jodepp

Double, correcting hearts to 3NT (whether we get there via lebensohl or not). Anything else is wrong.

I know 3♣ is in the modern style, but I just can't bring myself to endorse it. So much is wrong with this hand; 1) The suit has a big gaping hole in it; 2) You have the worst shape possible - 3♣ would look more palatable if you had, say, 1=3=3=6 or 1=2=4=6; 3) You have way too much defense to preempt - the side ace is a defect (for preemptive purposes, not for hand value). I know it's fun to bid on cheese. I know it's fun to push the opponents around. 3♣ on this collection still isn't for me. When it doesn't work, I don't like meeting partner's glare afterwards. I also hate saying 'sorry, partner - it's my fault'. I'm sorry that you passed originally and the opponents bid and made a slam, but that's why bridge is such a fickle mistress - sometimes you do the right thing and still lose.

If white vs red, an immediate 5♥ has lots of appeal. At any other vulnerability I think 4♥ seems right and that it's just a guess as whether to 'dive' or not when 4♠ rolls back. I think I'd Pass but would hardly describe 5♥ as 'wrong'. Maybe, if I thought North played the cards really well, I might lean towards 5♥.

I don't get it. 'insane?' West made a negative double at the two-level, promising 'stuff' (not showing the world's fair, true, but it's plainly obvious West isn't broke). East has A/A-K and six strong clubs and appealing shape. East is also reasonably certain of a decent fit. If double says 'I'd like to bid', I think that's 'ballpark'. West has information though that East doesn't have access to: 1) West knows East has a stiff heart. 2) WEST HAS NO TRUMP TRICK. 3) East is likely 3=1=4=5 or 3=1=3=6 (maybe even 2=1=4=6). 4) LTT says defending 3♥ is wrong. Let's be fair - East has a pretty decent minimum that rates to have a 9+-card fit, not to mention pretty good defense. If West has a trump trick or two, at matchpoints East wouldn't mind a penalty conversion of 3♥X because East has what he's promising - shape and two-way values. I confess I'm shocked to see East being so universally thrown under a bus when West showed bad judgment.

I think we're being a little tough on East here. I know that LTT is more of a guideline than a 'rule', but West's Pass of 3♥X seems ill-advised given that there are 18 trumps. The hand is 'pure' and there are no adjustment factors downward, so the decision to 'sit' seems wrong in theory as well as practice. West should expect something like East's holding when East doubles (less than four spades, stiff heart with strong clubs). With no trump tricks West seems to 'hoping' rather than 'playing bridge'. I concede that I might bid 4♣ instead of the competitive double with the East cards, but the hand has good defense in context so that if West shows up with an unexpected trump trick or two, East understandably wants to give West an opportunity to whack 3♥. West IMO bears the burden of guilt on this hand.

It's ridiculous to blame the methods :) The methods were what they were. You've got to use the tools at hand, not pontificate on what should or shouldn't be on anyone's CC. East made a slam try with 3♠ and West said 'no'. So you can't blame East for abiding West's decision. East might have tried one more time with four diamonds, true (or bidding the side fragment) but at matchpoints sometimes it's difficult to move from 3NT. IMO West has a hand chock-full of controls opposite a distributional slam try and must do something - ANYTHING - other than 3NT to say 'slam is possible'. Thus West gets the lion's share of blame.

If I passed originally (I guess I'd bid 2♥ directly and not like it much) I'd think the auction was impossible. Partner has a spade void and didn't bid. Partner rates to have 4+ hearts (no unusual call) so I confess that I'd balance with 4♥. Partner is marked with some bits and pieces and I'm betting that they are useful.

Since the replies run the gamut of '4♠ is obvious' to 'Pass is clear', it appears as if the thread author is under some ethical pressure here. I applaud the thread author for not taking an action that may have been suggested by the hesitation (particularly the quick 'reach and stop' into the bid box). I also think the 4♥ opener wasn't being particularly sportsmanlike when 4♥ hit the table without the stop card first. Under normal conditions (meaning 'no side ethical issues') I think I'd bid 4♠, but in all honesty I can't say for sure.

I might pass if 'hot vs not', but I think Passing isn't bridge. This is a bid.

I might pass if 'hot vs not', but I think Passing isn't bridge. This is a bid.

Is opener likely to open '3rd seat trash'? Is responder the type to raise a third-seat weak-2 liberally? If either applies, I might just convert the double for penalty. (Law be damned.) I don't expect much agreement from the masses on this one, but what the he&^#%, it's only matchpoints :)

At IMPs this is a clear 3♥ bid. At matchpoints it's a little bit closer but I think it's masterminding to Pass; there's no reason partner can't have: xx xxx KQxxxxx x Thus I would bid 3♥ at matchpoints as well. When I see partner's 4♦ I bid game in diamonds. I concede that 5♦ feels very 'iffy' but there's just too many hands that partner can have that give 5♦ a good play.

I only like to super-accept (SA) when I think the transfer bid has improved my hand. I even SA on some three-card holdings that has 5-3-3-2 shape. Like a previous respondent, sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't. But I've experienced enough good results to 'continue the experiment'. Having four-card support IMO doesn't mandate a SA by opener, although some players do; that's fine, just not my cup of tea. After a transfer, a new suit by responder is something I've always played as natural and slammish. I can understand why someone might want to play that as a cuebid but I think it's more productive to show a trick source.

I absolutely accept a 3♥ SSGT as responder and don't think it's close. I also wouldn't even bother asking as opener - I'd just bid game. Any hand with a doubleton club and spade support offers a play for game, no?

I would also pass 2♥ and not think twice about it. I also think the opening bid is insane - too much defense, inadequate suit. I'd open 1♥ but would understand a Pass while not agreeing with it. This is the price one pays for random-ish preempts. Sometimes they punish your opponents, and sometimes they punish partner.

So much of this type of problem is speculation/guesswork, but here's my 'gut' feeling: I'm reluctant to lead into declarer's spade suit; Maybe a top heart through dummy might work; Either minor could be very right or very wrong. So, I think at the table I'd try a heart (the 9). Double dummy, I'd guess the ♦10 has the best chance to be the 'killer'.

I guess what this hand boils down to is 'define what 5♠, 5N, 6♠ etc. means with your favorite partner'. If you're on shaky ground partnership-wise, anything could work. 5♥ caters to partner having a string of decent clubs and out. 5♠ caters to partner actually looking at the ♥A with a spade or two. 6♠ might buy 7♠from a partner looking at the ♥A and the ♣K. Even 4♠ could work out if partner can take a voluntary call (certainly not out of the question). I confess I'm on uncertain ground here even in my most frequent partnership, so I'll just bid what I think I can make - 6♠. Science be damned :)

I agree with the 'nay' respondents, especially at IMPs. Most have stated there's too much risk in 2♠ and not enough upside, especially partnering a North capable of competing to 3♠ on that tripe. North can see you didn't overcall 2S directly, so that 3♠ call is simply asking to lose IMPs. At matchpoints, one probably takes the 'what the he%$# it's only matchpoints' approach and plunks 2♠ on the table, but only with the caveat of North being trustworthy enough not to get carried away.

You can if you run clubs through him :)

If Leaping Michaels was not an option, I'd start with 3C - already a 'power' call - intending to bid spades later. I confess this seems like a bit of an underbid; after all, I do have a super 4-loser hand. But sometimes one has to be practical; a club jump probably loses the spade suit and Double might cause partner to bury me with heart bids. I wouldn't say 2S was 'wrong'. I just like 3C more.

I don't think this is much of a problem. Pass has to be best long-term; there is no safe way to show minors (I really like the comment about 'pure hand' in a previous post). I would aver that if one cannot resist bidding on a hand like this, one might be letting the opponents push one around.

I have enjoyed reading all the erudite explanations of 'line A versus line B'. Doesn't this hand simply boil down to 'extra chances'? If you rise with the ♥A, you succeed or fail on the spade finesse; if you finesse the ♥Q, you succeed when it holds (when you get two club pitches as a reward) or when you can drop the stiff ♠K (or, if you wish, you could try to reach dummy with a third round club ruff to finesse in trumps). Surely finessing on the opening lead is superior.

Can the advancer's double really mean 'max pass'? I can't visualize a hand where the advancer would want to do that when - say - a hypothetical 2♠ would send the same message. Partner obviously does not have five spades so the opps have eight. Under ordinary circumstances - like when the second double is competitive - I'd bid 2♥ and be done with it, but maybe the aggressor will pass and partner has seven tricks on tap. Granted, this may not be 'good bridge'...but sometimes good matchpoints is bad bridge.

Given the problem parameters - casual methods - once opener jump-rebids 3♥ responder can cuebid and then drive to 6♥ once opener cooperates. The ♥Q is a big card after opener's start. I don't see any sensible way to get to 6♠ which is a slightly better slam.

If Bart is not on the CC, 3♠ stands out. I don't think a red-blooded bridge player could bid just 2♠ on these cards. If memory serves, didn't the Italians of the Blue Team era rebid 2NT on hands like this?