OleBerg

The sequence was discussed in a thread a while ago. I thought it to be completely obvious to be forcing, but a lot of the respected posters thought otherwise, and it seemed that some of the very strong international pairs played it NF. So it should be safe to assume, that it is not widely considered absurd.

Yet another reason to allow only limited posting in the semantics section. :)

I might bid an automatic 2♣ at the table, but have no problems with 1♥. After that, I'd definitely raise to 2♠, and school any intermidiate+ player, who didn't. By bidding 1♥ we tend to have denied more than 8 points. Now instead of cuebidding (approx. 5-8 points), we make a simple raise (approx. 3-5 points). It's really that simple.

Omg, I pass a hand someone is bidding on. Calling the shrink first thing in the morning. It's not that don't open crappy hands in 4.th seat, but this one simply has to many flaws: Low point count, a badly placed ace, not much defence against any major-suit contract and a rebid-problem. The only bid with any appeal at all, would be a weak NT, hoping to play it there, and make.

Yes. Partner looks at his heart-holding, and figures it out.

Sounds like something somebody might call "encrypted", if you have an unlucky day.

If 2♣ = Precision, then 4♥ If 2♣ = Strong and forcing, then 5♥

Not exactly what I meant. XX = Inviting partner to double with length/strength in the suit they bid. Partner can compete to 4♦ too, but selling out at the 3-level is possible. May be followed by another forcing bid. 4♦ Direct = To play. 4♦ Delayed = 4♦ is bid to be made, based on some strength, therefore pass is forcing if they bid. The bid doesn't have this meaning because it is a priority, but as consequence of why we passed 3♦X. (We passed 3♦ because we might want to defend something, doubled, at the 3-level.) 3♥/3♠ = So far, scouting for 3NT, may be followed by another forcing bid. 4♣ = Inviting 5♦. May be followed by another forcing bid. Surely I need my medication now. :D

You get something. You get openers option of suggesting bidding 5♦, because the auction has showed it could right, regardless of former minimum bids. It's not very likely to be of much use, but neither is the option of passing 4♥. (All this, in the context desribed in my previous post; delayed 4♦ stronger than direct 4♦.) Again, it might not be best, but there is some point to it.

50/50, but both players bid atrociously. Until 3♠ it is ok, but both players have then given their hands full justice. And then some. 3NT??? If you absolutely want to overbid, bid 4♥, showing you lack a club-stopper, and only intermidiate values. 3NT has no technical merit over 4♥ 4NT??? (Assuming, like ahydra, that 3♠ is stronger than 4♠). Partner has not asked for a diamond stopper, (assuming 3♦ = splinter), but simply checked that you had a club-stopper. No reason to get in his way, if he has a plan. It is illustrating, that on the combined hands, 4♠ is down on a rainy day. Both players could have got a 100% for a bad score, if their partner has had his bid.

+1

A reasonable, and normal, intepretation, but it need not be that way. The XX might as well be akin to: 1♥ - (pass) - 2♥ - (pass) Pass - (X) - XX Which in my book can be weaker than a bid. And it doesn't create a force to 3♥, so the XX of 3♦ need not create a force to 4♦. I am definitely not saying my way is better, just that it is not an unreasonable option. Again, pre-disussion is needed.

I don't think many players would find it forcing, and neither would I. I do not, however, find the idée of it being forcing completely unreasonable. The first thing to be determined in this regard, is the difference betweem the actual auction, and an auction where responder bids 4♦ immidiately after the double. If the delayed raise means: "My hand was not worth an invitational 4♦, but I want to compete", then I think, that it should clearly not be forcing". On the other hand, if the bidding philosophy is this: "A direct 4♦ is in no way invitational, but simply says that responder is going to compete anyway", then a delayed 4♦ should signal a hand that had considered defending something at the 3-level (or 4♣). In this context, a forcing pass is not unreasonable, but it would obviously require some pre-discussion, and both partners being on the same wavelength.

With no prior agreement, simply strenght. I like han's ideé though. I once tried to convince my partner to use such meanings in a lot of sequences, like: 1♣ - (4♥) - 4♠ - (X) Now XX from both hands should show some extra strenght, but doubt about the denomination. So here opener would typically have a misfit and a good club-suit for an XX, while responder would have secondary (or better) club-support, and a spade suit with deep losers. Partner didn't bite, unfortunately.

X, but pass has merit too. What I don't do, is pass and back in later. I will not force us to 2♠+

What if I am prepared to double 4♦?

1) 5♣. Again a class A non-problem. (With a real weak director, I might try 3♥, and then correct to 4NT, which partner is forced to pass.) 2)4♦. Can't really say what amazes me most; pass pr 3♦.If I pass and partner double 1♠ it's 5♦. The opponents has spades, it doesn't matter which red suit we play at the 5-level. (Yes I know that partner actually had a strong balanced or semi-balanced hand, but I'm still only in the advanced bracket, so resulting is not allowed for me at this forum.) 3)1♥. 4♥???? Partner isn't passed and all are red. It's important to have some accuracy here. If partner has something to say, he will have at least one chance, and maybe more, before they reach many spades. After a 4♥ bid, if opps. get to 4♠ in any way, I'll have to pass, but might miss an excellent save, or even a making 5♥.

1) 1NT. Game is impotant, but a partial swing is ½ a game. This will often be the result of bidding 2NT. If I play drury (yiekes) I will open 1♣. (Not that I think it will attract a large following.) 2) Why I play 2♠ as artificial. (Well, I play other things artificial too, but using 2♠ is simple and efficient.) Having no gadgets, 1♠ is tempting, but I'll settle for an ugly conservative 3♦. (Just like friday night at the bar; I'll settle for an ugly conservative.) 3) Double and pass on the first round is obvious. I surely would double again, but pass has a lot of merit. Whether South should pass or bid 4♠ depends somewhat on the doubling style. I'll admit I'd likely end in 4♠.

1) 2♥ Class A Non-problem. 2) Low Club, anything else is resulting. (And yes, against most opponents double is bad.) 3) Resembling a problem, as X would be reasonable if we were white.

In Denmark 5-5 invitational has some following, but so does GF. Personally I prefer it to show club-support with GF. (In the context, that 2♣ guarantees four.)

I see no harm in starting with 2♣. After partners reply, I jump to 4♦, setting thrumphs. I might just get lucky, and get an intelligent auction. Maybe: 2♣ - 2X 4♦ - 5♦ 6♣ Partner should have a good picture of what is working values. If I want to guess, I can always jump to the 7-level.

I find 6♣ relatively obvious. - It might make. - They might take the push. - It might be a good save; -2 is not likely to happen very often.

3♣ against most opponents. I feel comfortable doubling both 3♦ and 4♦ on the next round. Double would only come into consideration vs opponents I suspect could give me problems with a 5♦ raise. And only if they are "non-purists". Another problem with X is, that I would feel compelled to raise 2♠ to 3♠, which is a bit of a stretch.

I'm with the heart-quality crowd all the way. But I'd like to ask another question about the sequence: What is 5♣ and 5♦? Slam-try in hearts seems obvious, but what else? Is it a cuebid or strength-showing? And how do we unearth the number of aces?

X Gets your hand of your chest in one bid. A little tough, but if you pass, any time it turns into a competitive auction, both you and your partner will be unsure about the combined number of hearts in your hand. (You: "Wonder how many hearts partner has for his double", Partner: "Partner probably only has three, since he didn't double with an ace and a king.")