Old York

1/ please read earlier posts where I said that I doubt the author uses these methods in high level money games :D 2/ please read the post that you are quoting from, you will see your answer if you look :) Should this all have been originally posted in Sayc - 2/1 or perhaps in Adv - Expert? It seems that the vast majority of posts have little to do with B/I or non-sayc Tony

Ron Klinger (Australia) and many other writers suggest that a negative double should always promise both unbid suits after: 1♣-(1♦) 1♦-(2♣) 1♥-(1♠) 1♠-(2♥) After 1♣-(1♠) his example for a minimum negative double is:- ♠T5 ♥Q652 ♦A983 ♣974 This allows opener to support Hearts or Diamonds or re-bid Clubs or NT (if showing 15-19 with spade stopper) in relative safety. Maybe this double could horrify Sayc players who are forced to open 1♣/1♦ on weak balanced hands [unfortunately, he does not go into great detail about other auctions like 1♣-(2♠) ...... but that is unlikely to be covered in non-expert books] If this is only treated as "tentative" then I would be interested to see the text book suggestions for re-bids by opener. How can opener identify responders suit? Tony p.s. I checked the BBO-FD cards but there were no continuations

It is amusing to see how often posts named "Simple Question" etc turn out to be full of hidden minefields Students should be taught not to run before they can walk, and the teacher should keep the live hand-grenades in a locked chest Under standard methods .... 1/ a negative double shows all unbid suits 2/ minimum rebids by opener do not show extra values Advanced players may change these agreement with regular partners (with normal alerts) I would love to see the complete hand, maybe 2♠-2 would have been a good result. Sometimes Pass is the best bid Tony

East had all the correct information he needed to defeat the contract, perhaps the damage was self inflicted? Greed should never be rewarded :) but what about suit preference on the 3rd Club? Tony

If you make a negative double with this hand, you will probably survive, but the bid should show both majors. That is the textbook answer (I did not write the textbooks) What really worries me is that beginners are being advised to double with hands like this: ♠AJxx ♥Qx ♦KTxx ♣xxx and are also being told that it is ok if opener rebids 2NT, so how can you ever know if 2NT is scrambling or genuine? If 2NT is left in, oppo can take the first 6 tricks, and if you "correct" to 3♦ then you could be in an inferior contract There is no answer, unless you are a regular, experienced partnership. so I still feel that these methods are very dangerous for novice/beginner I am not saying that these methods should never be used by beginners, only that they fully understand the dangers Tony

LOL Yes..... it is bound to sound like a contradiction if you ignore the bit in the middle maybe it is too easy to snip that bit out

Thanks for the link, very helpful :) However, this is Beginner/Intermediate and I think I made it clear that I was referring to methods suitable for them to use The actual example I quoted was from a very well respected text book, altho I doubt that the author uses these recomended methods in high level money games Trying to give advanced methods to novices is a bit like handing a live hand grenade to a child :lol: Tony

The OP asked does 3♦ show extra values after: 1♣-(2♠)-x-p-3♦ if it does, then 3♥ instead would also show extra values, but this is nonsense 1♣-(2♠)-x-p-3♥ shows a minimum Playing Acol 12-14 with 4 card majors greatly simplifies these situations Playing Sayc 15-17 with 5 card majors makes it imperative that you know how to use negative doubles correctly. Sayc tends to use the 1♣ opening as a catch-all bid, but this has the added problem that it invites overcalls If you tend to use negative doubles just to show the other major, then there will be times when your partner cannot find an honest response. This may work out ok with regular partnerships who have discussed these situations, but pickup novice pairs should avoid this practice. The negative double should show all unbid suits in the same way that any take-out double should show all unbid suits, especially if minimum e.g. The sequence 1♦-(2♣)-x must show both majors and some tollerance for Diamonds (unless very strong) If you double (negative or normal take-out), you must be prepared for any response Tony

Hotkeys and shortcuts like Ctrl+T are very helpful in the windows client. As bbo flash evolves, most of these features will soon be added. Maybe F6 will be reinstated with other functions too? Tony

what would you re-bid with ♠xxx ♥Qxx ♦Kxx ♣AKxx ? Any bid you make is a lie, and it is better to lie in a minor than in a major or notrump. Pass does not appear to be an option, oppo make game Tony p.s. I would never be in this position, I open 12-14 no-trump B)

I would hate to encourage beginners and novices to double with such a hand, better to wait and see if opener can re-open Tony

I thought it was standard, after the 4♦ slam try, to use 4NT to show a singleton in the other minor http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Convent...ng3NoTrump.html This allows responder to pass if the hand is unsuitable for slam, but still gives responder the opportunity to blast away at 6m or 6nt if he feels the oppo are crazy Tony

Using normal methods, I cannot see how 3♦ can be seen as anything other than a weak "denial" bid. It simply denies the ability to make any other bid There is no guarantee that the bid even shows a 4 card diamond suit What would opener rebid with any 13 point 3334 hand? With any strong hand unsuitable for notrump, opener should bid 3♠ to deny Heart support Tony

Qxxxxx is not a 1st seat, vulnerable 2♠ opener Are you certain that the little x's are all insignificant small cards, or do both suits have "texture" ? Tony

It is easy to adjust any board as soon as the opening lead has been made, or any time afterwards - up to 15/20 minutes after the tournament has finished I prefer to adjust immediately if declarer has left the table or if slow players fail to claim when the outcome is obvious. Other adjustments can probably wait until later Premature adjustments may be unfair. I have kibitzed tables where declarer has 9 obvious tricks and is playing very slowly, but instinct has told me not to interfere. Very often, somebody will make a foolish mistake that cannot be predicted Tony p.s. It may be helpful to add extra time in the first and last rounds, or create unclocked tournies where less adjustments are needed

The only "correct" time to win the Ace from AJx is as a deceptive play, hoping to trick LHO into continuing this suit and not switching to a more dangerous suit Winning with the Ace when you hope to establish 3 tricks in this suit seems very optimistic, you were very lucky to find the suit breaking so favorably, leaving Q7 sitting over 96. Perhaps West was foolish to win trick 2 The overtrick was handed to you by the defenders switching to Diamonds and never attacking Clubs, a lucky 91.67% If you examine the first 3 results on the traveller, you will see that defensive errors gave away an overtrick on all 3 According to GIB, your mistake was discarding a Club on the last Spade, but your oppo gave you a second chance by continuing Diamonds Tony

Even with E/W passing throughout, it would be very easy to miss game or end up in a disastrous 3NT. maybe oppo did you a big favour. Re-invent the penalty double and defeat 2♥ doubled by 3 tricks? I find it amusing to see that it is actually N/S who can make 2♥ West had 9 losers and a bad 11 points, East had 10 losers, no ruffing values, 4333 and 5 points, so destructive methods are again victorious We are all doomed, chaos reigns supreme and constructive methods are dead and burried... hoorah :( This is what the game of Bridge has become? Tony >reaches for Prozac<

After 1♣-p-p it is almost compulsory for 4th seat to take action If 4th seat re-opens with a protective double and this is also followed by 2 passes, then it would be a good time to bid 1♠ but I may be wrong...... >pass the Prozac< Tony

I obviously overanalyzed this at the table, but it occurred to me that many declarers would receive a Spade switch at trick 3. This would drastically reduce declarers options as a wrong guess in Diamonds would result in 1 down unless declarer played East for the ♦King Not wanting to go against the field, I overtook ♦10 with Ace and ran the Queen, discarding the Spade loser... losing to the King for a bad result The theory of vacant places does not give an overwhelming reason for running the Ten. At the moment of truth, after West follows suit on ♦10 at trick 6, West has 6 unknown cards and East has 5 I do not believe that the game of bridge should be distilled into a giant list of probabilities, many other factors should be taken into consideration (like what is likely to occur at other tables) On the traveller, 102 players made (or were given) an overtrick and 79 players made exactly 10 tricks (from 205 tables) the remainder were typically insane results like 6♥x-2 and 3NTx+2 Tony

There is no hidden trap here. There was no overcall at most tables and North opened a normal 1NT, South transfering and then bidding game. West did not double the 2♦ bid. Edit: West signalled hi-lo and East continued with ♣2. West did not hesitate when ♦10 was led from dummy I am only interested in the Diamond suit and the various reasoning behind placing ♦King in either hand I am also interested in anyone's opinion of the huge difference in scores Tony p.s. Many declarers were given an undeserved overtrick when East switched to a Diamond

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sa973hk87daqj9cqt&s=sj6haqj965dtcj974]133|200|Scoring: MP Play 4♥ by North[/hv] Contract 4♥ by North East leads ♣AK then third Club, ruffed and over-ruffed Trumps were originally 2-2 4♥= scores 26.47% 4♥+1 scores 71.81%

It depends on what you mean by "expert" With real expert oppo I would bid 4♥ without hesitation, expecting 3♠ to make With bbo-expert oppo I would double, expecting 3♠xx to go 5 down No, seriously tho, it all depends on my partnership agreement to the meaning of 2♥. This should show a decent Heart suit in a hand worth 10-11 points, so game is still possible (especially if the 3♠ bid shows a weak hand with 4+ card support) Tony :)

This is a very interesting twist. I would be much more likely to pass if partner opened 1♣. The only reason I considered bidding was because we had a partial fit in Diamonds, so a 2♦ rebid would not worry me This hand is worth 6 points in any suit contract except Clubs, so is worth a response to 1♦. If partner opens 1♣, however, the hand is a badly fitting 3 points, so I would be happy to defend if oppo bid, and would be much better placed on the second round when 4th seat re-opens with a double etc Tony

I like the idea of bidding, but I hate the idea of bidding twice to show both majors. I would respond 1♥ which gives us plenty of room to find a Heart fit, Diamond fit or a superb 5-4 Spade fit. I think it is unlikely that a 5-3 Spade fit will be found at a low level Tony

Perhaps declarer would have done better to refuse to play ♣2 on the lead, this is exactly why I thought the 2 was singleton (or Qxx) and partner had chosen a bad time to lead 5th high It is amusing to see that any novice would have beaten 4♥ by simply cashing the "obvious" Club winners, but when any hand is presented in this way we all look for the clever traps. It was blatantly obvious to me that something was seriously wrong with the bidding. Justice would be served if East's (terrible) 4♣ bid allowed 4♥ to make :unsure: Edit: You may have overlooked the possibility of declarer losing a trick to ♦Jack. If West (correctly) refuses to play the Ace, declarer may attempt to run the ten, then E/W have 4 or 5 defensive tricks Tony p.s. with a Diamond singleton, I would probably win with ♣Ace (denying the King)