MarkDean

wow, I have no idea what that means

Yeah, I think my takeout doubles are about an ace stronger than yours. But no, I did not pass this one: I bid 4♠. It might have been a bit much.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=s9743h7dq53cq9643]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] So nobody so far agrees with my call. I figure if I ask enough people, somebody eventually will. -- -- (P) P (1♥) 1♠ (P) ?

For me it is definitely being tired. I have a hard time sleeping at tournaments, not sure why, but it really can affect my play...I will miss cards occassionally, play somebody for 4422 hand etc. I always play (for me) really well in local events where I can sleep in own bed, then not so great at tournaments where I travel.

[hv=d=w&e=s5hqj73d963caq763&s=sa764h82dkt72ck98]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (1♠) P (1NT) P 1NT = F1 (2♥) P (4♥) AP Partner leads the heart ten. Declarer takes 30 seconds to play the heart jack, and then a spade. Duck or hop?

How does one show an invitational balanced hand in your system?

Guess GIB E believed GIB N about the stopper a bit too much.

Interesting. I was going to play a diamond, but upon thinking about the possible continuation, I think I would just try to clear spades and hope for clubs coming in.

Not sure how you got that number...we have 20 cards to pick 13 from, so I get 20C13/52C13, or about 1 in 8.2 million.

I have had an 8 high hand, but never 7. 30 HCP when reversed is also much more than any hand I have had.

Completely agree with Justin. I have had teammates who liked to try to guess the state of the match and take fliers - it rarely worked out well, and it definitely put strain on the team.

I think the second one is clearly to play. On the first one, I think it is a cue (even Qx allowed): if responder had a hand that might play well in a 43 fit, I do not think he should have jumped to 3NT last round.

Sweet, I am clearly out to lunch: I am the only who voted just the second one. I think the first one is an invite: partner doubles with most good hands, can bid 3♣ if he really has a good hand and is afraid of a pass. On the second one, the double is more likely to be passed, and there is less room in general - I tend not to try to stop on a dime in such situation.

I would pass first time around and bid 4♥ the second time around. I play 2NT as scrambling in this auction. But even if I did not, when as a passed hand, partner is doubling, I think he has a stiff most of time.

Pass seems clear to me. Partner could not cue 4♥, we already showed a diamond card: if all partner needed was KQx of trumps, and she really has everything else covered, we would have heard more from her. (Unless you play Last Train, but in that case, this hand is not worth a try if partner can't bid it)

4♥ for me. May have only one stopper in either spades or diamonds (and LHO is likely to lead the one where I have just one).

I imagine them opening 2♦ and alerting. They explain Mini-Roman, and then you have to further ask: has s/he been drinking? I also play X as 14-16 balanced or really big hand. Roy Hughes in his book calls all similar doubles as "training the guns." Although here it is not quite as free as it is possible they can play 2♦x or 2♦xx profitably sometimes.

Interesting hand. When posted, I thought wtp 3♣, and I am sure I would have bid it at the table, but there are some pursuasive arguments for pass laid out in this thread. (I know that Josh was not looking for opinions, but I definitely would have bid 2NT the first round).

3♠. I finally agree with Clee on a hand!

So that means if you have 5-4 you *have* to play in the 5-3 rather than the 4-4 fit. Seems a fault in the system, yes? Not really. And no it doesn't. I'd say a much bigger fault in a system would be jumping to 4♥ just because I am minimum. What do you mean "not really"? You just said spades are trump unless responder is 5-5. How does that not imply that you will be forced to play in the 53 instead of the 44 when responder is 5-4 and opener 3-4? Because opener isn't required by god to rebid 3♠ when he is 3415 and has already found a heart fit, and there is such a thing as pick a slam, and because getting to 5-3 spade fits instead of 4-4 heart fits isn't automatically bad especially when the discards on spades from playing in hearts are coming from a 5 card suit. But I like how you changed my claim that a possibility is not really a weakness to one that the possibility won't occur, it did strengthen your argument. Maybe I lost track of the responses, was "not really" supposed to be the response to "So that means if you have 5-4 you *have* to play in the 5-3 rather than the 4-4 fit." (and the "And no it doesn't" the response to the "Seems a fault in the system, yes?") Anyways, it seems like you have one of two possibilities: responder takes into account that opener may be 3316 and it opens the possibility of getting to the wrong game, or opener with 3415 does not bid 3♠ over 3♥, which I think is a pretty descriptive bid when it comes up. Obviously this shortcoming may be worth the gain. In general, adding more hand types to a sequences makes it harder, and I think this one is no exception.

So that means if you have 5-4 you *have* to play in the 5-3 rather than the 4-4 fit. Seems a fault in the system, yes? Not really. And no it doesn't. I'd say a much bigger fault in a system would be jumping to 4♥ just because I am minimum. What do you mean "not really"? You just said spades are trump unless responder is 5-5. How does that not imply that you will be forced to play in the 53 instead of the 44 when responder is 5-4 and opener 3-4?

My mom gave me this one from nationals. [hv=d=e&v=b&s=saq6h5d8742ck8532]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (2♥) P (4♥) 5♣ (P) ?

Please put me on the list. Thanks.

Yeah, we agree, but don't you know that this is how normal people cuebid? Make a few bids that purportedly say something about control in the suit that you bid, but not necessarily denying anything specific about any other suits, all as a means of going back and forth until someone decides for unspecified reasons to launch into RKCB? Nothing a good hesitation or two won't help, eh? Man, that is so cynical. But I totally agree.

I was going to post that I thought this was a really obvious pass. Then I started trying to think of partner's hands for this auction, and am not as sure. I would still pass, but only because the IMP odds aren't that good, especially if we do not know they will be in slam at the other table.