nigel_k

I think the 'discovery claim' problem can be alleviated by requiring declarer to continue playing on their stated line. Maybe you can construct a scenario where declarer could just face their cards and obtain useful discovery without stating any line but I think this would be rare. The advantage of this change is that non-expert directors and players may have difficulty working out what would have happened had play continued on the stated line. I also think that if further play reveals some unusual lie of the cards that does cause problems for the stated line, it is more equitable to give declarer a shot at overcoming the situation once he discovers it. It is good to have people claiming, and I think the corollary it's also good to give claimer some leeway in the 95+% of cases where he doesn't gain any benefit from the act of claiming.

What Stephen said, plus they can make 4♠ and partner should be no more than two down in 3♣X. If partner manages -200 you can also tie the ones where E/W miss the spade game.

Why not bid 2♦ with the heart/club two-suiter (non-reversers), 2♥ with the reverser, and 2♠+ with single suited clubs? This is more symmetric, plus when responder has 5+♥ and 4♣ it's guaranteed to rightside hearts. You're right. I don't know that your way is more symmetric but it definitely right sides the contract more often with the 5+♥ option and breaks even on the other ones.

I don't claim to know what most other people do, but takeout is better. The downside is the small number of times you have good spades, partner doesn't have a takeout double and they don't find a better spot. If you normally play partner's double as takeout, the upside is you can now get them when partner makes a penalty pass of your takeout double. If you normally play partner's double as penalties, the upside of switching to takeout is you have 2NT as a scramble which you wouldn't if he had to bid 2NT for takeout. And he can bid 2NT to show a different hand.

Slam bidding is all about imagining hands partner might hold. You can't really do it with a rule-based evaluation. Someone (Terence Reese?) once suggested you should invite slam if it will be laydown opposite a perfect minimum. Here, you could be opposite Kxx Axx AKx KQxx so the hand clearly qualifies to invite at least. I always use the worst possible hand as well. Anything with two small clubs is obviously bad, otherwise maybe Axxx KQJx AKJ Qx? This is extreme and you still have some play. I would make a slam try in clubs then bid slam unless partner signs off immediately. As for the matchpoints issue, I would choose 6♣ in a weak field where I expect to win just by avoiding bottoms. In a decent or better field, 6NT.

This is best I think. You could equally cash Ace, lead towards the jack, then cash king. Gains on QTxx and Qx in East but loses to Qx or QTxx in West. Similarly, cash Ace and lead towards the nine. Only change is you lose to Tx in West instead of Qx, but gives RHO with Qxxx a chance to go wrong or give the show away especially if you do it quickly. Running the jack would be anti-percentage if the nine loses but only if you're sure RHO would be smooth with Qxx.

As Wayne said, in competition you use the same structure but may be up to three steps higher. When the interference forces you up four steps or more, the relays are off. If they interfere directly over 1♣, I would play dbl is any 0-4, pass is any 5-8 and other bids are positive. So 1♣-(1♠)-1NT would be the first relay step. This means that a direct overcall of 2♣ or higher breaks the relay but a 1NT overcall does not. After the 5-8 pass, dbl or other first step by opener is 19+ and initiates relay. After the 0-4 dbl there is no relay. Other than that, just go on a step basis, e.g. 1♣-(P)-1♠-(2♥), pass by opener is relay then dbl by responder replaces the 2♣ bid (after a 1NT relay in an uninterrupted sequence) and 2♠ by responder replaces the 2♦ bid. So you are two steps higher. There is no difficulty with this in theory but you should expect a couple of accidents before you get used to it. I would also change the positive responses to 1♣ as follows: 1♥ any hand with spades except balanced 1♠ either balanced (4333 or 4432) or heart/diamond two suiter 1NT either single suited clubs or heart/club two suiter 2♣ either single suited diamonds, or minor 3 suiter 2♦ single suited hearts 2♥ and higher shows both minors After 1♠ bid 2♣ next with the heart/diamond two suiter and 2♦+ with balanced. After 1NT bid 2♦ next with single suited clubs and 2♥ + with the heart/club two suiter. This gets you back to the normal symmetric continuations while making the relayer declarer as much as possible.

From what I've seen, at least two Norths opened 4♠ and then bid 6♠ after it went 5♣-P-6♣. If you are going to do that, maybe opening 5♠ instead isn't so silly after all.

Fora Heh. I used to say indices instead of indexes but I had to stop because too many people laughed at me :D

On my earlier example, East and North can swap a diamond for a spade and I think 2♠X still makes. Certainly you are not getting rich. I still think pass is clearly wrong, if not horrible.

Is there anyone out there who would do something other than 3♦ with West? The choice at the table was 3NT.

What happened at the table is that East bid 3♣ instead of double and West drove to slam. As I mentioned at the start there was no suitable ace ask available and West took the view that East would have to have quite a precise collection of cards for slam to be bad. I am about 60/40 in favour of double instead of 3♣ and the 3♠-4♠ continuation works too but I still have a feeling it's just a bit lucky for clubs to get lost on a hand that also happens to be missing two aces.

I also got 1.33% for a weak 2♦ using Fred's conditions. I quite often have a 5 card suit nonvul and sometimes a 4 card major which increases the frequency but also open 3♦ with a 6 card suit sometimes. For hands with 21+ HCP I got 0.80%, the same as Adam. Of course, the real issue is not just the frequency but how many IMPs you gain or lose. Some may disagree, but I find the weak 2♦ is quite effective as a preempt, both when I use it and when it is used against me. However I wouldn't be surprised if Ken is able to come up with a more profitable use for it in accurately bidding strong hands.

The answer to what double means is that it means whatever you and your partner have agreed. I would play it as takeout but wouldn't say it is obvious if undiscussed. You need specific agreements and also a general agreement about doubles. A typical agreement is that doubles are takeout unless they fit within a list of exceptions, then make that list of exceptions. As to the strategy with your hand, it's usually a bad idea to keep silent hoping they stop short of game and make an overtrick. You might do this if you have some special reason to believe they can take more tricks than they would expect (such as a holding of KJx under LHO's suit), but on normal hands like this one they'll probably stop in 3♥ only when game doesn't make. Your hand should either bid 4♣ and let partner make the final decision or bid 5♣ immediately to apply maximum pressure to them. I would bid 5♣ immediately. It turns out your partner's hand is unusually oriented to defence rather than offence, given his vulnerable 2 level overcall, and 5♣ is still an ok spot.

In beginners classes people are taught that double shows an opening hand. So when they have an opening hand they double. It's the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent but inexperienced players do this all the time. The regulations are silly but they would likely not have alerted or pre-alerted in this case regardless of regulations. Whether it is 'unusual' or 'very unusual' depends on the event. In a strong field anything other than a takeout double is highly unusual so I would definitely expect a pre-alert for this and an adjustment if the failure to alert caused damage. In a weak field the double would not be unusual.

Obviously we should have doubled initially and now can only bid 4♠ or maybe 3♣ in the vain hope that partner is able to bid 3NT, then bid 4♠ when he doesn't. I would also like to compliment the clever double entendre in the thread title (whether it was intended or not).

East 75%. Double is questionable and certainly should have made another move over 2♣. I would prefer to play that West can double with that hand, but this is non-standard. After passing, I suppose West could do more (2♥ ?) but partner needn't have much when he balances, you are non-vul, and West's cards suggest that 25-26 combined HCP will usually not produce game.

Firstly, the political motive (to get elected and stay elected) is even more corrupting than the profit motive. Surely you have been paying enough attention to notice that the interests of politicians are not in your well being either. The difference is that when a corporation screws you over, you are not obliged to keep giving them your money. Secondly, how do you feel about a corporation supplying the food you eat? Medical care is important, but not as important as food. If we accept the premise that the profit motive is incompatible with the proper provision of essential goods and services, the surely sovietizing the supermarkets should take priority over sovietizing the health system?

If they didn't double, a superaccept should be a maximum, usually with four card support. However you needn't always superaccept by bidding 3♠, all bids between 2♠ and 3♠ are also superaccepts. You need to agree whether these show values, shortage or something else. When they double and you have no specific agreement, the default should probably be that 2♠ shows a hand with three or four spades and less than a superaccept. Responder with 7 HCP, a singleton heart and a known 8 card fit should certainly raise this. However some people (I don't recommend this) might rely on the law of total tricks and make a jump to 3♠ on a minimum hand with four card support, with or without the double. Maybe your partner is playing this way. Even so, he should have raised your 2♠ to 3♠ (or made some other game try) as his hand will usually be enough for game opposite a maximum with only three spades. It would be good to have the actual hands though.

This thread has provided me with excellent confirmation of my decision to earn a living developing software instead of playing bridge. Thanks everyone, especially Peter Gill. :)

I'm a little surprised that people are passing this. I expect something like the hand below where we just stop an overtrick on best defence. I'm with Fluffy and choose 3♥ as our best chance of escaping a double. Not close. [hv=n=shakqxxdkxxxcktxx&w=skt9xhjtxxdaxxcxx&e=sa8xxhxxdqtxcaqxx&s=sqj765h53dj42cj98]399|300|[/hv]

If this kind of problem had a solution then people would still be happy playing penalty doubles in this situation. But it doesn't and they aren't.

I would pass this, and yes, I did bid 2♣ on that other one, I accept this approach is occasionally going to lead to a silly contract but I still think it is optimal overall. I'm not certain about a three card 2♣ on the other hand but am about passing this one.

Since nobody has mentioned them yet, I would prefer 2♥ or 2NT to either 3♠ or 3♦. I don't know whether 2♣ will work out best on average, but 3♠ and 3♦ are not even in my top three choices.

Sorry, I'm not following this. I think there is a strong case for treating it as style and judgment, not system. I disagree that suit length changes from a style issue to a system issue, depending on whether you are opening 1NT, making a suit overcall, or opening one of a suit. Are you suggesting there is some principle that entails this conclusion, or are you just saying the distinction is arbitrary and this is where you are choosing to draw the line? I would tentatively suggest the following test instead: If it is possible to bid sensibly without any agreement on the matter, then it is style and judgment. That doesn't change if you have discussed it and agreed to differ on the best approach. As I mentioned earlier, in doubtful cases I would also look at whether the purpose of the rule is advanced by applying it to the present case. Here it is not.