coyot

Agree - Lebensohl is the only easy way to make sure hearts are played from my hand. Although it is unlikely that partner would bid 3♥ after my 3♦, it is still a possibility. Lebensohl generally pays off and is worth missing the natural 2NT bid.

Please stop defending this action on this particular hand. The question is, whether it is a good idea to overcall 2♦ with this hand in genera;, NOT whether the bid at the table yielded a good result. IMHO in long term the 2♦ overcall is a losing bridge - the hand has HCP but nothing else, no good offensive potential.

You cannot look at your OWN convention card in f2f bridge :). If you read the quoted part correctly, you will find that see that I mentioned making the agreements when I started playing with my S.O. (=she was not my regular partner at the moment). When I'm sitting at a table in main bridge club and a person replaces the partner of one of our opponents, I certainly don't mind if they make agreeements on the fly, if they keep it within certain limits. If you're going to play with someone for the first time, or going to play just a few boards, it simply is not practically feasible to discuss all things before they come up. Keeping the agreemengs within certain limits would for me be. i.e.: Bidding 2♦ over 1NT and asking partner whether he plays superacceptance or not. Out of limits would be bidding 3♥ as transfer super acceptance and THEN telling partner. (I.e. it is OK to ask whether we play some gadget before your p has the chance to use it, but it is not OK to use any gadget and then telling). Out of limits would be 1♥-2NT-4♠ and then ask p how do we play exclusion BW. Within limits would be 1♥-2♦-[3DI]-4NT and asking how do we play RKCB. I am not trying to vouch for tournaments that would allow people to explain their bids to partners, epeeist, and you'll never find any such hint in my postings, so please don't try to make me look like that.

I disagree with your contention -- if I've understood you correctly -- that agreeing on RKCB answers during the bidding "harms no one". I've played in tournaments and received good results on a hand in which the opposing pair had a blackwood misunderstanding. I've had situations in which it was unclear to me whether a suit had been agreed or not (i.e. whether p was using normal or rkcb). I bid according to my best judgment and accepted the consequences. I would have considered it an ethical wrong to communicate with my partner as to what the bid meant. I have even asked an ACBL TD to confirm that there was no ethical objection to my taking advantage of a known blackwood misunderstanding (i.e., based on explanations of bids, I KNEW there was a misunderstanding, and based on what each thought the bids meant doubled for penalty). If you allow (or consider not cheating) agreeing on RKCB answers, you may as well just say how many keycards you have and bid 5, small or grand slam directly. Hey, you could even agree to use some hypercomplicated system which explicitly showed all keycards, voids and singletons, but instead of memorizing it, just tell each other what you had. The difference between explaining your RKCB answers during play, and explaining whether a double is for penalty or takeout, is no difference at all. I'm talking about tournaments. During table play, I'm fine with opponents explaining within reason (e.g. whether or not transfer bids, blackwood or rkcb type, etc.). Let me clarify my previous post a bit. I would NOT askl my partner via ICQ "hey, do we play 1430 or 0314" in any situation, where I would not be 100% sure that his/my 4NT is RKCB and we both know it. Same goes for leads and signals and stuff, a few basic conventions. Note that I have a strict approach when it comes to paid tournaments or any large events in general - but if I'm playing in a 40 pair 8 board tourney, I want to enjoy myself - and I think that when we forget to make some basic agreement before the play starts, it is within ethical limits to check with partner. I would NEVER use it "retrospectively", i.e. bidding something, and, not sure whether partner understands the meaning of the bid, tell him (or ask him about his bid). I think that there is a big difference between checking whether we play 1430 or 0314 and the situations you describe. What I wanted to point out is the fact that in e-bridge, it is impossible to prevent partners from communicating if they want so - and therefore all we can do is to behave within standards that we consider ethical. I enjoy the online bridge most when playing at friendly, crosstalk allowed tables. I am able to switch into "silent" mode when in a tourney - and I have a clear conscience when it comes to not even having "cheated" on anyone.

Same camp. Compare this 2♦ bid to another 2♦ overcall that has been discussed recently and you'll see that this hand, albeit 3 HCP weaker, is much better :-)

Let me try to counter your reasons: 1) It is not extremely likely that we would have a good (= makeable) diamond partscore if LHO says 2♠. 3♦ after a trump lead looks like a no-go (3 hearts, 0 spades, likely 4 diamonds... 2 club tricks are not to be expected easily...). If LHO does NOT say 2♠, our chances to find our makeable partscore are better. 2) Second, you said yourself that you don't overcall for lead purposes, so don't bring that in there ;). (BTW, why should your partner lead a club? If your opps end up in 3NT, any sensible partner will try to find your LONG suit - so unless he has more diamonds than clubs, you don't have to fear the club lead. The worst that can happen is that he leads a heart. Of course, if the opponents need hearts to make 3NT, a diamond lead would kill the contract, but how likely is that?) 3) I see the risks of bidding with this hand outweighing the possible gains. Chances that we have a makeable diamond partscore if opps have spade fit are pretty low.

"No table talk" in my opinion should never mean what it literally means. There are far simpler ways to cheat than agreeing that saying "phone" asks for a ♥ lead. It should mean that you are to refrain from talking about anything related to the current hand, since you might unintentionally convey some information when you do so. Also it might be a sensible rule to avoid excessive chatting that distracts the opponents. I think that with the spread of ICQ and MSN and other IM programs, the whole issue of "no-table-talk" is a moot point. If someone is going to cheat, we'll never stop them - and if they're not too greedy at the cheating, we might even not notice. I often play online with my S.O. on two computers in the same room - and I've never cheated because I don't NEED the good result. I would NEVER ask my partner to describe his hand. I will admit, though, to have discussed bidding conventions "on the fly" when we started playing together and there were a lot of things not agreed upon - but rarely would my conscience allow me to do this in a tournament, and never in "weird situations". (I mean, agreeing answers on RKCB harms noone. I would never tell partner "this double is not penalty so please bid"). (And as for table play, I like to play with "crosstalk allowed" because, after all, we play to enjoy the game and refine our understandings - and it removes most of the fun if you can't bid a slam because you don't know how many aces partner promised...)

Since we play 2nd level NF in competitive bidding, 2♠ is a clear favorite - not too strong. True, the spades are ugly, but, then, noone promised life's gonna be easy. If we play Lebensohl, I still bid NF 2♠, but if the ace of diamonds moves to spades, I would bid that hand as invitational.

Another lesson learned, 4♣ forcing and 3♠ most likely with heart support, not the other way round :).

Luis, how can you be such an idiot? JUST KIDDING :-))) But seriously, this is NOT a GOOD hand with diamonds, is it? I can paint you a ton of good hands with diamonds that will contain 14 HCP, some of the m will even NOT need 6 diamonds, but you can bet that QJxxx with 5332 and Qxx in opener's suit is NOT one of those. Against majority of 2♦ overcalls, 3♦ would not be a bad bid. The chance for spade ruff or two is pretty good. (Only if opps lead a trump and overcaller has no side entries, he will not get his spade ruffs.). Double of 3 spades? If I were to accept the 2♦ overcall as a good hand, I can't possibly find anything EXTRA in it. Winstonm: Reopening 2♠ with this garbage is suicide. I would agree with either a straight takeout double (most likely ending in 2♥ in misfit or opps playing 2♠, or a pass. I know that it is a hard task to pass with 14HCP, BUT, if you pass with this hand, you can be sure that your p will reopen 1♠ should it be passed to him. If your LHO bids 1NT and this gets passed to you, 2♦ is a good reopen - because your partner will know that you have a marginal hand (because you reopened in a case where the fit is not guaranteed). So, I would vote for DBL or PASS as first action with this hand (DBL for sure if the black queen moves into clubs) - and then reopening if possible on 2nd level.

Dummy reversal means ruffing on the side with LONGER trumps, while using the shorter trumps to draw opp trumps. Since you USUALLY have longer trumps in hand, it is called dummy reversal. Here, the longer hand is not trying to ruff it's losers and then draw trump and play it's high cards, which would be the usual approach - you intentionally make this hand shorter. It was your bidding that made the longer hand "dummy", with 1NT opener you would most likely end up being dummy with the 4 diamonds and the play would have the look of the proper dummy reversal.

I'm not saying that 2♦ and x are equally good bids, but, if the doubling hand expects to score 3 hearts and 0.5 spade trick, it needs 1.5 tricks from partner, but the same hand bids 2♦, when it can expect 6 tricks? (3♥ and with some luck 3♦, thus requiring 2 tricks from partner? I would rate the 2♦ overcall as minus 5 as well, definitely not OK. (the [3DI] that gets minus 5 from you expects a little more offense-oriented hand, likely 6card at this vul :blink:)

This would be most welcome. I think that the majority of readers would know EXACTLY where to make the dividing line. (If I recall correctly, it was a post that said stupid twice in the first sentence :))

I believe that 3♠ is a good way how to establish a "strong" hand - so that when partner bids 3NT, your 4♣ will be seen as very strong. (Or, if he bids 4♥, 5♣ will serve the same purpose... after 4♣, partner should feel obliged to bid 4♦ with the king, followed by 4♠ from you, definitively showing a shortness. It will not be easy to arrive in 7♣ as you need either AK in hearts and K in diamonds or AKQJ in hearts to make - and I'm not sure if this is easy to find out... but if your agreements with p would be that 4♣ sets the trump suit, things would be easy with 4♠ being exclusion RKCB, with the possibility to ask for unbid kings close after that..

Well, I do care :) In fact, at MPs I would dare the 3♦ more often than at IMPs, because there gain vs. loss ratio is good (some chance they overbid, some chance they don't double or misdefend), but at IMPs, I play my bids by the book. I will NOT risk -200 or -500 unless I am sure that the defense will be very incompetent. In the partscore battle, with opps not being stupid, the risk of -500 when cards lie badly for us is too big, because most of the field is likely to play 3♠+1 (not knowing about the good lie of cards while bidding). To helene_t: If 2♦ promises a 6card (that is, partner is ready to accept the blame with 5card), this is a LOTT no-brainer, of course. But if the overcall is more often 5card than 6card, 3♦ is against LOTT.

Here the only question that needs to be answered is: Is partner going to act on LOTT automatically? Or does he leave the decision on me? I know from his pass that he does not have 6 hearts, but I am not sure whether he would automatically bid with a singleton diamond. In fact, it all depends on opps knowing LOTT or not. If they know LOTT, they're quite likely sacrificing -100 for 3♦ down one against our 110 with 8card fit on both sides. In that case, I must double to get the highest possible result, beating all pairs that leave 3♦ undoubled - and 3♦x-1 will be the par of the board. On the other hand, if 3♦ makes on 9card fit and 2♥ makes, par of the board will be 3♥x-1. I am not sure that partner's pass denies singleton diamond, because if opponents sacrifice on 8card fit, I should be the one doing the doubling with diamond 4card against his singleton - so his automatic bid BECAUSE he has a singleton does not seem right to me. (It would be automatic with the singleton on MY side, where the ruff from short trumps gives an extra trick).

Case 1: I have to bid 3♣ to show that spades are not stopped by me. P. will bid 3NT or 3♦ or 3♥. In the latest case, I might try for 4♥ on misfit, otherwise we're most likely in the right contract (5♦ seems too far). Case 2: 2♠ is splinter with heart 4card :)) I see no merit playing this as a natural "strong" hand, 1♠ as forcing for one round seems to be a good bid in most cases. (With the possible treatment of 1NT being the "negative" bid, not promising a club stopper. So if the opener is really strong, he will ask by 2♣, otherwise we play 1NT with opps being welcome to cash 4-5 club tricks. I'm not sure why bidding 3♦ should promise 5♥ in either case - I think it can be perfectly OK with 4card, finding 5-3 fit will not be hard.

Hi, if you cite the LOTT, please cite it correctly :) According to the law, it is ok, to go to the 3 level with your 8 card fit, if they have a 8 card fit in a higher ranking suit. => The law is of with -1, but this is ok. What you should not do, is outbidding the oppoents on the 3 level, if you hold only a 8 card fit, because in this case the law may be off -2. If you look at the hand of the 4D bidders, you have one pos. adjustments, shortage in their suit, and one neg. adjustments, the Ace of spades, since the number of pos. and neg. is the same, you should follow the law. With kind regards Marlowe If you want to cite LOTT correctly, do it. Look at the vulnerability. Defending their +110 by +200 is BAD :)

Yep... if partner has Kxxx in diamonds and KQ in clubs, you're doubling on the hope that declarer has both spade honors :). If partner has Axxx in diamonds, you're doubling on the hope that he has a side trick. All that at IMPs where the gain is +100 and the loss -590 (comparing +200 to +100 if undoubled and -730 to -140 if undoubled.)

Still, moderating a thread and deleting a thread is a big difference. I don't know what have the involved persons said to each other, but I am sure that a good part of this thread was good, interesting and clean - and I hate it when somebody exercises his/her moderator rights in such a brute measure. BTW, being childish is nothing to have posts deleted for.

Well, the only questionable bid is 2♦. Other bids on that line are terrible. 3♦ is against LOTT (unless 2♦ promises 6card), in red a suicide already. Dbl on 3♠, no matter how meant, suicide. I mean, if you expect partner to have 4card support, you might be lacking the ace, therefore making 3heart tricks and one trick on the side - either trump or club. 4♦ was IMHO another blunder, because when my p. doubles 3♠, this simply must be penalties. And, if I know that my 3♦ bid was bad, 3♠x will probably make, but 4♦ will go down even more :)

I would add third school - side major possible when I know that I want to make a minor slam try (and want the 1♣-2♣ auction followed with stoppers in order. This gives you tremendous advantage in learning about partner's values very early. In your a. variant, responder will NOT raise a major because 4-4 fit is already ruled out. If inverted minor absolutely denies side major, no problems can arise. b. variant - if the hand is GF, there should be absolutely no problems with opener's rebids - he will either rebid 1/2NT or reverse or repeat clubs. After 1NT rebid, there are easy to use gadgets like 2♦ GF if you play xyNT. After 2NT rebid, similarly 3♦ will be GF and 4♣/♦ (opener's first suit) after 3NT must be a slam try. After reverse, there is the fourth suit left as GF and again, 4m after 3NT a slam try. After club repeat, you have 4NT RKCB or a shortness showing jump. Of course, implementing the b. variant into gadget-free system might cause problems. I would suggest: c. side major is possible if responder has slam interest against weak NT opening. If partner has the typical 1♣ with weak NT and you would still consider slam, hide your major 4card and start bidding stoppers after inverted minor. If your hand is not that good, you should try to locate major fit first - and the 1M bid will give you more information about your p's hand. I.e. if he is 5431 or 4441, or 6+clubs, you will find out from his very next bid. With any plain GF hand, you will simply try to play 3NT - and if a suit proves unstopped, you can then try 5m.

How would you play the following hand? [hv=d=s&v=n&n=skq87haqxxdkqxxcx&w=sahkxxxxdaxcxxxxx&e=s9xxxhjxdj10xxxcax&s=sj10xxh109dxxckqj10x]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] At the table, the bidding went (from North): 1♦-p-1♠-2♠ 4♠-all pass 2♠ was explained as either general force or takeout on remaning suits. We would probably end in 3♠ without the interference, but 4♠ was a reasonable bid by p. How would you play after a small heart lead: a) not knowing about the 55 distribution? b) expecting opps to use "reasonable" twosuiter takeouts?

I fear the exact opposite <_< - if there is no standard, I will be bothering people all the time, asking whether they can or cannot have 4 spades in their rebid :). If the majority plays major suit preference, it would be easier to agree as a standard and alert NT preference. Basically, that is the purpose of the Tight scheme option in the poll - establishing a BBO standard (or whatever) else system that you're assumed to know when you play here and whose "seminatural" bids don't have to be alerted even when they contain hidden inferences (= the full disclosure is not necessary because those inferences should be publicly known)

Sorry, bad choice of words. I didn't want to imply they do it on purpose - more likely they do it on their own ignorance (not bothering to learn the rules, thinking they know them already) - these should be swept out of the system.