rogerclee

Sorry, 2♦ was just an artificial game force (2♥ would not be forcing), 4♦ was a splinter.

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=saxxxxhak9xdxctxx&s=sxxhqtxxdkcakqxxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♣ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - 4♦ 4NT - 5♦ 6♥ - P

IMPs, All Red, Fourth Seat ♠98x ♥Ax ♦J97xx ♣T8x (1♠) - Dbl - (2♦) - P (2♠) - Dbl - (P) - ? If it is relevant to you, at the table, 1♠ was actually 11-15HCP and RHO bid 2♣, a transfer to diamonds.

The ACBL tried this many years ago, requiring that professional players register. I'm not sure about the details of it, but I hear that it didn't work for a large number of reasons.

I think this is a different question at matchpoints or IMPs, and whether I have spades or hearts. But anyway, I usually open 1N, it is very preemptive and descriptive and solves all my rebid problems. The other day I posted this hand, ♠T9 ♥AKQJ9 ♦K98 ♣QTx, and I opened this 1♥. I thought this was in the 1M category, but change it just a little, like ♠JT ♥AKQ9x ♦K98 ♣QTx, and I would open 1N.

I think all three hands are clear doubles. I don't know what the attitude about takeout doubles was ten years ago, but these are the standard reasons why takeout doubles are being made more frequently now: 1) It's easy to get stolen from if you never show values. With people opening 10-11 counts and responding on 0-counts these days, it's important to get into the auction, especially because a lot of 24-point games (especially 3N) are quite easy to play when you know where all the cards are. 2) The risks of making a light takeout double and going for a number have, in my opinion, always been exaggerated. A much larger risk, in my opinion, is passing, and then being put in a much harder position about whether or not I want to double later when the opponents have already bid up to 2M. 3) I think it is a good example of a situation where you can either make a minor misdescription of your hand or pass, saying absolutely nothing at all about your hand. I think an active style of bridge that always tries to say something about your hand, even if it's not perfect, is a winning style. The downsides of making frequent takeout doubles are: 1) It can help declarer out in the play by quite a bit. I actually think this is the largest downside. 2) You can just easily play in game down 1 when partner was expecting more. 3) Sometimes LHO redoubles and you go for a number; for this reason I am pretty sound about making a takeout double of spades.

I would bid 2♣, given that we have a doubleton spade it is not so surprising that the opponents would put us in this position by competing in spades! I think showing my shape is clear because of this, on top of the fact that it is easy for 2m/3m to outplay 1N.

Yes, double.

6♣.

At least play that your jump opening bids are intermediate.

Joe Grue, please.

I thought the hand was too good. It is too good for a weak NT. Nobody ever gets it when I write something sarcastic :(.

This thread is ridiculous, he posted a simple question and all people can do is make fun of him or assume he has some sort of evil agenda. To answer your question, your partner's bid typically shows about 15 to 18 points and at least one diamond stopper, though sometimes these kinds of hands have the option to either double or overcall 2N, so you were right in the sense that this is typically a strong NT type hand, though the upper range is slightly higher. With the minimum hands that can't make a takeout double, you just have to pass. This isn't perfect, and I understand why you might feel apprehensive about passing with an opening bid--after all, it is possible that you are getting stolen from. Still, experience has proven that it is better to pass with these kinds of hands, which I can go into more if you'd like (but I think it's clear why there are some problems with bidding 2N with a bad minimum balanced hand).

I thought the hand was too good.

IMPs, All White, First Seat ♠T9 ♥AKQJ9 ♦K98 ♣QTx 1♥ - (1♠) - Dbl - (2♠) Dbl - (3♠) - Dbl - (P) ?

Who do you think you are? One would think that after your recent string of terrible/wrong posts, you would at least have it in your heart to allow others to make mistakes at bridge too. Anyway I think the biggest thing to do is to emphasize counting during the play of the hand and using this to visualize what the other players hold. In terms of bidding, I have found that the biggest problem among B/I players is that they don't bid game enough when it is indicated, such as a good trump fit or side fit, no waste in the opponents' suit, etc.

3♣, I suspect there are more hands now where we are making 5♣ than 4♠ (where we can't get to 4♠ after starting with 3♣).

I would play the ♠A, but I agree that table feel is pretty important here. It would also be embarrassing to go down against ♦QJ8 on the left.

1N, 4N with the north hand. Choice of minor games.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sa6h8dj985caj9652&s=sj4ha742dakt632c8]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (P) - P - (3♥) - 4♦ (P) - 6♦ - AP You get the ♥Q lead, plan the play.

Everything up to 5♦ is to play. It's probably theoretically sound to play 5♥/5♠/5N as diamond slam tries here, but it's a job I'll leave to you. Anyway this seems like an easy 6♦ bid.

North's double was wrong but works out very well on this hand. Over a double, south has a normal 4♦ bid.

I think 4♥ is the best bid, it virtually guarantees a steal, which I very much like on this hand. If my opponents were clueless I would settle for 4♠.

1♣, this hand has too much in the other suits to preempt.

IMPs, Red vs White, Second Seat ♠A ♥QJ9x ♦ATx ♣KQxxx (4♥) - P - (P) - 4♠ (P) - ?