skjaeran

The pair didn't have an agreement regarding this sequence. When an explanation doesn't fit the hand and they can't provide documentation that the explanation is according to agreement (here they obviously can't), you rule misinformation. Here that means you adjust to 3NT for the offending (the declaring) side. Whether you adjust for the defenders too depends upon how you judge the double. If you find it "wild, irrational and gambling" (or whatever your SO rules say), you let the opponents keep their bad result. Otherwise you adjust for them too. Jillybean, this is in the Offline-Bridge forum. I guess that means this occured f2f. :)

The Doors - "The Very Best Of". Losts of great stuff.

Am I confused? Didn't 2♥ promise a 4th heart? Or is that completely artificial? I assume that 2♥ wouldn't be bid with a balanced hand with 3 hearts. OP explained the 2♥ raise as: The raise could be made on 3 with minimum and a singleton ♠. If balanced it showed 4-card support.

100% agree.

Assuming 1nt is 15-17 do you want to be in slam across from: AQ..KQxx...xx..AJxx I'd not want to play at any level with only 12 cards in dummy..... :P

Sorry, my fault. I should have commented it in the OP. 4♦ showed a void, thus 5♥ showed AK of ♥'s. I really didn't think of this when posting, since it's standard here that this shows a void. I know that's not the case everywhere. :lol: Then isn't south much too good to just sign off in 4♥? :) Too good I agree. Maybe not much too good IMO. 4♦ normally doesn't promise any extra high card strenght. I wasn't at the table though. My regular partner was north.

Me too. :lol:

The ♣Q is waste paper, but the rest of my hand is great. A 4th trump, ♥JT, a very useful doubleton. Not to mention my ♣ lenght. I'd accept at any vulnerability and scoring. Without the slightest doubt.

Sorry, my fault. I should have commented it in the OP. 4♦ showed a void, thus 5♥ showed AK of ♥'s. I really didn't think of this when posting, since it's standard here that this shows a void. I know that's not the case everywhere. :lol:

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sakt73hqj98dcakt9&s=sq92hak65dt86cj52]133|200|Scoring: IMP N E S W 1♠ 2♦ X P 4♦ P 4♥ P 4NT P 5♥ P 5NT P 7♥ P P P[/hv] Lead: ♦A ruffed in dummy. How do you plan the play?

If you say so, I believe you, but it is hard for me to imagine that Reese could make a mistake like that. I believe Reese was the one who originally wrote about the steppingstone and other related positions (quite possibly in "Master Play" but I am not sure about that and I don't seem to have a copy of that book anymore). He was really into colorful nomenclature and was one of the best analysts ever. It just doesn't sound like a Reese-like thing to say. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Josh i(and Ben) s right about what Terence Reese wrote. It was in "The expert game" (that't the original title, it was called "Master Play" in the US edition - an edition Reese himself strongly disliked). The introduction to the Stepping-Stone says: "The stepping-stone is a name of another type of squeeze in which declarer has sufficient triccks in top cards but cannot go conveniently from hand to hand...... Like most forms of direct squeeze, the stepping-stone operates at two levels when declarer has to make all the tricks and when he can afford to lose one trick. The secind situation arises more often." I believe stepping-stone is used on both since the squeeze mechanism is the same and because you face the same problem - your tricks are there, but you can't reach them right away. Even in the win all tricks situation you use an opponent as a virtual stepping-stone.

Yes; ud count. But present count is standard. In Norway present/current count is standard if playing normal count. Original count is standard if playing ud count. I'm a bit surprised to learn this isn't standard elsewhere.

ditto (I'm wondering how many of the 3N bidders would also make a takeout double of 2H holding: QJxx, x, AQxx, K10xx) Probably all of them..... :lol:

I'd make a responsive double. In my style that shows a balanced hand without 4c♠ and 5cm.

I once scored something like 72.5% over three nights in a student's bridge club with a terrible partner. The rest of the field was almost rank beginners, so it was pretty much like stealing candies from children. In a 5 table Mitchell I once scored 74%. The runners up in our direction scored 69%, leaving an average 35.67% for the remaining three pairs.

I don't agree - most here would play 3♥ as constructive to invitational in that setting, and 2NT -> 3♥ as non-constructive.

Agree with the ♥A lead advocated by several other posters and with their reasoning.

I strongly disagree with overcalling ♦'s at any level with the actual east hand. 2♦ gives a completely wrong description of the hand, and 1♦ is nonsense. The hand is too weak and you've got no suit. For the lead, to me it's close between a low ♠ and a low ♦. (My partner would be very disappointed if I didn't lead a ♦.) As it happens, both beat the contract.

It's hard to come up with a reasonable hand for partner to have here. But as he didn't ask for my opinion, I won't give any. Clear pass.

I'd bid 5♥ exclusion with an advanced+ partner. 4NT should work just as well though, since he won't have an outside ace. The GSF (stupid name :o since it doesn't force to a grand slam) of course works fine too. Playing with a beginner/intermediate I might just raise to 7♦ (no offence implied).

Agree.

Sure it is good enough for 2NT. But since it's MP, the issue is which call leads to the best partscore. If we're strong enough for game, we'll probably get to the best game whether I double or bid 2NT. I think double is best. Then we'll play 2♠ when that's the best contract. Or 3♣, if partner is weak with ♣'s. The only trouble is if partner bids 2NT leb and comes back with 3♦ over my 3♣ rebid. But even that might be best. So I'll double.

I'm a little too weak for 2NT - that should show eight losers. Put me down for 3♥.

I play 3♦ as a "weak" overcall. Then it would be clear to overcall on this hand. Without this agreement, the hand is too weak and has to pass. LHO rates to have a ♠ suit and opener ♥'s. Partner have long ♣'s and probably some length in both majors, and at most a singleton ♦. I'll pass 4♣. Partner won't make this, but he'll not fail by more than two tricks, undoubled. I'd be afraid to be doubled in 4♦.

I agree with the 2♣ overcall, eventhough I've got no problem with a double. 3♦ is sick. It shows far more distribution than this. A double of 2♠ is absolutely automatic. 3♥ shows a long weak ♥ suit in a hand that for some reason couldn't make a preempt. Either too weak or uncomfortable ♠ length, either 4621 or 3721. We don't know the vulnerability or scoring, nor the preemting style. I'll pass 3♥. At IMPs I just might raise to 4♥.