Tramticket

Double of two-level interference = take-out. Double of three-level interference = doesn't exist opposite a passed hand (if it did exist it would be take-out, but it doesn't). Double of four-level interference = doesn't normally exist opposite a passed hand against sane opponents. But partner's double would be penalties.

I wouldn't expect my partner to "understand it" as a splinter. We never splinter in partner's suit. My partner would "understand it" to mean that we have a double fit in the red suits.

Yes, it is unpleasant. But I would argue that rebidding that heart suit is even more unpleasant and reversing is completely wrong. There is a lot to be said for passing on a hand that has defence but little playing strength.

Same considerations as the other hand that you posted. We play a weak NT and would have opened 1NT. Playing a strong NT, you presumably rebid 2NT to show the weak NT type hand

Some might choose to pass this, but we play a weak NT and would have opened 1NT. Playing a strong NT, you presumably rebid 2NT to show the weak NT type hand.

Double is whatever you and partner have agreed it to be. It is best to agree some rules about when you will treat a double as penalties. It is perfectly possible to agree that this is a penalty double, but the problem is that the opponents are likely to have a nine-card fit and you will rarely have enough trump length and quality to want to make a penalty double. Personally we would play that the double shows values and asks partner to "do something sensible".

I don't like the 4♠ bid, opposite a passed-hand take-out double - why would East assume that 4♥ is making? Although not easy, the defence could against 4♥ - three rounds of spades ending in east, then the fourth spade for an uppercut.

Thanks Zel. This structure seems to be at the cost of Garbage Stayman? I can't see partner giving up on that.

Thanks Nigel. An unusual sort of surround play - designed to ensure that East wins the second club trick without promoting South's queen. Does East need to pop up with the spade king? I guess that if not, south can finesse and play hearts and if west ruffs in the third round south has retained the ♠A as a second entry, drawing the final trumps and allowing the ♥J to get rid of the second diamond loser. I'm not finding that at the table!!

What strength NT are you playing? If playing a strong NT, then the philosophy is to find your best part-score. And note that once partner opens 1NT it is rare for opponents to be missing game. I can see the sense in your idea. Playing a weak NT (as we do), there is more up-side to staying put (at least until you are doubled). Opponents often find it more difficult to compete over 1NT and may be missing game (e.g. they each hold a balanced 13-count). There are many occasions when I want to use Garbage Stayman in response to our weak NT - but only on shape suitable hands and I'm happy to pass with the 4M5m hands (and play 5m at the two-level after they double). There are risks in this system e.g. if you correct to 2♠ after 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥, you might be correcting out of a 5-3 fit to a 4-3 fit.

A 2♦ over-call would be my third choice on that North hand - after double and 2NT.

Partner has 4-6 HCP. Partner can't have both the diamond king and the club ace. Even if we give partner the diamond queen and club ace, declarer has time to draw trumps and take discards on the ♥K/Q. I don't think that we are beating this if partner's low diamond is from an honour. Our best bet seems to be that partner led a singleton and we give partner a ruff? This will leave space for partner to hold values in clubs to defeat the contract.

Our basic system includes a weak no trump. Over the years we have gradually moved to include 5332 with a five-card major in our 1NT and now would open 1NT with almost any 5332 hand in the range. We have recently started playing that a 2♣ response is standard Stayman (including garbage-type sequences) and a 3♣ response is (game-forcing) 5-card Stayman. I am worried that when we use 5-card Stayman, we may be giving useful information to opponents on the way to playing the 3NT contract that was always the likely destination. So I guess that my questions are: - Is this method worthwhile? - Given these methods, would you as responder always bid 3♣ on the way to a 3NT raise? Or might you use discretion? - Does the form of scoring make any difference? An example hand: [hv=pc=n&s=st54h852dakqj75cq&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1n(12-14)p]133|200[/hv] Do you bid 3♣ and look for the major suit fit "because clubs might be wide open"? Or raise directly to 3NT "giving little away and hoping to run your six diamonds with either a favourable lie or favourable lead"?

"Sound" means different things to different people. For me, a sound over-call is a six-card suit headed by two top honours and "opening values" (we will open most 10-counts with a six-card suit, so I guess that means 10+ points). 5♦ facing (say) AXX X KQXXXXX JXX would be one-off on top and needing further luck to avoid more losers. An "Unsound" hand will have less than this and be an easy pass. If anything I am more inclined to bid vulnerable (if teams?) - they do give bonuses for vulnerable games and QXX X AKXXXX AXX looks like a game that I want to be in. If this is what is meant by "Sound", then I'm bidding on!

South will stretch to bid 2♠ in this auction, safe in the knowledge that the hand has been limited by the initial pass. We haven't specifically discussed this, but if I were north I would not assume that my pass should be forcing.

Pass. My values are "soft". Double would be second choice showing values. 5♦ looks a stretch.

Is this meant to be a call that makes some logical sense? Or a call made by some random nutter? If the call is supposed to make sense then: - He has clubs (to explain the initial pass). Also the spade suit is likely weak. - He has chosen to compete over 3♥, but not 1♥, but it was still a forcing auction on the second round and he was hoping that his opponents would finish in a place where he has defence - i.e clubs and probably diamonds. - He has chosen to protect at the three level over 3♥, which suggests little defence against a heart contract. Maybe: JTXXX - AKQ AQT9X?

For us, 2H is a Lucas 2 showing a two-suiter. I would then bid clubs showing extreme shape (if the bidding is not prohibitatively high). If non-vulnerable, I might prefer to open 4H or 1H.

A few things: The rule of 17: Larry Cohen mentions it here. If you read the article, Larry Cohen is less than enthusiastic and states: and also: I find the rule to be rather bizarre. Raising a weak two to game can be based on multiple hand types: - Hands expecting game to make based on strength. - Hands with no expectation of making game, but wishing to raise the level of preempt. - Hands combining elements of these two - i.e. shapely hands where game "might" be making either way. The rule does not really meet these multiple objectives. A weak 2 OP states: 7-10 vulnerable seems like a rather high hurdle and most will choose to have a lower range. Integer Mathematics OP states: I understand of course what an integer is and what a mathematician is. I was not aware that there are mathematicians who specialise in the study of integers, but I am quite prepared to believe that there are. But I don't understand why a specialist knowledge of integers should be helpful to bridge, rather than some other branches of the subject, such as (say) probability theory?

2S looks obvious, but what would a 3S bid mean? Is it a fit-jump? And if so, what suit lengths does it promise?

Are the strikes still continuing? I haven't heard them mentioned on our (British) news recently. I will be in Paris in four weeks time.

I found the hand interesting because not a single E/W entered the auction. Maybe East should protect with: ♠62 ♥K6543 ♦J2 ♣A963? But this is not so easy when the bidding suggests that west is likely to be short in hearts. E/W can make 4♣ or 3♥. You can get the magic +200 defending. But you will need to organise a couple of ruffs. The best that you can do after starting with the ace of trumps is a switch to hearts and get your heart ruff for one-off.

For us a double is defined as penalty with 16+ HCPs or 15+ and a good lead. We find it more effective to keep the double up to strength. This 14-count falls a little bit below partner's expectation and partner probably won't pull the double with a 4-count. You don't get to bid after responder shows a weak hand with short clubs. You can bid over 2♦, but most of the time responder will have invitatonal+ values leaving partner with a bust - so this is risky.

Would a double of 2♦ (an artificial bid) be take-out for you? I am not sure of the best use for a second round double, but we haven't specifically discussed it and for us it would therefore show diamonds by default.

I think that this might be reasonable against a strong NT. But in my opinion, a penalty double is important against a weak NT. This isn't primarily because you expect to pick up frequent large penalties, but because there are still good chances of game over a weak NT - which means that you want to be able to narrow the range of over-call so that you can bid constructively to game as well as competing for the part-score.