dake50

I'm guessing the spades were conveniently located so you made an overtrick? -- Bbradley62 *** That's a wildly likely assumption: SQ single drops under SK +SQx drops +S:Q10xx onside discovered on SK +they decide 5D-X is cheap. The point is that's surely over VUL game percent and equal nv game percent.

Pass. I think the honours are lying such that this is their hand, and I fear going for a number. -- Jinksy *** Yup. Set your hopes on 2xC +2xS to set 4H. The offense tricks just aren't there.

I am not convinced by this. IMO it depends on whether your knowledge of the count of the suit derives from its being extracted from the opponents under duress or whether that information had been volunteered by them. If they volunteered the count when instead one of them might have discarded a spade, then they could be doing so in order to persuade you that the Q is in the 4 card suit when it is not. This is all pre restricted choice adjustments of course -- 1eyedjack *** So I should always choose to discard from S:Qxx when declarer is trying to count out H+D+C?? I'll keep that justification in mind.

Should the GF 2D include "some other games are discussable" - here 4H if 5xH or strong 4xH or 3NT if S-stop? Maybe some D-invites force too high is that price to pay. Thus 3D is much stricter "this suit only"?

I posted this here because, whether you like it or not, my partner is an expert, as were most of the players in this event. This hand occurred in the finals of a regional open pairs. It was not the strongest event I have ever played in, but the players were not duffers. My partner took the position that the preempt combined with my direct action over the preempt made it extremely likely that I had a solid hand with spade shortness. I don't really disagree with this, although it could have been very wrong. He said as much when he put down the dummy. But he hit gold in my hand. The fact is that we are not a partnership with extensive agreements. You seem to imply that any "expert" partnership would have detailed methods to explore for slam on this auction. I suggest that you may be wrong on that point. If you were to poll 100 experts on the meanings of 5♥ and 4♠ on this auction, you might get many different opinions. Even in "expert" partnerships there are sequences that come up that are undiscussed. -- ArtK78 *** So is it posted to see comments from other "experts" or not? Even to other "expert" methods?

I agree with the sentiments listed above. And, had I held this hand, I would have passed. Fortunately for our result in the tournament, my partner did not pass. He bid 4NT, found me with one key card, and bid 6♥. The two hands: Everything behaved, and 6H rolled (By the way, no coughing was involved - and, if it were, how do you show 2 singletons?). Just goes to show that sometimes you have to do the wrong thing at the right time. As I mentioned above, this hand was played against one of the better pairs in the event. This was the second board of the round (fourth of the event). On the preceding board, my partner opened 3♣ at favorable vul. My RHO bid 3♠, and my LHO, with a huge hand, key carded and settled for 6♠. Turned out that the 3♠ bid was based on a somewhat mediocre 6-5 in the majors, and slam depended upon favorable lies of the cards in both majors. When they were both foul, the result was down 2. -- ArtK78 *** Is 1-6-1-5 an unusual enough distribution to reserve another (not T/O Dbl) for big 2-suiters? I bid so. 4D= H+C and S-short. Now fitting honors in the highlighted suits and a control in Dia is easy to try up. The very point of passes is to guard against a medium bal hand T/O Dbl getting overheated. That danger is responder's responsibility. But pay out when a big/concentrated 2-suiter hits a fit. Pay out this hand. WHY??

A priori combination study assumes spots won't tell declarer "new" information. That's a very common simplifying assumption. With a suggestion that more CAN be developed atop that a priori. Go ahead and develop as J.M.Roudinesco's The Dictionary of suit combinations what each spot sequence may suggest for this combo. You'll find, as his book has done, that's daunting even to read.

My wife thinks I should have doubled the 1S opening and then bid 2NT on my second bid to show balanced 16 point hand. -- Shugart23 *** Would your wife refrain from jumping to 4H with H:KQxx(X) plus a side K? To avoid this 4H on H:4-2/5-2? I want my T/O doubles to promise the other Major. At least up to a 17 primes with a good suit. Do you want your responses constrained when 16 BUT H:xx is possible?

Plop the HA to see what card LHO plays.

I'd need to see serious data about long-term wins and losses, as well as data about strength of opposition and about what happens on "normal weak two" hands where you have to do something different. -- awm *** You hit a peeve of mine. Show me the data! Much too often a method is published with no attempt to justify the why's. At least post I think this is better than the typical weak 2's because of 'this' why. I want frequency of gains, size of gains, against losses, against opposing methods. A balance sheet as accounting if you will.

awm Preemptive bids like these are extremely difficult to analyze. The problem is that a lot of the good results obtained look very much like silly mistakes by the opponents (both examples 1+2 from the original poster would seem to fall into this category). Of course, part of the purpose of a preempt is to induce the opponents to make a mistake, and even good opponents are more likely to make a mistake when there is less space available, when they are in an unfamiliar situation, etc. However it seems likely that calls such as Frelling twos will be devastatingly effective against bad opponents (against whom a good play/defense result may be coming anyway) and not so much against good opponents. *** Exactly, I also want my preempts to "put it to them" - make your choice with one chance to get this hand right. Not "I hope you make a silly mistake." I'll match my judgment/preempt against anyone if they only get one bid before deciding game/not. My general view is that two-level preempts on their own only mildly inconvenience good opponents regardless of the distribution shown. Therefore I am much more interested in a preempt which can frequently be raised to a high level than a preempt which is more common but can rarely be raised. This would seem to apply to a Frelling 2D (for example) because partner will need quite a lot of diamonds to raise, and because the major held is unknown (preventing an immediate raise of that suit even if a big fit is present there). While it does not apply to bids showing both majors (including the Frelling 2H and Rob Forster's 2H) I find preempts showing both majors a bit dubious in any case because they greatly simplify the opponents' task of finding the right strain (since minor suit contracts are rare in general and major suit contracts after the opening are fairly unlikely, so opponents can focus on 3NT and/or penalties). *** Even more, I want 'ParaDox' (see Ryall's page) raises - here a fit or there a fit (opponents can guess) to go 4-level. One thing that can definitely be said about Frelling twos is that they are a very aggressive and high-variance style. This makes sense in a situation where the people playing the method are likely to be outclassed in play and defense and are looking to crank up the variance. Through some combination of good fortune and practice, I find that this is rarely the situation for me any more and that while there's definitely a place for constructive methods which improve my expected score, there is not so much a place for cranking the variance since I expect to be one of the better pairs in any given field. *** I don't mind "high variance" if the expected outcome is plus. That is, take some lumps to win more often. A preempt MUST be effective (win much more than it loses) whether it is efficient (well-defined for denying/accepting higher) or not.

'helene_t' I am surprised that everyone say it is forcing. I would assume nonforcing but mildly constructive. Maybe people who are used to strong nt assume that the defense against weak nt is primarily constructive but that should in my opinion not be the case, at least not at mp. Many play a defense against 1NT that allows them to distinguish two-suited from 1-suited hands. If 2♠ promises a 1-suited hand there is of course no need to bid with a non-constructive hand. But our overcalls are wide ranging and responder will more often have an invitational hand than a gf hand. *** Getting to 3C is such a small/rare target. That is why 3C forcing > 3C club constructive > 3C clubs weak. Can 2S be bid when 2S is unplayable? So must your bidding have a rescue of 2S? A suggestion to play 3C on this "little" (no game) hand? Seems great investment of bidding into that "little" hand - misspent investment, I say.

mikeh There is an alternative to 3♣ being forcing or running. It could be non-forcing, constructive. A lot depends on your agreements as to the range for 2♠. Note, I am not criticizing forcing as the best meaning...it is what I would play. I just think that there are more options than you seem to consider. ..The one thing it shouldn't be, imo, is some form of spade raise. I am quite happy to give up on slam after a weak 1N on my left (unless I have a freak), so to me our spade bids are either 3S or 4s and we can use new suits for.....drum roll, please.....new suits. ..If I do have a freak with big blacks and interest beyond game in spades, I bid 4C, fit showing (and by inference slam interest, else why show clubs?)Edit: splinters may make more sense, but my default rule is that jumpshifts into new suits after we overcall are fit. *** So some sort of spade raise for a slam try (as 4C you suggest), but NOT as a game try? "else why show clubs?" I suspect the close double fit/not GAME tries are many times more frequent.

Going up for 4S if you like clubs. May quit 3S if that's all you say. May insist 4S/3NT/5C even after 3S. Yeah, FORCING.! Any less just lets 2S play.

What do you lead at MPs? What do you lead at IMPs? -- Jinksy *** I assume 2C natural sets my lead. C6 for me. Best on not, partner suggested this escape suit. If 2C was some conventional escape start, what did that suggest?

Only DK offside sets 4H (of course with H:QJ) so their game is quite near. Well judged. How close are others to a bid after 2D? I'd even try 3H over 3C - just to cater for this case: they're jamming us.

I'm in 6D failing as DQ is offside.

How much do others think seeing hearts (their suit) splitting 3-3 tips this to attack even with opponents little/no extras suggesting passive? I'm convinced to attack with S3 (I need partner to have something in spades and won't surrender my likely S:109 to win 3rd/4th rounds.

I don’t understand bidding 2S. What’s it supposed to achieve? ..I don’t want to compete to 4S over 4H I don’t want to compete to 5S over 5D My CJx doesn’t guarantee 3 level safety if they start doubling If they play in Ds or Hs I’ll be on lead If it’s the killer lead for 3N, I’d hope P will find it anyway – but if they bid to 3N I’ll very likely X it for a H lead anyway -- Jinksy *** And my assets are HKJxxx in opponents bid suit +CJ +SK?? What AN I HOPING FOR? Further what do I want 2S in the future on bigger/useful hands to mean?

What Bluecalm said is what we do as well. But, I have a problem doing that on this hand. I didn't really have a trap the first time; I was just too weak to make a neg double. If I couldn't Neg double for the two-level --not having enough to convert Spades to 2NT or 3D -- I still don't have enough to go for the 3-level. If Partner has a decent minimum with 4S, my reopening double might work out very well. If Partner has some other semi-balanced array, it is probably best to let this one go. -- aguahombre *** Even more so if partner would double with 4xH - backing into this auction over 2S. Maybe he's too weak or has Spades, but he was there over 2S wasn't he? And made no attempt. I don't have enough to be contrary to partner.

My meta-rule is Above 4D, a double shows 2-losers in their suit - "no slam, partner" (at least from my eyes). Then a bid shows an expectable single in their suit. That at least begins slam tries without the foolish/easy set case.

I think you start from the wrong place. Start with what will be in the VFP, eg. bal 17-20 (rebids dbl/cheap NT), 5 losers with 5 spades (rebids 1+S), 18+ S+2nd (rebids 2nd), .. without spades or bal <17 bid now! Minors start 2m, 1m if also 4+H. My jist being get one-message hands in the auction directly. VFP has expected cases to rebid - those that didn't start with another strong opener. This should go far in untangling [1-suiter, 2-suiter, 3-suiter, bal] cases by strength: {9-12, 13-16, 17-19, 20+}

Double, assuming that its take-out oriented. -- CSGibson Wow. Let's hear your expected bids from partner. esp pass with no trick? 4S only with 5? Can you let 4S? on a 4-3 with long hearts the bad split likely? So what does X, then 5C show that's different from this direct 5C? How different for your 5C direct bid if this hand is not? Not 4xD? Not 3xS? A 7th club?

I think I thrump double. "Partner you know 3NT is often our game, I can't try it, can you stop spades?" I have good stuff having passed then heard this auction. About as good as no act last round can be. I guess our NegX rules (no 4xS) constrained me.