OleBerg

2♠ is an option, if it is natural. It should be.

A double of 2♥ by West would show his hand, but it requires a strong stomach.

Many options: 3NT: Is our most likely spot, if we want to play the hand. 3♥: describes our hand, and might often still get us to 3nt if that i where we belong. Double: Places us extremely well, if partner bids at the three level. Disaster if partner bids 4♠ Pass: My choice. Not that I believe it will nescesarily get us to the right spot, but it will hardly ever be a disaster. Also caters to light opening hands from partner. Edit: 3NT at Imps.

Does that mean that it's good, bad or indifferent? It means that non-expert-players should make the lead, instead of getting fancy. How relevant it is to anyone here, I don't even dare comment. :P

Assuming a 15-17 NT, I lead a heart. The weaker the NT, the more inclined I would be to lead ♠A. (The stronger the responder hand gets, the smaller the risk of blowing a trick with that lead.)

Unless double is defined as penalty, 2♠ is a wtp.

Whats the point of making a support double with a balanced hand then ?To desribe your hand to partner. Sometimes he doesn't have a balanced hand. And sometimes you have an 8, 9, or 10 card fit, that plays better than NT.

I agree that the opponents bid like they have 9 spades, but partner bids like he has three. 1NT on a doubleton seems very strange to me. I stand by my double.

I dont like the 1NT bid either. At IMP's I would find it to be 100% wrong. We have a suit-oriented hand, especially for hearts. At matchpoints there are a few arguments for the double, mainly that 1NT played from the right side, could be a good-scoring contract. But as MFA said this is speculative (at the very least). I dont think that it in any way justifies a 1NT-call, it simply makes it a little less crazy. One thing that occurred to me, probably influenced by seeing the whole deal, was that maybe South should have supported partners clubs on the first round. If partner doesn't have 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-1-5, this can hardly backfire. In all other cases, whenever partner has 4 hearts, opponents will have eight spades betweem them. I wouldn't do it at IMP's, but maybe at MP's it is worth a consideration?

Yes, I whack it. The difference betweem -140 and -730 is probably much smaller than the difference betweem +100 and +200. I also find 2NT a little silly, but can live with it at MP. (At imp's I'd kill myself if partner bid it. :D )

I was about to say the same thing. Generally, when the opponents have bid two suits in this type of auction, and a double would be penalties, the cue is available as a 'responsive double'. Similarly applies to e.g. 1H P P x 2D 2H or 1H x 1S 2H Sounds right. Must admit I missed it the first time. So the 3♥ shows 4 spades? I ask because many play that, for instance (2♥) - X - (3♥) - X does not show 4 spades, and probably denies it. I can see that the situation is not the same, but still I would be a little afraid to bid 3♥ with four spades.

You don't play that takeout doubles promise either takeout shape or extra values? I do, but I do not consider 4 spades a nescesity, to call the shape takeout. I would double on any 3-5-1-4 that were not sub-minimum.

Naturally. :D

Disagree. True, the auction 1NT-3NT-6NT exists theoretically but there is no bridge hand consistent with both the 1NT and 6NT calls. Clearly it was this what Richard was asking about and in my opinion, there is no hand that first passes, then passes over 4D and then jumps to 4S. Nonetheless, I'll make yet another attempt: Red vs white, playing 4-card majors. Playing with a partner that guarantees four spades or excess strength. (Not my approach, but might be within the limits of "sane".) ♠ QJ432 ♥ 2 ♦ 5432 ♣ AQ10

Ok, I'll try to be serious. He suggested that I should have meant that 1♥ promised 4 spades. I cannot see that as anything but an attempt to ridicule me. (Suggesting that I could believe such a thing.) All he would have to do, to understand my post, was to give it just a tiny effort, which was what I asked him to do. I don't care. I find this a little rich, coming from you. Ever since you wrote: "OleBerg, your curiosities have nothing to do with bridge." (In this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=28495 ), all your comments to my posts has been with a "smarter than thou" attitude, and often quite useless. However they have not obscured the threads, so I don't mind

Yes, I've noticed.

Well done. An insult that is easily identified as such. A few more of these, and you are ready for step II: Sarcastic comments. (See the next post for an example.)

Incidently, I would have opened Hrothgars original hand with 1♠. :)

Please Josh, you find it incorrect! Sorry, I forgot the recent lessons. Maybe I just don't consider 'ridiculous' that insulting? :) You can insult me all you like. What I object to, is that you obscure the thread, disguising your insults as relevent comments. (If you did it in an elegant or funny way, it would be okay. But what you do is useless.) First off, it might not be grammatically clear that it was the reopening double I meant, but it was obvious from the context. Secondly, if partner has 3-5-1-4 and a 21-count, we might definetely need to go beyond four on my example hand. The concept that a take-out-double promises four in the other major, or excess strength, should not be foreign to you. That is what I meant. Trying to make us believe you didn't know that is quite childish. And no, it is still not my method. And yes, I have seen reasonable players have that agreement.

Just curious, if the auction was hearts, does that make 3♠ your ubiquitous shortness showing bid and 3N a spade void? Yes. :P

Voted 4♦. In my system it shows a void, as I use 3nt to show an unknown limited splinter.

Promises 4+ spades for a 1♥ opening? Or for the reopening double (how is that possible, and what does it have to do with 4 card majors anyway?) I'm confused. The reopening double of course. I might be stupid, but please make a small effort. As to how that could be possible: I have known reasonable players to have that agreement. The "4-card major opening" thing, is just a little ekstra drop in the ocean, making it (very) slightly less likely that heart-values are wasted. ( I am trying to squeeze every last drop out of anything, to come up with a sane hand for the 5♠ bid.)

Another attempt Red vs white, playing 4-card majors. Playing with a partner that virtually guarantees four spades. (Not my approach, but might be within the limits of "sane".) ♠ Q5432 ♥ 2 ♦ 5432 ♣ AK10 Edit: ♣9 removed

Double was takeout.

(4♠) - X - All Pass [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sak76532h102dq1075c&w=sj104hk4d84c876532&e=shq873da632cakj104&s=sq98haj965dkj9cq9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 11 tricks easily raked in.