jdeegan

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=s105hq6dkqxxxcj10xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP ....-....- Pass - Pass 1♠ - 2♠ - 3♠ - ???[/hv] Did I misunderstand the problem or something?? It looked to me like the bidding went two passes followed by 1♠, 2♠, 3♠ and it's now my turn to bid. If so, it would seem to me that PASS is a valid bid to consider, but it wasn't listed as one of the options. Are you guys joking, or do you really think putting our heads on the chopping block in order to save against the opponents probable 3♠ part score makes sense. If pard is 2-5-1-5 (by far the single most likely distribution) we figure to go down in 4♣ versus their spade part score that may not make. Please, tell me I misunderstood the question or that you are jesting.

:P 3♦. I seem to be the odd man out on this one. Everybody else passes waiting for partner's reopening double. For some reason this doesn't feel right to me. The opponents almost surely have a playable spot at 2♣ or 2♥. I feel like I am in the catbird seat because I know that 3♦ should be a fairly good spot almost regardless of partner's hand. So, my thought is to bid it and let the opponents make the last guess. Everybody will be shooting blind except for partner who will be able to respond intelligently.

:D Double on hand one - I have four defensive tricks - pard may have no tricks, but I have to chance that. I can't fault a pass, though. It's close enough in my eyes that it would depend on the opponents and the state of the match. :P Pass on hand two - it may not be our hand in which case I like 2♥ way too much to double - also, pard may show cards with a double in the pass out chair, and I can convert to penalty.

:P The majority votes for 3♥ over 3♦. My problem with this is that pard is marked with 6 or 7 diamonds, one or two spades, and there are seven clubs to be divided between two hands (assuming doubler has four clubs). The point is that there is not much room for hearts in pard's hand. 2-1-6-4 or 2-1-7-3 patterns will play a trick better in diamonds most of the time.

:rolleyes: El Paso. I am 4-3 in the unbid suits.

If you wait for 3 spades, you will have to wait for a long time, at least if you take the given specific auction into account. This assumes, that your opponents know, that they should not raise to 3S with only two card support, this leaves the case, that the weak two bid was made on a 5 card suit. With kind regards Marlowe ;) True, but I don't give up much either. In my games, you gotta keep 'em in line or they will start trying to steal ..

:) IMO partner's double should show cards and at least three spades. You can't find a 4-4 ♥ fit on this auction, and as mentioned above, why would you want to do so when a 4-1 trump division is probably close to 50%. How can you say that a pass is forcing? Partner;s hand may well contain the only 16 HCP your side holds.

:) IMO either 1♦ or 3♦ would be OK. After the 1♦ opener at your table, 2♥ is forcing one round. You now bid 3♦ which pard raises to 4♦. Since opponents can make 5♣, your auction is likely to garner a good result even if you bid 5♦.

:) IMO 3♥ is aggressive, but not wrong. It surely works on this hand. North has an easy 4♣ bid, and south has plenty to raise to game, esp. after east bids 4♥. The idea that north might double the 3♥ call is just weird.

:) Hands like this is the reason Mike Lawrence still plays strong jump shifts in his version of 2/1. Life is easy after a 1♦ - pass - 2♠ beginning. Requirements are a good suit, good support for partner's suit, and a hand that flops six opposite the right minimum.

:) 5♣ is sensible. 4♦ is brilliant, assuming partner will react in a predicatable way. 3♦ fishing for 3NT just doesn't feel right to me. The other possible bid would be a simple pass. Let's see if the opponents' bidding will help us.

:) One spade. Never double (execpt with a mountain) w/o support for both majors, and its not my style to pass.

:) 5♦ and over 5♥ I plan to bid 6♣. If partner stops at six when seven makes, so be it. If six hearts goes down, I'm sorry, but how can I stop any lower with that hand.

:) Double for me, not even a reluctant double as I intend to treat the hand as a good minimum later on despite its THREE AND ONE-HALF quick tricks. BTW, getting tapped out on a 4-3 isn't much of a problem at the two level if you remember to discard on the third round to avoid the tap. Personally, I enjoy playing the 4-3 fits, esp. at lower levels. With honors in each suit, we might, with luck, have a suit good enough to pull trumps. On the actual hand, we can't see the opponents' cards, but you have five potential tricks if the round suits divide 3-2. Four spades figures to go down one or two. My question is: why in the world did partner pull your double? If the best defense he/she can give for his bidding is that your TO double was offshape, I would say his analysis is as bad as his bidding. P.S. If the opponents have two singletons in the round suits, I will be -590, but this has happened before, and it will happen again.

:) Have to add another vote for non-forcing, but I can see playing it the other way where 3♦ sets an unconditional GF. This is just another version of the old 2/1 conundrum where the players look for 3NT, then bail to four of a minor. IMO he non-forcing bail out is preferable simply because it comes up a lot (I think) more often than needing a forcing 4♣ bid to properly decide whether to bid 5 or 6♣.

:D I can see only two things to worry about on this hand - whether to continue hearts to tap declarer (seems best since partner can overruff dummy in diamonds if need be) and (as FrancesHinden points out) whether to rise promptly with the club queen on the first lead of the suit. I needn't be entirely in tempo on the club play since I am faking splitting honors, but I should be trying to decide what to do as early as possible. Declarer is 5-1-4-3 or 5-1-5-2 or 6-1-4-2 (most likely). That leaves pard with 4-5-2-2 or 4-5-1-3 or 3-5-2-3. Next, I have to decide if playing the club queen is something I will do only if I see a reason for it or something I will do unless I can see a reason NOT to do it. At this point, I'm still in the dark pending locating the position of a few more high cards. To what extent can you say partner's suggestion of holding the club king is for real? What exactly were the spots? Might he be kidding?

:D Maybe so, but in the world of five card major suit openings, partner will have only three clubs often enough that I don't feel comfortable raising to three clubs initially (esp. if vul). The choice between bidding 1♠ vs. 2♣ doesn't seem very interesting.

:D 'Leaping Michaels' what a name! I've GOT to play it. How does it go? On the hand in question, in the days before before LEAPING MICHAELS (sad, dreary and unfulfilled though they were) the miserable wretches made do with a takeout double and followed up partner's club bid with a diamond call.

:D Pass. wtp? Am I going to miss a game with my flat nine count opposite a partner who didn't reopen with a double? Do I want to jam this auction when we haven't found a fit? Will I compete later if LHO finds another bid? Probably so with 2♠.

:D Since you asked, IMO South should have bid 2♦ on his first turn. His hand produces a good play for game opposite a lot of minimum TO doubles, e.g. K10xx AQxx Kxx xx Looked at another way, the hand is worth 10 or 11 dummy points in support of a nine card major suit fit. Curiously, FTL evaluation does not work particularly well on this hand. FTL = 13-3-1 = 9, assuming partner has a minimum with something like 3-4-4-2 or 4-3-3-3 distribution. LOTT suggests 20 or 21 total tricks, so 5♣ (or maybe 5♦) figures to be a make given this analysis. This much is true. The actual hand has 22 tricks (given the spade ruff). After hearing 2♦, even our underbidding North will likely persist to 5♥.

:) 4♣ A splinter bid with a potentially powerful hand. It works here by exposing the duplication in the club suit, and we can stop at 5♦.

:) 3♠ Not quite good enough for four. Queen of ♣ may not be pulling any weight. Besides, a typical minimum reponse of KQxxx of spades and a random queen or jack has no play for four. Enough said.

:) For me, only the cue bid, 3♦, would be forcing, but then I am most certainly not 'modern' and offer a view of little value to your quest.

:) I wanna lay down the predicate for an investigative auction. Six or seven clubs looks possible given the bidding so far. As far as the actual hand goes, we don't have it to judge. If pard has his bids (given my style of 3♦ cue bid being a general game force), then 4♠ should be an OK contract. If we miss six, so be it. Some may play that the 3♦ cue bid confirms spades as trumps. So, I would never have bid 3♦ playing with that understanding.

:) Over a 4♠ preempt, I like to play old fashioned style. Double shows cards, probably enough to beat the contract. 4NT is for take out, putatively in three suits. Logically, as a passed hand, one might alter these meanings. But, how? At the table I would assume 4NT to be for take out and double to be for penalties - maybe two trump tricks and an ace on the side.