ hcp outside diamonds unless they have no 4+ major or 5+ clubs. Partner's pass over 3♦ denies 4+ outside diamonds unless they have no 4+ major or 5+ clubs. Doubler must rely on advancer to do all the overbidding for the partnership.

Kelsey gave the following rationale for treating quantitative 4NT as non-forcing Blackwood: "Acceptance" shouldn't be a matter of how many extra jacks you have. Opener should want to accept with a minimum made of of aces and kings, plus queens accompanying a higher honor. But that could leave two aces missing. So with a control-rich hand that is not a numerical maximum, opener should make the aces reply. And then partner signs off at 5NT if aces are missing.

Kelsey gave the following rationale for treating quantitative 4NT as non-forcing Blackwood: "Acceptance" shouldn't be a matter of how many extra jacks you have. Opener should want to accept with a minimum made of of aces and kings, plus queens accompanied with a higher honor. But that could leave two aces missing. So with a control-rich hand that is not a numerical maximum, opener should make the aces reply. And then partner signs off at 5NT if aces are missing.

The best game is 4♥ by south. I doubt if you get there even if north passed or opened 1♣. Off-topic: Everyone should learn how to play 4-3 fits!

Goren actually suggested it in the late 50s

It's really 34. When the 33 is missing the AK of the same suit, you will always be down when both are with the opening leader. You will be down at least 25% of the time when both are with the non-leader. You will sometimes be down when the ace is with the opening leader.

Cheapest shmeapest. It's the only forcing bid. Period.

3♥ did not suggest a ♣ control. Replace the ♦ 4 with the king and you would have full value for your bid. And slam would still be silly. By the way, your hand values to 19 in 1960 Goren: An independent suit adds one point for the fifth card and two more for each additional length.

Actually, you do not understand me. I do not mean that slam auctions must be made different from other slam auctions. I mean that slam auctions must be different from game auctions.

Yes, but from 983 and 9832, you are supposed to lead the 3. When the 2 is with a thinking declarer, partner will not know which. So the rule should be "lowest (not "low") from odd, highest you can afford from even." Why does partner need to know your length in a worthless suit? So they will know how many honors will cash!

Kelsey's "Killing Defense at Bridge."

By the way, do you have any proof of that? After all, pairs of hands with 30 hcp and 10 control points combined are rare. WITHIN THAT UNIVERSE I bet at least 10% have fits in two suits, in one of which slam is poor and slam is good in the other.

I haven't seen any proposed solution by all those good players. Have you? I have no thought that my solutions are any good. They're just off the top of my head. (But I still believe that responder's splinter raise of opener's SECOND suit is a waste.)