bid_em_up

You won't be on lead unless the opponents are nuts and sit this out. Double and then spades. Ummm, If I was your opp, I would be happy to claim -450, vs. your 680/1430. So there is nothing "nuts" about sitting it out, undoubled. (however, if you double, you wont be on lead, because now they will not sit for it.) :) edit: I didn't read any further than your original post b4 posting this, I see Justin pointed this out already now. :)

Aye yai yai. Please check and see how many 3D, 3H, and 4H doubled go down and get back to me (versus a spade game that should always be beaten (-200/-500 at worst) or 3S making (for +140, at best)).

never mind.

Well, as far as I knew, making a free bid such as 3D was encouraging (you do not have to bid in this position), and pass is the sign off (weak, your suit is known). And being systemically forced to make a call on a minimum hand in this auction is simply begging for a penalty double, imo. The other auction you give is slightly different, I can agree with the meanings you give for pass, 2S, and 2 anything. But in this auction partner has already essentially committed your side to at least 2S. There is also something to be gained by bidding 2S with a weak hand immediately in this position, since if you pass, you give your LHO the opportunity to bid freely at the two level if they desired to do so. The same cannot be said of the problem auction.

I'm just curious as to why you would play it this way. From my perspective, partner can double to show clubs, and pass would show diamonds with a minimum, so the "normal" (to me) meanings of 3D should be either 1) extra shape, or 2) non-minimum with diamonds. So why would you attempt to reverse the meanings of these two bids, so that pass of 3C shows a non-minimum and bidding 3D shows a minimum? What is there to be gained by playing it this way? (Or am I simply misunderstanding what you are saying?) As far as the problem at hand goes, I think if we are going to play a forcing game, (and I think we should), then we need to start it immediately. So its a question of which diamond to lead as that is the suit where the force is most likely to occur. It's also possible our diamond winners could disappear on hearts early, if we do not take them now. I choose the Ace of Diamonds, and pray that it isn't ruffed. I also don't think I would have doubled 4S with partner showing a minimum, but to each their own. (Sorry Tyler, I think the A spades and a spade will yield tempo too quickly. If you must lead a spade here, an initial small spade is likely to work better, as it at least allows you to retain control of the trump suit for later in the hand).

Nothing.

Disagree. He is suggesting a 3451 shape and I am allowed to use my judgment. With no fivecard the decision is easy, though. My partners would not be making an initial takeout double of 1D while holding 5 diamonds and only 1 club (and a hand that is now supposedly good enough to be willing to play on the four level, as this hand would have made a trap pass of 1D)......and that appears (to me) to be what you are saying.

It's not my problem if partner should have bid 4♠ (and I suspect that he should have based on the auction). However, his double is 100% penalty (he has doubled for takeout twice and we have now bid a suit; any subsequent doubles are penalty-oriented). There's nothing unusual about our hand that tells us we are better off pulling and we even have a possible trick. So who are we to argue with partner?

That does not mean that it will not be done that way though.... :)

I'll let you answer your own question. If you open 1♦ holding KJx AJ10x KQJx Ax, and partner responds 1♠, what would you rebid?

1) Remind me to shoot partner later for not simply passing 4♠ doubled and chalking up the positive score instead of putting us in this position now. :P 2) Partner's pass of 5♦ must be forcing. Partner was willing to play 4♠ redoubled, and doubled 4N for penalties. This should create a forcing auction, imo. 3) Partner had the opportunity to double 5♦ for pure penalty and failed to do so. We have little defense vs. 5♦ (but its not exactly zero as someone suggested). Partner may lead the A♥ at trick one and give us a heart ruff (or win the A♦ and give us the ruff later in the hand). If we are really lucky, partner has another quick entry for another heart ruff. But to me, this is too small of a target to shoot for requiring magic hands and perfect defense so I will bid 5♠. It appears to be the lesser of all evils. jmoo.

Does anyone have the bracket layout handy? (ie team #1 vs #?, team 2 vs. ?, etc) With the seeds alerady filled in, where possible? thanks.

An alternative reaction would be to take advantage of the forums by learning something from some of the excellent players who post here. But your reaction is to stick your fingers in your ears and say 'not listening la la la'. Interesting. Or it may just be the other way around...

And I... really don't give a ***** what you think. How about them apples??

Does it make it more complicated than having to decide whether to rebid 2H or 2N with this hand? I don't think so. I get my hand and support off my chest in one bid. Quite easy to me, in fact. Do you really want to play 3N with only Kx as a stop in clubs? Or Qxx in spades? Partner did not bid 1S over 1H, so he also has 3 or fewer spades (unless of course he is 4♠/5♦+). In either case, again, do you really want to play 3N? If partner cannot bid 3N himself over 3D, it is likely that you don't belong there anyway (imo). More than denying a fit at all? I don't think so. More than lying about the length of your major suit (if you choose to rebid 2M)? Again, I don't think so. At least if he knows he has some degree of fit, he can better judge slam potential, 3N or 5m, immediately. And now you are on the four level at least, one level higher than you would have been had you initially shown support. Wouldn't you prefer to start cuebidding a level lower if possible? And even if you show support at this level (4), how will he know that it is actual support and not just some forced preference on what could be 2 cards? Why do I think it simplifies the auction? It shows support immediately. That alone is enough of a reason for me, but... See the previous paragraph about space consuming. Now you will be at the 4 level showing support when you could have done it a level lower. It frees up the 2M rebid to actually show a 6 card suit. It releases the 2N bid to show a hand that actually doesn't have support for partners suit (3-5-2-3). If you think that you gain more by having to make a false rebid of 2M or 2N and you can "make up the difference later", more power to you (and others). But I fail to see what, if anything, this "gains" you. Either bid is a semi-lie and misleads partner as to the true nature of your hand. I prefer the accuracy obtained later in this auction or in other auctions than to 'make up' an inadequate choice for this hand. I stated up front that it was an entirely different view. I know that the raise to 3m would not be the choice of many. However, it is what I find works best with this hand type, for me anyway. I'm certainly not asking you to agree with me, nor would I expect you to, nor would I ever attempt to try to convince you or any other non-partner that they should play it this way. :)

Lets ignore the two systems "differences" (strengths and weaknesses) for a minute. The most valid reason for learning 2/1 (instead of SAYC), imo, is the fact that it is the system of choice by the majority of better players (at least in the U.S.). They may play some variant of conventions within their particular 2/1 system, but the roots of it will be essentially the same. It's easier to get better partners if you can play their system. And that is the real only reason necessary to choose 2/1 over SAYC.

And now for a completely different view. Maybe the fact that you actually have support for partners suit? It never ceases to amaze me how many people refuse to raise with 3 small in this sequence and by failing to do so partner can never evaluate his hand/fit properly. Partner tends to promise a 5+ card suit for his bid (granted there may be some hands where he only has 4, but then he also likely has a delayed raise for your major if that is the case). If he had opened 1H or 1S, you would have absolutely no problem raising on XXX. Now all of the sudden, just because he makes a g/f bid in a minor, there is some valid reason where XXX is no longer considered to be support? Puhleeze. Raise partners suit for cryin' out loud. Your auctions become much simpler after this. And while it may be the "common treatment these days" to rebid 2H or 2N, personally, I think that it is a bad treatment. jmoo.

No, you did not, and no, there is no "laws" question to follow.

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sa108742h842dckj32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (2H) - p - (4H)* - p** - (p) - (x) - p - ? * About a 30 second tank from a LOL, who is obviously holding a good hand ** Do you agree with pass here? Another one of our "bad" results. Which poison do you pick?

Write it on partner's forehead instead. It will be easier to see. :)

You wanna bet? Pass seems clear cut to me.

Lol, erm, if you say so. Sure you don't have the blame rotated 180 degrees? I might. :) Seriously, there is no "blame" here. I just think it would be beneficial for people to see the thoughts of others as to why 1, 2, or 3 hearts are all acceptable and reasonable bids (and possibly even pass), but it should never be opened 4H.

I agree that it looks like a textbook 3N to me. However, it is a real hand that occurred over the weekend, and for now, lets just say that 1N - 3N isn't the auction that was perpetrated at the table. :)

disregard

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sjxxh9xdakqj9xcjx]133|100|Scoring: MP Opps silent. Partner opens 1N (15-17). [/hv] About halfway thru the session, with what seems to be a decent game going (your pair has had no serious blunders/errors, while the opponents tend to roll over and play dead), you pick up this hand as South and hear partner open 1N. What is your course of action?