mike777 Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 BOTH VUL IMPS JT953....QT9....Q642....7 P=P=(1S)=XP=2D=P=3DP=? Your bid and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goobers Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Partner has a huge hand, should be ~18+ for this stunt, I have a stiff club, my hearts will help fill in his suit. I would move, but I don't know with what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Pass Partner had several choices to describe his hand: The double and single raise shows a good hand: worth about a King more (maybe in playing strength as much as hcp) than a normal, minimum-range double. However, it is weaker than a cue-bid and is definitely not forcing. These 2/1 non-jump advances of takeout doubles are a problem area in standard bidding, because jumping to the 3-level is risky on a 4 card suit even with a good 9-10 hcp, so our range for 2♦ is much wider than the range shown by, for example, an advance of 1♠ to a takeout double of a lower 1 level suit opening. But regardless of the range shown, the single raise is typically played as range-asking: pass if you are in the lower half of the range, make an intelligent bid if you are mid-range or higher. (I know that there are some fine players who espouse a raise of partner's advance of 1 major with all doubling hands holding 4 card fit, but that is not the traditional standard, and I think it is still (deservedly, in my view) a minority position... but I don't think that approach applies here... ) So the question is how do we feel about this hand? Frankly, I feel pessimistic. We have short, weak trumps. Our ♠ stopper, altho assured, is slow, and we lack any Aces or Kings. We have a lot of spades to get rid of in 5♦s, and East may be in a position to overruff unless we pull trump, which of course means we can't ruff as many ♠s anyway. It is difficult, for me anyway, to picture a hand that makes game good. x AJ10x AKxx AQxx would work, but I think that is a bit rich: I'd bid 2♠, not 3♦. x AJxx AJxx AQxx is more like it, and while game has chances, I'd rather not be there. So I pass.. but I consider my hand near max for the call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foo Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 As usual, mikeh is 100% right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Stopping oppponent's suit with teh Jack makes 3NT likelly, but we are still too weak for it. A 5th diamond, or ♦K instead of the Q could be almost enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 3♥. Bid my card for partner. I have two cards for partner. I don't care whether they are Aces, Kings, or Queens. Whatever I have is what partner is missing. I also have a stiff. That's four covers. What the heck does partner need? My four covers add up to 11 tricks if partner has 7. If he actually raised to 3♦ with a 7-loser hand (very strange), then he can bid 4♦ and we will play it there. Maybe partner has the hand I jumped to 3NT on, not expecting that clubs would be so friggin' wide open? Something like Ax-AKxx-AK10xx-xx? Five losers. We end up winning five diamonds on power, three hearts, and a spade, for nice tricks on power. We surely take a 10th with a club ruff. If hearts are not 3-3 and diamonds are not 2-2, we probably still make this, using an established spade for a heart pitch. Passing is sick. Counting points is silliness. You have four covers. Partner did not explore 3NT; he raised diamonds. You don't raise 2♦ to 3♦ because you like your chance at 3NT. If this is a "low-end" hand, then I suppose the "much better" Axx-xxx-Axxx-xxx looks more appealing? That eight-count is trash in comparison to the actual hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foo Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 How does 2 Q's and a stiff equal 4 cover cards? I could buy 3; assuming pd has length & values where I have Q's and length w/o values where I have a stiff. But how do you count 4 cover cards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 I would just pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 This is very close IMO, between pass and 3♥.At the table I think I'd pass - see Mike's post. I guess this is the same hand as shown in another thread, where partner's got Ax AKxx AKxxx xx, and 5♦ is a good contract, but not laydown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 How does 2 Q's and a stiff equal 4 cover cards? I could buy 3; assuming pd has length & values where I have Q's and length w/o values where I have a stiff. But how do you count 4 cover cards? I'll grant that a stiff and two queens probably is three, but may be four. That was a tad hyperbolic. I have that tendency sometimes. Nonetheless, I made up for it with an absurd construction of a plausible 7-loser 3♦ call. The reality is that 3♦ should show something extra, usually 5-6 losers, 6 being questionable. Three covers, even, is enough. If I bid 3♥, showing a card, partner will know if a slow heart value is working. If he replies 3♠, I'll bid 4♦, denying a spade honor value and denying a club honor value (why not bid 4♣?), which will imply (because I must have something) diamond honor value(s) and/or club distribution values. If he bids 3NT, I have a decision to make. If I decide to move that contract out, 4♣ has to be shortness. In sum, then, I have three assured covers, and sometimes four. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 This is very close IMO, between pass and 3♥.At the table I think I'd pass - see Mike's post. I guess this is the same hand as shown in another thread, where partner's got Ax AKxx AKxxx xx, and 5♦ is a good contract, but not laydown. Also a very close decision for me, but I pass as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 Pass, and I don't consider it close either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 I think I would bid 4♦ on this one. I'm not completely broke and 5 might make if pard has a singleton spade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts