Apollo81

Passing is the only logical alternative unless you define LA as "a call that has some merit" Double has a tiny ounce of merit here.

For his regular partners "active ethics would be to disclose but laws dont require" For non-regular partners "unusual but OK" I think he is upgrading his value by less than 1 point in each case, so I don't see a problem with it. This particular form of upgrading is pretty common in my experience. edit: if you have a problem with this then you do have the same problem with this guy opening Ax Axx AKQ10xx xx 2NT consistently? Of course you don't. So just play penalty doubles of strong NT when you know there are people in the field that do this.

This club suit says defend to me. I would bid 5♣ with x J10 Axxx AKJ10xx or x J AKxx AJ10xxxx.

a grand life master in my area suggested acting over 3♦ was "obvious" does that sway anyone's opinion?

Assuming a natural 4♣, this is an obvious pull. The whole point of the 4♣ bid was to get us to pull with such a hand.

clear 5♣ call if you double on these sort of hands youll give away a double or single game swing twice for every time you win by doubling

I'd overcall. This is a maximum, but not enough for a power double in my book. The chance to take 2♠ for a number does not compensate for the awkwardness that results when partner bids nearly anything else.

ditto

I actually had previously posted this, but as an IMPs problem This time it's MPs, unfavorable Jxxxx QJ10x AJx A p-(3♦)-?

1. Unfavorable Jxxxx QJ10x AJx A p-(3♦)-? 2. None vulnerable AQ10xxx A xxxx Kx (p)-1♠-(2♠)-4♠ (5♥)-?

Problems 1 and 3 were indeed from the same hand, although the player actually held: ♠J109xxxx ♥Kx ♦x ♣xxx After a lot of thought I decided that hooking the heart was too reckless a line and played ♦A, ♥A, and a heart for making 10 tricks. Was about a 30% board. Most people hooked but some ducked trick 1 and went down. I am very surprised that no one has suggested 4♦ on problem 2. I would judge that there is no game, they can make 3♥ (or possibly 4) opposite the typical hand from pard. pard does have the critical card (♥A) for all the 3NT bidders...and also the critical shape for all the 5♦ bidders... ♠xx ♥A ♦KJ98xxxx ♣xxx

All problems MPs 1. All Vul ♠xx ♥AJ10xxxx ♦x ♣xxx open 2♥ or 3♥? would your preempt level change if your majors were reversed? 2. Vul vs not ♠AJx ♥xx ♦A10x ♣AJ10xx (p)-3♦-(p)-? 3. All Vul p-(2♠)-Dbl-(3♠) 4♥-(all pass) ♠K ♥AJ10 ♦A984 ♣AK843 ♠Q4 ♥Q9532 ♦Q1032 ♣QJ LHO leads ♦6. Plan the play. See hidden for what happens after you play from dummy:

Some people seem to like being able to show "cards" without necessarily making a takeout double. For them: Double = 13-16 balancedish or any power double 2♦ = majors 2M = normal 2NT = 17-19 pass then double = light takeout double then double = sound takeout An auction like (2c) Dbl (2d) Dbl is responsiveish and just says "bid your hand" ... advancer could still have 4 card major(s) I personally don't see a huge advantage to either method and tend to play the simpler one (Phil's suggestion)

Defending conventions like this without any discussion is always difficult. Anyway, I think the most reasonable thing to assume is that partner may have doubled 2♣ with 15+ HCP, so I'd pass now. Game is probably a stretch at best, and doubling 3♦ probably isn't penalty. Even if I'm wrong and pard has a good hand, he may double again anyway.

Perfect for a 3♠ bid after the single raise.

1. Pass, feeling halfway decent about it. 2. 5♣ 3. 4♣

1. 2♣ whether it's forcing or not 2. I'd sit for it

Agree with this analysis.

Sounds like a bad reason. Maybe spend some time here with partner? I didn't say it was the best auction. I said the calls were reasonable and was giving the upside to this call over the obvious 2♣ call. And BTW I would probably make this call if I hadn't discussed followups to inverted minor raises, which is true every time I play with someone other than a regular partner.

I don't agree with this either. A 0445 8 count would be perfect for this sequence.

All the calls were reasonable except 7♣ (and obv the pass of 7♣x). I think that hand is actually a minimum for the 5♦ jump at those colors, so why anyone would bid again with it is beyond me.

All the calls seem reasonable to me. The good thing about 1♦ is that most people's bidding is not well defined after an inverted minor raise, so it's often much easier to find out the nature of opener's hand after a 1♦ response. 3♣ was completely auto. Obviously responder could have been more scientific at his third call, but if the partnership has no methods to locate queens then [edit: RKC followed by] 7♣ (or 7N) seems like the percentage shot.

might as well bid 3c before proceeding on to 4s....only way to get to a slam intelligently

I think I mostly agree with Adam and jdonn

3♠ -- perfect