[pclayton]

I think Ulf has a lot of great ideas, but I don't buy into this. There's a good chance pard has short spades and diamond support, which gives us a lot of potential for high level contracts.

[glen]

Note the blog has now been updated in reply to this forum:

Ulf Nilsson - Views from the bridge table

Ulf said:

... I first made this observation in 1998 playing an international high-level team event in Holland. I've been keeping track ever since then and I'm no stranger to top-level bridge and I'd say I also analyse more matches than most living people (PS-bridge/BB-records etc, owning most World Championship books since 1958). [... discusses theory ...] Theory is one thing, empiric observations over 10 years is another. ...

[the hog]

gnasher, on Jan 31 2008, 09:16 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Jan 31 2008, 02:26 PM, said:

I think that many overcalled 3♦ opposite a passed partner, forcing opps to bid (and make) 4♥. Anyway, I'd like to see more examples before I'm convinced

The full deal was:

Scoring: IMP

---

If you'd overcalled 3D and they bid to 4H, wouldn't you make a Lightner Double? It seems to me that on this layout overcalling makes it considerably more likely that you'll get a plus score.

One real crackpot idea is that this double would be a Lightner. The double as Mike suggested would simply be penalties. Secondly 4HX makes if after ruffing a C you don't underlead AK of Ds. Are you really going to find this at the table? Sure....!

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Feb 1 2008, 06:24 AM, said:

One real crackpot idea is that this double would be a Lightner. The double as Mike suggested would simply be penalties. Secondly 4HX makes if after ruffing a C you don't underlead AK of Ds. Are you really going to find this at the table? Sure....!

Hmm, "Fantasyland" and "crackpot" in one week. I must be doing something right.

What sort of hand is suitable both for a preemptive 3D overcall over 1S, and for a unilateral penalty double of 4H?

As for defeating 4H, yes, of course I would find it at the table. Partner would lead CA, C4, asking me to play a diamond back, and I would do so. Don't they play suit preference signals in Hogshire?

Declarer might try to confuse matters by playing C6 and CQ, leaving open the possibility that he had KQ765. If he had:
  - KQxxxx Qx KQ765
or
  x K10xxxx Q KQ765
a low diamond return would let 4S through. However, a priori it's more likely that the 4 is partner's lowest small club than his highest, so I would return a low diamond anyway.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2008-February-01, 04:23

[helene_t]

I wouldn't double 4♥ since I would expect it to make even if p reads my double as asking to lead my void and guesses that my void is clubs.

Not a crackpot idea (IMHO) to play Lightner doubles at the game level in some situations, but don't blame a random partner for misinterpreting.

[matmat]

brianshark, on Jan 31 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

Don't bid 2/1 overcall in a lower ranking suit if you have a side 4 card suit to an honour in the opening suit. Doesn't justify, just puts it out as a theory and asks people to make up their own minds. Then gives the above example hand as an example of a time where it worked out.

yeah... he says he has a proof of it written out somewhere on a napkin, but he can't find that napkin...

[the hog]

matmat, on Feb 2 2008, 03:45 AM, said:

brianshark, on Jan 31 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

Don't bid 2/1 overcall in a lower ranking suit if you have a side 4 card suit to an honour in the opening suit. Doesn't justify, just puts it out as a theory and asks people to make up their own minds. Then gives the above example hand as an example of a time where it worked out.

yeah... he says he has a proof of it written out somewhere on a napkin, but he can't find that napkin...

When you play as well as he does, then perhaps you can make fatuous comments. By the way, if you read some further posts you would have noticed that he does present a justification for the argument.