pooltuna

90% make rate sounds a bit high. Aren't there quite a few hands that have to bid 4♦ to compensate for 3♦ being nonforcing? EDIT: maybe should say "for 3♦ being noninvitational?"

IMO you should start trying to figure out how you can take 5 defensive tricks. Along those lines my inclination is to try and give partner a ♣ ruff.

WAIT A MINUTE!!! I thought you and Justin were bid ♠5432 regardless of the other suits and who cares if partner holds ♠9876 we'll still show our manhood and play in ♠s type guys. B) What happened!!!! Lightning has struck and you've been lit up with sense! :lol: They are of course right your probable double ♥ stopper and overall values make 1NT the probable odds on call.

I have a nail sharpener for your claws if they were dulled after that last zinger :)

it specifically refers to hands with 74xx (not in suit order) distribution. How it got the name I have no clue.

Sorry but IMO this is BS. If you have GF values with ♣s & 4♥ even if the opps interfere you will be getting to your games if they are still in reach as any action you take will show your values. Sorry Tuna but your post is complete nonsense. snip I hope you agree that you should not start with a double over 1♦-(1♠) and I assume you would also double over 3♠ as would I. The question is then just about 2♠. The obvious upside of double is that partner can pass it. The obvious upside of 3♣ is that we don't lose a double game swing on a pedestrian hand like [hv=n=sakxxhqtxxxdaxxxc&w=sxhkjxxdqxcakxxxx&e=sxxhaxdkjtxxcqjxx&s=sqjtxxxhxxdxxctxx]399|300|x and x gives you -590, 3♣ and x gives you +600[/hv] Now it could be sometimes that we miss hearts after 3♣, particularly after a start like 1♦-2♠-3♣-3♠ p-p-x where opener should first look at his ♠ holding and then his ♥ holding. Couple of things about that: -sometimes we can just bid 4♥ over 3♠ suggesting a good 64 hand -when partner has less than 4 hearts we're again much better off than 1♦-2♠-x-3♠ p-p-x where we just said "ummmm i have 4 hearts partner and i have no idea what we should do" So overall I'd think 3♣ will find more games. The problem is not that we forgot that we have game on, the problem is that we just have to keep doubling when opps keep bidding and it's better to show our 6 card suit than suggest our 4 card suit. sorry but your example hand carries no weight as partner cannot pass 2♠X (assuming sanity}. You seem to want him to look into your hand and see that you have 13 HCP but not at the same time to see your distribution. What happens if you have a weaker -X consequently he has to call 3♣ [oh what a shame for our actual hand ;) )

Generally looks like you can blame E&W for obscuring the lack of wasted values in the ♠ suit and obscuring the value of the ♦ cards. Possibly N could have Xed the 3♦ call and Qbid the ♠ shortage but the latter looks like an overbid with apparent massive ♦ wastage. Possibly S could have envisioned N's ♠ shortage but he has a difficult time as he sees a possible ♠ and up to two ♥ losers.

well the only call I would not consider is pass. Give partner's inability to make a call or X over 2♠ I am inclined to accept whatever plus I can get with an X

Yep I vote with the Nite Owl in Cat's clothing

why can't you bid 2NT?

sorry but had to compensate for the simplicity of the solution :)

Well I know 2/1 is weird but I would think the standard bid should still apply and IMO that is 4♥

lol I hope not This is a required convention for this auction in the Bedlam Bridge Club :)

clearly you are operating at 1000 milligrams of caffeine per cc of blood :)

...across the face and say "WAKE UP STUPID" [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sa63ha842daqca843&s=sqjth75dkj7532c65]133|200|Scoring: XIMP Silent opponents 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 2♦ 3NT[/hv] opening lead is a small ♠ and your RHO plays small This is one of them :) so plan the play and you get to start thinking after dummy plays cause all of dummy's ♠s are equal

Sorry but IMO this is BS. If you have GF values with ♣s & 4♥ even if the opps interfere you will be getting to your games if they are still in reach as any action you take will show your values.

Do the responders need to list all the conventions they assume are in place? Negative doubles are so common that I, incorrectly it appears, assumed they were being used. If they were in place then there is no correct (or incorrect for that matter) call because your partner has already hosed the auction. With no negative X and a forcing 3♣ call you are pretty much screwed into trying for 3NT and you might consider adding -X to your conventions.

Well you are looking at the South hand so I assume you mean the North hand. I only need to know if 3♣ is forcing if it is you ask for a ♠ stopper with 3♠ otherwise you pass.

If you use a microscope it is fine :o have you actually tried it ? I bought my 2 of my kids net-books and as a consequence yes I tried it with the Java version. You have to be near sighted :)

Yep if it was ace empty of hearts and KJT of clubs it would be a lot better. my "solution" As you can see I did not think it was worth a 4♠ call. Of course I could not imagine partner'shand

If you use a microscope it is fine :o

yeah it's tough after I get to 10 as I run out of hands and don't feel like taking my shoes off

Red vs White, IMPS Do any of you actually pass holding [hv=s=sahkjtxxd98xxcaxx]133|100|[/hv] after hearing the auction? 1♥-1♠; 2♦-3♠ EDIT: playing SAYC

for you to have a problem you would have 3 or less ♠, 2 or less ♥ and 3 or less ♣ .....hmmm that leaves 5 or more ♦ now why were you bidding ♣?

Presummably about the worst hand partner could have is something like [hv=s=sqxxxhkjxxdxxxcxx]133|100|[/hv] while the best is pretty short of an opening hand. So the average hand for partner doesn't look very promising for 3NT to make. An appropriate simul could change my mind however B)