RichMor

Interesting question. If we assume that a double of the 1♠ overcall shows 4 Hearts, then it seems reasonable to play that a 2NT rebid by opener denies 4 hearts. But change the hand to: ♠) AK ♥)Kxxx ♦)AKx ♣)Qxxx and opener might still rebid 2NT since it is a more descriptive call than a support double. This would be a good problem to submit to the MSC.

Yes, NS should get the result for 4♠X down 2. Yes, EW should get the result for -800. Seems only right that both pairs get a bad score :P

Agree with 'awm', it's natural.

Maybe 3♦ should show something like: ♠)x ♥)KQxxx ♦)Axx ♣)KJxx We would prefer that pard declared NT with Qx or the like in Diamonds.

3♠. I have already bid NT which shows some Heart values and denies significant Spade support. Time to limit the hand and give pard an out.

Actually, score me. See page 1.

I think there is another version, some times called 'Nasz', where both 1♣ and 2♣ openings are forcing. One of the big time Polish pairs plays (or played) it. The 1♣ opening is: minimum balanced, minimum with Clubs, strong with Clubs, strong and balanced. The 2♣ opening is typical GF. But the Carutthers/Sundelin system sound like 'Carrot'.

7NT Pard has ♠)xxx ♥)Qxx ♦)Kxxx ♣)AKx and Diamonds are 4-0 and pard misguesses which opp has 4.

Pass at pairs, 5♦ at teams.

Ken, I would assume a simple default that just extends the support double concept. Opener can bid Spades with 4 and double the opps' Heart raise with 3 Spades. Just as if the bidding had gone: 1♦ - (P) - 1♠ - (2♥) The 3-card double need not show extra values IMO. RichM

An unhappy Pass.

This could be a regional variation. 'Lebensohl over reverses' is a term I have heard for many years. Ingberman is not. I live in the north central US.

Opps and director might be a little upset if you tried to double partner's bid. You are correct. I misread the auction. :D I still expect opener to have an unbalanced hand with 5+♣ and 4♠ and better than minimum strength. Else why bid Spades ?

Right. And, like the other thread, maybe it is possible to use 4NT as a strong 5♥ bid instead of 'for the minors'.

I do not understand. Why does everybody expect opener to have 5+ clubs? What would you bid with, say... AKxx xxx Axx AKx It's a gorgeous 18, but aren't you kind of stuck for a call after 2♣? Unless you play that 2♥ shows this monster and doesn't agree on clubs? They're vulnerable, I would think passing is automatic. If we were red and they were green, I'd have to think about it. Don't know what everybody expects. I expect pard to bid suits when pard has suits, else not. This hand is either a double or a 2♥ cue. Depends on partnership style and/or agreements.

Ken, Yes, 5♦ does sound like 'please pass, honorable partner'. As a general rule, I try to pass ASAP when pard does something I don't understand. Yes, preemptor generally hands over captaincy. But some folks think that a preemptor can bid again if pard supports. Silly partner :) RichM

I voted for 'stay the same'. I prefer to go to the office, but it is just a habit. A lot of my coworkers take their laptops home, dial in, open email and an instant message window, and do whatever they do for about 6-7 hours. They seem to get a reasonable amount of work done. And a lot of meetings are set up as teleconferences, often with a desktop visual link. It's a matter of adaptation, personal and organizational. If the weather gets any worse, I may adapt (or move) RichM

btw, you are planning on raising 3♥ to 4♥? I like 4-3 fits, but not 4-2 fits... My partners don't rebid 3♥ on a 4-bagger here, it's either 6 or 5 good ones. Does that mean your partners make balancing doubles with 5 or 6 Hearts ? Kind of different.

Ken, Bet your pard was thinking deep thoughts too. Obviously, one of you has to stop thinking. Maybe you could take turns; you think on even-numbered boards, pard on the odd.

1) Expect pard to have 5♣, 4♠, and a good hand. 2) Pass. Your side might have enough to make 3NT, might not. Looks like 3♥ is going down. Since 3NT is iffy, take the plus.

Agree with this. 3♥ over 3♦ seems clear, In the given auction, what was 3♠ supposed to mean ????

Fred, -exceptions Sure, principles usually have exceptions. If not, the Master Solvers Club would not exist. :( So principles don't replace judgement. -princple versus agreement Most of what are called 'partnership agreements' focus on specific convertions and treatments. But it should be possible to include some number of principles in a partnership's set of agreements. Something like 'in competetive auctions, doubles through 2♠ are not penalty'. Think that's what Zia and Rosenberg play(ed). Anyway, as a the partnership refines their principles, the distinction between a principle with exceptions and a partnership agreement starts to vanish. As the MSC vote demonstrates, any reasonable agreement is better than none and probably better than relying on good old bridge logic. RichM

Absolutely. Responder could have tried to sign off in 2S over 2C. Why would he try to sign off in 2S now after having learned that opener almost certainly has 1 spade at the most? Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Fred, Won't argue with you. In the January 2002 Master Solvers Club that was part of problem F. The votes were: yes, it's forcing = 16 no, not forcing = 14 Could be a general principle here, something like 'if opener (or responder) bypasses a non-forcing rebid in a suit, bidding the same suit on a later round is forcing'. Make sense ? RichM

How would you treat this ? The opps are silent. 1♦ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - 2♠ Is 2♠ forcing ?

Yes, 'if diamonds are 3-3' you have 2 Spade pitches. But how do you know ? If a defender wins the Diamond Ace at trick 5 and returns a Diamond at trick 6, you can win in dummy and cash the Heart Ace. That's one spade pitch. What next? Seems like declarer has to guess now whether to play a third Diamond or ruff a Heart. Right ?