I think I'm fairly much in agreement with you.
I have a fairly simple rule - if DBL can possibly be take-out, it is (of the most likely, else the most important, possibility).
Here, the only consideration is of what suit? As we don't have relative frequency ...
Hi Michael R.
Agreed, but as Richard observes (and I commented in the team discussion) if you're playing to go down but minimise the loss, ducking the ♦K seems the right start.
As a matter of interest, after that start, do you think you would have found the two ...
Hi Michael R and others.
Thanks for replying!
For the record, when given the problem, I said I would take the hook fairly quickly. This was not the result of some deep analysis, but rather, a philosophy which leads to a fairly blunt heuristic - play to make unless that is ...
I agree with most of your premises - perhaps your influence (conscious or sub-conscious)?
Geoffo and I played 1♥ 2♠ and 1♠ 2NT as FG raises and 1♥ 2NT and 1♠ 3♣ as BAL, FG for years. Our current 1M 2♣ response ...
I'm not sure that allowing for 4m333's is that descriptive though. Don't get me wrong, though - see my earlier post, my own method doesn't work well on this hand.
Allowing a free and easy 2♥ response is one thing - it can't get ...
I understand both Richard's instinctive reaction and your rationale. We have a similar underlying principle opposite our 1♥ 0-10 hcp Fert and an artificial and strong 1♠ response ... we play opener's 2♣ rebid as 0-4 hcp any, unsuitable for a 3♥+ pre-empt ...
Perhaps not a great hand for our methods - lucky the big ones don't come up very often!
P 2♥[=various things, including a WK2♠ and a STR2♥]
What would you do here as responder?
Hard to be honest knowing ...
Not saying you're wrong (I've not seen this suggested before, so haven't properly considered it). But why might you be right?
As someone who uses a top'n'bottom variant, combined with ELCD's to the higher two suits, I'm keen to understand any ...
At risk of answering for someone clearly more expert than me, "... of course ...".
However, by rough analogy, after (1NT) P (3NT) DBL, is your agreement that partner leads (i) spades, or (ii) their shorter major, or (iii) their shortest suit, or (iv) something else?
Considering (i) through (iii ...