Kalvan14

You have agreed that "doubles are for take-out until a fit is established". Take-out doesn't mean you always have 4441, but sure have points. In any case common sense applies, so the higher you are, the more often take-out doubles are left in for lack of a better option, and pard knows that. :rolleyes: I said "if pard's double is based on clubs, ....pard is too dumb"

I would like to know if pard can have 4 hearts (I suppose he cannot, otherwise he'd have doubled 1♠). In such a case, it's clearly an action double, showing some defense and not much of a fit in diamonds (some tolerance, I suppose)

3♣ establishes a GF situation in SAYC. In 2/1, the GF situation was established by 2♥; however, I'm of the school which requires extra values to bid a new suit at 3-level (by converse, 1♥-2♦-2♠ might still be a minimum). 3♦ is (and has to be) a waiting bid, artificial: there are not so many bids available at this stage (and 3♥ would show a better suit). Call it FSF or MTB does not change the meaning: a rose by another name.... I would be happy with 3♥, I would accept 3N, and over 3♠ I'd have to bid 3N, without a lot of joy. The real problem is pard bidding 4♣: in such a case, I expect you have to pass. A total misfit, where yr best fit is 7 cards. There are a couple of cases where pard can go higher than 3N, besides 4♣: 4♦, with 5-0-4-4 (and this would be no problem); 4♥: 5-4-2-2, with 17-18 HCP (in SAYC; in 2/1 you can always raise hearts in a GF situation); 4♠, with 6 good spades and 4 clubs (this might be a problem, but nothing to do). Btw, playing 2/1 I agree that 1N (forcing) would be the best bid (the intermediates in both red suits suck). OTOH, I'd like to know how many players would refrain from opening S hand

1♥, guys

This time, 2♦, again without a lot of exhitation. if we can get 3N, it will be as easily (or better) after bidding 2♦ than after 1N

pass. and pass pard's balancing double.

3N by LHO, and double by pard? I believe I do know LHO :( And pleeeease don't tell me 3N is bid to make. 5♦. Pard is showing some extras (why doubling 3N otherwise?), but likely he has values in clubs (otherwise the risk is to get 300 only as penalty). With 4 hearts, and extras I would expect pard to clarify his hands, and show the fit. If we have 8 hearts and 9 or 10 diamonds, I do prefer playing in diamonds

Mike said most of it, but I disagree with 6♣ - 6♦ - 6♥ showing a big hearts suit. In this case, I'd bid 6♥ right now, thank you very much. 6♣ must be to play in at least 2 spots.

But you know, gerben: pard has 0 or 1 spade, and has promised a 2nd suit (ok, if there are 18 spades in the deck, the hand will be dealt again :( ). 3♦ would be certainly to play a red suit; 2NT depends on your pair agreements. Mine are for the minors, as you guess. Must be DONT bashing week :) I wonder why I never had the sort of troubles you guys appear to have had

In Dont, you still have 2NT to show a strong 2-suiter. If you have a 1-suiter, double and then 3-level. Frankly, how many times did you play game after a strong 1NT opening?

hmm we are at unfav vul and we have zero clubs and only 8Hcp. Give rho 7 clubs and lho how many and you expect the bidding to go pass, pass, pass? Anything is possible but let's get real. I expect 4 or 5 clubs is more likely by lho than pass/pass/pass. Actually, I give 6 clubs to RHO (he's non vuln vs. vuln, is he not?), 3 clubs to LHO and 4 to pard. Let me ask you another question: do you think you will play below game? I mean, unless it goes 3D-P-P-P? If partner does not have wated values in clubs, I might play slam. And I do prefer to give a correct picture of my hand from the beginning.

3♥. If you bid diamonds now, you'll never convince pard that you have a real hearts suit. X - for me - is something more like a 4-4-5-0 or 4-4-4-1 or 3-4-5-1. 3♦ is a bit wimpy. It goes pass-pass-pass, and you might have 5 or even 6 ♦! A case might be made for 4♣ (an overbid, IMO; and it looses the chance to hear a 3N from pard - or not hear it, and draw positive inferences).

My t/o double was not promising such richnesses (with this shape, I've the A♣ and possibly a Q more than what I promised); and if pard's double is based on clubs, my oppos are too smart for me (and pard too dumb :ph34r: ). 6♣: pick a slam (correcting 6♦ to 6♥). They may have shut me out of a grand, but at least the small slam is there

I would not double 2♠: while I am fully confident that pard has his values for the overcall red vs. green, I do feel that I might be shooting for 1 down here (pard's values are mostly distributional, I am sure). 3♣ for me (I'm quite confident that this contract can be made, and if the oppos get to 3♠ double is ready) Let's say that 3♣ is a mild insurance (at MP, I'd double 2♠) In terms of defining the double: right or wrong, I do play it for penalty. DONT is - as a rule - a disruptive overcall, not a constructive one. You need to keep always ready the option of penalising oppos, rather than the option to look for a better partial contract.

Cherdano has correctly explained DONT approach. An overcall after the pass at 1st round is STRONGER. Why pard passed is anyone guess: this is certainly a maximum for a DONT intervention, but it is not strong enough to wait one round (it might have to bid over 4♠, btw :ph34r: ) Assuming that I doubled 2♠, my bid would be 4♣. Even if pard has misbid, 5♦ is a very good contract

Seeing north hand, 3N is almost as surprising as the pass :rolleyes: Dunno why he refrained from bidding 4♣: I start to think that he believed S had both majors :)

Pass, without any doubt. All the inferences about declarer's hand are pretty clear to pard too, and my (unusual :angry: ) 2♦ bid was not forward going, was it?

The 1N overcall is clearly for majors. This should be good for the clubs finesse(s). With 11 tricks, I'll go with Cherdano: 6♦. Why complicate a simple hand?

there should be a difference between 2H and 2S: 2H shows 5 spades, and minor 4/+. 2S shows 4 spades and a minor 5/+ [i play 2H/2S inverted: 4S/5m has a higher frequency, and better pre-emptive value)

1♣ for me. There are too many chances to play 3N to go for a heavy pre-empt (and quite often it just spurs oppos in finding an "unpossible" game.). The 2 A are also contributing to my decision. As an aside, this hand (even with 1 club less) would be perfect for a 3♣ opening in 4th seat (which shows 7-7 & 1/2 playable tricks, and is a 3N try :D ). IMHO, there is too much concern about oppos having the majors (and in particular tha magic spade suit :angry: ): the only thing I know is that pard does not have 6 or 7 spades, but he might very well hold 5 spades, and maybe 4 hearts. Or viceversa). I would add that if the major concern is that oppos have spades, a system should cater for that: 1st or 2nd seat, all hands with less than 3 spades and limited values should be opened as pre-emptive :P

I would still open 1♦. Full opening values, and a game is not out of the question. For all that I know, pard is 4-4 in the majors, so I would not be unduly worried.

If there were a consensus, there would be not 232 different defenses against NT :D I like DONT, and play it against everyone, beginners or world champs. If the results were not good, i would already have changed my defense. No worry, gerben: I'll play aginst you too. For love or for money :blink:

Robert, a "barracks lawyer" is a guy in the army who sleeps with the military code under his pillow, and always picks up a discussion :D I remember you had a stint in the army.... :rolleyes: The aim of my poll was to see if I had chosen a bid (5♦) which would not have been chosen by the majority. Ok, so I was one of the majority of lemmings that jumped off the 5♦ cliff. Or maybe it was just an unlucky hand. I have to insist: if 3♠ was defined as Western Q, that was it. Same for 3♦, invitational (note that I play 2N as a pre-emptive raise in a minor, and 3m as an invitational raise. Other people play different systems, and they are welcome to them. However, I posted the poll: IMO, when in Rome.... regards

Double shows a maximum for 2♥ and denies a 5th heart. Yes. It is really the minimum hand pard could have for his double. pass over 2♥ (close, but there are just Quacks. If I had both major Queens and 4 hearts I might give a raise). 3♥ now, happily.

It is obviously a matter of style. IMHO, your first hand had prime cards, and a concentration in the minors. There are a lot of hands where you can play 5♣ at worst on a finesse, even if your partner holds something like Axxx, xxx, xx, KQxx. Anyway, I did not suggest bidding 5♣; in my partnership I would bid 4♣. By the same token, I would not raise clubs with the slow trick hand you've posted now (which for me is a 2N bid, like Winstonm says). Please remember that there is not a truth-with-a-capital-T in these auctions. Every player (except beginners) has his/her own style, which normally is what better suits the partnership. The only way of deciding if a bidding style is suitable or not is to keep track of the scores in this kind of hands (which are not so infrequent. Raises and FSF are two of the most important tools in bidding). If a partnership consistently ends up in the right contract, they're fine (even if they raise on even days, and use FSF on odd ones :D ). If they think to be unlucky ;) it is quite likely that their bidding style should be improved