OleBerg

Short in spades, 3 other suits.

Basically thats what I am doing. My only real doubt is the 3♥ bid. Normally we would play it as asking for stopper (maybe not the best, just a general agreement), but I considered that preemptive might be better, but I was far from certain. The other descriptions was just so that the whole complex would be known. Thank you fpr replying.

I am going to face the following preempt: 2♦ = Weak in hearts, or strong something. These bids are more or less defined: X = strenght 2♠, 2nt, 3♣, 3♦ = Natural, limited 3♠ = Strong with spades, forcing. 3nt = To play. 4♣ = 5-5 in clubs and spades. 4♦ = 5-5 in diamonds and spades. 4♠ = To play. A decent hand fearing partner might pass a 2♠ overcall. What to use 2♥, 3♥ and 4♥ for. My own idees would be: 2♥ = Perfect takeout, limited. 3♥ = Preemptive. 4♥ = 4 spades and a long minor. Comments? (And plz no rap for the 3♠/4♠, we can take that in another thread.)

1) Pass. Easy and uneasy at the same time. 2) Easy 3♥, as I dont play the second X for penalty.

Come to think of it, isn't 10xxx actually superior to Qxx?

X. If partner simply rebid something, I'll raise to game. If partner jumps, I'll bid 6♣. I see no reason to play a slam in spades.

Double. Pass is definitely not forcing in my book. LHO could have been stuck with a good hand, and RHO could have values just below an overcall. Furthermore, when a partnership has had the option of taking the strong sequence to game, but has chosen another, pass is not forcing. Even if the auction sounds like a sacrifice. (Which it doesn't nescesarily do here.) So I would never pass. What I'd do would also depend somehow on my opponents, how solid I would expect them to be. Hiddeen: Against most people, I would expect 4♠ to be down often enough to merit a double, and 5♥ to be a winner to few times to bid it.

Really?

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=36454&st=0

Yes it was. Depends on your definition of a bad spot. (It was the wrong spot obviously.) uhh can't think of any rational definitions of "bad spot" that this doesn't fit... How about: "A spot that will give you a net loss of more than 2,3 IMP's pr. hand". This, predictably, depends on the definition of rational. :(

Yes it was. Depends on your definition of a bad spot. (It was the wrong spot obviously.)

Please, make some lasagne?

Pairs, all red. (1♠) - ??? [hv=d=e&v=b&s=sahq7653d9863cakj]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

2♣ Mainly because my agreement is: 5-5 in the majors, too weak for two initiatives. If this isn't available, it's 1♠. Same reasons as above.

I'll simply bid 4♣ as South, surely raised to 5♣ by North. A fine contract. 2 out of 3 finesses is 50%, so no problem in not bidding 6. What double is, is a question of partnership agreement. I would guess the "classic" meaning would be take-out with 3 spades. I play the double as; "Exactly 4 spades, and will not play in spades if it is a 4-3 fit". This, among with other gadgets, gives partner complete freedom to double with only three spades. Furthermore, a 3♠-bid in these situations strongly indicate a five-card-suit, thus helping the doubler in his judgement, if he contemplates a raise.

Agree with Gnasher that pass isn't an option. (X is a wtp.) It is simple to construct a Lebensohl-variation that distinguishes between 4 and 5+ spades from partner. But even without it, X is stand-out.

Hopes partner passes too, so I can flash my superior leading-skills. (Not leading from AKQ).

Am I way off to suggest: 1♦ - 1♠ 2♥ - 4♦ as initial bids? (Assuming that 3♦ would be non-forcing, as it often is in Europe.) KJx is quite a good thrumph support. And if the diamond suit is fck'ed, it is likely to be a problem in a spade contract too.

Sounds right. You can simplify the diagram by exchanging the ♠A with the ♠7, and make the aim 11 tricks. If you want to study squeeze play, I will strongly recommend this book. http://www.flipkart.com/kelsey-squeeze-pla...492x-7sw3frgfye Trivia: "Squeeze" is spelled "skvis" in danish.

I will try to provide a simple part of the explanation. Simple endplay-squeezes, such as this, works this way: A defender is put under such pressure, that he cannot both maintain one or more crucial guards and enough winners to defeat the contract. So if East takes the first two tricks, he needs to maintain three winners and the heart-guard. If East ducks the first club, he has to maintain five winners and the heart guard. But now two tricks less have been played, so it all adds up to the same. Hopes this makes some sense.

No it isn't. It is just my, maybe a little headstrong, way of making the generalisation, that sometimes conventions dont work with screens, because it stops information that people sometimes exchange unknowingly, when screens not are in use. And it certainly wasn't personel. (But maybe I should drop it, noone seems to care.)

I wouldn't recommend that double if you play with screens. You will have disasters all the times advancers suit happens to be openers. This aplies moreso, when playing against jokers that multi on 5-card-suits.

I've played it for a decade, so I might have picked it up there, can't remember.

In my partnership, which at least I myself consider to be serious, I play them in one situation only: (1x) - Pass - (1NT) - Pass Pass - X Lead director/penalty or take-out. I vaguely record thinking that it is not so hot on ambigious 1♣/♦ openings. But cannot remember a mix-up either.

3♠. Give me a queen more, and I'll chance a 4♦.