bid_em_up

3-3 break = 35.5% plus 4-2 breaks = 48.5% 4-2 breaks with Queen onside (50% of 4-2 breaks) = 48.5/2 = 24.25% 35.5% + 24.25% = 59.75% (round up).

deleted

Huh? Double lies about your shape. 1N lies about your stopper. So why do you say "it is usually better to lie about stoppers than shape." and then recommend double?

Try making it on a trump lead. (I don't think its possible).

Welll... The jump tends to stay weak. 1♦ (X) 3♦ is still pre-emptive. The difference is, 1♦ (X) 2♦ tends to be 7-9 with the suit, while XX is the 10+. There's really no reason to have the raise be limit or limit+ with the extra space provided. Well..... I said Valid reason. This isn't valid. What would you bid on 7-9 with the suit without the X? 1N (most likely). Why change your bidding structure to show this hand just because one opponent doubled? Bid 1N just like you were going to do without the double. However, you can improve your structure after the X by: 1m (x) 1N for the 7-9 hands just like you would normally do. 1m (x) 2m for a strong minor suit raise. 1m (x) 2N for limit minor suit raise (which might include some of the 9 hcp hands as well). 1m (x) 3m for preemptive raises (which can easily include some of the 7 hcp hands). And leaving XX in this case for the 10+ non-fit hands.....

Note, it is not a matter of your five discards, it is your first four discards. Partner will have to make his decision on what to keep prior to seeing your fifth discard. Again, it will be more critical for partner to have a count on the diamond suit so that he will be aware he can reduce himself to a stiff diamond K (or stiff club K), so I will still pitch (using standard signals) my lowest to highest diamonds. The pitch of the 4th diamond should inform partner that I started with 5 of them (since I pitched lowest to highest). From 7X32 of diamonds, you would pitch the 3 then the 2, then X, showing an original holding of four. Now that partner has a count on the diamond suit, he can reduce himself to: - - ♦K ♣Kx or - - ♦Kx ♣K since he should now know how many diamonds declarer started with originally. Btw, not that it matters, but I consider this to be somewhat more difficult than a beginner or intermediate problem. It does require counting, and the use of inferences in the bidding/play to reach the correct conclusion(s). However, it is a very instructional hand.

The standard appears to be "Off In Competition" of any sort. Either an overcall or a double. However, I have yet to find a valid reason for Inverted Minors to be off after a double, and prefer to play it as "Off over Bid, On over Double". You can only do this after discussing it with partner, though, as they probably play it as "Off in competition of any sort". :huh:

I would simply discard all my diamonds, lowest to highest playing standard signals. The 2 of diamonds will say I have nothing in diamonds. By continuing to pitch diamonds, I give partner both count, and the message that I do hold something in clubs, or I could just as easily have pitched a club somewhere along the line. Partner should infer that you do have a club card from your failure to pitch one. jmoo. .

If this is the case, surely partner will continue with a 3rd diamond preventing declarer from bringing in the trump suit....

Ditto Ditto. South gets 100% here. Regardless of what North did, South has 2nd round club control, the AKQ♦ along with his 4 trump. North did not bid 3N, so there should be no wasted values in clubs. Where is his opening hand? 4S (or some further action) should be clear cut at this point.

Can you explain the merits or logic behind your playing it this way? Assuming the opponents are competent, it is practically impossible (I think) for partner to hold any hand where he can actually expect to make 1N xx'd. So enlighten me on why you would choose to play it this way. I'm always willing to listen.

Hand 1 is not SOS. Most people treat it as showing 10+ hcp, with or without fit. Pass and see what develops. Hand 2, XX is SOS, in a manner of speaking. It is almost impossible that partner believes that you can make 1N xx'd (opening hand on your right, double for penalty on your left, along with your hand leaves very little values for him). The problem is, XX in this position is used by a lot of people to force 2C. This way you can escape into 2C to play. So whether or not you should bid 2D is questionable.

No.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. If you keep waiting to hold a 6 card suit headed by 2 of the top 3 honors over a 2C opening, you will end up waiting until hell freezes over before you actually have the opportunity to make the bid. The odds are that two of the top three honors are likely in the 2C opening hand, and you are better served initially showing any "decent" 5+ card suit that also contains positive response values. If you do not do this, you often end up consuming too much space in the auction to show your suit (or hand) properly. This applies to suit bids over interference also. Other than that, I play what you do. :) jmoo.

I think this shows usually better spades (i.e., four of them). In 2/1, please show me a hand that can have 4 spades, 5+ hearts and a 2/1 response that needs to leap to 4S just because it has 4 trumps, that would not: 1) splinter initially 2) use jacoby 2N initially 3) bid 3S instead of four over 2S. (I'm sure its possible, its just not probable). For me, the direct 4S at this point may even be 2 card support, but I play the 2S call promises 6.

You're not declining the transfer, you are agreeing to it. You just don't bid 3M as requested. So any call other than 3M agrees to the suit (and declines the initial transfer). Now you assume that any other calls are cuebids for the major. If you accept the transfer by bidding 3M, you are stating, you really dont like this, now if responder bids a new suit, it should be a second suit. If you dont have a fit with the major, you will usually have a fit with a second suit (unless 5-4-2-2). Btw, I dont like this method unless opener really likes the major. It is a form of super-acceptance. Four card support, rich in controls kind of hand. Or good 3 card support and control rich as well. Weak or "normal" three card support with slow values should just bid 3M, imo. Responder can be attempting to get out of 2N and planning on passing 3M.

♣♦♥♠ You are right to try to get a ♥ lead from partner, but wrong in how you are going about it. Playing standard signals, the 2 of ♣ simply says "Don't lead a ♣" --- but partner already knew that; he can see the board too. What is partner likely to lead when he gets the lead with the ♦ Queen ? In fact, it's almost a certainty that he will lead it. How do you stop him from making this terrible mistake (a mistake which will be YOUR fault)?

Yes, it is. Playing SAYC, if Wayne were to have everything required for slam to make, he actually would have had a 3D bid. :) He would need something like AKxxx x KJxx Axx, in which case he might have rebid 2N (or 3D) instead of 2S. Even here where he has 3/4 keycards, 6S, while having chances, will still go down on the actual holdings. There is practically no hand that I can think of that would rebid 2S over 2H where it can be right just to up and start driving to slam on East's holdings. Bidding 4N over 2S is playing partner for the perfect hand, thereby making it a poor or "idiot" bid. In 2/1, I would bid 3D after the 2/1 response.

For once, I agree with The_Hog. :)

Ok, I think I understand what you are attempting to get at now. The original problem says: But it does not say that there is an equal chance of having twice as much money as there is as having 1/2 as much money. Its like if I had two barrels of money (don't I wish), each with 100 envelopes in them. In barrel one, all the envelopes contained $5000. In barrel two, 99 of them could have $2500, and one could have $10000, so the percent chance of drawing $2500 is 99%. In this case you should not switch. If it was 99-1 in favor of $10000, then you should. We are not actually told that the odds of $2500 and $10000 being in the other envelope is 50-50, even though when I originally read it, I assumed it was implied. But in reality, we are only told that one envelope will contain exactly 1/2 the amount of money in the other. Since we don't know what the odds are of $2500 or $10000 being in the envelopes in the other barrel, the answer to the question is, "it is impossible to decide." or "not enough information to make an informed decision". Am I getting closer to understanding it?

Huh? Is there some problem with double in your system Dwayne?

While this may "sound" good in theory, in real life, it will never work as opps are probably going to stick in a 6H bid. Just bid 6S.

My thought exactly. :)

I'm shocked by the number of bidders. Passing now keeps you from arriving in silly contracts like 3N. :)

Drag your mouse around rapidly in circles lots of times. Watch the old man at the bottom left almost collapse from exhaustion. B)