rogerclee

Yes, fixed.

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sq9xxxhq842dckqjt&s=skxht97xd98xxxcax]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (P) - P - (1♦) - X (2N) - 3♥ - (P) - 4♥ (P) - P - (X) - AP -800 1♦ was always unbalanced, 2N was a strong diamond raise.

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sathxdkt7xxckqjxx&s=skxxxxhaxd9xxcaxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♠ - (P) - 2♦ - (3♥) P - (P) - X - AP -730 2♦ was GF and showed 5+♦. Opponents have reputations as being conservative bidders. No discussion on the double (if you want to blame that, it's fine).

I would never pass regardless of partner's tempo, this hand is a clear double to me.

I think 1♣ - (1♦) - 2♥ and 1♣ - (1♦/1♥) - 2♠ should be played as natural and invitational and should be made fairly aggressively. The reason is that often the opponents can give us a big problem by preempting or raising their suit, and it's very important to be able to get your 6 card major in. I would jump on hands that do not quite fit the classic "intermediate" style in an uncontested auction; in particular, the suit quality is not as big a deal as long as the hand is reasonable. IMO you are just put into too many tough positions with hands that can't solo to the three level after an opposing preempt. By the way many pairs play 1m - (1♥) - 2♥ as 6+♠, and I thought I saw gnasher on vugraph playing this as actually 5+♠ and a good hand. These seem like good agreements to me, as long as you can handle the limit raise well.

I would pass, good problem.

Pass and double are both unreasonable, and since I am never passing out 3N by partner, I'll start with 3♣. If they crowd our auction with 4♠, I think 3♣ is about as good a start as 3♥ on average.

1) No, the slowness of the double expresses doubt about 2♣x and east has a normal pass opposite a penalty double. The tempo makes it clear that west did not feel he had a clear auction or was unsure about the partnership meaning of a double. Both of these things make pulling more attractive. 2) They should bid in tempo and should consistently take about 5 seconds to make a call over something like 1NT. 3) I agree, with no documentation the explanation is self-serving. In fact without discussion I would assume this is penalty, as in a redouble situation.

yes of course

I would think so since otherwise partner would double, no? Ax or Kx?

Heart queen, and I think it's obvious.

3♠, I like my record of bidding spades aggressively when they have hearts.

I would rather open 4♠ than 2♠, but anyway I think 3♠ is much better than either.

Agree with Helene except I would also pass 2♥.

I would open unless I specifically agreed to play a style that includes sound opening bids. I've never done that, though.

If I could make a responsive double, that would be the obvious choice. Maybe this is standard among young experts and among the forum crowd, but in the real world I would never double on this hand with a random expert partner without discussion, so that leaves 2♥.

I'd bid 3NT and expect to make it?

people are double hooking? LOL

2NT, showing this hand.

My mistake, I didn't realize that having two clubs was ideal for a takeout double.

I don't see the point of this, since sometimes we have them nutted in spades, and with values and long ♦ and short ♠, we have plenty of bids available to us.

I would make an inv+ diamond raise.

Yes, there can be some -1400s - some of them will still be good saves against a grand - though, to be fair, a lot of folks are not good at bidding grands. I tried running a sim for my own benefit as I was actually quite rattled that Justin thought 4♠ was too much. Meaningful analysis is next to impossible of course as you can't model the psychology of the situation, not to mention that people debate endlessly about what is and what is not a 2♣ opener. Never the less, there seem to be enough cases of 1. Making 4♠ 2. One off against a game 3. More, but few enough, off against a slam that 4♠ is a reasonable matchpoint bet. At IMPs - well - I'm not going to crunch the numbers this late at night here especially as they don't really prove anything anyway - but it seems quite touch and go whether 4 beats 3 as a call - I think I still go with 4 - but it is as much the psychology side of it that I think may work our way with the higher call. Of course, the psychology may work against us - sometimes a preempt pushes an opponent into something they wouldn't have done if you'd just kept quiet! Nick How did you run your simulation? I am particularly interested in how you decided whether the opening side doubles 4♠ or bids over it. Or did you just look at how many tricks we can make in spades and how many tricks they can make in whatever their best strain is? If that was your procedure I don't think your simulation was accurate to real world conditions at all, and I would expect 4♠ to be a much better call than your simulation indicates.

I believe my r/w opponents.

I don't know if you mean that this is actually a standard expert treatment with no discussion, or that this is your preferred method with discussion, but anyway this seems to be a bad agreement. You are giving up a very useful descriptive tool (Michaels) for something that is 1) very infrequent 2) can usually be described successfully with a takeout double anyway