bluecalm

I don't follow this logic at all. If anything I would play it other way around. We really have to double if we have like 15+hcp and no spade support if 2♠ doesn't commit us to game because there is a big real danger it will be passed out if we won't. On the other hand if pass was somehow forcing it makes a lot of sense to play in 4NT if we double because then we promise ♥ values (could have make FP if we didn't). I admit I keep forgetting we play this system in most posts (18-20 balanced in both 1♣ and 1♦ for additional confusion). Those examples are clear doubles too of course. I am expecting (and be happy with it !) partner will pull every time he is dealt 6♠ so I hope nobody is calling those hands "willing to defend" ? Ok, I get it. I hate this treatment because it's possible we will be in 5-2 game at 4 level instead collecting heavily but I can see it has merits. I guess you also double on every hand from Phil's post ? Do you think partner should pull with all (almost all?) hands with 6♠ ?

Ok, fine. So what do you bid with above mentioned hands ?

Surely not in this tournament with this partner ! They can easily take overtricks and there is nowhere to run. Even if I somehow have and agreement that double means exactly: AQxxx Jxx Kxx xx I wouldn't do it.

?? C'mon it's not 1960. How is double for penalties ? If it was, what would you bid with: Ax xx AKxxx KQxx or Ax x KQxxx AQxxx or even: Kx x AQJxxx AJxx Even if you are in penalty doubles in a lot of auctions if: a)we didn't find fit b)given hand has very wide range (11-22 here) c)you sit in front of length of their suit The only reasonable treatment is to play it as t/o. EDIT : to add 13th card to 3rd example :)

I think N should reopen with 3♣ if 2♥ is passed to him, xxxx of trumps is big because we gain a lot of ruffing value. The worse case scenario is partner being 4-1-6-2 and it's not that bad anyway.

a) no B) 2NT asking for description of opener hand

Give us full bidding too !

5-4 double is standard in Poland. I don't like this treatment. I much prefer penalty like you. If I am forced to play it as 5-4 though i would prefer a treatment I found in Bessis's convention card. DBL is 5minor and 4-3 majors (so 3-4-1-5, 4-3-1-5, 3-4-5-1, 4-3-5-1 shapes are possible I guess also 4-4-0-5 and 3-4-(0-6) maybe). At least this way we are going to play in our major fit if we have one.

Imo RKCB in ♠. If partner is 6-5 or 7-4 in minors he could have bid 4NT on previous round.

I am pretty sure it's not random for Bal - Zmud. Bal is the captain there, the one to open offshape/off points 1NT, aggressive preempts or other stuff. Zmud is very very solid and always has his bids.

How is this no fit ? Partner on average has 1♠, max 4♥ more likely 2♦ than 3♦ which gives him 5-6-7♣ (most of the time 6). He can also have 15hcp or something. I prefer 4♣ than passing with that.

So I thought double is for take out and that is "expert standard". However my friend told me he thinks it should be for penalty. In sequences like: 1NT - pass - pass - dbl pass 2♦ - ? We can bid 2♥ with both majors for example or like aguahombre suggested to show "2 places to play". I am not convinced because I still just want to just double with my 3-4-2-4 6-8hcp as partner may well have KQJT in their suit and leave it in. Also if their bid is 2♥ or 2♠ not being able to double seems to be very costly (especially after 2♠) as we can have like 24hcp and 9 card minor fit. As to question how often will partner reopen if we pass. I think probably not that often. I think he needs "pure" hand to do that (nice values, xx in their suit).

2♣ with most partners (which is not forcing). 1♠ with some others (which is tranfer to NT or clubs). Standard treatment where I live is to play 2♣ as natural and not forcing.

I consider 3♣ very serious underbid. My choice is between 4♣ or 3♦. I think 3♦ may not be clear at all so I am going with 4♣ for the sake of simplicity (I assume 2♣ is natural promising 4+)

I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing (maybe I mixed up terminology). I mean situation constructive bidding (not competitive) like: 1♠ - 3♣. In competitive auctions I agree strong jump shifts have a lot of merit (I prefer playing them too) What is Izdebski transfer ?

Yes, you are right I edited my post to avoid confusion. Thanks.

While this is possible I doubt we can ever convince partner we have 4♥ after passing 1♠. I am thinking more of 5-3-xx-3 or 5-2-xx-4 or even 5-3-1-4. Those hands may be good enough to want to compete but they lack good bid (despite x that is). Yes but "fixed" is not a good word. Why would you want to bid anything with this kind of hand ? They bid your suits, be happy and pass. WTP ? Normal double. If you play penalty as some people suggest here you would be "fixed" with this hand while 4♣ is perfect spot and it's easy to imagine 5♣ being right if your hand were a bit better. If he doesn't have enough to bid 3NT on his own I don't see how our improve his chances. Why hide 6card ♣ suit ? Why ? This is my honest opinion. If you play against semi reasonable players you won't collect much by doubling their 3♦ there but you will be "fixed" with hands like OP had or any kind of 5-3-1-4 when you make 11-12tricks in ♣ and they are allowed to play 3♦ making.

Martens' solution is this: A♣, A♥, K♣, Q♣ and discard spade. Now we have communication to hand to ruff ♣ and discard last spade. This however this loses to: -♥QTx and ♣xx with N (because he will ruff, play ♦ and another ♣ from S will promote Q♥ -♥Qxx and ♣xx with S (same reason but S don't need a T) -Any time one of the opponents have stiff ♣ (which Martens doesn't mention at all) I think the better play is is to win first trick with A♣ and play for ♥ finesse. This way we have two entries to hand with A/K♥. This only loses to (assuming clubs aren't 5-1) -QTx in N hand along with Jx of clubs It also seems to me that my solution will sometimes win if clubs are 5-1 (if Q is onside) while Marten's solution automatically loses to all those layouts. I guess the plan is to play A♥ and Q♣ if you win ? If yes it's the same as solution from the book. If no, please elaborate :) EDIT: wclass___ I started typing my post before seeing yours; your answer is the same as mine;

Oh sorry I was halucinating. Scratch my post.

Well, one more treatment is to play 1♠ as showing 5+♠ and dbl as exactly 4. I think it has merits. I played this way after 1♦ opening for some time (1♦ being usually 5♦ though). I don't know how it would translate after nebulous better minor 1♣.

ruff in hand, play x♣ to Q♣; assuming W hops with his ace we now have 2♣, 2♦, A♥, 2 ruffs in hand which is 7 tricks and we need to score 3 more with our AKJx of ♠ which should prove to be easy after playing A♠ and exiting with our last ♦. This guards against ♠QTxx with W.

You can be 4-5-2-2 and lack good rebid after 1NT. Standard way to deal with it i polish systems is to play 2♣ rebid as either natural or 5-3-3-2 or exactly 4-5-2-2. This way 2♦ is natural 4+ (unless 4-5-3-1) and you don't have any more problems. I think Flannery belongs to museum of bidding though, along with CAPP , strong jump shifts and strong twos :blink:

I am happy doubler at both imps and mp's (despite being redoubled twice recently) but I think if we didn't discuss style of such doubles with partner it should be avoided.

Well, I just thought I might not notice many gains as all field play 2NT minors so results which my brain treat is "nothing happened" could be very good results in different (non-polish) field :P

I think doubling with this kind of hand is beyond awful unless your opponents are big time droolers.