Successful or not? by Bobby Wolff

A: Double: A thorny problem! Does a takeout double of two spades focus on the minors (because you'd bid hearts if you had them)? I think so, but I'd expect my partner to bid three clubs if he has both minors, at which point my correction to three diamonds must show hearts and diamonds -- since I would have bid three diamonds the round before with just that suit.

Your result so far:

A: 3♦: My answer here depends on vulnerability and partnership style. I would almost never open this hand two diamonds, but at favorable vulnerability (or with both sides non-vulnerable and a partnership agreement), I don't mind a three-diamond call. There are, after all, two opponents and only one partner. I'd be equally aggressive in third seat, but not second.

Your result so far:

A: 1♠: Hands on the borderline between pre-empts and one-level openers often pose my readers problems, but I would never pass a hand with such a good suit. Even in a two-suiter, commit to opening at whatever level you think is right. With hands like this 10-pointer, your clumped honors are worth more than the sum of the parts. Open one spade, except in second seat vulnerable, where two spades is acceptable.

Your result so far:

A: 2♠: This does not look like the sort of hand where you want to bid clubs at the three-level and have to ruff hearts in dummy with high trumps. Instead, settle for the relative security of spades. Bid two spades, which implicitly suggests a doubleton or a dead minimum hand with three spades. Otherwise, you would have supported spades already.

Your result so far:

A: 3♦: If this were non-forcing, you would pass; but how can it be? Your partner would have raised two clubs to three clubs if that were so (since he isn't looking to play four spades, apparently). If you have to bid now, showing your values in diamonds with a call of three diamonds is a fairly accurate description of your hand.

Your result so far: