A Simple Question?

[mike777]

MP Both NV

VOID=AKQ9=AQ9876=KT9

(3C)=?

 

EDITED.

[gwnn]

Hmm. Are you sure you put the suits in the right order? :P

[bid_em_up]

If the hands are correct, I pass and pray my partner can find a reopening double.

[Guest Jlall]

double, 5D over 4S.

[awm]

I really dislike doubling without spades in situations like this. In fact I prefer to play "double then correct" as a flexible hand rather than a hand "too strong for an overcall." I'm sure that if I double partner will bid 4♠; the question is whether my bidding diamonds over that implies the hand I actually have (rather than being a cuebid for spades or showing some strong 3361), and whether we have a reasonable contract at the five-level. I'd rather avoid the whole issue with my first call.

 

With this hand I'd try 4♦, regardless of whether that's a strong one-suiter or a strong two-suiter with diamonds and a major.

[temp3600]

3♦, mainly because the diamond suit is not that great, and it keeps the bidding low.

[whereagles]

3♦ for me. I don't like dbl on this kind of hand.

[HeartA]

double, 5D over 4S.

and 3NT over 3S.

[pclayton]

I really dislike doubling without spades in situations like this. In fact I prefer to play "double then correct" as a flexible hand rather than a hand "too strong for an overcall." I'm sure that if I double partner will bid 4♠; the question is whether my bidding diamonds over that implies the hand I actually have (rather than being a cuebid for spades or showing some strong 3361), and whether we have a reasonable contract at the five-level. I'd rather avoid the whole issue with my first call.

 

With this hand I'd try 4♦, regardless of whether that's a strong one-suiter or a strong two-suiter with diamonds and a major.

Ditto. Can't stand doubling with a void in the higher ranking suit.

[inquiry]

4♦ - i use to require 5-5 or 5-6 for this bid (diamonds and unbid major). Mishovnbg pushed me to include 4-6 type hands as well. I will bid 5♦ over 4♠.

[the hog]

I bid 4D because that is 5D and a 5 card Major. This hand is so good that I am going to treat is as a 5/5. I can't believe some of the comments I am reading here like pass. - World's greatest optimist, deserving all pass!

[inquiry]

I bid 4D because that is 5D and a 5 card Major. This hand is so good that I am going to treat is as a 5/5. I can't believe some of the comments I am reading here like pass. - World's greatest optimist, deserving all pass!

The hand was originally posted with the diamond and club suits reversed. That explains the early passers

[gwnn]

Ah. Like this I dbl. Hearts are nice. B)

[mike777]

Come on guys and gals..this is newer player section....ok!

 

You got to agree on something! B)

[gwnn]

This is why preempting as often and random is so nice B)

 

The point is whether or not X can include GOSH's (good one suited hands) -if it can then doubling seems a bit incorrect and whether or not 4♦ is Leaping Michaels or just a hand too strong to bid 3♦ (in former case, this hand is ideal, in latter it is a little bit misdescriptive). This is why it's good to have as many situations as possible like this discussed.

[the hog]

I bid 4D because that is 5D and a 5 card Major. This hand is so good that I am going to treat is as a 5/5. I can't believe some of the comments I am reading here like pass. - World's greatest optimist, deserving all pass!

The hand was originally posted with the diamond and club suits reversed. That explains the early passers

Thanks Ben, that does make a huge difference.

[mike777]

But this assumes fixed and in depth partnerships....no one has convinced me that 99+ partnerships are not this.......in over decades

[helene_t]

As Ben and Ron, I use whatever (non)-leaping Michaels I play (4♣ in my IRL partnership). If that's not available I bid 3NT.

[mike777]

As Ben and Ron, I use whatever (non)-leaping Michaels I play (4♣ in my IRL partnership). If that's not available I bid 3NT.

What ever this means I bet this is a winner .....just not sure what the heck it means in the middle of the battle heat.

 

I assume we are not expert players.

[cherdano]

I really dislike doubling without spades in situations like this. In fact I prefer to play "double then correct" as a flexible hand rather than a hand "too strong for an overcall." I'm sure that if I double partner will bid 4♠; the question is whether my bidding diamonds over that implies the hand I actually have (rather than being a cuebid for spades or showing some strong 3361), and whether we have a reasonable contract at the five-level. I'd rather avoid the whole issue with my first call.

 

With this hand I'd try 4♦, regardless of whether that's a strong one-suiter or a strong two-suiter with diamonds and a major.

1) I agree 100% that doubling is never a one-suited hand too strong to overcall. That hand can bid 4♦ or 5♦.

2) If you bid 5♦ over 4♠, that is IMO clearly a suggestion to play. If you want to make a slam try for spades, you can always bid 5♣. Finding a strain is too important to make ALL bids a slam try for spades here.

3) So the question is how much tolerance 5♦ promises for spades. With 3 spades, you have to accept spades as trumps, 4♠ will pretty much always have 5+ cards, so I don't think 3361 is possible. I as partner would expect some tolerance though, a small doubleton or singleton honor.

 

So I do think doubling-then-5♦ is a misdecription of the hand. But what is better? What do you do after 3♦-3♠? I have the feeling I will never get to describe my shape nor my strength after 3♦. So I will go with double.

[SoTired]

No Dbl: Not without spades

 

Over a 1-level bid, a jump is preemptive and a q-bid is Michaels, so with a strong hand you must start with a double.

 

Over a preempt, the jump bid is no longer preemptive (remember: Don't preempt over a preempt). Some play the jump as a 2-suiter, but since this is the BI section, you probably don't play that convention.

 

So the good (BI) bid is 4D, showing a hand too strong for 3D.

 

If partner bids 5D, raise to 6D. If partner bids 4H, raise to 6H. If partner bids 4S, try 5D.

 

As a side note, preemptive bidding is difficult, even for experts. An old rule still applies: If you have to lie about either strength or distribution, lie about distribution, never strength. The corrallary to that is: If you can show either proper strength or distribution, show the strength. Applying that to this hand, 3D preserves finding a possible heart fit, but hides the strength of the hand. 4D shows the hand strength, but may lose the heart suit. Double tries to preserve the heart suit, delays showing the strength and possibly confuses partner about your spade tolerance.

 

Seems like 4D is the obvious choice.

[Halo]

4D. Good hand with a lot of diamonds.

[Gerben42]

3♦: Good hand with lots of ♦.

 

You won't get anything close to agreement on hands like this. Any of the reasonable bids might work at some times and be terrible at others. In fact this is also true for some unreasonable bids :P

[mikeh]

I agree with the comments that this hand should be discussed without reference to (or, perhaps more accurately) use of conventional devices unlikely to be playable by those for whom this thread is intended.

 

So we get to discuss the merits and demerits of alternative 'natural' calls.

 

It seems to me that we have a large number of options here, which is bound to make this type of hand tough even for experts: if a B-I player should get anything from this discussion it is just that: unusual hands over preempts are difficult to deal with, since all calls violate some fundamental principle.

 

Pass: cannot be done. It might work the best: all other active calls carry a risk of diaster, but bridge is a bidder's game. This hand has too much upside: we may be cold for a grand slam! Pass is an abdication of your responsibility in the partnership.

 

3♦: well, the good news about 3♦ is that you will probably make B) . Actually, there is more to it than that. 3♦ is not a display of weakness: take away one King from your hand and I think that 3♦ would be the overwhelming choice of an expert panel. So 3♦ is an underbid, but that is its only real downside. On the upside: 3♦ may well find someone, LHO or partner, able to bid 3♠. If partner bids 3♠, we will get to 3N.... of course 3N may not be the best spot, but partner, with a good fit for ♦s and a stiff or void ♣ may move again.... and a suit slam probably requires him to hold very short ♣s. I would not hold my breath waiting for partner to bid 3♥: no partner is advancing 3♦ inot ♥s on a Jxxx or Jxxxx suit.

 

If we bid 3♦ and LHO bids 3♠ (unlikely... he won't have the hcp to do so without a ♣ fit, and our ♣s suggest he doesn't have that fit), we can get back into the auction either via a voluntary 4♥ or (over 4♠) 4N... if we choose to be aggressive.

 

 

double: this is a traditional call with a hand too good to overcall and our 18 hcp is on the high end for overcalls in old-school bidding. Most experts today will not double unless they are prepared for what partner may do. Here is the nub of the matter: is this hand within the expectancy of an expert partner if we were to pull 4♠ to 5♦? As some have said, today few experts play that double of a preempt and then our suit is a pure one-suiter. Pure one-suiters can usually be shown by natural, direct bids, bearing in mind the saying that one does not preempt over a preempt: over a preempt, the more we bid, the more we have.

 

So double followed by 5♦ shows a 'flexible' hand... if you want to sound like an expert, use 'flexible' a lot in discussing why you chose a particular call.

 

But is this what we think of in terms of flexible? Not for me: flexible (to me) says that I can tolerate ♠s... I have a long, strong ♦ suit, but partner, with say 6=3=1=3 can and should return to ♠s! I would be typically something like 2=3=6=2 or 2=4=6=1 with say Kx of ♠ as my worst holding.

 

3♥: no-one has spoken of this bid, and the reasons are clear, but while I don't advocate it, we should consider the call. It may lead to a good 4-3 or 4-4 fit: and we will rarely find the ♥ suit if we don't bid it. But it is a bit too weird for a BI (or an expert) to choose it

 

3N: well.. a direct route to the most likely game, but such a distortion. It also risks partner insisting on ♠s. So this is out.

 

4♦: not a preempt: a powerful one-suiter. Problem: we have a 2-suiter, and our ♦s are not very strong... strong, yes, but not as strong as we would usually hold for this call.

 

 

Okay, we've seen that all calls are flawed. My choice of distortion: 3♦. If I get by this round, I am going to be okay. BTW, I have scored more minor suit 170s (and the odd 190) than most B)

[mike777]

"If I get by this round, I am going to be okay"

 

 

My stealing of Dr. Roth on so many problem hands. :P

 

OK thanks for all the great feedback...I guess my choice was not that simple as my partner impied at the time. :P