rogerclee

I would bid 3♠, good problem.

LOL

LOL

There is no standard as far as my bridge discussions about this have gone. I like to play that pass is forcing in general after we have penalty passed after partner's takeout double, but it's easy to see how that might be bad on some hands.

No club fit; ♠Ax is a nightmare for nt unless pd has ♠stoppers also. Are you so sure you want to be in game? No. so a non-forcing invitational 3♦ is fine. Bill Disagree with the first, second, and fourth sentences. To the third, I'm not sure we will make game, but I am sure enough to bid it. 3♦ is a bad bid because it is easy to go down in 3♦ with even 3N cold.

Redouble, my weak twos definitely aren't sound enough to stick this out.

3♦? Please think!

3♠, not an MSC problem.

Having 4♠, 4NT, 5♣, and 5♦ all for slam purposes seems worse than having 4♠ natural and 4NT, 5♣, and 5♦ for slam purposes to me.

Strongly disagree with 4♥, I should've doubled 1NT.

I would even bid 4♥ opposite a mixed raise. Come to think of it, I would also bid 4♥ opposite a regular preempt.

3N

mine

I want to add that these are the reasons I think 1♦ is terrible: 1) It doesn't preempt the opponents as much, who can easily be on for 4M when my hand is this concentrated in diamonds. It is not unusual to play 1N= after opening 1N when the opponents are making 4M. It is also very frequent that the opponents can outcompete us in one of the majors if we open 1♦. 2) I think it's way more likely 1N makes than 3♦ if we are going to play this in a partial, though 2M may not make as often as 3♦ if partner has a transfer and pass sort of hand, I am not sure. 3) I think partner will bid 3N too often over 1♦, 3♦, but I am open to being proven wrong about this. 4) This hand is not very good for slam purposes anyway and the number of hands we can actually get to 5♦ when it's right after I open 1♦ is very small, the diamonds are not truly solid and being balanced is a huge liability. I think it's easy to overestimate the number of good slams we miss by opening 1NT.

1NT, I think anything else is terrible.

well said

disagree

I know who I'm rooting for.

I'd go low.

In my opinion this is a common fallacy, it's much better to be able to double for takeout than it is to bid NT for takeout. Roger, I don't think its a fallacy unless you expect opener to blindly double 2♠ with 2(443) which is very dubious. You'll gain on some hands and you'll lose on others. Sorry I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. If your point is that playing a double here as penalty or cooperative can gain, then I agree, and in fact it would not greatly surprise me if this is a better agreement though I don't think it is. My point was that bidding 2N for takeout is much worse than doubling for takeout, it's not an acceptable substitute. If you think that the loss from not being able to make a takeout double is minimized by being able to bid 2N, then that's a reasonable position but I don't agree.

I don't open 1N, but if I thought it was best to open 1♥ and rebid 2♣, then maybe I should've!

Out of interest I would like to know where, in your opinion, serious 3N is better than non-serious 3N.

In my opinion this is a common fallacy, it's much better to be able to double for takeout than it is to bid NT for takeout.

This logic is backwards. Anyway yes, 3♠ with the given hand.

agree I play that it is primarily a probe for 3N, it's really important to be able to show doubt about strain in situations like this IMO.