OleBerg

We're a passed hand and incredible strong in support of clubs. Of course we want to give partner the strongest possible encouragement to move forward.

Que?

With enemies like this, who needs friends. :)

3♥, and pulling 3NT to 4♣. Good thing I'm a passed hand, or else this wouldn't have been a viable route. Were I unpassed, this dilemma might sway me to double. If parners overcalls can be as crappy as mine, I make a note to discuss using 2NT as a sound raise.

(1♥) - X - (2♥) - pass (pass) - ??? MP's You hold (specific) 4-1-4-4, and a hand you consider borderline for another double. Your opponents are competent, so any fear of driving them to game could virtually be neglected. Now, when would you be more inclined to double: A) When all are red? B) When you are red, and they are white? Remember, matchpoints only. The auto-answer is A), but maybe it should be B) I imagine three scenarioes: 1) We both have a contract. Their vulnerabilety doesn't matter. 2) We are down, they make. Their vulnerabilety doesn't matter. 3) They are down, we make. Their vulnerabilety matters. It is better for us, when they are red. So we should be less inclined to compete, when we can collect better penalties against their contract. +200 is fine of course, but even +100 can salvage points vs some 90'ies, if they have "stolen" our 2 of a minor. There are points against this too. - The possibilety of collecting +200, if partner sits for the double, when they are vulnerable. Wouldn't expect that to be frequent. - The opponents might bid three over three, in which case competing pays off better, when they are vulnerable. Would properbly have some frequence. Comments?

Would have passed the first time. That "can be a doubleton" 1♦ is generally a weak spot for them, but occasionally it bothers the opponents. I take my medicine. For once, I disagree with Gnasher; X of 1♦ and a subsequent X of 2♠, should show a hand to strong for anything but X on the first round, and now take-out of spades. Really, do you need to be able to show "about three spades"? When you know partner has "about two spades"?

As much as I'd love it, I cannot go against the consensus here.

1♣ I think I'll die in appr. 35 years. Troublesome.

X, T-O, wtp?

Pass. Trust your partner. He would've bid 4♠ the majority of the times it's the right contract.

Pass is the "book"-bid. So I'll make it whenever I am in a "book"-situation. That would require: - Playing in a relatively stong, relatively homogenous field. - Playing with a partner, I know would have prebalanced over 2♥ on a lot of hands. (Like ♠Q10xx/♥xxx/♦Qxx/♣xxx) - Playing competent opponents, who will catch me appr. as often as any other strong pair, and who are not known to over-compete. Being all white, the situation cries for competition beyond 2♥, and I would back in with a double at the slightest excuse. After all, I don't hold: ♠ J32 ♥ K9 ♦ J982 ♣ AQ92 a hand I would also make an initial TO-double with. Changing just their vulnerabilety to red, I would be much more hesitant, as the occasional +200 will yield a fine score, and even +100 will beat the +90 I can easily imagine being out there on some boards.

3♠ I find it clearcut because: 1) It's highly unlikely they will double me profitably. 2) They will bid game on appr. 99% of the boards. Might as well make their decisions as difficult as possible.

Agree with han, the post was not personal. It was genarally arrogant, but thats not personal.

"2N (shows 6+ solid diamonds, spade stop, 16+ HCP)" The + after 16 surely shows that 2NT is forcing. I don't think I would ever agree to the abovementioned agreement, but since I am forced to play it, I'd find it silly not to use it on a perfect hand. If partner cannot bid hearts again, they will not be thrumphs.

Go directly to B/I - forums. If you pass start, you do not collect $200.

Pass. Partner will often move when right. The actual hand is quite illustrative. Partner has an extremely well-fitting extreme max for 4♠, and 6♠ might go down. (Of course 6♠ is the spot to be, but not a disaster to miss it.)

+1

1♥ for me, but relatively close. Remove a Q, and I'm gone. The pro's and Con's of overcalling this type of hand has been discussed a gazillion times, here and elsewhere. Really no reason to repeat them.

Enable "Satire-detector".

3♦. At MP's it would not be unreasonable to play a style where double followed by a conversion to spades shows 4 spades and longer diamonds. That would have to be a special agreement though.

4♠. At MP's with certain partners, I might restrain myself to 3♠.

655321 is always right. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/655321/456549285514

Pass. Not that I love it, but 3NT is even worse than it appears at a glance. Of the few times it makes, partner will sometimes move on.

I'm not an expert on RKC, and have never heard about any agreements. If it happened at the table, my logic would be: 4NT - 5♦ 6♣ = Inviting a grand (or specific ask, according to taste). 4NT-bidder has the ♠Q 4NT - 5♦ 5♥ - 5♠ 6♣ = We do not have the queen, but I suggest going to grand anyway. That would either mean, that in an 8-card-confirmed-fit-auction, I have an exstra thrumph. (If I have an exstra thrumph in a 9-card-fit-confirmed-auction, I consider it to be equivalent of the Q.) or That I have something like KJ109x of spades with a nine-card fit confirmed, and an excellent hand for the bidding to date. (If there are two impossible strains, I'd expect the most desribtive to be bid.)

Fantastic argument, I'm convinced! Anyway, for me its close betweem pass and 5♥. We might belong in another denomination,but it seems well nigh imposiible to figure it out with any degree af certainty. I voted 5♥.