pooltuna

Time heals all wounds and wounds all heels B)

since I don't know the agreement for 3♥; whether or not 4♦ is really a qbid I would think that leaves bashing 6♥ or RKC. And I don't really see the downside to RKC over the bash.

only one person knows so respond accordingly 5♣, 5♦, or 5♥ and after your call be sure you respond "aye, aye captain"

yeah!! an extra ♥ IMO B) If you need to be cheap be cheap and 3♦ is the right first call IMO. Having already called 3♥ now call 4♥ deny, deny, deny :)

Indeed! If playing by the rules the opening lead is always blind but if you listen it is never deaf B)

that is why you use instead of ♣♦♥♠

yes Meckwell the hand

cooperate with partner who may be trying to jack them up to 3♠. If they clearly belong in game you are not going to stop them but 3♦ eliminates the 2NT, 3♣, and 3♦ games tries.

a clear meta-agreement that 5♠ in this type of auction is about ♥ control and not about ♠ control. Likewise I think the meta-agreement on 5♥ is equally or more muddy. As an aside I have never seen a book just on meta-agreements.

Why is easy. They may not yet have found a good fit and bidding over 3+ ♦ will make it harder for them to find it albeit they know you have a fit so they probably do. I suspect the most dangerous risk is that partner will expect more from your hand than you have.

Where I come from 3♦ is limited :) Let's give partner six solid diamonds, and also one of his small clubs is not a loser. So now he has six other cards, and needs to find 5 tricks. It seems like asking alot even for a jump rebid. 3♠ asking for a stopper would be perfect - on this hand. But is that agreement effective enough in general to have it? If you are going to play 3NT, a 3♠ call IMO shows 5♥ and is a game choice for the opener

Well if partner has either the ♥Q or ♣A you rate to make 6 essentially 100% of the time depends on bringing the ♥ suit with only 1 loser max if partner has the ♣A. Since this is roughly 55% a case for a direct 6♣ exists

so if they don't get it you ♣ them! and then you ♣♣ them some more ! :)

1] yes 2] If we have a game I cannot see where it is consequently I go for the plus score and pass 3] ♣♦♥♠ 4] IMO too many variables to change response

Yes pass is probably the odds position since you need partner to hold good ♥ and he was unable to X the 2♥ bid. A counter example of not passing you hold [[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sjt843h42daktcaq8]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The opps are playing a 15-17 NT and you hear the auction (p) p (1NT) ? (IMO this is a clear pass) (2S)* X (P) ? (IMO this is a clear 4♠ call) *->♣ While luck to make was needed game rates to be a fair shot. example hand

The red letter (I? or M?) goes to EAST (maybe should be yellow letter (for cowardice)?) he holds 2 more ♠ than he could the ♦A and the working (the partner did open this suit) ♣ Q. If nothing else is available make life hard on partner and over 4♦ call 5♦. I mean you are looking at the A♦ + 2 ruffs + some number between 4 and 6 ♠ tricks so partner has to come up with 4 rounded suit tricks

Win the A♦ and ride the ♣8 seems like a 100% to make play Suppose East has the (rather contrived) hand Kxx AK10 xxxxxx J After the club loses to the jack and they continue with a spade to the queen, a heart to the king, a spade to the ace, two more rounds of hearts and the king of spades, you may like to rethink your "100%" suggestion. [Yes, you might double 1C with that hand but I bet not everyone would] yep I typed without considering all the DD considerations so making ~98.999999% of the time :D

At the Bedlam Bridge Center, 4NT is to play since partner can't be trusted to know when to play 4♠ besides the 4NT bidder has a ♠ void :D

Me neither. Undiscussed I would certainly assume penalty according to the over/under principle (DBLs are penalty if the DBLer is sitting over the player who has shown length in the suit bid and takeout if the DBLer is sitting under that player). I am really surprised by the consensus vote for takeout. If I were to discuss such things with my partner (as I would if I was playing seriously), I would suggest that we use the over/under principle to define what responder's DBLs mean whenever the opening bid is 1NT and responder has already passed once. In my experience, this simple principle works very well. In my experience, the even simpler "all low-level DBLs are for takeout" does not work as well. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Doesn't this violate one of the three main Fora principles? Which are of course 1] All Doubles are take out 2) no pass is forcing & 3) protecting partner is the lowest priority :D

OP hand was AQx Axxx xx AJxx so I can't hold the JTxx but with T98x I seem to have fair chances in 5♦

:( I pass. Playing 3♦ or defending a major is OK. Game seems unlikely. unless you are used to habitually throwing yourself off of a cliff normally at these colors (unfavorable) and scoring (IMPS) you are very cautious with your preempts as the opps tend to get trigger-happy

I call 3♣ Double? what double? :( :)

4.25

since partner has 8 tricks and I have 3.5 i will settle for 5♦

is this MP or IMPs? (This is not a yes/no question it is an MP/IMPs question :P )