An easy one, but not sure what to do?

[cnszsun]

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=skqxhaxxxdaqj98cx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(ps)-1♦-(dbl)-ps

(1♠)-??[/hv]

[655321]

Pass, what else?

 

If RHO had bid our singleton we could double, but as it is...

[andy_h]

pass, no reason to act

[Free]

Pass wtp?

[Codo]

There are two alternatives:

 

1. Pass, so you surely don't overbid your values.

 

2. 2 ♦ at least you don't have your normal QTxx and 12 HCPs, but a good suit, a side singelton and more points then shown so far. Downside is of course the missing 6. diamond.

 

 

I go with 2 Diamond, taking just a slightly risk.

[whereagles]

I'll act. 1NT or 2♦ seem both fine. This 1NT cannot be 12-14 because pard is broke, so it's at least 15+. If 15-17, then must be unbalanced with 5-card minor.

 

However, since pard might take it as the 18-19 variant, it's probably better to just bid 2♦ and stay out of trouble.

[catatonic]

double ; pt does not even know our diamonds are a genuine suit at this point

 

if he bids clubs , take out to diamonds and he knows you have 4 hearts and a rebiddable diamond suit , and a good opener ; for him/her to judge thereafter ... , can still have a heart suit and some points when passing the double , the one spade bid was forced and promises nothing

[han]

This 1NT cannot be 12-14 because pard is broke, so it's at least 15+.

Agree, in fact it shows 18-19.

[jdonn]

1NT shows 18-19, 2♦ shows 6 diamonds (6 good ones generally), so what is hard about passing this?

[ASkolnick]

The problem isn't 2♦ shows 6 diamonds, its that 1♦ shows only 3. So, you are more than happy to play in a 5-3 fit, but partner won't do anything with his 4 count and 3 diamonds (reasonable length, if LHO has 2). Also, your diamonds are strong enough to play against either a weak doubleton or even a stiff T would not be so bad.

[pclayton]

w/r I think 2♦ is fine. I held almost this exact hand last night in the

stac in a similar auction. Yes it was was pairs, but we were also r/w. We pushed Danny Kleinman up to 3S and defended it well for a decent score at +50.

[Walddk]

Pass. This is not a problem hand for me. Not good enough (neither shape) for 1NT, too few diamonds for 2♦, and double is take-out. So I pass. If LHO passes too and partner balances with 2♣, I will not pull.

 

Then he has a stack of clubs and a weak hand. No other contract is likely to play better.

 

Roland

[jtfanclub]

Pass. This is not a problem hand for me. Not good enough (neither shape) for 1NT, too few diamonds for 2♦, and double is take-out. So I pass. If LHO passes too and partner balances with 2♣, I will not pull.

 

Then he has a stack of clubs and a weak hand. No other contract is likely to play better.

 

Roland

I guess I don't understand the logic here.

 

If partner has about 9 hcp and 5 clubs and 3 diamonds, shouldn't he bid 2♣? Why risk a 3-3 or 3-4 diamond fit when you could easily have a 5-3 or a 5-4 club fit?

 

I don't see any harm in Xing now and correcting clubs to diamonds later. I haven't given up on hearts yet...in fact, I haven't even given up on a heart game yet. There is another choice that nobody has mentioned...just bidding 2 freakin' hearts. I don't think this hand is worth a reverse, but it's close.

[Walddk]

Pass. This is not a problem hand for me. Not good enough (neither shape) for 1NT, too few diamonds for 2♦, and double is take-out. So I pass. If LHO passes too and partner balances with 2♣, I will not pull.

 

Then he has a stack of clubs and a weak hand. No other contract is likely to play better.

 

Roland

I guess I don't understand the logic here.

 

If partner has about 9 hcp and 5 clubs and 3 diamonds, shouldn't he bid 2♣? Why risk a 3-3 or 3-4 diamond fit when you could easily have a 5-3 or a 5-4 club fit?

 

I don't see any harm in Xing now and correcting clubs to diamonds later. I haven't given up on hearts yet...in fact, I haven't even given up on a heart game yet. There is another choice that nobody has mentioned...just bidding 2 freakin' hearts. I don't think this hand is worth a reverse, but it's close.

Very unlikely that we belong in hearts. Partner does not have 5-6 hcp and four or more hearts. He would just have bid them over double. Isn't it standard nowadays that you ignore the double and bid as if there had been none?

 

With 9 hcp and 3-5(+) in the minors, he would have bid 2♣ on his first turn.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

Very unlikely that we belong in hearts. Partner does not have 5-6 hcp and four or more hearts. He would just have bid them over double. Isn't it standard nowadays that you ignore the double and bid as if there had been none?

 

With 9 hcp and 3-5(+) in the minors, he would have bid 2♣ on his first turn.

 

Roland

I agree with the first part, but I don't like the second part: I would be very reluctant to bid 2♣ with 3=5 in the minors and about 9 hcp... I guess it depends on methods, but I am accustomed to a style in which 2♣ is non-forcing, and we could very easily end up in a 5-1 or 5-2 fit rather than a 5-3 diamond fit. Admittedly, 9 counts with 3=5 in the minors are tough to handle after a double... we would usually bid 1N without the double, but 3=2 or 2=3 in the majors, with no stopper in at least one and maybe both majors is not attractive.

 

Of course, one can minimize these issues by using transfers over the double, giving up on the penalty redouble.

 

On the given hand, while I agree that 2♦ should be longer diamonds, I really don't like passing. I think this is a hand on which to distort, and to pretend that we have a 6 card suit.

 

The only alternative is to pass, and I won't be happy with the auction thereafter unless RHO raises or bids notrump.

[neilkaz]

The problem isn't 2♦ shows 6 diamonds, its that 1♦ shows only 3. So, you are more than happy to play in a 5-3 fit, but partner won't do anything with his 4 count and 3 diamonds (reasonable length, if LHO has 2). Also, your diamonds are strong enough to play against either a weak doubleton or even a stiff T would not be so bad.

Well 1♦ for most of us shows 4+ about 96% of the time, but w/r I'l stick in a 2♦ with this good a 5 card suit.

[Walddk]

Very unlikely that we belong in hearts. Partner does not have 5-6 hcp and four or more hearts. He would just have bid them over double. Isn't it standard nowadays that you ignore the double and bid as if there had been none?

 

With 9 hcp and 3-5(+) in the minors, he would have bid 2♣ on his first turn.

 

Roland

I agree with the first part, but I don't like the second part: I would be very reluctant to bid 2♣ with 3=5 in the minors and about 9 hcp... I guess it depends on methods, but I am accustomed to a style in which 2♣ is non-forcing ...

You seem to have missed my point, Mike. I said that I respond as if there had been no double, so 2♣ would therefore be a one-round force. As I also said, I thought that was standard among experts nowadays.

 

Roland

[jdonn]

You seem to have missed my point, Mike. I said that I respond as if there had been no double, so 2♣ would therefore be a one-round force. As I also said, I thought that was standard among experts nowadays.

 

Roland

I really don't believe so, I'm sure 1♦ - 2♣ is nf over the double in 'expert standard'. Maybe this can be chalked up to one of those things that are standard differently in different countries, who knows.

[jtfanclub]

Very unlikely that we belong in hearts. Partner does not have 5-6 hcp and four or more hearts. He would just have bid them over double. Isn't it standard nowadays that you ignore the double and bid as if there had been none?

OK, we haven't gotten advanced over at my clubs. Certainly if P will bid 1♥ with fewer than 10 hcp and only 4 hearts, then X is fairly pointless.

[the hog]

Very unlikely that we belong in hearts. Partner does not have 5-6 hcp and four or more hearts. He would just have bid them over double. Isn't it standard nowadays that you ignore the double and bid as if there had been none?

OK, we haven't gotten advanced over at my clubs. Certainly if P will bid 1♥ with fewer than 10 hcp and only 4 hearts, then X is fairly pointless.

Roland is perfectly correct.

Would you not bid 1H after the X on

 

xxx

KJxx

xx

Kxxx

 

or similar?

 

If the answer is "No" I would suggest you are definitely playing something non-standard.

[skjaeran]

You seem to have missed my point, Mike. I said that I respond as if there had been no double, so 2♣ would therefore be a one-round force. As I also said, I thought that was standard among experts nowadays.

 

Roland

I really don't believe so, I'm sure 1♦ - 2♣ is nf over the double in 'expert standard'. Maybe this can be chalked up to one of those things that are standard differently in different countries, who knows.

Agree.

At least where I play it's standard to play a 1-lever response as forcing after an opponents double, 2-level responses as NF.

[jtfanclub]

Roland is perfectly correct.

Would you not bid 1H after the X on

 

xxx

KJxx

xx

Kxxx

 

or similar?

 

If the answer is "No" I would suggest you are definitely playing something non-standard.

That is correct, I would pass that.

 

I'm not advocating it, mind you. Just what I was taught. I'm sure six months from now I'll write some post either insisting that it's better or condemning it as worse, but I really haven't thought out all the ramafications of it yet.

 

At any rate, mikeh is right. If partner has denied this sort of hand, then double is the wrong bid.

[Apollo81]

2♦. I think this is way closer than others are indicating, on account of the ♦98.