karlson

I think standard is 3♦=good suit/bad hand (reverse). The way I remember it is that a friend pointed out that the original way makes more sense, since opposite a weak 2♦ you are more likely to want to bid 3N opposite a good suit. Then I remember that his way is the opposite of standard.

I have definitely played 2♦ waiting (can be 3) in a 2/1 system (1♦-2♣ GF). It works quite well.

Maybe I'm dumb and don't know what a type L compound is, but I don't understand how this squeeze works if all we specify is that lefty has 4 hearts (i.e. both black guards are split) without the extra guard threat in the spade suit.

If I played this double as takeout, I guess I might call it responsive. Otherwise, no, no, and no.

After ruffing the second club obviously come back with a heart and run the rest of the trump (cashing a second heart along the way I guess). Pitch the ♠9 and another spade. I don't think that I can make it if righty has the long hearts (unless lefty has 7 clubs), since I can't isolate any positional threat. So assume that lefty has the heart guard. Then on the last trump there will be a guard squeeze if he started with ♠HHx. He'll pitch down to stiff spade (if he pitches the club guard we throw a spade and there's a double squeeze around spades), then we can pitch the club, cash a spade, try the hearts, and hook the spade when they don't break. This will require us to guess if lefty started with 3415 or 2416, it will also work fine if he started with 3217 or the like (we'll read him for a club guard and play for double squeeze around spades, this time with the guards reversed). Hopefully we can read the signals/discards and guess his black suit distribution. If there's really absolutely nothing to go on, I will play him for 2416 if he bid 2♣ and 3415 if he doubled, but I imagine we'll have something else.

I would bid 2♠ now, I don't think this is enough to double and then bid 3♠ over 3m. If 3♥ comes back, I would double.

I think south failed to visualize the whole hand. Admittedly, he got a little unlucky. If north's minors had been reversed, perhaps he would have scored only -670.

I'd bid 2♠.

I think that Pran has a very reasonable point, though perhaps taken to an extreme. I've definitely seen situations where two players technically haven't had any system discussion, but they both know that the other plays convention/treatment X with all of his other regular partners (and say they both know that the other knows this). Can it really be fair to say that it's undiscussed when it comes up? Similarly with bluejak's example, perhaps it's general bridge knowledge in the UK that 1N is 12-14, but to someone from across the ocean, it might be quite surprising. It doesn't seem fair to categorize something as general bridge knowledge when the source of the knowledge is experience playing with the same partners, in the same club, or even in the same general geographical area.

Double?

Certainly 4♥ is normal, you'll get no argument from me. Let me try to make the case for double, and you can tell me if I'm insane. Remember we're white on red. In a few words: We might already be behind on the board, I expect to get 500 pretty often when partner sits and rate to get to 4♥ anyway when he doesn't. In more words: If partner passes, which I expect him to do with a decent 3-card spade holding, I would expect 3♠x to often go -2. Let's say there will be 17 trumps (there will sometimes be less, usually not more. The long suits certainly will push the total tricks up, but on the other hand we do have scattered values and no singleton. If there's 17 tricks it rates to be right to defend, and it will also be right to defend if there are more, but we're making 11 or 12 tricks in hearts (we're never bidding a slam). Occasionally with 18 tricks it will be -1 when we were making 4, that will be bad. (At MP) If the other pairs don't get a 3♠ preempt they will rightside 4♥ and this could easily be worth a trick. If we're already behind it makes sense to gamble. If partner pulls the double to 4m, obviously we'll bid 4♥. To me this doesn't show a slam try, just a flexible hand with 5 hearts and another place to play. Odds are partner won't pull this (3 hearts is not unlikely after the pull of the double, and Qx and maybe some other doubletons will probably sit as well). Obviously if he does pull it's bad, but maybe we survive in 5♥. Once in a blue moon partner will pull to 4♥ and we'll have rightsided (probably).

w/r ♠xx ♥AKJxxx ♦Jx ♣Qxx 1N-(3♠)- Standard methods: 1N is 15-17, you have no way to transfer to hearts and you play takeout doubles. Feel free to differentiate between MP/IMP

Wow, I think you guys are all crazy. I would pass for sure (agree with all of Phil's "against" points). Yes, we might get outbid anyway if we have hearts, but that's only true if the opponents hold the majority of the strength. Our hand is remarkably good for hearts when we're the ones making something.

Your partner might have come up with 3♦ over 2♥.

I think 4N is obviously keycard without discussion. It would not be natural in my regular partnerhsips either. The auction was ok up to that point, though I think that 3♥ should be a punt, and north should just bid 3N (15-17) over 2♠.

I would double and pass 3M.

Maybe, but I'm not so confident. p-1♥ 2♣ drury - 2♦ waiting 3♣ natural game try - 3♦ ostensibly retry 4♥ max no help - 4n keycard 5♣ one - 5♦ Q-ask 5N yes, no kings - 6♣ anything extra in clubs? 7♣ why yes! - 7N not an unreasonable MP guess. I'd like to think that after making a club game try north should not go to 7 with just AQJx or AQxxx, but if you told me that at another time I perpetrated the same auction with only one of those holdings, I would believe you. I think more realistic is that south does not make a grand try.

That's true as long as we don't immediately give up an 8th or 9th trick by switching to hearts when declarer has the Q. A club might also work when passive defense is required. For instance imagine KJxx Txx AKQx Kx, or KJxx Qx Axx KQJx (declarer wins the heart plays clubs and eventually strip squeezes us out of the HK.). Obviously I can also construct hands where heart is right (KJxx Qx AKxx KQx seems to be what you're afraid of, KJxx xx AKQx KQx is also something plausible). It seems like a little bit of a guess. Honestly none of these hands give partner much of a double and I'm as aggressive as anyone at doubling here!

I would shift to a club. This seems necessary if we need to set up three club tricks before partner's diamond entry is knocked out. If we need to switch to hearts, we'll still have another chance.

Double (takeout). Obviously I expect it to get passed, but I'm not so confident of making a slam on this hand, or getting to the right one.

Lol, it was my fault bluejak! Don't shoot Alex for mixing threads too.

It seems to me the only difference between this auction and the Ghestem case where you were arguing strongly for the opposite is the relative frequency of playing transfer preempts vs Ghestem. If transfer preempts were more common, presumably you would say that 3♠ obviously means that partner (or I) forgot the system. This is certainly fair knowledge for a bridge player, but it does seem to be a slippery slope for legal rulings.

I would double. I think 3♣ is not unreasonable though.

I think it's pretty clear that the third option is supposed to be "forcing if and only if you play the other sequence as forcing". Anyway, I would say NF even though I think the other sequence is forcing.

I would double at any form of scoring. You'd have to take away at least a Q for me to pass.