OleBerg

If you're set on a heart lead, the "return-directing" double is fine. If you are considering somthing else for the lead; PASS!!! Don't take away partners chance to help you on the lead.

Wow, psychic report rewiews. Sounds strange, but I think I would actually enjoy if they were done here too. Back to the subject at hand: I would expect my opponents to be in a force. So it should be easy to set up my methods to cater for bluffs, without a strong redouble. If they are not in a force, your abovementioned rewiews makes even more sense. (Read: They are so close to cheating you can smell it.)

Can we make " redouble shows: a strong hand setting up forcing pass" a close second?

I haven't really considered what is best. This is a sequence where I let my partners decide. I was simply commenting, that the argument could be aplied to any double in any sequence. (And therefore is nil.)

Goes for any double in any sequence.

I wont. Such things are for bidding-quizzes, fairy-tales or very artificial systems (typically relay-systems).

Fortunately I can't play with myself. :D

I expect it to make.

No doubt. This is just an area where you have to shape up then. You're right, I don't. But my partner does, and he stands 6 feet and 2, so I indulge him. And the one most importent feature of the hand is that we have 4-card-support for hearts. It tells partner we will play in hearts, so he can discard all thoughts of NT and other suits, and evaluate his hand for slam-purposes. Knowing we have four-card-support also helps partner in assesing his thrumph-suit. I don't. I imagine any non-spade-support bid, where ambiguety will rule. Worst of all, the cases where partner takes us to 4♠ on a three-card suit. Can you indeed? Distinguish betweem three-and four-card support? Which is a quite overrated thing to be able to do. The most importent thing for this hand, that cuebidding wont resolve (and some Jacoby variants leave in the dark too), is the danger of an undiscardable third-round spade loser. And 1♠ doesn't help much here. I know I repeat myself, but bidding 2NT involves partner too. And is sends the most important message; I have four-card-support.

Sorry to be an asshole (well not that sorry), but suggesting 1♠ hardly qualifies for an advanced forum, and it reeks of resulting. Even if you want to play a style(ugh), where you bid a source of tricks instead of establishing a nine-card major fit, AKxxx is not the suit to choose. Bidding some sort of Jacoby 2NT will normally solve all your problems in uncontested auctions. And in contested auctions it is even more important. Just like in the actual hand. After a 1♠ reply, it is silly to suggest EW has any other options, than to double 5♦. After the 2NT-bid, and Wests sligthly courageous pass, EW has a chance to get to 5♥, which Eastshould not be far from bidding. If partner does not hold three small spades, 5♥ will probably be an excellent contract.

No. You don't need to beef up my example hand with such tremendous values as a doubleton and a King. Just add a non♣-Jack, the ♦Q or a doubleton spade or diamond, and game is reasonable.

Yes, at least a little. Not knowing partners major is more costly in the long run, than not knowing partners minor. But not that I like (1♥) - 2♥ = Spades and a minor.

But you are still guessing and relying on the opponents to bid sensibly. 1♠ doesn't have these drawbacks. Partner will always bid 2♠ with four, and pass with three.

My opponents are generally awake.

Well put.

If I had any shame in my life, I'd be ashamed to admit that 3♦ would occur to me. But I'd rejct it. Turn the the ♣Q into a spade, and a small spade into a club, and I'll be there.

North 100%. 4♥ is automatic. South is obviously insane, hence free from guilt. (4♥ is has some play facing ♠432/♥9754/♦432/♣432)

I'd rather bid 2♠ than pass, but 1♠ is the correct bid of course.

No. It might of course be right occasionally, but partner should be allowed to compete (even at these colours) without getting dragged to 5♣.

Transfer wtp? Ok, serious; 2NT making seems unlikely to me, while 3♥ will make far more often. That is still a 4 or 5 imp difference. I do not toss that to the wind this lightly.

[hv=pc=n&n=sk63hakqjt8dkcaqt]133|100[/hv][hv=pc=n&n=sk63hakqjt8dkcaqt&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hpp2h3np4cp4h4spp]133|200[/hv] RHO's 2♥ showed four spades and a longer Minor. Scoring is IMP's across the field.

If it is any balanced 11-13, I'd prefer this: X = Penalty. (As the double is only made with a certain majority of points, subsequent doubles are penalty. And we are in a force, at least to a point.) 2♣ = Both Majors. 2♦ = One major suit, at least invitational. 2♥/2♠ = Purely competitive.

I would.

I'd bid 1♥ with hearts and anything resembling an excuse. 2♥ would require a 5-bagger in my wiew, and 6 good hcp. Playing X as diamonds seems a little silly here, 4-4 in the majors would be better. Come to think of it, I can hardly believe how ell placed we are, if our agreements are in place. (Yet, I cannot remember ever having seen the sequence.)

3♠ is choicce of games. Says nothing that specific about spades, allthough I obviously still cannot hold 4. I'll bid, though I really expect partner to bid 4♥ quite a lot of the times 3NT is the spot. But as my alternative is 4♥, nothing much is lost.