dake50

Whether 2S is F1, nf, GF, North DOES have spades and 10 points. Spades must strain to get in just to avoid "wrong strain"

Aside, do y'all play the same obstruct/compete scheme over a nefarious 1D? eg. Precision 1D as catchall. Seems that has much to gain even with game possible cases to attend. Second After (1C) P (1D(neg)) ?? Partner's direct seat pass over 1C changes what shapes he can have left. Scheme to obstruct/compete using that inference? Or has partner's no-direct-action decided our side plays tame?

Am I missing this? S6 with H9 as left/right threats opposite DK109 with DA6. A twin entry (B2) squeeze. Unless H:3-3. CAJ, SAKQ drop D28, HKQA, CKQ.

Amsbury used jump overcalls here 20y ago: 2S: WJO. If X, sit. or 3-suiter w/o spades. If X, SOS red. or touching 5-5. If X, bid lower. 2H,2D,2C similar. Add ParadoX responses - this fit or partner corrects to an implied fit, and it becomes formidable.

1H. A preempt might goad opponents into 4S on 4-3 that is splitting 3-3. So their misbid to 4S after my preempt wins. What's the hope to win by preempting? Rebid cheap in hearts. Hope DK is an entry or partner has/onside HQ if he tries 3NT.

It's the closest thing to a situation where Thrump actually makes sense that I have yet seen. -- Siegmund *** Agree. My first thought when reading 'Thrump theory' was near exclusively vs. 3S. To counter when maximum space was stolen. Thrump wins when 3NT makes but 4NT fails.

I agree dummy's first bid suit. But keep my HJ - just may be a guard to let partner off the squeeze.

I think this works, if our 2S cue created a game force. We can bid 5C here if we are only interested in 2nd round spade control, and 4C otherwise. But if 2S did not commit us to game, we don't have that luxury and have to utilize a forcing pass to create the force implying slammish intent with this one, 4C to play in 4C, and 5C to play it in 5C. *** Agree. Does 2S force game or 4-level? I choose game-force and take your lumps when 4C is all there is in this hand.

Lead J. Defenders duck fearing to let 10 be an entry.

Good grief man, you are vulnerable vs nv. How will you feel if you double and pd bids 4S on a 4 carder? Happy? *** Again what is the top for 4H for you? What other strong bids are you not using? If your response is "only Double shows strong" then I see YOUR problem. That is NOT a problem to me - I have other strong bids. Good grief man, did you not read my post?

Eh? Where did this come from? Kxx AKJxxxx A(J)xx You would not bid 4H? *** You do not have a stronger bid than 4H for this hand? A perfect SQJ +CKQ +Hxx is a cold slam. That's 8 hcp, how can partner even suggest good stuff when you may have so-o-o much? Where is the top for 4H for you? What other strong bid(s) are you not using?

1c p 1d p; 1h p 1s p; 2s p ?? Pertinent information: we play walsh style. *** If 1s showed 4xS, 3NT asks partner to let it play without 4xS. We've already blabbed this auction to help opponents defend well.

Us: 5 with 13 verses Them: 15 hcp with 7 is about expected. A little plus for 6-suit with a single. Little fear partner raises, he can't see close to game. The hand plays highly informed - 15 known. I like 2H. Always MP, close IMP.

My partner's 4H denied 3XA, denied 2xA +C-void, denied 1 1-loser trump suit with 4+ controls. So any up-bid is dreaming. PASS.

I would expect the doubler to hold a trap pass of ♠s , in a goodish hand , including "something" in ♥ ("something" means approximately Hxx or better). *** Almost agree. Trap pass with 3-4 hearts and == a singleton Diamond == and thus AJ10,KJ10 in clubs

Forcing pass for a particular clarity. Double promises 2xlosers in their suit, so no slam (from his side, at least). Now a bid or PASS shows single or better control for slam. Yuk, that this encourages 6S off DK. Unless partner doubles taking 500 or 800. I think he should, leaving pass then pull on West. He QUITS.

Just at the edge for double in front of partner. As little as HJ out and this is left to partner to show his extra trick or more. A passed hand max and S:105 if partner has 6+S, OK.

Seems to me a trump opening lead to stop H-ruffs makes the most sense to me. Only if tricks are there to discard a C-loser is this not best.

Does opponents JUMP to 3S affect the decision to stand this double? Did my X as defending one Major affect now play penalties?

In my methods, North must double 5D = "I see 2xD-losers for slam" Now the choice for South, having shown his all, is defend.

Yuk I'm in this situation. Both pass and 3C last round leave us better placed. 4C. Just maybe they won't go 4S making.

Start with a big survey of hands analyzed. Tabulate penalty double success and competing double success. That at least gets a reliable comparison. Whether that can be translated into better theory is another question.

Look up Cavendish (of the 2-bids library). I think he did a ParadoX (his word) scheme to 2C to handle 4441's.

My reply was to dake50 for his trollish post, not to you. Again, I honestly don't know what could motivate them to advance this idea (and with such intellectually dishonest argumentation too as quoted by PrecisionL). If someone come to this forum and propose something similar they would be ridiculed in no time. Granovetters deserve the same and even more so as they writing could be taken seriously by some naive souls and thus do some damage. *** More trollish --- if you think that the programmers of robots will never surpass what you claim you are able to do, look at what robots did to master chess. To assert that that can't/won't be done without ANY justification IS QUARRELLING!!!

Ok, I see. We have new expert forum for people to defend ideas like robot leads. Awesome ! This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game. You will never see anyone good saying things like: "well, I would lead this and this but now let's see if bidding suggest otherwise". In fact if you were to defend such reasoning you will instantly be seen as someone not very good no matter where this reasoning leads you to in particular deal. *** Every expert partnership I know publishes CARDING AGREEMENTS (including opening leads). Do you assert they should publish auction agreements instead? Is CARDING AGREEMENTS not how "good players think"? Astounding this is so obviously in front of you and your experience of bridge, yet you decry that thinking. At least open your mind to the POSSIBILITY that a rational person can start from CARDING AGREEMENTS and yet play well.