Kalvan14

Exactly. Kaplan defined this double as a diamond trap hand in Competitve Bidding in Modern Bridge and no one has covinced me that it should be for takeout. No new suits have been bid, so if you have the right shape for double now, you had it on the last turn and if you were to weak to force partner to bid at the 1 level you are too weak to force him to bid at the 2 level on a non-fit auction. The only real difference is tha you are now in the balancing seat. So, a double does not promise a trap pass in diamonds. It is a t/o. However, the points are a bit short, and distribution is quite unappetizing. At IMPs it is a clear pass. At MP, it depends. It will be a spur-of-the-moment decision

2♦ is certainly the most convincing one. X is a distant second (I'm not bringing 1 trick in defense).

if it is a regular partnership, they must hav a method for further investigation of the hand distribution. This was my 1st suggestion, and this should also clear away the possible issue of 4N being RKC. After which, I agree that 4 N is a reasonable invitation to slam. My feeling is still that just stopping in 3N is a bit shy. In a less seasoned partnership, I think you need something better than 4N to invite (provided that 4N cannot be RKC: I've no problems with your method, Robert. IMO, I've seen plenty players (including good players in a good partnership) playing 1N-2C-2S-4N as RKC agreeing spade)

I was expecting a more unanimous result. I believe that the issues are: clubs are always a tricky suit; at MP, going beyond 3N may be a disaster. I'm not a specialist of SAYC, and it is quite likely that my considerations are coming from the system I usually play (2/1 - one of the many :blink: ). IMHO, the following should apply: 1M-2m-3m MUST be forcing (at least to 4m) 1M-2m promises another re-bid. I assume that 1M-2m-2N is limited with stoppers in OM/om: as such, I consider possible to pass it. 3m is forcing (as I said before) and any bid in OM/om is clearly forcing. This leaves the auction 1M-2m-2M which is a kind of default bid (since 1M-2m-3m is forcing, it must show extras. All minimum hands with fit in m must rebid 2M (or, rarely, 2N) The above effective means that a 2/1 in SAYC must be forcing until 2N or 3m (the following auctions might stop before game: 1M-2m-2N; 1M-2m-2M-2N or 3m; 1M-2m-2 (OM/om)-3m [Opener's rebid must not show a reverse]. Is anyone in agreement? New question: how do you understand an auction 1♠-2♣-3♥? The discussion is quite interesting. Sometimes i believe that SAYC is not a real system, but rather the Platonic idea of a system. On our fallen world, we always get a distorted reflection: the pure SAYC of the ideas realm is always polluted and demeaned :lol:

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakjtxhqjdkxckjxx]133|100|Scoring: MP 1S - (P) - 2C - (P) ??[/hv] System is SAYC. Make a bid. Now change slightly the hand, moving a small card from Clubs to Diamonds. Is it a different bid?

1♠ at 1st round (but 2♠ if pard were a passed hand, and 2♠ now). No problem on this bid. I might have some issues with 1NT with 8 HCP, and a singleton in spades. I have to assume you play much sounder overcalls than I (or my partner) do. I would pass, with his hand and wait for better tidings :)

I'd like to investigate a bit more, before either signing off in 3NT or lobbing back the vball to pard. I'd assume there is some way in the system to furthe explore opener's distribution. At worst (assume we are in a pick-up partnership, I would bid 5NT (which is a lil more invitational than 4NT - are we 100% sure that N will not read 4NT as RKC agreeing spades, btw? :) ). There is even the chance that pard has a brainstorm on this, and bids a 4-card minor at 6 level

It sounds like a philosophical discussion about the first mover, but I would not be so dramatic, after all :) 1♠ overcall gives a decent lead to pard, starts to put a stake on the spades suit (which is always a good thing, carries some pre-emption. While I do not go out of my way to overcall a 4-card suit at every other hand, IMHO there is no problem in making the 1♠ call on this specific hand. I would add that it is generally a good thing to harass a bit oppos' auction

Pass.4♠ may make, but 5♥ at best is likely to be minus 2 doubled. Overall, not worth the gamble

My partner double the 1♥ bid, and, over my 2♠, went to 4♠. Net result: 2 down (A♥, hearts ruff; ♣A, hearts ruff, and the ♠A). Before you ask, my hand was: Q9xx, xxx, AJ9xxx, x So the final contract was the choice of the infamous unlucky expert: 3 losers, which become 5 (and you cannot even blame bad splits :) ). Obviously 3 NT make 9 or 10 tricks. The room was in 4♠ - mostly - with different results: at my table LHO choose A♥, I suppose that at other tables W might have led x♦. No one was in NT. The single ludicrous exception was a table were they played 1♥ by W (1 down). I was not exactly excited by the double of my partner. I do agree that pass might be a bit too clever (and then, if E passes and S does not have the strength to bid, what do you want to play?). My first gut choice was for 1NT - off-shape, and stronger than promised, I agree. IMHO, not a single ace is a significant minus, and the 4 honors in hearts should make one think. Mind, maybe it was just an unlucky hand; otoh, I do hate playing 4♠ down 2 when 3NT cannot be lost :)

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=skqjthkqjtdqckqjt]133|100|Scoring: MP East deals, and open 1H. Up to you.[/hv] Hard to believe, but this hand came out yesterday night.

Partner might have 1 Jack. Maybe not. If she comes out with a bid of 1♠, she will have her reasons (and probably 5 spades too ;) . I would respect her, and pass (not that you have anything to bid, in this tactical situation)

Leading ♣ is attractive, and should not cost a trick in any case. The double looks like requesting ♦: OTOH, LHO has 6 diamonds, RHO has at least 2 (hope not 3 :) ), so pard has 2 or 3 of the lil beggars. The arguments against leading ♥ are quite compelling. Pard is likely to have 6 spades, 3 diamonds and 2-2 in the round suits. In such a case, Jx in clubs would be quite enough. I lead ♣T

I would interpret the double as for penalty. There is no reason to lob back my request to bid. I have decent defensive values, and pard should have hearts. Lead is ♥

I think that slam should be out of the discussion (Rex has shown an invitational hand: frankly, in his shoes I would have probably chosen 2♠, instead of 3♦; but it is a matter of style). 3♠ asks for a stopper (this is fair: you might build a lot of hands where 3NT fails, and 5m makes. Since the scoring is IMP, 5m is an acceptable contract. At MP, it would be risky to go beyond 3NT) Now, Rex denies a stopper (and shows values in ♣). I would simply bid 5♣, completing the picture of my hand and letting Rex decide which m to play.

2C, without hesitation. The bid will not die here, and you'll be able to bid yr spades

I'm another one of the 1♠ crazies. :)

I would expect that Hamman mostly refers to marginal contracts, where playing one trick less is often vital. Additionally, 3NT often has space for deceptive bidding and playing. Without trumps, a better card player has a lot of scope to shine. It's not a law, obviously. It might be considered a default when dealing with a particular class of bridge hands.

5 cards, exceptionally 4 (very very rare). Weakish hand, kind of forced reply. It is exactly the same as 1♥-2♣-2♥: what does 2♥ promise better than 1♥ did? Nothing. It just deletes a lot of possible stronger hands.

I was under the impression tha garbage Stayman requires a pass in any case by the 2♣ bidder. If you rebid 2♥ over 2♦, it shows an invitational Smolen (5♥/4♠). I may be wrong, but 2 bids on a garbage stayman look at least one too many :lol:

While I do agree that the hand is a bit too strong for a picture jump (♣ are too good - or you have an extra ♠K), from the point of view of N it si fair enough: S has neither the A♥, nor ♦K. He might have AK, AK in the black suits (100% slam), or A AKQ or maybe AK AQJ. Best bid is 4NT (RKC: 3 kc are quite fair for N: they are AK in spades and A♣). After which I would bid 6♠.

There is just a lil problem with double (which is not an unreasonable bid, mind): your suit is clubs, and opening 1♣ is always ambiguous (could be 3 cards, and show a balanced hand, which you are not). This time the pre-empt in ♦ worked very well. My choice would be 4♣ (which is forcing witout any doubt: if partner passes, there might be stormy times ahead for our partnership :D ) A possible alternative is 3NT, hoping to attract a 4♠ (what would you bid over 4♠? This is a sub-poll :lol: )

Very nicely said. I agree.

Partner should have a pretty good hand. My slow tricks are more useful in NT thatn in a ♠ contract. 3♦ is a nice bid, but I doubt it would convey the right message. 2NT (or maybe even 3NT) looks the right bid.

Nothing, it's bridge. At IMP, I am not against taking some insurance in these very unbalanced hands. Actually, I think that none of the partners sinned: - the t/o double is off-shape, but the hand is quite strong. At worst, a misdemeanour. - 5HX says: "I do not think we can make 5S", it's not a penalty double with a vengeance. And it's the "book" bid. - E should know that 5S can make or at worst be 1 down. 5H will likely be 1-2 down, but it can make a few times. Toss of the coin. I sympathize with E, and his decision. - Overall, it is not the kind of auction which can wreck a partnership.