Lobowolf

♠x for me.

Though having said that, I bet there's an inverse correlation between how good a pair is and how often a 4♣ bid in that partnership is Gerber...

Playing it as purely cards eliminates all amibguity, and puts the endplay squarely on partner, where it belongs.

To say nothing of popularing and/or inventing 5-card majors, forcing NT, and unusual 2NT. Additionally, I think he registered a trademark for "What's the problem?" for use on bidding panels.

For me, it's certainly NOT about ridiculing anyone, but it absolutely is a quick spot-check barometer. If the auction goes: 1♦-1♠; 2♥ And responder has a minimum opener, or if the auction goes: 1NT-(2♥)-X* *-Transfer to spades There's a REALLY good chance you ain't watching a Spingold final.

My, how soon they forget. Alvin Roth was one of the greats of the game. Calling him "World Class" might be an understatement. Per BBO, isn't "World Class" = "Represented your country in international competition"? Coming in second place in multiple Bermuda Bowls probably safely qualifies Roth, yeah. Never mind the 29 National wins.

You know what Shakespeare said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA After stolen bid doubles (actually, maybe before stolen bid doubles), 4 little nails-on-the-chalkboard words... "I don't play reverses."

I'd be curious to know what these are B) Stolen bid doubles is probably the biggest red flag for me. As soon as I read the excerpt, "stolen bid doubles" immediately came to mind.

Most players will fall in categories 2-3. Surveys reveal that 95% of all bridge players are better than their partners.

Gotta disagree with this one. There are still IMPs to be gained from going +140/+100. Some hands worth investigating game on (i.e. going beyond 2M) can gain by recognizing below the game level that it's not worth going to 4M on. If not, you're not getting enough effectiveness out of your game tries.

With respect to online play, my experience is that it's faster to just play out "obvious claim positions," at least after about trick 9, then to claim and wait for the opps to convince themselves that it's a good claim.

Heart from me, also.

Trick question...south is on lead. I'd probably try the Q♥, though.

Disagree entirely. If you have no reason to do so, and you drop a stiff king offside holding 8 cards in the suit, you didn't "choose the right strategy." You made a bad play and got lucky. It's not the "right strategy" to double down with 19 on the first hand of a new blackjack shoe, but sometimes you draw a 2. The "right strategy" though IS dependent on at least one thing that should be noted -- your partnership agreements. For instance, if your partnership balances aggressively, then the "right strategy" might be to pass rather than overcall with a borderline hand, because you know that your partner will mitigate some of the downside of inaction by covering you. But if you're playing with a partner who doesn't balance, then you'd better jump in there when you can. Similarly, whether or not to move forward after partner balances is partly dependent on how aggressively he balances -- does he have a solid, direct-seat hand that you can move forward with confidence on, or does he just never let the opponents play at the 2-level, in which case you're probably going to hang him even if you have a good hand? Bidding 45% games at IMPs is "the right strategy" even when it doesn't work out.

Also on the downside is that partner tends to assume more than one quick trick in your hand for defensive purposes and make competitive bidding decisions accordingly. On the upside, this hand has decent trick-taking potential if a fit is found.

FWIW, I'm bidding 3♥ with the east hand over 2♠. Still not getting there. In addition to the hoped-for ace of spades (no guarantee), the weak-2 bidder has to cover another first round control. But if someone's going to go nuts, it might as well happen over: 2♠-3♥ 4♦ Other than that, best chance is East opens out of turn and South accepts it.

Depending, of course, on how much you're gaining on 1-4, and how much you're losing on 5 & 6.

Ever since Garozzo jumped on my bandwagon, "pass" has picked up a lot of traction in the poll.

That you, Marshall?

I can actually open this one 2♥ systemically with my most regular partner. Anyone else, it's a pass.

I play 3rd suit forcing. (I don't know if it is good or bad). A jump to 3♣ would be splinter with ♠-fit. I can't imagine it being good, but I honestly haven't spent much time thinking about it. Presumably 2♣ can be a minimum rebid by opener; I just can't see wanting responder to take another bid with any variety of dead minimums that include club support but not heart support, e.g. 5-1-3-4, 4-1-4-4, 4-1-5-3 etc. 6- or 7-counts.

The link posted shows that the sequence is non-forcing. In the section "Further after opening on 1-level," see the sub-section "Subsequent bidding by responder" "Bids available for sign-off in part score: Pass, 1NT, 2 of suit previously bid" Example given: 1♥ - 1♠; 2♣ - PASS/2H/2S = 6-10.

It's not necessary to have a 2-suited hand; it's feasible, because if partner bids the short suit, you pull to the next one up, suggesting the other two; here, you don't care what suit partner responds in -- you have support for all of them. How is that getting screwed? 4NT pick a suit - partner bids anything at the 5-level, and you're right where you would be if he'd responded to a takeout double. 10 vs 2 on the score because what, opener can't sit for the double?

I'd like to hear Fred's views on the auction 1♥-(4♠)-X. I play it as cards, because that's pretty much the way it's done anymore (except I play it as penalty with students), but I'm by no means convinced that it's better than penalty, on a number of theoretical counts, in no particular order -- 1. Preempts have been becoming more and more aggressive...pretty much "any 8 will do" except at favorable vulnerability, when any 7 will do. It seems counterintuitive to me that as the preempts have less playing strength than they used to, the direct penalty double becomes less fasionable. 2. Yes, opener can convert a "cards" double to a penalty double, but who's better placed to know whether the opponents' contract should be penalized - opener, who knows that his partner has "cards" (1♥ - 4♠ -X: describe doubler's hand), or the responder, who knows what trump he has behind the preemptor, where they belong, knows that his partner has an opening bid, and knows that partner has 5 hearts? 3. 5 over 4 from a LTT perspective...how often is it correct? How often when it's correct will opener know to bid? Know WHAT to bid? How often when it's incorrect will he sit for 4♠ doubled? Is the ideal double 1-4-4-4? The unbid suits? A partial fit and a minor? Two suits and mild tolerance for penalty? Agreeing that double is penalty is if nothing else unambiguous. Yeah, responder will get handcuffed on some hands when he has values and no clear direction, but is the answer really to let him make a random double with the confidence that opener will place the contract correctly? I mean, the chorus was just preaching that 1M - (3♣) was extremely disruptive...now a double at the 4♠ level is what we're hoping for? I suspect that a strong majority of the time, double and take the money is right anyway, and you pick up the benefits of being able to double with the problem hand, which has an ace, a natural trump trick, and an "extra" trump to go with it. I don't really care, because it's a fairly rare auction and there is some general consensus that it be deliberately ambiguous, but I sure do suspect that if you played it as "cards" for a year, and "penalty" for a year, you'd do better in the "penalty" year.