OleBerg

A raise to 3♠ on a 3-card suit, could very well indicate some kind of fit for both minors, on a hand that simply want to take up bidding space. That might not be the case, but implying that it should indicate long hearts, seems far-fetched to me. So maybe the only difference bidding 4♥ makes, is who is going to declare. Playing with myself, I would definitely bid 4♥, as I don't want me to declare.

Not with you on this one. You don't double because you have a sure set, and you do not need to believe that 6nt is inferior to 6♦ to double. You double to direct a lead. If 6nt and 6♦ are equal contracts, then you have made the valuable lead-director "free of charge". Even when you suspect that 6nt might be better than 6♦, it isn't always they run. I have my doubts about the agreement. It is hard to imagine: - Holding a hand with so many high cards, that I want one lead vs ♦'s and another vs nt. - Being able to diagnose this. The only time I'd want a different lead vs nt, is when my first double was based on a void. So the second double should only ask partner to change his lead, if it seems reasonable to expect it was a void double. Otherwise it should simply be penalty. But I wouldn't make a penalty double here.

Thank you. This one isn't taken either: http://images.google.dk/imgres?imgurl=http...%26tbs%3Disch:1

Cannot believe I made it first! LOL

It seems a little odd to command partner to lead a suit where my RHO has shown 6. So I use this meaning for the double: "I have values in diamonds; they are under control. Be carefull not to lead into a tenace." So I would double on the example hand.

The short heart-lead ask is workable, but could be disasterous if another lead is required.

This is actually af sluffsluff, sluffsluff, ruffsluff hand. When time permits, I'll try and make a sluffsluff, sluffsluff, sluffsluff, ruffsluff.

Because we dont want to spend our energy reading unintelligble posts. And it is not arrogance, even the best players on this forum posts their problems in an easy-to-understand manner. Check out this nice presentation: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=37664

That would look rather foolish if declarer had x AJ10xxxx xx AKx or x AJ10xxxx AKx xx. What was wromg with your first answer, that East gives suit-preference in the spade suit? Nothing really. That ducking thing was just a tangent that went awry. I thought that it was clear from my first post, that I was semi-joking. (Whatever that is.)

4NT, and feeling a little conservative.

And if declarer has used reverse-reverse psychology, dropping a needed discard on the first spade, and falsecarded on the second, telling me: "I knew you'd duck that spade smoothly if you had the king", I'll ask her to merry me.

Listen carefull, I shall say this only once: When the ♠Q is led from dummy, discarding a club, West ducks smoothly. Now, when declarer repeats the ruffing finesse, she cannot discard the ♣K, but has to discard a diamond. This gives the show away. When the ♠Q is led from dummy, discarding a club, West ducks smoothly. Now, when declarer repeats the ruffing finesse, she cannot discard the ♣K, but has to discard a diamond. This gives the show away.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s765432hd654c8765&w=sahakqj109876543dc&e=sh2dkqj10987ckqj109&s=skqj1098hda32ca432]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 7♥ - pass - pass - 7♠ X

6♦. In a class of it's own. My original 5♦ was a typo.

Just flaunting: If you play a simple transfer-scheme, where 1nt by opener is transfer to clubs, you can simply bid 2♣. Now partner will bid on a lot of hands that will make game. And certainly on all those that would bid over 2♥.

Partner is asking me not to lead clubs or hearts, and believes he has a good chance of a set with another lead. I see no reason not to follow his advice. If a spade sets it, it is highly likely to be down anyway. (I don't think partner would double with the A/K♠ anyway.) He could be void of course, but that would be rather strange. So a diamond it is. Edit: Without the double; a heart. LHO has a degree of support, and hopes his good spade suit will come in. Have to hope partner has the ♥A. (♦A is out, as he would have doubled.)

Lavinthal in a simple form: High card in a suit led, indicates values in the highest relevant suit. A low card indicates values in the the lowest relevant suit. When declarer plays a low spade to the ace and another spade, it is quite obvious what she is up to, so giving suit-preference is obvious. If West is aware that East is oblivious to such signals, he simply ducks the ♠Q in tempo. Declarers next discard of a diamond gives the show away.

Double. Spades is highly likely to be the right lead. Even if it doesn't set up the suit, it might still defeat the contract. Responders spade-holding is likely to keep him from redoubling.

All this requires is confidence and Lavinthal. ♠9 under the queen.

An even more beautiful hand: [hv=d=w&v=n&n=s654h765da7654ck2&w=s2h2d32cqj10987654&e=skqj10987hkqj1098dc&s=sa3ha43dkqj1098ca3]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding: (5♣) - Pass - (Pass) - 5♦ All pass. The ♣Q is led, covered by the King, East discarding a major-card, giving away most of the distribution. South overtakes the ♣K with the Ace, cashes two rounds of thrumphs and both major aces, hoping West is 1-1. South now exits in Clubs, and West must give a sluff-sluff, and then a ruff-sluff.

Sorry to be an oaf, but the hand is too easy. West will know his only hope is to duck, as soon as he learns that partner is singleton in diamonds. But with all the strong intermidiates East has, he can actually make it even easier for partner: East plays the ♠10 at trick one. (Standard signal.) East discards the ♠K on the second diamond. (Standard signal.) East plays the ♣J and ♣10 under the Ace and King. (Standard signal.) This should wake a sleepy partner. The key to ducking, is to know the concept of discarding a loser on both hands on the first ruff and sluff. If West cannot see this, East can't help him.

I can assure you, that some of the sandwiches I've been in, would not be considered tasty by many.

I'm putting "spite redoubles" on our convention card. A much better convention is the "Spite NT": When partner commits an atrocity (whose partner doesn't?), in one of the following hands, you bid NT whenever you have the something resembling the correct strength, and any distribution. Much more fun. Only drawback is that the "Spite" might wear out.

I play Rdbl. as doubt-showing, mostly because my partner and I are never confident that we will make our contracts. I cannot remember a hand where it has gained, but neither can I remember a hand, where we would have liked to redouble.

Always liking to oppose other, I played it as 4/5 in the unbids. Everybody claimed it was downright silly not to play it as 15-18, so I would like to test it. Having done this for appr. ten years, I can't say I really feel that one is better than the other. The missed the missed game, when they open 10 and reply on 4, looks a little silly, but the abilety to intervene also gives a little net-gain. (If done properly.) All this is for IMP's only. I'd imagine the gain for 15-18 could be bigger in pairs, at least in some situations.