dburn

Redouble ought to be an attempt to play in 2♦ redoubled. But East can bid 3♦, over which West can bid three (or four, if you prefer) hearts since he has already shown a doubleton, and his hearts are particularly strong while his diamond holding is not.

That's the price you pay for playing Lebensohl. You don't get any convention without giving up on the natural meaning of the call. Although I agree with David that one defender has announced that he has something (12-14 hcp) when opening 1NT and that a weak two hand has less, it is not entirely true that third hand is very weak when he takes out into his 5 card major. He could be weak, but he could also have up to 9-10 hcp. Same applies after a sequence like 2♥ pass pass. Third hand could be very strong (up to 15-16 hcp with a misfit for hearts). David has, intentionally I assume, given us the only shape, 3433, that creates a problem when 2NT is not natural. Right, it is a problem which you must live with if Lebensohl is what you think is best in these situations. I think it is in the long run. Roland The only shape? Suppose you have: ♠632 ♥AQ ♦Q976 ♣J843 What are you supposed to do, playing lebensohl? Bid 2NT and guess to pass 3♣? Bid 2NT and guess to bid again over 3♣? Bid 3NT? Bid 2♠? Playing 2NT for minors, at least you will not end up in some 4-3 (or even 4-2) fit. But you will either miss some good games or play in some hopeless ones. It is worth remarking here that a double of 2♥ need not be (and will often not be) based on the "classical" shape with short hearts. If as fourth hand you have a balanced 16 hcp or so, you had better double 2♥ with almost any shape (including 3=4=3=3), or your partnership will miss game a fair amount of the time. This question was addressed primarily to people who play (and who play against) the weak no trump a lot of the time. The vast majority of the answers appear to be from people who adopt the same philosophy over a weak no trump as over a strong no trump - we are only competing a part score and we want to make sure we find our best fit. That is not how to play against weak no trumps. It really isn't.

The reason people play natural 2M responses to a weak no trump is that it increases the chances they will be able to stop the opponents from bidding constructively. But they don't have to worry about doing this if second hand has to bid 3NT every time it has a natural 2NT bid (which is what it has to do if you play lebensohl or scrambling in this position). What in the name of wonder is second hand supposed to do with, say: ♠J32 ♥Q1065 ♦K84 ♣Q65 after the given sequence? Bid 3NT? Pass out 2♥ doubled? Bid 2♠? Of course, the same considerations would apply if the bidding were to start (2♥) Double (Pass) to a hand such as I have given. You would like to be able to bid a natural 2NT, but your methods preclude it. However, the need to differentiate between hands with some values and hands without them is far more pronounced in that sequence than in a sequence beginning with a weak no trump, because far less is known about the opponents' combined strength (third hand could have almost anything). So it makes some sense to give up a natural 2NT in sequences beginning with a weak two bid. It makes considerably less sense to give up a natural 2NT in sequences where the opponents start with a weak no trump and a weak takeout.

Nothing. I don't even know whose lead it is. If "Opps silent" means that one of us is declarer, then I hope the contract makes. If not, I hope it doesn't, and to be on the safe side I would lead the ace of hearts (to guard against a later revoke). Should I have doubled with the ace of hearts? Perhaps, but it would not surprise me much if the opponents removed to 7♠ and made it.

I confess, I would have made every bid West did until his final one (I would prefer 6♥). And I would have made every bid East did until his final one (I would prefer 6♠). But the worst call in any grand slam auction missing the ace of trumps is always the final call, so 7♠ narrowly beats 6♦.

Pass? That certainly is a shot - how will we beat 3♦ doubled? In another thread, the question was asked: with a 4-3-3-3 hand including three hearts to the ace, would you raise to 2♥ with no other card above a ten? Those who said they would should - nay, must - accept a game try here, else constructive bidding becomes impossible for them. Since I would raise in the other thread, I have a full king more than I might have in this one, so of course I will bid game.

The question is: which is partner more likely to make a hash of - the bidding or the defence? If I raise with this, partner might bid too much. But if I don't raise with this, partner might misdefend, since in the early stages of the hand he will not play me for three hearts to the ace since I didn't raise. Also, if LHO becomes declarer I would like partner to lead a heart, not try some other suit because I didn't raise. A factor that influences my decision to raise anyway is that there can be some advantage in preventing fourth hand from cue-bidding 2♥. Besides, we may survive partner's bidding too much, but we won't survive his misdefending.

The only time I ever saw this auction (I wasn't at the table) the man who bid 4♥ and then 5♥ was Tony Forrester. It was still right to double him, though it was optional whether you looked at him first.

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s7643h4dqj107cj1043]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Partner opens 1♣, RHO passes. You bid 1♠ (would you?) and partner bids 1NT. RHO bids 2♥, and this travels round to partner, who doubles. RHO passes. What call do you make?

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=shkq10863d4cakj963]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] RHO passes, you open 1♥. LHO bids 1♠, partner bids 2♦. RHO bids 2♠, you bid 3♣. LHO bids 3♠, partner doubles, and RHO passes. Your turn.

I guess the question is: how did you feel about Ben Johnson? Or Barry Bonds? Or Bill Werbeniuk? They cheated, right? If not, why not?

No. The trumps might split badly - i.e. 3-2.

Not sure what a simulation would prove - the question appears to be whether North should bid 3NT on some hands where he would double for penalty if playing penalty doubles, and if so, on what proportion of such hands. That is a matter of style, or judgement, or experience, or whatever you want to call it, and such things cannot really be simulated. One might reason thus: RHO has passed as dealer; LHO has pre-empted; I don't have very much; partner must therefore have quite a lot; the only reason he didn't bid is therefore that he has a penalty double. But West also heard East pass as dealer, and West can see the vulnerability as well as can. It may well be that East has a maximum pass with defensive values, West a sound pre-empt, and our side no fit. I would double with these cards anyway, since although my opening bid is minimum in terms of high cards, it does at least contain solid defensive values - a lot of 15- or 16-point hands will not take as many tricks in defence as this one will. Moreover, I have five clubs when I might have only three; if North has to remove to four clubs, he should not be disappointed by the outcome. But passing could easily be the right thing to do.

So the question is "which side, if any, is the offending side?" If neither side committed an irregularity, which is certainly possible here, then both sides get "the most favorable result that was likely" for their side. That might be 4♠+2 for EW and 4♠+1 for NS. I don't know about the BBO software, though. Does it allow a split score? If not, then IMO the software is flawed. But there's another problem here: no result was actually obtained, because the play was never finished. So it's not appropriate to use this law. Instead, you should use Here we need to know who, if anyone, was at fault and to what degree. If neither side was at fault, both get Average plus. If both sides were partly at fault, both get average. If it was all NS's fault, then NS get Average minus, and EW get Average plus. But you need to decide fault on the basis of evidence, not assumption. NB: 12C1 is overused by directors who either don't understand the laws or are too lazy to figure out what might have happened. So in cases where 12C2 is the correct law, I advise against using 12C1. In this case, however, it's clear that 12C1 is the right law. There is no requirement in law for an assigned adjusted score only to be awarded in place of a result that has been obtained. Law 12A1 (1997 Laws) says: The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. In online bridge, failure to complete play of a board at all is something against which the non-offenders are not indemnified by any of the existing Laws. The assigned adjusted score should clearly be EW + 650 for four spades making five.

If West plays an honour on the first round of clubs, there is no need to commit yourself at that point. You can win with the king and play a diamond, retaining several options (including the chances you refer to in your post). For example, if the deal is: [hv=d=n&v=b&n=sakj2hakj64d92ck7&w=sq9765h753dj4cqj5&e=s43hq10982dak107c32&s=s108hdq8653ca109864]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] the defenders cannot beat you even if they try to give you a losing option at once. The play will be: spade to the eight; club to the jack and king; diamond. East wins and returns a club to force you to commit yourself, but you win the ace and play three rounds of spades and a second round of diamonds. Interchange one of East's top diamonds with West's four, and the defence can beat the contract, but they may not. The play will then be: spade to the eight; club to the jack and king; diamond won by West's jack (East can beat you by rising with ♦A and playing a club, but he may not find this). West now needs to play a red card and not a spade. Interchange East's queen of hearts with one of West's low ones and the defence cannot beat the contract. It is true that if East has both high diamonds, you can succeed by following jwmonty's line while playing a club to the seven may fail. But it is also true that jwmonty has seriously underestimated the chances of success by playing a club to the seven, as the example I have given may help to demonstrate.

Actually, he isn't. If the hearts are divided 4-2, then regardless of the location of the honours, the hand with four hearts will be squeezed if it also has to guard diamonds (which will be the case if it began with five or more of them). The same is true of a defender who began with all of ♥QJ and ♦AKQ, regardless of how many cards he holds in the suits. The improvement (and it is an improvement) suggested by kgr means that the squeeze will work against either opponent. Kelsey's line will squeeze only West.

Oh, I don't know. I always thought "Jude the Obscure" was a better novel than "Sons and Lovers" myself.

Indeed it is, which is why the odds are quite high that partner is also 4-4-3-2. Unless his second suit is hearts (in which case he might have bid 1NT himself and not doubled), you will have an eight-card minor-suit fit. Instead of playing in it, you want to play in a seven-card spade fit. Why?

If we belong in game in a 4-3 spade fit, we can still find this after a 2♣ rebid. Moreover, we will know what we are doing - if we rebid 1♠, partner may well bid game in what he fondly hopes is a 4-4 spade fit, only to be disappointed. But I don't mind all that much rebidding 1♠ as opposed to 2♣. What I do mind is rebidding 1NT as opposed to 2♣. In both cases we are committing what seems to me the unnecessary error of showing something we don't have when we could instead show something we do have. This may hurt us not only when partner has a good hand (because he has to waste time checking to see whether we really have the fourth spade we promised, or the heart stop we promised), but when partner has an ordinary hand and West bids 2♥. For example, with: ♠AJxx ♥xxx ♦KJx ♣Kxx after 1♦ (1♥) Dbl (Pass) 1NT (2♥) ? North has an obvious 2NT bid, but he can't bid that if South might not have a heart stop. Similarly, if South rebid 1♠ North has an obvious 3♠ bid, but he can't bid that if South might only have three spades. The fact that South might show something he doesn't have in effect prevents North from showing what he does have. "Bridge", as Kit Woolsey once remarked, "is an easy game. First you bid your longest suit, then you bid your second-longest suit".

Suppose that your partner has: ♠Q642 ♥KJ9 ♦J65 ♣Q32 and the bidding begins with 1♦ by you and 1♥ by RHO. If he is supposed to double because he has four spades and is a robot, and not bid 1NT because he is a sensible human being and not a robot, then it may be unwise to rebid 2♣ with 3=2=4=4 or 2=3=4=4 when he does double. Otherwise, unless he is 4=3=3=3 or 4=4=3=2 with a heart guard (in which case he ought to have bid 1NT and not doubled) then your side will have an eight-card minor-suit fit. It is therefore fairly silly, lacking a heart guard yourself, [a] to rebid 1♠ with 3=2=4=4 and to rebid 1NT with 2=3=4=4. These will land your side in the wrong part score quite a lot of the time.

There are actually quite a number of legitimate chances, none of which starts with a low diamond. I would play a club, intending to put in the seven. Legitimate chance (1): someone has QJ doubleton in clubs. Legitimate chance (2): West has Qx or Jx in clubs and East misguidedly wins the first club trick. It is quite hard for the defenders to avoid doing this unless they are both very good players. Legitimate chance (3): even if West puts in a club honour from Qx or Jx, East might have both top diamonds, when the defence may not be able to beat the contract.

Pass, but if I had a fourth spade instead of a fourth heart and the same honour structure, I would double.

Would lead a spade without thought. But if anyone has any thoughts, would be interested in them. (Have posted this as usual when I vote in polls: read first, then vote and comment, then read other comments.)

Not particularly - the actual Latin phrase was "ad nauseam", but looking back over the contributions to this forum, it seems that even people who know how to bid do not know Latin. Mind you, the Italians would not have got (or as you might say "gotten", but that is because you speak neither English nor Latin) this auction wrong, and they would not have said "ad nauseum" either. Memo to microcap: it was fairly clear to bid 3S rather than 3H over 3D. I mean, partner already knows you have six hearts and a minimum. If that was all he needed to know, he would not have bid 3D. When he does, you should not bid that heart suit again - rather, you should look for something else to do, in which context 3S stands out a very long way. Memo to foo: I will ask someone to give me a copy of "The Bidding Dictionary" for Christmas. It seems that I have much to learn.

Oh, 3S is forcing (because 2S is invitational - if you have J109xxxx None Qx Kxxx you pass 2H and get a minus score instead of a plus, but that's life in the big city, and why they invented weak jump shifts in some big cities). It's just that to bid a forcing 3S, you ought to have a hand more resembling KQJxxxx x Ax Qxx than your actual hand does. Then, partner with such as x Axxxxx Kxx AKx can do something sensible (such as raising you to six). Maybe you would bid 2S over 1H with the hand I have just quoted, or maybe you would bid 4S with it. I wouldn't blame you for doing either, but if with the actual hand (A10xxxxx x AJx AQ) you bid 4S at either your first or your second turn, I would... well, I wouldn't blame you for taking up bridge, for many people who are no good at it do that, but I would wonder vaguely why you felt qualified to post in a forum for advanced and expert-class players.