OleBerg

No, but you have to be more than a stuck-up asshole to have a post moderated. (I know, because I've had one moderated. Completely unfairly off course :D )

WD

Disagree. I am sure it never happens to you, but many advanced players sometimes makes bids they immidiately regret, and then have to try and salvage what they can. In my opinion such situations are fine to learn from. For instance it can highlight some of the reasons it was a bad bid.

I don't like the idée of any restraints for posting here. Post what you want, and if you get some heat; live with it or leave. And for the good players: If you see a post you don't like, it doesn't take long to post: "Wrong forum". And if you don't even want to bother with that, don't worry. Somebody else will. And for B/I players: If you post here, and you only get one reply that says "wrong forum" may suggestion is (Tada): Post it in another forum.

Leave it unmoderated. As it is, it is a great learning place. When people get the reply "wrong forum", it need not be taken litteraly, but rather meaning: "The answer is obvious." People who think posters in here are stuck up assholes or similiar, should buckle up.

If I know nothing else about my partner, I'd expect penalty. The logic behind this would be, that partners hand is well-described. If I had the chance to make an agreement, take-out would be my choice, especially if 1NT is 15-17 and the opponents are not known jokers. At MP's, BAM etc, and the opp. red, I'd prefer penalty.

Ranting on; how about this (MP's only): 1♥ - (2♣) - ??? X = Negative. 2♦ = NFB in spades (Rightsides when we are weak, and do not preempt partner with good hearts and misfit.) 2♥ = Support 2♠ = 10+ (or 12+) with spades 2NT = 4-card heart support 3♣ = 3-card heart support 3♦ = Natural, strongly suggesting that we do not play 3NT. (4-x-5-x will start with a double, and forget about the 5.th diamond.) 3♥ = Preemptive or whatever 3♠ = Transfer to 3NT, rightsiding. (Insidious follow-ups are optional.) 3NT = Whatever 3♠ used to mean

NFB's are fine when you have the hand. It's the distortion of your other hands that is a problem. Whenever you have a strong hand without primary fit for partner, you have to double, and are very vulnerable to preempts/support from fourth hand. When NFB's were invented, people didn't preempt/support as agressively as they do today, so in those days they worked better. I don't play much MP's, but I'd imagine they would have more virtue there. A scheme like this (for MP's) looks good to me: 1♥ - (2♣) - X = Normal negative double, or strong with spades. 2♦ = Normal forcing 2♦ bid. 2♥ = Support. 2♠ = NFB. 3♠ = Forcing with spades, sets spades as thrumph (unless we end in NT). I'd imagine being able to make a NFB with a major-suit (especially spades) would be worth quite some MP's.

If it's MP's and Lebensohl is in use, I could be brought to accept 3♣, as partner will often stretch to double here. But it wouldn't be my choice, 4♣ would. At IMP's, where; 1) Partner will not stretch as much to double 2) Game-bonus is more important I'd definitely bid no less than 4♣.

Sorry, sloppy not to mention it was IMP's. Edited in OP too.

FYP

Free online lesson: Say the opponents bid to 6♦ and you hold ♦AQx. Take the Ace. If the King doesn't appear in dummy, switch. If it does, continue diamonds. Often declarer will play for the drop.

I know where you live: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-dSrZZSJ4U

Dare I suggest. "LOL"

[hv=pc=n&s=saq8h8742da842c98&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1cp1hp1np2hppp]133|200[/hv] 1NT was 12-14, no 4-card spade. 2♥ was sign-off (checkback in use). Comments are welcome. Edit: IMP's

First things first: Don't open 2♣ on that.

Just to split another semantic hair: It seems it could be usefull to distinguish betweem raises that are consultative and raises that are unilateral. It seems like many here would both call: (2♣) - 2♥ - (Pass) - 3♥ and 2♥ - (Pass) - 3♥ a "single raise". But there is quite some difference; In the first sequence, partner is expected to go to game on certain hands, and is allowed to expect a reasonably well-defined hand-type. In the second sequence, opener is (in principle) forbidden to go to game, and cannot expect partnes hand to be very well-defined, neither concerning strength nor distribution; it may be very weak, or it may be just below a game-invite.

It's not only a question of whether it goes down often enough. I like to keep the double is a lead director, meaning something like: I have a suit that (probably) doesn't need any help. See if you can find it, and : Do not lead away from tenaces, it's unlikely I can help you It's not that I have any statistics to lean on, but I do believe it to be the best use for the double. (You double the contracts that are in trouble, and you defeat more contracts.)

Just to avoid any misunderstandings: I'm not bidding 4♠ hoping to play there. My bet is that LHO will bid, but if I end up doubled, I will sometimes get away unscathed. And slam for the opponents is also a possibilety. Also, where I play, screens are in use. This sometimes makes it a little harder for people to get these situations (double vs bidding on) rigth.

Thx.

NF. I'd bid 4♠ however. An agressive style makes it less unlikely that partner will cover a looser in the soft suits (And -500 is no problem). Furthermore, the opponents are prone to bid on, on many hands, in which case I've done my share to make it difficult for them. Facing a "pure" preempting style, 4♠ would be much more dangerous. Not only would partner be unlikely to hold a covercard, he would also be more likely to have defensive diamond-tricks.

It is spades and less then a direct 2♠. To bid it, the prime requisite (apart from the spades :D ) would be short clubs. Edit: I wouldn't believe this to be "standard", just what I would do.

No

5♥ wtp? Re Force: I always make an effort to clear such things up before game-start. In my current partnership we would be in a force, as we have bid game alone red, and there where no stronger route available. (It migth be wise to use 4NT as a forcing raise to 5♦, but we don't.) With a completely unknown partner, I would be rather clueless as to whether it was forcing, but I would guess it was. (With many of my "once-in-a while partners" I believe I'd be on wavelength.)