Bende

I have heard of the following "run out" scheme, but not (for good reasons probably) seen anyone play it: pass = forces redbl, which will be to play redbl = to play If you have a weak hand you look left, look right, and then decide which opponent is most likely to run when put in the pass out seat :).

Thanks! How about after for example (1♦) - 1♥ - (3♦). A responsive double is still more important that being able to show a good raise?

Correct.

Justin, do you think it is silly to use double as a "cuebid double"? It seems it could be useful in many cases to differentiate the strength in the raise of partners suit but what to do when you need a responsive double in that case, I don't know.

An expert Swedish pair plays the following responses to 1♣=17+ or 11-13 balanced (any 5-card suit; sometimes (4441) or (5431)): 1♦ = 4+♥, 0+ hcp 1♥ = 4+♠, 0+ hcp 1♠ = denies 4+M, denies 5+m with 8+ hcp 1NT = 5+♣, 8+ hcp 2♣ = 5+♦,8+ hcp

Does anyone have experience with "The Best Defense to Multi" as suggested by Matt and Pamela Granovetter? Opinions from anyone without experience also welcome :). The idea of the defense is to use the ambiguity of the multi against its practitioners with weakish overcalls on the three level. (2♦) - pass + dbl = takeout of bid major dbl = overcall in one major (later dbl by you or partner shows the other major) 2♥ = strong overcall with clubs 2♠ = strong overcall with diamonds 2NT = natural 3♣ = weakish overcall with clubs 3♦ = weakish overcall with diamonds

Very good answer :).

What do you think is the most common card led? Are there any statistics on this? My own guess is that it is the ♦K, although I have very little to back this up.

Can't recall the threads, but agree with the concept. BTW, if the question was whether to switch, the answer is a close 'no', at least for me. It seems to me that a switch is necessary only in rare circumstances...the holding that comes to mind, for declarer, is AKQxx xx Jxxxx x, where we need to underlead in diamonds. Is this possible? Of course, and maybe we should worry about it, but if we make that switch we may find declarer with KQJxx xx KJxx xx, and now he wins the diamond in dummy and finds hearts 3-3 so pitches his club and has time to drive out the pointed aces. Actually that doesn't seem to be possible, since that would leave partner with a five card club suit which doesn't fit with the ♣4 being third highest. What I really wanted to see was if someone considered laying down the ♦A to get a signal from partner instead of returning a club. If we return a club, partner must find the diamond switch from the king if he has it.

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=s542hakq52dq87cq6&e=st8hj63dat6caj975]266|200|Scoring: MP pass - pass - pass - 1♥; 2♣ - 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♠; pass - pass - 4♠ - all pass[/hv] You are playing match points and decide to enter the action with 2♣ against inexperienced opponents playing a natural four card major system. Partner leads the ♣4 (third highest) and the trick continues ♣6-♣A-♣3. What do you lead at trick 2?

Most likely there is a very simple solution to this that I haven't found yet. I use the flash version. When I scroll up in the chat box the auto-scroll stops. This is of course very good. However, when I am done reading whatever I was looking for earlier in the chat, I want to scroll to the end and want auto-scrolling to resume. It doesn't. The only way I found to keep up with current chat is to log out and log back in again. Surely there is an easier way?

After 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♠, won't partner be worried that your second suit is hearts, or is it always a minor?

When giving this question on a Swedish bidding forum a lot of voices where raised saying support doubles simply don't belong in a natural bidding system, because of issues like this. Is that the general opinion?

I have a question about support doubles. In situations where support doubles are on, like a. 1♦ - (pass) - 1♥ - (1♠) b. 1♦ - (pass) - 1♠ - (2♥) How do I show 1. 18-19 balanced (provided I play 15-17 NT) with a stopper 2. 18-19 balanced without a stopper 3. Four card support and 18-19 balanced 4. Support and an unbalanced hand with good playing strength but without a lot of points In auction a., if 1NT is played as 18-19 balanced with spade stop (is this common?), then perhaps 2NT could be used to show a good hand with support and 2♠ could show a strong hand without clear direction (including 18-19 balanced without a stopper). A jump to 4♥ would show an unbalanced hand with good playing strength. In auction b. this doesn't work since there is not enough room. I suppose it is possible to play 4♠ as either 18-19 balanced with four card spade support or as an unbalanced hand with good playing strength, but is that really a good idea? Searching for articles about support doubles, I haven't found any description on how good players handle these hands.

How do experts usually play 2NT in these sequences? a. (1♦) - 2♣ - (2♦) - pass; (pass) - 2NT b. (1♥) - 2♣ - (2♥) - pass; (pass) - 2NT c. (1♥) - 2♦ - (2♥) - pass; (pass) - 2NT d. (1♠) - 2♣ - (2♠) - pass; (pass) - 2NT e. (1♠) - 2♦ - (2♠) - pass; (pass) - 2NT f. (1♠) - 2♥ - (2♠) - pass; (pass) - 2NT

2NT - 3♣ = Stayman 3♦♥ = Transfer with follow-up: Bid in oM = SI with M, 4m = nat 3♠ = Balanced SI+, asking for five card suit 3NT = To play 4♣♦ = 5+m-4+om, GF+ 4♥♠ = 6+M, SI 4NT = SI, typically 4333 2NT - 3♣; 3♦ = No major ...3♥♠ = 5M-4oM, GF+ ...4♣♦ = 6+m, SI+ 3♥ = 4-5♥, at most 3♠ ...3♠ = 4+♥, SI ...4♣♦ = 6+m, SI+ 3♠ = 4-5♠, at most 3♥ ...4♣♦ = 6+m, SI+ ...4♥ = 4+♠, SI 3NT = Both majors ...4♣ = 6+♣, SI+ ...4♦♥ = Transfer 4♠ = 6+♦, SI+ 2NT - 3♠; 3NT = No five card suit ...4x = Four card suit; suits are bid up the line and 4NT used when we run out of suits. With a fit for bid suit, the number of aces according to RKCB can be shown by a bid at the five level. 4x = Five card suit ...4NT = Natural ...5x = Number of aces according to RKCB

4NT to ask for specific aces might run into the spade ace and what then? It seems a bit dangerous to me.

This depends on whether Australia has exercised the regional option in Law 40B3, which allows players to have agreements following irregularities. The EBU has decided that one is allowed to have agreements after the other side's irregularities only. If Australia has accepted the Law as written, then you are allowed to have agreements on bidding sequences that include your own insufficient bids. In Sweden, the option in law 40B3 is not used. However, when agreements after irregularities was discussed six months ago, the laws committee said that laws 23 and 27D meant it could result in a changed score. Perhaps it is different since the discussions revolved around agreements after your own irregularities. It was based on a discussion of the 2007 laws by Ton Kooijman (Laws commentary).

If you got a zero, what did the other pairs open? Because of reasons like catching partner with a very weak hand when holding 20-21 balanced, it has become quite popular where I play to open 2♣ with 20-21 balanced or a game forcing hand. In reply to 2♣, 2♥ and 2♠ are sign offs against the 20-21 balanced hand. Personally, I don't like this style because I think you too much by now allowing positive responses to 2♣.

I would prefer balanced game force.

Thank you!

I want to find a topic I remember seeing but can't find through the search functionality. It was about a situation such as 1♥ - 3♥, where 3♥ was bid with a hesitation. The presupposition was that the hesitation as equally likely to mean that partner was choosing between 2♥/3♥ as between 3♥/4♥ (or 2NT or whatever game forcing bid was available). Someone reasoned that although that might be true, the imp scale (I think given a situation where the contract was assumed to be 3♥ at the other table) could still favour bidding on based on the UI where it might be a bad bet to do so if partner was assumed to have a normal invite. Anyone remember that topic?

There has been an intense debate on a Swedish bridge forum around the phrase "demonstrable bridge reason" in law 73. In essence, is it allowed for a player to hesitate while thinking about how to play the cards in a manner which will deceive declarer? For instance if the player figures out declarer has a choice between a squeeze and a finesse and though the player has no cards that can actually win a trick it might require some thought to figure out in which way they should be played to make declarer pick the wrong option. The argument for is that it is part of the defense in bridge to give declarer difficulties. The argument against is that declarer might be deceived not by the actual cards played but by the actual hesitation which suggest the defender had some "actual" difficulties. Is it obvious what the answer is?

The situation I play a system where 1♣ = balanced (11-13 or 17-19) or natural. I want to find an effective system to deal with interference. There are many possibilities but Transfer Lebensohl seems like a good option. Although I rate effectiveness higher, it is good for memory to play similar constructs in different parts of the system. Now I want comments from the forum if you think this is a reasonable attempt and if you can suggest some improvements. Transfer Lebensohl I have indicated with a question mark where I am not quite sure what makes sense. 1♣ - (2♥) - dbl = Takeout 2♠ = Weak 2NT = Any strength with clubs or weak with lower ranking suit ---3♣ = Most common but opener can bid something else with good support for clubs ------pass = Weak with clubs ------3♦ = Weak with diamonds ------3♥ = Clubs and asking for stopper? GF with 31(45)? ------3♠ = 5+♣-4♠ ------3NT = Clubs and suggestion to play? Slamish? 3♣ = Inv+ with 5+♦ ---3♦ = Min ------3♥ = Asking for a stopper? ------3♠ = 5+♦-4♠ ------3NT = Diamonds and suggestion to play? Slamish? 3♦ = 1. Asking for stopper and 2. Stayman ---3♥ = No stopper ------3♠ = 4♠ ---3♠ = Stopper and 4♠ 3♥ = Inv+ with 5+♠ 3♠ = GF with 5♠ without a stopper Approximately the same after interference with other bids at the two level: 1♣ - (2♣) - 2NT = 1. Asking for stopper and 2. Stayman 1♣ - (2♦) - 3♣ = 1. Asking for stopper and 2. Stayman 1♣ - (2♠) - 3♦ = Weak or GF with 5♥ ? 3♥ = Inv with 5♥ 3♠ = GF with 4♥ without a stopper I have also seen variants of Transfer Lebensohl where instead of one bid for stopper ask and Stayman, asker either shows or denies a stopper by either transferring to their suit or bidding 2NT followed by their suit. Is that a better construct? Lebensohlish bids in other situations First I thought it would make sense to use Transfer Lebensohl in many different situations to make it easier to remember but I had trouble getting that to work. Instead, how about this? 1♣/1NT - (2x = natural) - Transfer Lebensohl 1♣/1NT - (2x = artificial) - Transfer Lebensohl 1♦/♥ - (2M) - Transfer Lebensohl (1x) - dbl - (2x) - Lebensohl (Transfer Lebensohl?) (2x) - dbl - (pass) - Lebensohl (2x) - dbl - (2y) - Lebenoshl (but dbl = penalty) (2♦-multi) - dbl = 13-15NT - (2M) - Lebensohl (dbl = takeout) (2x = artificial) - dbl - (pass = shows x) - Lebensohl (2x = artificial) - dbl - (pass = relay) - Lebensohl (1x) - pass - (2x) - dbl; (pass) - Scramblesohl (2x) - pass - (pass) - dbl; (pass) - Scramblesohl (Scramblesohl = After opponents bid spades, 2NT can be scrambling with minors, with red suits or weak with hearts, whereas 3♥ directly is constructive.)

I play: 1NT - 2♣; <response> - 3♣ (=relay); 3♦ (=forced) - 4m = game forcing with 6+m and I pick up if partner has four cards in my major on the way 1NT - 2♠ (=minor suit ask); 2NT/3♣ - 4m = game forcing with 6m and 4om