OleBerg

More.

3♥ Dont like it, but likes all alternatives even less.

If everybody thought like that, we'd all still be playing Culbertson. (Maybe Goren, if you were very advanced.)

Favourable, Imps: (3♥) - Pass - (4♥) - X (Pass) - ? ♠1092 ♥J10 ♦AQJ754 ♣76

[Put's Sherlock Holmes' hat on] "E" or "B" must surely represent an Ace else he hasn't got anything like an opening bid. If "B" is the Ace then "E" must be a king (for similar reasons). This seems unlikely for both linguistic reasons and because I think the title implies the hands was a very borderline opening bid which an Ace and two Kings and a six card suit is not. So making "E" the Ace, "B" must be either a Queen ("Bella"?) or a Jack ("Bauer"?). My guess is the Jack. [/takes Sherlock Holmes' hat off] Oh, it was elementary. :)

All red, Imps: 1♣ - (1NT) - ? 1♣ is 9-15 hcp and natural, or 9-12 hcp and balanced. ♠ - ♥AQ752 ♦987654 ♣T3

All white, Imps: 1♥ - (3♦) - 3♥ - (4♦) ? ♠ - ♥JT7543 ♦A764 ♣A82

Not quite sure why partner needs to have extras of any kind to reopen with a double. If you play negative doubles, it's routine to double with balanced minimums in case partner had a penalty double. If partner's reopening with a double does imply extras, it wasn't stated in the original post. What part of "or" do you not understand? The very part of "or" that you appear to be totally clueless about. The way "or" is understood in normal written English. In case you have trouble comprehending it, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Partner doesn't need to have either spade length "or" extras to reopen with a double to protect partner's penalty double. The only thing you can infer is that partner doesn't have length in Diamonds. Any pattern such as 2533, 2524, 3523, 3532 will suffice with minimum values for the reopening double. Hi Sathya, You really should not be so aggressive and hostile when you are clearly wrong. Cherdano seem to understand the word or, but he also seems to understand bridge. Cherdano's error in this thread was to assume it was "or" that you misunderstood, rather than fundamental bridge. In case you have trouble comprehending my post, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Reopening with a doubleton spade and a minimum is a mistake that not even a beginner would make. Ricky I dont think he should be hostile, even if he was clearly right. It's funny you should think I was being offensive. You don't think it's offensive when someone asks you what part of "or" you don't understand in response to a post that simply asked what their requirements for a reopening double were ? I didn't say you were offensive. In fact my comment wasn't aimed at you, but at Rickys assumption, that people who believe they are right, have the right to be offensive

Not quite sure why partner needs to have extras of any kind to reopen with a double. If you play negative doubles, it's routine to double with balanced minimums in case partner had a penalty double. If partner's reopening with a double does imply extras, it wasn't stated in the original post. What part of "or" do you not understand? The very part of "or" that you appear to be totally clueless about. The way "or" is understood in normal written English. In case you have trouble comprehending it, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Partner doesn't need to have either spade length "or" extras to reopen with a double to protect partner's penalty double. The only thing you can infer is that partner doesn't have length in Diamonds. Any pattern such as 2533, 2524, 3523, 3532 will suffice with minimum values for the reopening double. Hi Sathya, You really should not be so aggressive and hostile when you are clearly wrong. Cherdano seem to understand the word or, but he also seems to understand bridge. Cherdano's error in this thread was to assume it was "or" that you misunderstood, rather than fundamental bridge. In case you have trouble comprehending my post, which I suspect you will, let me elaborate: Reopening with a doubleton spade and a minimum is a mistake that not even a beginner would make. Ricky I dont think he should be hostile, even if he was clearly right.

I sing along with the choir.

Yes I agree. I misread the original post, and thought partner had doubled 2♠. I wouldn't have doubled 2♠. However, having doubled two spades, I have to double 3♣, lest partner thinks himself into bidding 3♥. (My double of 2♠ showed values.) A 3♥ bid by partner is not likely, but it might happen, and 3♣ will be down very often.

I'd -670 I presume. (Meaning I'll double for penalties.) Edit: And the lead will be lowest from Jxx

If you judge it to be a bad contract, there is no reason to bid, just because the other table have. Of course if you judge it to be a good contract, you should bid it.

For those it might interest, I doubled and it worked out. 2♥ was a winner, but so were the3♣ my partner bid. I did feel though, that I had to muster a little courage to get the double of the ground. To be perfectly true, I had a little help. Before replying 1♠, my RHO made a twich, that I intepreted as an unwillingness to show his spades. (Which were K222.)

This state you are in, has it lasted since Alvin Roth published his first book?

I've somehow been thrown the miracle, that I can stay out of a bad game, that most people would bid. I see no reason to throw it away. Pass. (Naturally an overbidder like me, finds it surreal to pass the hand in the opening.)

I might have solved this with a double on the first round (12-16, no good bid), after which I would have had an easy pass. Now I have an uncomfortable pass.

Even if partner is out on a limp, and diamonds are misfitting: ♠xxx ♥xxx ♦x ♣AJ10xxx 6♣ still has some play on a non-heart lead.

I have permit to use example hands: ♠xxx ♥Ax ♦xx ♣Axxxxx 6♣ will not make as many overtricks as 5♣.

Well, X works on the actual hand. Partner has: ♠- ♥Qxxx ♦Axxxx ♣Kxxx 6♥ is one off, and 5♠ is two off, so you need to collect your 300. I passed meekly, fearing that a double could give declarer to much information. And I didn't even feel 100% sure, that 5♠ was a not winner. I never considered 6♥

I'm not normally into un-scientific bidding, but to me, this hand merits an exception. Slam might easily depend on the lead, and even though 7♣ is not that far away, I still believe the percentage action is to blast to 6♣. If my opponents are prone to second-guess me, and not lead a spade, I'll bid the suggested 4♠. I cannot be to strong for that.

Anyone know what the "standard" 2/1 agreement is, assuming that there's such a thing as standard 2/1, you know the kind when you say "2/1, UDCA, A from AK and 3/5 vs suits pd?". Andrew Tannenbaum, in one of his books on Computer Networking said "The great thing about standards is that here are so many to choose from". Sounds like a bridge player to me. I have double-standards. Twice as good!

I hate those "I definately agree"-posts. This however really sums it all up. So: I definately agree.

A well-tested defence in Denmark too, where multi has enjoyed 25 years of popularity. (Personally I prefer it to be 12-16 and no good bid, thus a Marmic or a semibalanced hand with 5 cards in a minor-suit, can make a double too.)

Unless they pass 2♥ with spades. Least unlikely, when they are favourable.