[Phil]

All IMPs - short matches

1. Q AQJ9xx AQTx xx

All vul

Pass - Pass - 1♠* - 2♥;
Pass - Pass - 2♠ - ?

*1♠ is <16.

2. KQx Qx K8x AJTxx

Opps vul

1N - dbl* - 2♣ - pass;
2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠** - pass;
Pass - 3♥ - dbl - pass;
?

* - DONT
** - weak invite with 5 spades

[aguahombre]

1. Delay unusual 2NT.
2. We have an agreement (meta, shmeta) When pard has opened 1NT, a double behind the opponent who has bid his same suit twice without support from his partner, or a double of any 3-level bid, is a strong desire to defend the contract doubled. We don't play transfers over a "Don't" double? If we do, then partner has 4 Hearts by definition to begin with.

In EBU, of course, they believe penalty doubles are highly unusual at any level, and we had better alert our audacity in trying to exact a penalty. You are in ACBL for now, so it's cool.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-March-31, 10:21

[kayin801]

1. I want to stand up, switch seats with my partner, and then wait for it to get passed to me so I can reopen with a X so partner can pass.

I think partner has a spade stack and LHO has a heart stack, but we suffer in the position. I expect X to be passed out, but if partner bids 3♣ I'll pull to 3♦. I'm still not convinced I want to X though so can someone convince me one way or the other?

2. Auto pass, I have Qx in their suit, good defensive values in the other suits, and partner made a penalty X, AND they're red?

[quiddity]

1. X based on the bullets and the SQ. I'm not sure what to do if partner responds 3♣ - this should almost always show 5+ cards so I suppose I would pass.

2. Pass. I hope partner is 5431.

[nigel_k]

1. X. If partner passes he will not be surprised or disappointed by my hand.
2. I think this is obvious if we know what the double is. If I don't know I bid 3♠ but I play all of these kind of doubles for takeout and would have told partner that in any minimal system discussion.

[quiddity]

nigel_k, on 2011-March-31, 13:06, said:

2. I think this is obvious if we know what the double is. If I don't know I bid 3♠ but I play all of these kind of doubles for takeout and would have told partner that in any minimal system discussion.

Point taken, but I don't understand a takeout double here combined with the "weak 5-spade invite". What would this show, a 51(34) 8-count? Why would you want to make a takeout double of 3♥ with that?

[Echognome]

1. I would bid 3♦ showing a 6-4 in my book (5-5 or better and willing to bid to the 3-level would have started with 2 spades).
2. I would bid 3♠. I can understand passing 2♠, but I have suppressed KQx in support and my defense is not that great. I interpret partner's double as a DSIP double.

[Phil]

Echognome, on 2011-April-01, 01:07, said:

1. I would bid 3♦ showing a 6-4 in my book (5-5 or better and willing to bid to the 3-level would have started with 2 spades).
2. I would bid 3♠. I can understand passing 2♠, but I have suppressed KQx in support and my defense is not that great. I interpret partner's double as a DSIP double.

This matched my actions.

On #1, LHO held ♦KJxx so I walked into 500. Partner didn't correct with ♥T8x, but 3♥ really isn't any better.

On #2, the table talk said 'pass is right', but partner made a lightning quick double. It was the last board of a 6 board match and we were already up by about 30 by my estimation. The combination of the UI and the SOTM made me pull. 3♥ is 800 but partner doesn't have to have ♥J9xx.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2011-March-31, 10:15, said:

In EBU, of course, they believe penalty doubles are highly unusual at any level, and we had better alert our audacity in trying to exact a penalty. You are in ACBL for now, so it's cool.

In England we do, however, understand the proper use of the definite article. Your national bridge organisation may illterately call itself "ACBL", but ours is "the EBU".

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2011-April-01, 17:27, said:

On #1, LHO held ♦KJxx so I walked into 500. Partner didn't correct with ♥T8x, but 3♥ really isn't any better.

Except that it might not have been doubled.

What were the shapes around the table? Something like 2245-4342-6214 ? If so it will be very hard for them to double 3♥.

[cherdano]

Echognome, on 2011-April-01, 01:07, said:

1. I would bid 3♦ showing a 6-4 in my book (5-5 or better and willing to bid to the 3-level would have started with 2 spades).

Phil, on 2011-April-01, 17:27, said:

This matched my actions.

On #1, LHO held ♦KJxx so I walked into 500. Partner didn't correct with ♥T8x, but 3♥ really isn't any better.

I would never bid 3♦ here unless I have specifically discussed that such an auction denies 5-5 and tends to show 6-4.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2011-April-02, 02:48, said:

In England we do, however, understand the proper use of the definite article. Your national bridge organisation may illterately call itself "ACBL", but ours is "the EBU".

Just noticed this bit. The organization is certainly "the" EBU, or "the" ACBL. I was referring, however, to the players governed by and playing in boundaries of the organization(s) --hence "in EBU" and "in ACBL". I could have said "in England", but did not know if the EBU encompassed more territory.

Sometimes members of the ACBL play in EBU; Sometimes members of the EBU play in ACBL. Sorry if that is illiterate, rather than literary license, to you.

It did remind me, though, of the final line in a movie I enjoyed: "Do you refer to God as 'the God'?" It was in referrence to why the Agency was called CIA, not the CIA.

[hatchett]

cherdano, on 2011-April-02, 03:57, said:

I would never bid 3♦ here unless I have specifically discussed that such an auction denies 5-5 and tends to show 6-4.

5-5 hands will Michaels so logically this should show 6-4

[Echognome]

Whether this bidding sequence should logically show 6-4 depends entirely on your Michael's agreements. Some play a split range Michael's (Weak or Strong) with the intermediate hands overcalling. This is not a style I play in any of my partnerships. Therefore, if I overcall and then bid again, I will tend to show 6-4 (or perhaps a 6-5 with a bad minor). However, that is my style, so completely understand Arend's comment.

[Phil]

gnasher, on 2011-April-02, 03:01, said:

Except that it might not have been doubled.

What were the shapes around the table? Something like 2245-4342-6214 ? If so it will be very hard for them to double 3♥.

From me clockwise:

1=6=4=2
3=1=4=5
4=3=4=2
5=3=1=4

I'm pretty sure this LHO would double 3♥, although I can't be certain.

Partner did mention after the hand he thought I was 5-5.

[gnasher]

So the hand on the left had something like xxx x KJxx xxxxx but chose to pass 2♥ rather than support spades, and the hand on the right reopened by rebidding a five-card suit, despite holding Kxx in the suit bid on his left?

I suppose it would be consistent for LHO to double 3♥ on a small singleton, despite holding undisclosed three-card support for the suit his partner rebid twice. But not in a good way.

[Phil]

gnasher, on 2011-April-06, 15:24, said:

So the hand on the left had something like xxx x KJxx xxxxx but chose to pass 2♥ rather than support spades, and the hand on the right reopened by rebidding a five-card suit, despite holding Kxx in the suit bid on his left?

I suppose it would be consistent for LHO to double 3♥ on a small singleton, despite holding undisclosed three-card support for the suit his partner rebid twice. But not in a good way.

They play canape (Blue Club).

I realize this is only a partial explanation for their bidding.