pooltuna

I roll with Roland on this one :)

I see no other choice than 1NT unless you are allowed to announce "I call a negative double of 2♦" :)

But how do you do that. I know you didn't vote for the last choice so you must be expecting partner to break the transfer but will he with just Kx♦?

I find these questions hard to answer with so little information about your agreements. Later sequences in Polish ♣ are not well standardized to my knowledge. After 1♦ - 1♠ 3♦* what options did partner have, e.g what would 4 ♦ have meant? Did he have an game invitational raise available? Did he have a slam invitational raise available? For example if 4♦ would have been slam invitational and there was no further game invitation available, he might have had a very close decision between pass and bidding game, in which case bidding on is optimistic. But partner could have AQJxx in ♠ and three little ♦, with which he might bid that way. If he had no clear slam invitation, for example a good hand without club control denying him the possibility of cue-bidding 4♣ and 4 ♦ would have been non-forcing than the case for bidding 6♦ is strong. All in all my tendency is to bid 6♦ Rainer Herrmann Your normal sound commentary. I would also note that partner made no effort to get to 3NT. I too would risk 6♦.

Well the Q♣ isn't a great stopper but this falls in my range for a 1NT overcall so that is what I bid.

I encountered it and didn't know how to react. Enforcement of the rules is very difficult as proving it is almost impossible. Nevertheless complain so that the TD will know something may be going on

Are there any other realistic choices besides 4♣ (yuk) and pass. I would give serious consideration to passing a balancing X by partner. BTW does anyone considering 3NT remember the recent posts of a similar nature where the auction went 3♠ 3NT. In one post the NTer held 22 and in the other 16. Are we dropping to 13 now? :)

nevertheless highly suggestive of penalty :)

I think you and JDonn have nailed this pretty well.

you aren't laying enough traps when an NV game is possible but remote :) or your opponents aren't :)

1) V vs NV is the wrong conditions for balancing IMO 2) yes I would try as it looks like RHO had 2/1 3rd seat opener and be ready to apologize when P bids 2♦

this behavior is of course ludicrous since -16 IMPS with 42 boards to go is hardly an an amount that can't be reached in the remaining boards. If they are going to give up this easily why did they enter in the first place? IMO this is just poor sportsmanship!! I would be inclined to see if this was essentially a planned bye for the remaining team so some investigation is needed.

1) I pass. IMO for a 3 level -X you need the equivalent of a LR for the two suits you say you have. 2) I tend to agree with b} but play with too many crazy players so I would bid d)6♥ and if you didn't notice I am leaning towards bidding :). Yes partner is bidding to some extent your hand but you have more than enough to compensate.

I would give 40%N for not making a 3♥ call with a minimal LR hand and 60%S for not reopening 3♥

Actually I thot 4♦ was too rich for my blood and preferred 3♠ :(

In view of no preempting over preemptors would not 3♠ show something like this?

I vote for 3NT

I don't know why you feel that. Nobody criticised you personally. Many people criticised a 2♦ overcall on this hand, but that's because they think 2♦ is a bad bid. It's not that 2♦ is a "bad bid" just that the TOX is such a superior call that it makes 2♦ look bad relatively speaking. No it's specifically that 2♦ is bad. Danger is very high, upside is very low. And oleberg who says 2♦ is best if they raise to 2♠? If partner has 5(+) hearts or clubs and 0-2 diamonds then double is best if they raise to 2♠. I also don't see why he feels crucified. Does he just feel bad most people hate a 2♦ bid? Does he want people to not discuss any bid they think is bad? Nevertheless I choose to take the risk of 2♦when I hold Kxx A AQxxx Qxxx presumably unlike you who now can no longer make a comfortable TOX and presumably chooses to pass?

I don't know why you feel that. Nobody criticised you personally. Many people criticised a 2♦ overcall on this hand, but that's because they think 2♦ is a bad bid. It's not that 2♦ is a "bad bid" just that the TOX is such a superior call that it makes 2♦ look bad relatively speaking.

generally agree but think 1♠ is the only call close to tolerable :ph34r: but why I necessarily want a ♠ lead is beyond me :blink: plus I will get another chance to act when I will have more information.

West should hold a long fairly solid ♦ suit with less than 3 ♥. I would bid 3♠ as I expect partner to hold 6.

With X the 3-suited TO it makes sense to cover as many 2-suited variations as possible so instead of just ♣-♦ we get twice as much with ♣-♥ & ♦-♥. I have to think about if ♥ as the anchor is necessarily better than ♣ or ♦

On different colors this will not work out so bad as often. Some players really exercise their "license to steal" at these colors. The best player I ever partnered once told me at these colors if he opened 3♠ (actually any 3 level preempt) I needed a 2♣ opening to move. If your RHO fell in this category you see that partner's probable holding is going up significantly (at least a K IMO) so double is much better under those circumstances. Now reverse the colors and 3NT might be the limit for this auction.

see related post. When you screw around with a bid in a system you need to check the effects on the rest of the system.

my preference would be to start with a -X