CSGibson

umm, it says that its available the 11th & 25th, not the 4th and 2th, whatever 2th you were talking about.

If you are going to duck a spade, it makes sense to win the first club on the board, just in case righty's no singletons has an exception for a stiff K or Q of spades 3rd seat. But even if you get a spade, that makes for 2 spades, 1 heart, 2 diamonds and 3 clubs - 8 tricks, not 9. Phil, I really want the spot lead in clubs before making my plan, it will help me decide on the possible shapes around the table.

The mixed raise is more important than a specific fit jump, and I think a preemptive raise is more important also (based strictly on how much more frequent those bids are), so I would change the structure slightly so that 2N= 4 card LR+, the 3 level bid just below your major is a mixed raise, and 3M is preemptive. To compensate for the fit jump you are missing, you can always transfer into the suit at the 2 level and then support the original suit at the 3 level - that still has some preemptive effect, at least...not sure if you already have a definition for that sequence or not.

The key point which was not addressed in the OP, but which was addressed later, was whether 3♦ as natural and non-forcing would be alertable in Australia anyway. If it is an alert, then, based on the information at hand, there does not appear to be UI from either side - all the 3♦ bidder knows is that partner correctly alerted an alertable call. Sure, something strange went on with the keycard ask, but maybe he answered straight blackwood, or maybe he thought 4N was natural and expressed an opinion that 5♦ would be better; its hard to know based on the facts presented. After 6♥ he has the right to try 7♦ - the fact that it makes is rub of the green IMO. Since 3♦ non-forcing is alertable, then I would rule that the presence of an alert is not enough to indicate UI, and that both sides were unconstrained unless other sources of UI were present. With the facts as presented, I would say result stands.

Oh, I wasn't trying to make a point, I was honestly curious about how you defined card showing - I thought that removal of the double on 4=1=3=5 might be close based on your description, but I wasn't sure, and it obviously has an impact on your thought process in this thread; I was also wondering if I should change our description to card-showing at a higher level, but maybe negative is still the best description for our own style, since it sounds like my main partnership is a touch more take-out oriented. And I 100% think that its more important to know what your agreement is then to make the theoretically best agreement - I'm not sure what's best for high level doubles, but I am sure I know what my partner expects/thinks is best here, and more importantly, what she shows/expects.

Timo, would you expect partner to remove your double with 4=1=3=5 shape and an average opening hand? How about 4=1=2=6 shape? In my partnerships (in which we define X as "negative", but really as card-showing with convertible values at higher levels), I would almost always expect partner to remove - X was made with a rebid plan in that case anyway. On the actual shape, 3=1=4=5 with a bad club suit, as well as any weak NT hand with or without 4 spades, I expect that partner will leave in the X a majority of the time.

While I understand what you are saying, that's not true. Double is not penalty, and does not preclude us from getting to 6 clubs - partner can and should remove with distribution. And when partner has distribution, 6 clubs is a good bet; when partner does not have distribution, then 6 clubs is not a good bet.

Timo, that's unsporting. I, and other, better players gave LHO a chance to make a spectacular defensive duck and impress everyone - you have cold heartedly taken that away….

I'd rather play 3♣ doubled.

Misread full hand - got it confused with the Waterman's potential example, which I would always remove. This one I probably play in 4S hit, or I bid 4N if I'm confident partner will read that as pick-a-minor.

I've stated this previously, but I was tracking my preempts for effectiveness, playing against only expert competition. What I found is that a traditional preempt (decent suit, no first round controls outside of the suit, expected suit length, no 4 card major) had very little variance with the average - to be expected, I suppose, since everyone preempted those hands. Hands with 1 flaw from the above criteria were huge winners in the long run. Hands with 2 or more flaws, however, were huge losers in the long run. My conclusion was that in that partnership and against good opponents, it was good to expand preempts to be slightly more wide-ranging than traditional constructive preempts without giving up all semblance of constructiveness.

It's simple. I'm going to use spaces between so that it doesn't take, but… Oh, and I don't know if the novice/beginner players are better in your part of the world, Timo, but this is way more advanced than I'd expect a typical 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year player to ever get right.

at this vulnerability, double looks right. If partner removes, then I'm going slamming.

After that start we could not get to 7♠, so there was a risk, assuming we would be able to bid 7♠ when we had the appropriate fit.

As said previously, leads that ask for count also ask for unblock, usually unblock being the highest priority. East should have dropped the ♥T on the first round; after all, what is he holding onto it for? He can look at his holding, combined with the count-requesting card led by West, and figure out that his partner is going to have a problem if he doesn't drop the T. To be 100% safe, he should overtake - after all, leading the count/unblock card should usually imply a 5+ card suit unless its a holding like KQT9, which we know it isn't because we have the T.

To balance those points, you are unfavorable, they have had a very precise auction, and LHO will be able to make a good decision very easily about whether doubling, passing, or bidding on is right. You only have a 5 card suit, and can easily be tapped in hearts. Your suit is AJ542. LHO has a wide-ranging hand, there is no indication that your side has half the deck, or even close to that. Since you have come in red as an unpassed hand, anytime you do make the "right" decision (ie, you can each make 3), partner will have the values to raise you to 4, since he isn't in on the joke, meaning that when neither side can make game, you are sticking your neck out - and they will again be willing and able to double if they are also aggressive matchpoint players. Finally, I admit it is low frequency, but the auction isn't over and partner can still balance on some of those hands where it is right. LTC is great, but it is only an effective evaluation if you are playing in a fit, which there is no guarantee of - you are just as likely to have a club fit as a spade fit, and you will be guessing which one is right since partner won't be in on it. Frankly, I don't see fewer than 6 losers, though; I see 7, 2 in spades, clubs, and diamonds, and 1 in hearts.

4♦. I definitely wouldn't double, partner heard my first double, pulled, and elected not to double the follow-up. I have a great diamond fit that partner had no reason to suspect, and my hand is even worse for defense than anything partner could imagine after my penalty double. Pass is my 2nd choice, 3N my third.

1♠

I have 9 working HCP, 11 total, no spots, and I'm supposed to come in red at the 3 level opposite a passed partner? A big bowl of NO.

sure, double squeeze around hearts, assuming the K of diamonds is onside. For the line to work, you have to read the position, and the K of clubs has to be offside, but its by far the best odds.

But 10 HCP is the standard. Whatever your non-standard views are, the novice and beginner forum is not the place to air them, you wind up confusing people who need to learn the basics.

I don't think anyone's worried; I think they are salivating if partner thinks its right to defend

Usually the rule is that you need 10 or more high card points and a 5+ card suit to respond at the 2 level. A 2H bid would be forcing 1 round on opener, but if opener raises responder's suit, rebids his own suit at the cheapest level, or bids NT at the cheapest level, then responder may pass with a minimum. examples of sequences where responder is not forced to bid again: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1s2hp3hppp]133|100[/hv] [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1s2hp3dppp]133|100[/hv] [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1s2hp2nppp]133|100[/hv] On your example hand, even though I only have 9 HCP, I think it would be best to stretch to bid 2♥ because of the fitting diamond honors, and the nice honor structure in hearts. If you changed the heart ace to the Q, then I would make a negative double. If you changed the club 3 to the club ace, then it would be a clear 2♥ call.

I would bid 4♥ with the W hand, but only if playing my own favorite Michaels agreements - 2♠ shows a hand that would have opened at the very least at these colors (albeit I open aggressively with shape and a major). Without knowing what agreements were in place for Michaels calls, its tough to assign blame to any particular outcome at the two tables.