shevek

Running ♥9 is not so good, failing when East has H-x. He just returns a heart for an ignominious 1 down. It's better to play to the ♥10. If it loses you are okay, the same 75% chance that you started with. What if it wins? Now it appears that West could have ♥KQxx, so you might then lead the ♥J off dummy. A diamond comes through and you are still in bad shape with an awkward guess. All this shows that it was wrong to eliminate spades. Just draw trumps and take the double heart finesse, using spade ruffs to get back to hand. In fact, the ♠J could have been a key card for a double squeeze, albeit double dummy.

4♥. Don't want partner to bid 4♠ over 4♣ with something like xxx, Qx. Double is okay too, though partner is still waiting for my trump switch.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=skhat2dkt963caq92]133|100|Scoring: IMP (4♥) no (no) X (no) ? Do you bid? If you do, is it 4NT and pass partner's 5m?[/hv]

[hv=d=s&v=b&w=sq92haqj8dt82caq8&e=st5hk9763da4cj754]266|100|Scoring: IMP We passed out South's 1S opening.[/hv] In fact, South had ♣K-x so 620 was available. Naturally, East & West each thought the other should have acted. What say you?

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sjt965hq76dc86543]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1C* (2D*) ?[/hv] 1♣ is 16+ any, 2♦ natural (1♦ would be something else) Anyway, do you bid 2♠ a) if it's not forcing b) if it's forcing c) if it's game-forcing? Do you double? How do you play 2♠? Why?

Too subtle for me. If someone opens 1♦ transfer, your method is to double as takeout of hearts and bid 1♥ natural. Fine. You don't do that in 4th seat since you have a way of overcalling in their suit - at the 2-level. Well, you could do the same thing vs a transfer 1♦ opening - doubling to show diamonds, 1♥ for tko, 2♥ natural.

Transfer responses to 1♣ seem like a good idea, with no constructive down-side. Responder gets some extra options plus you right-side majors, etc. How should 4th hand defend after 1♣ - No - 1♥ (spades) - ? Normal "expert" style in Australia is to bid their possible 4-card suits naturally. For instance, over Flannery 2♦, a 2♠ overcall is natural. In the transfer auction, that suggests X = takeout of spades, 1♠ natural, 1NT natural. Or the same with 1NT as 5-5 reds. X as takeout of spades is a bit safer than doubling a natural 1♠ response for takeout, which risks getting carved up at the 2-level on a mis-fit. You might also gain a 1♠ pivot response from partner. All good. Another way is to bid 1♠ on any hand that would double a natural 1♠ response for takeout. That's okay, albeit with the increased risk of sustaining a penalty. Then double could be hearts, but not good/long enough to overcall 2♥. My feeling is that this is not quite as useful. Other thoughts include X as a strong notrump, 1♠ for tko, 1NT as a 2-suiter. This might please those who think a sandwich 1NT shouldn't be natural. Or having double and 1♠ as different takeouts. One limited, one strong? Or one classic, one off-shape? What think ye?

Assume you don't want my reply then. Cant tell, but if it's somthing like: "Convention X is best, all the experts play it." It's ok not to reply. I used to make those errors too, like Robin/Robyn, Lesley/Leslie, Francis/Frances. Girls should find their own names. Nick/Nic

My defence? I was drunk at the time. 10-14 really? "If I can't double for takeout, I must bid 2♠" Really? North's 3♥ seems the best bid in the auction. Anyway I play ♣K. If somethng else is better, then partner should not have played ♣Q from QJx. If pd has ♣QJ-tight, leading low could kill our third club trick. Give declarer ♠Qx ♥AJxxxx ♦K ♣xxxx or similar.

7NT seems clear, a good spot on the cards. Remember it might make when 7♥ fails, when somebody has a red suit void. 7♥ may not be that popular because some Norths may not raise hearts. I wouldn't, prefer something like 2♠ over 1♥.

Well, it is constructed to handle weak nt-ranges, which are thick on the ground in Denmark. It is really good to be able to differentiate betweem weak and strong major hands, when you face a weak nt. If you reverse the 2♦ bid with the2♥/2♠ bids, you have the "standard-defence" among danish top-level players. I like it vs strong nt-ranges too, but persuade me to change it! Why is Raptor good? (Honest question.) Raptor fits with Cappelletti & Multi style, common in Australia: X = 4M & 5m, then 2♣ is p/c, 2♦ = "bid your major" 2♣ = majors, then 2♦ says "bid your longer" 2♦ = straight multi (6cM) with same responses as 2♦ opening for simplicity 2♥/♠ = 5cM & 4+m, Cappelletti/Muiderberg style. People chose this for symmetry. That's what their 2♦/♥/♠ openings show. The Raptor double meshes well because you have a way to show 4M/5m & 5M/4m.

Raptor, 4M & 5m. fits well enough with Cappelletti or multi style plugging that hole. then 2♣ = p/c, 2♦ = bid your major. Don't like the rest of your method much.

The thing to avoid is having one strategic aim vs a 13-15 notrump and a completely different aim against 14-16. I guess in countries where it's all MPs and everyone plays 15-17, something like a raptor double (4M & 5m) makes some sense. True, the carnage falls both ways when you double with "top of their range" but the side with the lead wins out long term. (No I can't back this up, just selective memory) Again people confuse the modern stats-based penalty double with the 1950s rubber bridge version, which was virtually a command to pass. Admittedly I tend to pass out partners double on a flat Yarborough if we are vul and they aren't. Take lumps, hope it's just -180. These days few redouble for blood so we won't have to turn over the table number to check the score. If not vul, I like to scramble with these weak hands, maybe by 2♣ then redouble. Often the opening side will have some silly method to help you out. For instance, their XX might show a 1-suiter, or pass forces redouble. This simply helps the doubler's partner to distinguish weak hands. Perhaps 1-suiters bid straight away; pass then bid = 2 suits. We had this a month back[hv=d=s&v=n&w=sxxhaqxxdakxxcaxx&e=sjxxxhkjxxdxxxcxx]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (Is there a way to add the auction to this format?) I doubled South's 1NT. North redoubled to show 1 suit, passing opener's forced 2♣. Looks bad but partner - god bless her - reopened with double and we scrambled to 2♥. Yes, it was a very small victory. Using double as another way to compete destroys your game bidding. If you give partner another card like ♦Q, 4♥ is okay. Perhaps irrelevant at MPs but this was IMPs.

Are you sure you didn't push your opponents to an always cold 3♣ for 110 or 130, or perhaps 2♠ for 140, when your teammates went down in 1NT since their ace of hearts was doubleton? Anyway, if your point is simply to compete for more partscores, you will lose a lot more than you gain playing penalty doubles when compared to just about any other possible meaning for double. There is a reason penalty doubles are completely out of fashion, the expert world is not simply oblivious. Okay I found the hand West had ♠QTx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣Qxxxx Indeed they make 3♣ and we shoot 1NT on a heart lead. Meanwhile - back in the real world - my hand led a diamond vs 1NT, the patzer. I didn't ask them why they couldn't get to 3♣ after my double. Common round here is to play DONT after a penalty double so XX = 1-suiter, 2♣+ = 2-suiters. Then it might indeed have gone (XX) - 2♥ - (X?) - 3♣. Less frequent - but more satisfying - gains came from defending 1NTx. This is one from Istanbul Mixed in 2004. [hv=d=w&v=b&n=skj62ha74da953ckj&w=s9543ht3dk62cqt92&e=saqhkqj9dqjt74ca7&s=st87h8652d8c86543]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] This was +1100, 2♣X is the same. Of course +400 is okay too, while +130 in 2♦ would be disappointing. The old style penalty double of 1NT - a chunky suit and a few entries - was rare and useless. Usually they would run and you would bid your suit. The modern style is more of a penalty suggestion. "We should get involved here, I'm too good to bid". By the way, our bids are ASPRO, good for those major canapés. Never liked Cappelletti.

The solution is to double all notrump openings for penalty. The dominant paradigm needs to be subverted. The other day I doubled 1NT (15-17) with this ♠AKx ♥KQx ♦AT8xx ♣Jx. Tut, say the textbook writers. Rare hand, partner is broke, no good lead, end plays. Etc. Well, partner had ♠xxx ♥JT9xx ♦J9x ♣xx and bid 2♥ for +110 and 5 IMPs when our team-mates were allowed to play & make 1NT. This is a frequent gain point - when you get to sit in partner's long suit. The other big plus comes from limiting other actions. It's amusing when DONT players bid 2♥ with their balanced 17-counts.

I guess 6♦ is okay. Really, having the 0-8 hand find out about partner's 22+ is silly, gives relay a bad name.

2♣, since 1NT = 15-17

What should this be? WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S no 2S 4C ? ♠x ♥xx ♦Kxx ♣KQJxxxx or ♠x ♥AQJxx ♦xx ♣KQJxx ?

Not hard enough I guess. Thanks

Oops. That should have been "since you need Q from KQx to avoid a Bath Coup"

4SF is invitational. Yes it's simple to play in GF but lazy too. It takes effort to decide which sequences are non-forcing and there is no consensus. It's a bit like opener's reverse, which is becoming GF simply because players are confused about how to stop.

This is becoming more popular at high levels. My partners want to try it but google didn't do much. Is there an exposition somewhere? A = attitude please Basically, this means "do you have the queen" Don't know whether this style leads to more unattractive leads from Axxx. I guess not. K = count please That seems good from KQJx, AKxxx (5 or 6) However, as leader with AKxxx, I don't like to commit the defence to a particular signalling path. Q = attitude please. This could be awkward since you need K from KQx to avoid a Bath Coup. So partner encourages with A or J. Fair enough but what of this xxx QJx Txxx AKxx East might like to encourage here to tell partner declarer doesn't have AKT. But he can't because leader rates to have KQx, etc. Does this mean J from QJx? From KJTx? I've assumed suit contracts. Guess there are variations against notrumps.

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=s7haqj95dk86c9874]133|100|Scoring: IMP East opens 1♠[/hv]

There are some NFBs that everyone plays 1NT - (2♥) - 2♠ 3♠ is GF so this has to cover a wide range. Lebensohl might help but maybe not, since it presumably means bidding 3♠ invitational at some stage on a 5-card suit. So 2♠ ranges from competitive to mildly invitational. Tough, so we all tend to force to game on the strong invites to take the strain off. Likewise 1NT - (2♠) - 3♥ ? Either this sequence or the one via Lebensohl/Rubensohl is non-forcing, easy to miss a perfect game. That's bridge, pay out to the overcall. With NFBs after a suit opening, double then a new suit is forcing, virtually GF so strong invites need to jump one way or the other. With KQxxxx, xx, Jxx, xx it's important to act after 1♥ - (2♣) - ? If you pass, opener will be deterred by his lack of spades. If 2♠ is forcing, you face a tough call next time if you have to double now. What will you do over 3♦ by partner? Will you remove 3NT to 4♠ ? It's true that you also bid 2♠ non forcing with ♦A instead of ♦Jbut that might turn out well. You will often get another go.

How do people test their ideas? I use Bgen for windows, an adaption by an Australian - Nigel Dutton - of Paul Heitner's DOS program from the 80s. I guess you have better tools. Currently I'm looking at dealing with a weak 2S overcall of our strong 1C. Simple stuff. I generate a few hands - 24 - then import them into DMPro and just look at them, peaking at the Deep Finesse analysis. This seems fine. What do others do? Nick