rogerclee

What am I declaring?

Some people play this as RKC. I personally think this is kind of silly and use it for Exclusion. If for some reason I knew that neither of these things was possible (either by agreement that we specifically do not play Exclusion or I know my partner has never heard of it), I would assume it is some sort of botched splinter.

Auction is uncontested, 3♦ = HSGT.

lol Not sure what is so amusing. The phrase "stolen bid double" is explained in a number of sources. One of which is :- ttp://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/SGlossary/GlossS.html Stolen Bid Doubles This is a colloquial expression for bidding sequences when the opponents have intervened and the intervention is the suit, which one partner conventionally decided to bid after the opening by partner. For example, North has opened the auction with 1 No Trump and South has a 4-card Major suit and wishes to employ Stayman to ask. However, before South has an opportunity to bid 2 Clubs, East overcalls the No Trump opening with 2 Clubs. By doubling, South communicates to North that East has "stolen my bid", and is asking for a 4-card Major suit. Another example is when North opens the bidding with 1 No Trump, East overcalls with 2 Diamonds, and South wanted to transfer his partner to Hearts by bidding 2 Diamonds. The favored conventional method is to simply double, meaning: "Partner, East stole my bid." These so-called "stolen bids" generally apply to the first round of bidding and can be employed in the above mentioned bidding sequences. Any double following a "stolen bid" is normally considered to be for penalty. Okay, I understand that you are trying to be helpful, so I apologize for being rude in my previous post. However, I want to point out two things. 1) This problem is not about methods. This pair happens to play that double here is negative. In general, I dislike it when there is a question asked about how a hand should be bid and someone pulls out a gadget he personally likes and says it is perfect for the situation. 2) I do not know how stolen bid doubles (2♦ or above) got around to being popular over 1NT interference, but it is one of those conventions that gets its support almost entirely from bad to mediocre players. I would go so far as to say that I could not take any bridge player seriously who advocated playing them in a high-level partnership.

lol

Not really. 2♦ mini-roman is horrible even when it does come up.

I know I'm in the minority on this one, but when I was attending NABCs, I factored in things like cost and convenience much more than what other attractions the host city might have to offer. I expect to be playing bridge, not touring the city. Given the choice between SF and Detroit, I would have picked Detroit -- I can only assume Detroit was less expensive, and living on the east coast, Detroit would have been more convenient. Me too. I'm a student, and aside from money, time is an issue. I went to SF because it was a 39 dollar plane ticket and a 1-hour plane ride. I did not go to Detroit simply because it would just take too much of my time to travel there.

I didn't think bidding here is out of fear. I thought it was a risk-reward issue. Going down in 4♥ when we were going down in 3♣ anyway isn't going to cost a lot, but making 4♥ is a game swing. I think bidding 4♥ even if it's around 25% to make sounds reasonable. That said, I'm not strongly arguing in favor of 3♥ or anything. At the table, I actually did pass.

IMPs, Favorable ♠xx ♥AKJ9xx ♦KQ98x ♣void (1♠)-3♣-(P)-? What is your plan? What if partner had just opened 3♣ in first seat?

Pass. I might actually make 2♠ after this auction for once in my life.

Yes. People pass out too many hands in general, I think.

I agree with all this, except I'd saw off 5♠ a little more happily :).

Wow, a bridge insult AND a personal insult. You are really on the ball this morning. I don't understand why you're surprised It's sad when personal insults don't come as a surprise... I guess the main difference is that I didn't consider the original post particularly insulting. My original reaction reading the posts was "Why are you bothering to post this"? The ♠Qxxxx ♥QJTxxx ♦x ♣x hand struck me as almost ridiculous... I don't find it shocking that someone would point this out... Okay, maybe this needs some clarification. 1) I talked to the Hog. We agree it was not an insult. 2) If you think this is a WTP, that's fine. There is a substantially nonzero number of people who voted 1♣. I agree that 3♣ is a bad bid and would personally rank them Pass > 1♣ > 3♣, but not with as much difference as you seem to think. As with all preempts, there are many ways where 3♣ can gain or lose. 3) The other hand I agree should probably not have been posted. I at least posted it in B/I. I was not actually curious about the answer. There is a boring story, and let's say that that debate has been settled. If the worst thing I ever do is create a unanimous poll in the B/I forum about something obvious, I will be fine with that. Also I observed that nobody has commented that if you play Drury, you will have to bid 1NT after partner's third seat 1M. Not that I think this is a big deal, but the small stuff matters a little.

Thanks a lot, Cascade. One interesting point is that Expectation of fit with 4441 hand = 8.251 Expectation of fit in general = 8.350 So it is interesting that these 4441 openers actually have a worse chance of finding a fit than any random sort of hand.

So if I am understanding this post correctly, I would do the following: 1) 4♠ is clear. I have great shape and working cards. Partner should've bid 3♦ instead of double. 3♦ promises a good hand, and he is not too far from a minimum. 2) 5♥ is purely preemptive, though apparently, some players think it's slammish. Anyway, partner probably has a void in hearts but hasn't promised anything dramatic in values. We could have a slam, but with no aces and all vul, I am not willing to do anything except double. I agree with partner's double. I see we missed a very good 6♣; preempts work, congratulate RHO on the good bid.

1) Heart or spade seems fairly logical. A heart is a little too passive for me, so I'd probably slam down the ♠A to have a look. 2) Pass. Will bid 2♠ over a heart transfer. 3) Pass. I don't have any real problem defending 1N when they are vul, and I don't mind a club lead at all. I also suspect that 2♠ is a better contract for them than 1NT if they have a 4-3 spade fit.

Wow, a bridge insult AND a personal insult. You are really on the ball this morning.

IMPs, Red vs White ♠Qxxxx ♥QJTxxx ♦x ♣x You play 2/1 and have agreed to preempt "normally." If this gets to 20-0, people can stop voting :). Edit: GONG, 31-1. Let this thread die please :).

IMPs, All White, First Seat ♠Tx ♥Qxx ♦Ax ♣KJTxxx Assume you are playing with a partner who requests you open and preempt "normally." System is 2/1.

This format sounds awesome. I would have one pair make penalty doubles very aggressively.

and insufficient :) Oh, I suck. Still bidding 4♥, barring partner :).

4♥; can't really imagine taking any other call. 3♣ is really, really conservative.

I feel like there has been a lot written about redoubles recently. A short sort of summary is that you should redouble if you believe that 1) This is the only good way of describing your hand (ex: 3-card limit raise of a major). 2) You will have a good chance to penalize the opponents. Redoubling just to show 10 points is highly susceptible to being preempted. I would bid 1♠ with the given hand.

I think it should be competitive, NF, for a few reasons, assuming basic 2/1: 1) The frequency of hands with which you just want to declare 3♣ is larger than the frequency of hands which want to make a game try. 2) Opener can still bid a major fragment with a good hand. In fact, any 18-19 balanced hand can bid a fragment, then play Grant's Hack over partner's 3♣ to determine if 3N is good. 3) Opener can also just bid 2NT with good major stops, and partner can sign off in 3♣ or raise to 3NT. 4) The hand isn't 15-17 balanced; if it is good and unbalanced, a lot of the hands that want to invite can try a splinter.

Nope.