sfi

Assuming 4th best leads, it really looks like declarer has AKx in spades. So dummy has a club entry. My plan is to take the CK and play the HK. If partner discourages, I'll shift to a diamond.

QFT.

I'm not sure, but since East has 3 spades and 4 hearts it seems like a valid starting point.

As in so many of these situations, the answer is "depends on your partnership agreements." Given the hands and auction we have here though, I'm going to assume that: - Opener bids features up the line in response to NMF. - 2♦ is invitational or better. - 4NT over 1NT would have been quantitative. In that case, there is no reason for 4NT to be quantitative over a 2♥ bid. Responder has not ruled out spades as a potential contract. Additionally, a 4-4 heart fit might have been uncovered, making key card a viable option. More generally, responder can always bid something forcing with a quantitative invitation to slam, so 4NT is much more useful as key card after NMF. Whether 4♣ is best used as RKC is up to the partnership. I would tend to expect it to be a splinter, but that may vary in different circles. As for the actual bidding, West has no reason at all to be bidding 4NT whatever it means. Showing diamonds in a forcing way looks much better. Note that 6♦ or 6♠ are both very good, while 6NT is 50% on a heart lead. And West has no idea what to do after any response over 4NT - even 5♠ showing a spade fit and accepting an invitation doesn't help sort out whether 6 or 7 is right.

Anyone with a 10-12 NT range in 1/2 is unlikely to do so. Or many pairs who have light initial actions.

Sure. But it's not a big enough difference to change the meaning of the bid, IMO. NS had a combined 21 count. The redouble showed a good hand, so no misunderstanding. The hand just didn't play well enough for declarer (swap the H9 and the H10 in the defenders' hands and it may well have made). My argument for why it's not takeout is that the opponents' bidding make it no more inviting to double for takeout than on the previous round of the bidding. Given that you didn't think it was worth one then (an error with the original hand IMO), there's no reason to do so now. Sure you can make exceptions for passed hand or for major vs. minor, but I don't believe this is one of the times where it is standard to change it.

Happy to oblige. :)

For those who think this is normally played as takeout, I offer a recent counter-example. East has won two US national titles in the last couple of years and was playing in an irregular partnership with another top player at a high level event earlier this month. [hv=pc=n&e=sakt87h963d52cat7&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1sp1nppd]133|200[/hv] The double earned 500, which then became 1000 when South redoubled.

I would have opened as dealer. Failing that I would have doubled at my second opportunity. But the double is not clearcut. Other than that, what SteveMoe said. Doubling here is not takeout.

The two auctions aren't analogous. Your partner has already shown values when you reverse (which isn't game forcing), so it makes sense that your hand could be now worth driving to game given the new information. Here, your partner has passed so you have no more expectation of being able to make game than before. As a result, you can't really have a hand that would have opened 1♦ but now wants to force.

I gave these hands a try in four systems I play regularly: - Strong club relay gets to 7♠ because we're optimistic - responder might have a spare black jack lurking around. Anyway things always break 3-2 in bidding contests so you need to bid the grand here to get the full 10 points. 1♣ - 2♣ (bal w/4 card major) 2♦ - 3♦ (4333) 3♠ - 4♦ (4 AK controls) 4♥ - 4NT (A or K in ♠, nothing in ♥) 7♠ - Pass - Precision-based system gets to 6♠ since opener knows responder can't have the ♠K and either black jack. 1♣ - 2♦ (8-10 or 14-15 bal) 2NT (♣) - 3♠ (3+♣, 4♠) 4♦ (cue, 1st) - 4♥ (last train) 5♣ (cue, 2nd) - 5♦ (cue, 2nd) 5♥ (cue, 1st) - 6♣ (cue, 1st) 6♠ - Pass - Standard 1♣ - 1♠ 4♠ - Pass - 2/1 2NT - 3NT Pass This small data sample leads to two semi-flippant conclusions: - Auctions are longer playing strong club. - Slam is easier to find with a strong club system. I think the last two auctions would be fairly common, and it's hard for either hand to diagnose the strength appropriately. These are the sorts of hands where you should pick up imps playing strong club.

My partner and I did something similar to this a long time ago (actually switching the meanings of 2♠/2nt) to right side the spades. The significant flaw is that you get one level too high when you want to play a spade partscore. My partner tried to name this idea after me but that plan died a merciful death. Your method doesn't have that particular problem. But it has two separate downsides: - The strong hand has to show both majors with a good hand on this auction whether or not responder has either, which is very useful to the opposition. - You can never play a spade partial with a 4-4 fit if opener has both majors. Your method does have one advantage in that it frees up the 2♠ bid. If you can think of something good enough that it outweighs the negatives, then you are on to something. They are significant negatives though. There are better ways to achieve the same effect, IMO. For instance you can use a 2S response as "invitational, balanced or clubs." That means that 2C can now guarantee a major. The tradeoff there is that you don't find the skinny 3nt games based on the club suit. Another option is to use another convention entirely. I don't actually know Keri any more than a brief overview from teammates last month, but I think that it goes some way to addressing this sort of a problem.

Having played a number of strong club systems over the past couple of decades, here are some general observations: - Good agreements over interference to a strong club are absolutely critical. They are also possible. - If the opponents interfere at the one or two levels, it rarely affects our constructive bidding significantly. This is true no matter what the opponents' bids mean. - Bids at the three level cause problems, and sometimes we simply have to pay off to the preemption. - If the opponents get too frisky, the occasional +1100 in a part score makes up for any loss of accuracy. This is a real danger against opponents if they can set up a game forcing auction, and sometimes when they can't. - Having lots of bids where you guarantee the opponents a second round of bidding is very bad. It increases their options, and good pairs will use it effectively. - Having bids where your partner does not know which suits you (as the one interfering) hold means that partner cannot preempt the opponents when it's right. The chaos these bids cause is significantly overrated. Conversely, the ability to preempt quickly appears to be underrated by people who interfere over strong club hands. - Don't treat a Polish club as a strong club. You need constructive auctions there. That being said, I played against a lot of Precision players in an APBF tournament a few years ago. Few of them interfered over our strong club, but many could not handle our CRASH (CRO) intervention on 4-4 distributions, even when we stayed at the one level. It was very surprising that they were so unprepared, and it meant we finished at least 20 places higher than we would have had they known what to do. In short, my advice is to preempt aggressively to the three level when you can, and show partner which suits you have immediately.

There is a lot to be said for the showing/denying a stopper when playing Lebensohl after a NT opening. Opener has some expectation of having a stopper, so checking for this is useful. However, the same considerations do not apply when playing Lebensohl over a weak 2. Here there is no expectation that the doubler has a stopper, and no real expectation that 3NT is the default contract. It's better for either player to only bid 3NT when they hold the stopper, both for positional reasons and because it provides other options in the bidding. There are a number of alternatives that make better use of the bids. My default suggestion when discussing this with a new partner is that using 2NT shows 4 of the other major. So 2NT then cue = 4 hearts and game values; 2NT then 3NT = 4 hearts and a spade stopper, and 2NT then 3H = invitational with exactly 4 hearts. Now the direct bids can show GF with 0-3 or 5+ hearts, to play without 4 hearts (but with a spade stopper), and 5+ hearts and invitational, respectively. Over either of the cue bids, partner can bid 3NT if they don't have a fit and have a spade stopper. So yes, IMO the way you are playing Lebensohl here is a liability.

Surely doubler bids 3nt at the second turn. Now the auction can continue 4C-4D to at least find out about the diamond fit, but without good agreements it's hard to reliably get to the grand. After all, it's not even clear you can ask for key cards anymore. I suspect I would wind up in 6nt most of the time - on general values if nothing else.

Do you have an agreement about what East's double of 2C and West's double of 2S would have been? This double should probably mean the same thing as those. If they have different meanings then you have probably thought about this long enough to have a meaning for this double as well.

I don't believe that your response is ever appropriate when an opponent inquires about the meaning of a call. Just because you have the convention card at the table does not fulfill your responsibility to accurately describe your agreements when asked.

How about 'Strong Club, 2/1 GF'? I would expect 2/1 somewhere in the system description if that's part of the system.

IMO, the two explanations are not substantively different. I would not have expected this double, when described as 'penalty' to be penalty of diamonds. Rather, in my experience when someone says that they always (and I do mean always) mean penalty of at least one of the suits shown. Given the level of players in the final, South's misunderstanding surprises me. That's where I would expect much of the discussion to focus and I would lean towards reinstating the table result.

Sure - possibly more so. If partner has 3 spades and a 2 count, then this bid would be a clear winner. IMO, the likelihood of success of this bid opposite a passed hand does not have a high correlation (either positive or negative) with the number of points partner holds. The likelihood of going plus does, but that's only incidental to the MP result.

Is having a borderline hand (we don't know what border the hesitation suggests, but let's assume some sort of 11 count) an incentive to bid here? I don't see it being "demonstrably suggested", which would also mean East is free to bid 2♠.

I finally found a picture of bidding pads in use at www.milduraweekly.com.au/2012/10/26/bridge-congress-to-prove-battle-of-the-minds/ (for some reason the link function is not working). Click on the picture of a larger version. I haven't seen an electronic version of them. One of the main advantages of the bidding pads is that they are cheap and easy to use, so there is little overhead for the smaller clubs. An electronic equivalent would fill a rather different niche in the bridge equipment sphere. If you are using the normal plastic or metal boards, the bidding pad sits next to it rather than on the board itself (often in a little plastic or wooden holder like the one I linked to earlier. You then have the information about dealer and vulnerability on the board, while the bidding is on the pad. You generally only put one board on the table at a time to make it easier for the East or West player who has to reach over the board to write their bids. Since you have something solid (the pad of bidding slips) and stable (the only thing that is likely to slip is the top sheet if you have ripped it off to use the back for the next auction), there is little fuss for the players. If you have the 'wallet' boards which fold open, the bidding pad can just sit on top of it after everyone has removed their cards. If it has a tendency to slide around, one corner can get tucked into one of the hand pockets. At our club we run the championship nights using bidding boxes, but most of the other sessions use the pads. It is likely to be what people are used to, but there are fewer hassles for newer players.

If you take an A4 sheet and fold it twice, that's about the size, although they are square. The pad of bidding slips stays in the centre of the table where everyone can see and reach them. Occasionally a bid may be written poorly, but then someone will ask. In practice they work quite well. There is less clutter on the table than when using bidding boxes, and there is a record for the director if required. The disadvantage is that there is more variation in the way a bid is made than when using bidding boxes (the most common example is someone unconsciously putting a period after a sign-off bid), but that's a minor issue. Written bidding and bidding boxes are both used extensively in Australia, even at national levels.

You put this in the centre of the table. Each person has a pen and the entire auction is recorded on the top sheet. You circle your partner's bids to alert them. Once the first trick is complete you can remove or cover up the bidding slip, although in practice that rarely happens.

Two friends, at least one of whom has since represented their country in junior international events, managed to find 7NT in a nice cuebidding sequence. They had 13 tricks. The problem was, both had cue bid their diamond void.