mich-b

2♦ , if you happen to play that as weak and natural. Pass if you don't. I think second seat preempts should be "classical" even w/r.

Pass. I am sure pd is at least 6-5 in the red suits (He would normally double with only 4 ♥s) , and is likely to hold 2♠s , since the NV opps did not raise to the 4 level. I am hoping pd has something like xx AKQxx AKJxxx - On a good day , a weaker ♥ suit will do as well. In 5♣ we are likely to have 4 black losers quickly , even if luckily pd's black suits are 1-1. And , last point, we are not yet doubled in 4♥ , in 5♣ we might be doubled easily.

When you are 4-4 in the majors, it works well to double, even if you have 3 cards in openers minor, because partner will try to bid a major.

Double. Of course I would prefer to have a 3rd ♣ , but otherwise I have an opening hand , short ♠, and ♥s (and 2 very useful 10s). Pass is reasonable , 2♥ is not.

Agree with everything. Very well said and explained.

Yes, and an elephant can fly.... In real life people dont defend like that, they do it only in books , or in a paranoid declarer's fantasys. Unless your RHO is Helgemo, or someone of his ability, RHO has AQx in ♣. period. Now go figure whatever line is best. And if I am wrong and RHO did have AQxx? less than once in a blue moon, and I am willing to go down whenever he did that.

Agree with the bids , and the advice..

Agreed.

North would have to do a great job explaining his bidding , in order to avoid a PP for blatant use of UI. I think adjusting the score is far from being enough here.

This means that West's 4♥ (overbid) , 5♣ (mega-overbid) , 6NT (no words...) were... well ... poor , While East's contribution was the optimistic 5♠ (I think 4♠ was reasonable). So it seems West gets most of the blame.

I don't see the merit of this, when they opened 1M. After : 1♠ - Pass - (1NT) - Pass Pass - ? When would you consider a takeout double? Keep in mind, that your hand was not good enough for a double on the previous round , and since then LHO showed some values , and denied a fit. So why should I enter now? For us, a double here would be 100% penalty, suggesting a ♠ lead.

I think "either-or" doubles can be used in some specific situations, generally when one opponent bid a major, and the other denied fit there. This is necessary so that we have a good estimate how many trumps they have. The other necessary condition is that the player who makes the "either or" double should have a clear penalty (5+ trumps) or a clear takeout (singleton or void). If you try that with in-between hands , partner may well guess wrong. I think the idea has merit in some specific situations , that need to be well defined. One example may be : 1♦ - 1♥ 1NT - 2♥ - DBL And one will get it right if you stick to the rule of (5+ or 1-). My partner is a great fan of "either or" , but we never really agreed to play them , because getting it wrong would usually be very costly.

A simple 1♠ now. No reason to get excited , especially if you play Walsh style , and your pd might hold ♥Jxxx and ♦KQxxx.

I agree with this. The responder should assume the doubler has something between minimal 4144 , and a balanced 16, and invite if he thinks this may be enough to make game. KQxx xxx Axxx xx This hand though , IMHO , is a 2♠ response , not 1♠. In reality the responder will rarely have a hand worth an invite opposite a competitive raise.

Well, if that was the case they could have just said, that they have some perosnal/family reasons without getting into details. But , for those of you who say that more info is needed, isn't it obvious that the only way to get more info is to have an ethics committee address the issue , and start by asking the players for their real reason? And additional info : The conceding pair are candidates (either together or with different partners) to represent their country in international competition later this year. Do you think that changes matters ? Should their early concession influence their selection?

4NT is quantitative, because : 1. 4NT directly over a natural 3NT should be played as invitational, any exceptions will cause misunderstandings. 2. Not only that a fit was not found in any suit, it was actually established that there is no fit anywhere (surely not in ♥s, which are 5-2). In positions where a fit was not found , 4NT should be quantitative.

I would lead from 98xx. Leading from Jxxx is quite likely to give away another overtrick.

1. [hv=d=n&v=n&s=s632hk2dakj53ct73]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-1♠-P-2♠ P - P - ?[/hv] 2. [hv=d=n&v=n&s=s632hk2dakj53ct73]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-1♠-P-2♠ P - P - ?[/hv] E-W play 2/1 so 1♣ is 3+. 2♣ was inverted , 10+p , and 4+♣, intended as forcing, though not 100% forcing by PH.

Ok , this is the story: Semi final of the country's teams championship. Top 4 teams (from 12 in the Premier League) qualified after several weekends of play. This can be easily considered the most serious and prestigious tournament around. The Semi Final is scheduled for 4 segments of 14 boards. Team X has a carryover of -14 IMPs. After they play the first segment (and lose 2 more IMPs, so now they are down by 16, with 42 board to play), one pair of team X informs the director that they wish to resign and go home, since they think "their chances to win are gone". Since resigning during a KO match is generally allowed , the director approves, and they go home (the other pair very unhappy with this). The other semi-final is of course played for 7 more hours... Do you think there is something wrong in this pair's behaviour? Are there laws against it? What would you suggest doing? Would you make some kind of ethics comittee look at it?

I think that anyone who considers anything but a PASS , has a serious problem with his attitude to the game.

2♦

I would bid 5♣. I, of course, understand , that it is possible that both 5♣ and 4♥ go down, but think it is wrong to "hide" the huge ♣ support.

I think a good rule is : If we have both bid , and already stopped in a partscore , all doubles are for penalty.

This description only implies that the pair treats the 9 spot as an honor, and leads it only if in sequence. So maybe they were in fact leading randomly from xxx , only treating 8 or lower as "x"?

Thanks for all the responses. For those who are interested, here is what actually happened: 1. South bid 4NT, pd had Axxxxx QTx x Qxx East found a double, and though declarer could have escaped for down 1 , the result was -500. 4♥ , of course, would have been down a lot. 2. Partner's hand was : Ax JTxx Jxxx ATx South passed, and 2♥ made easily (opener 3532). 5♦ is cold for our side. 3. South doubled for takeout, and was caught for 800 (better guessing could have resulted in 500 or maybe even 300).