OleBerg

Easy 3♠. My Q10 of spades strongly suggest that partner hasn't gotten wise on a 5-card suit. They also suggest that the opponents lack the intermidiates to double us for penalty. (It might be profitable, but it will be difficult for them to diagnose it.) People bidding 4♠ deserves a fate worse than death. Those bidding 3♠ and then 4♠ deserves an even worse fate.

In third seat, non-agregate: 3♣. Very sexy, but to risky in other positions. (Sounds saucy. :P )

"The lower the level of the doubled partial, the faster you lead a thrumph."

In my opinion this hand illustrates the very limited usefullness of the double as "responsive", in the sense that it shows "3-2-4-4" and some values. Facing this hand, a normal double will have to poisoned choises: Bidding to the four level, likely going down, or defending a doubled partial at the edge of the seats. When the take-out-doublers partner has a hand that is worth taking to the four-level, it will be because he has a suit that is worth bidding. I find it much more usefull to use the double to show exactly four in the unbid major. That way, the initial take-out double can be made freely with only three spades. Whenever the take-out doubler has to decide whether to raise to the four level, the fact that he knows whether partner is 4 or 5 spades is quite usefull. (A well fitting 5-4 game will often make on limited values, and intermidiates in thrumph, as well as trick-sources, becomes much less important. And if he has only three, it is obviously valuable to know whether it is a 4-3 or 5-3 fit.)

There is one difference though: Paying for alcohol isn't harmful, it goes to pay poor workers in Russian wodka factories or former-actors-turned-vineyards who need all the help to be able to afford living in Santa Barbara. Paying for illegal drugs helps financing gang violence, corruption and similar things that aren't quite as helpful for society. Well, if it was legal, that problem would go away.

I tried it but I didn't inhale. :) Neither did Monica Lewinsky.

2♣ seems obvious. The only other remotely edible alternative is 5♣ (what I would bid if opponents forces me on the next round), but the case for bidding it is much to weak.

With no agreement I pass. With my regular partner X shows four spades, so I bid 3♠. The ♥Q is to dubious a value.

3♥ = Fine 4♥ = No, 4♣ is natural and forcing. Raise to five. 5♥ = Obviously a misunderstanding. 4♣ on two hearts would be a splinter in my book, so this is the way to go with a forcing club hand. (I feel certain, that when I see the full hand, it will show that transfer overcalls would have solved it nicely.)

1) 2♦, 3♦ if I feel I need a swing. 1) 1♥ 3) 4♣ (Clubs and spades.) (Edit: yes, I play that.) You didn't expect any passes, did you? :lol:

When I saw the headline, I was certain I would balance, I am a compulsive overbidder. But not this one. It's IMP's, and partner will take you overboard way to many times. (He has to, or you will miss to many games.) At MP's, where partner will have to be less inclined to move on, I'll be there with a double, holding my breath.

@OP I would definately reverse the way the weak two in hearts are handled, thus: 2♦ = ...something special (opening values, constructive)... 2♥ = Weak two in hearts 2♠ = Weak two in spades The extsra step is much more useful when you have a heart-opener, and maybe you could even include those strong 4-4-4-1 hands. The preemptive value of the 2♥ bid is much stronger than 2♦ showing hearts, as 2♦ allows the opponents to make a non-committing double. (Assuming your opponents are relatively competent. If they might get confused by a 2♦ opening showing hearts, that's another matter.)

... I am mad ... Agree. ;)

I ditch a club. If partner has another spade, the game will be over before the ♣Q gains any significance. If partner doesn't have another spade, declarer is highly likely to have, at most, two clubs. As I could appearently solve it, you're probably right, it is not really a problem.

Agree with the reasoning, but chose a spade. All suits can be right or wrong.

4♦. Partner had a reason to bid 3♦. If it was to get to the best game, it must be 5♦. If it was to invite slam, I'm game.

3♣, wtp?

Tyvm.

Seems I have been left hanging high and dry with my 5♣ bid. Not that unexpected. :P Still, what I feel is the worst bid at all is 3♣. The hand has way to much potential for a meager 3-level preempt. Either you go scientifically (Pass, 1♣), or you go all the way with a preempt; 5♣ for me, spurred by the vulnerabilety, 4♣ for the more sane. Still, I'd hate the position I would be in, if I open 4♣, and has 4M passed around. The restrictions that RHO's, silly (make these decisions in advance), huddle has placed upon LHO, might convince me to bid only 4♣, if I choose to preempt. I would not consider 4♣ to be a "daring" bid. I do not know what "B-flight" means, strenght-wise, but the less competent I expect my opponents to be, the more inclined I would be to open 1♣. I will not pass; when the auction becomes competitive, my dear partner has the right to know that my clubs are significantly better than my diamonds. To open any diamond bid, my opponents would have to look like walking heart-attacks, and I would have had to have one.

Like the Genesis song: "I can't dance, I can't talk" Seems that I can't count either :unsure: Maybe I should exit in hearts instead.

The benefit of the fit-jump is that it may well create a fp scenario.. whereby we could pass while not fearing that the next thing we hear woould be 'your lead'. In this auction, I very much doubt that 2♦... good raise to 2♥... comes close to establishing a fp, even after partner's 4♥ call. Maybe it does, maybe it should, but are we certain that both of us think it does. While I would use 4♣ as a splinter and 3♣ as fit, in this auction, I concede that 4♣ fit would be better, since it shows a gf hand...and it would have either silenced rho or generated a double... now rho's diamond bid would be known BY ALL to have been a psyche and we would be in a fp situation for sure. Actually it makes a lot of sense that a fitbid should not establish a force. It should simply say "I have thrumph support and this suit, if it fits your hand, compete if the opponents bid." Whether partners bid will be to win, or as a good sacrifice, is not immediately known. On the actual hand, I would feel quite comfortable to make a "penalty" double of 5♦, if I had already shown that my values were concentrated in hearts and clubs. Thus a 4♣ bid could be the hand in question, but also something like: ♠ xx ♥ Jxxxx ♦ x ♣ KQJxx This hand would of course simply pass 5♦.

Trick 2: Spade to the ace Trick 3: Ruff spade. Trick 4: Heart to the ace. Trick 5: Ruff spade. Trick 6: ♣Q Trick 7: Exit in clubs. I'll make whenever the ♥10 is onside with a higher heart. Further more, there are many ways in which the defense can be forced to give me my eighth trick.

Why? Because we have a bunch of hcps and they're at the 5 level. Unless LHO's 3NT was for the minors or stuff, I think they're going down. I doun't like when someone states HCP as a reason (especially in A&E section) Same with dogmatical reasosn about 5th level There are no rules in this game.. only guidlines Anyway, for the fact to be true you need also 4♥ to be down. Don't be so harsh. There's a lot of advanced players who thinks that way.

5♥, far from certain to be right, but so is everything else. Would never have bid 2♦ on the previous round. If 4♣ is available as FJ thats it, if not 4♦.

Voted 5♣. 1 or 4 is the alternative, but I dont like 4. When I have a good 6-card suit, and a shaky 5-card suit, I take preference myself.