An awkward hand to bid

[zasanya]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sj9xxxhdkjxxcqjxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♦-2♣-2♦-2♥

3♦-3♥-3♠-4♥

dbl-p-?[/hv]

 

4 card major, 12-14 NT 1♦promises 4 cards

Do yo agree with South's bidding?Should S stand the double?

[P_Marlowe]

No.

 

#1 I would have made a neg. X, you may have a

spade fit, if partner bids hearts, you can always

correct

 

#2 3S is not consistent with 2D, the 3D did not really

promise add. strength, but 3S was at least highly

inv. to game, which does not really match with 2D

 

#3 Pass, you were content to play 2D, you did not think

11 tricks possible, what changed?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[fromageGB]

Certainly disagree. 2♦ is acceptable, but you must pass thereafter.

I would have preferred a non-forcing spade bid to cut out the heart suit.

[han]

I would have doubled initially but I really disagree with the earlier comments.

 

#2 3S is not consistent with 2D, the 3D did not really

promise add. strength, but 3S was at least highly

inv. to game, which does not really match with 2D

 

What nonsense is this? No 3S isn't highly invitational to game, because you just bid 2D. So 3S still shows no more than the values for 2D, but it must therefore be a very distributional hand.

 

Partner did bid 3D and with your void and all it doesn't seem right to sell out to 3H. Bidding 3S has got to be better than 4D.

 

2♦ is acceptable, but you must pass thereafter.

 

Is this the "you have described your hand so you should let partner make the decisions now" rule? Well, we haven't described our hand and we won't be able to. Partner has shown extra life in one of our three suits, that seems an excellent reason to bid once more.

[jdonn]

I think a negative double on the first round sucks and 2♦ is normal, and I love the 3♠ bid.

[dicklont]

I would overbid 2♠ in the first round and support diamonds later.

[MFA]

South is doing fine. Pass now and hope partner has his double.

[pkarandikar50]

Over 2C, I wud bid 3 C or 2NT [depending upon partnership agreement] to indicate good raise in !D. True, just 7 HCP but I like quality of my !D suit and H-void is big value. This call also makes it difficult for Opponents to find H-fit.

 

Having first said 2D [which was my second choice], I have now heard 2H on my Left and pard has said 3D, which does not promise much extra in terms of high cards but D suit may be 5 or even 6 crds! He is definitely no 5-4 in D-S. If he was, he had 2 options. He cud bid 2S over 2H [with proper 'reversing' values] or he cud X that 2H to show 5-4 in D-S [less than reversing valuesbut better than bare minimum]. In fact he is now assured of 5-4 fit in D and so he wud go slightly out of his way to indicate 5-4 in D-S.

 

When my RHO now bids 3H, it wud be quite silly and pointless to introduce my new suit at 3 level. I know for sure that my pard does not have 4 crds of S. Where do I want 2 go with that 3 S bid? Do I want to invite game in S? Do I want to suggest S-lead? And what a poor quality of S suit? That 3S bid is pure rubbish! I wud certainly consider bidding 4D. Our Opps have shown lot of length & strength in H-suit. My void looks even better now.

 

P.D.Karandikar

[dburn]

I would have bid 3♦ at my first turn, and justified my call both in a system where this shows a limit raise and in a system where this shows a pre-emptive raise (useful to have such a hand, since it saves me the effort of remembering the methods). But I do not object to 2♦, nor to 3♠ - the auction has proceeded kindly for me, since I have by now given a good picture of my hand. Having done so, I have no reason at all to remove partner's double, particularly since I seem to have some useful defensive values in clubs.

[pclayton]

I would have made a negative x the first round, but I don't hate 2♦. It would be hard to find out 5-4 spade fit if I don't.

 

3♠ is also OK, especially once we have limited our hand with 2♦. I really like it and it brings spades back into the picture.

 

Bidding 5♦ would be very insulting to partner. This is a weak NT system and pard re-raised diamonds and doubled, so I'm expecting something like a 1=4=5=3 for the call. x AQxx AQxxx Axx looks about right to me.

[mikeh]

I would have made a negative x the first round, but I don't hate 2♦. It would be hard to find out 5-4 spade fit if I don't. 

 

3♠ is also OK, especially once we have limited our hand with 2♦. I really like it and it brings spades back into the picture.

 

Bidding 5♦ would be very insulting to partner. This is a weak NT system and pard re-raised diamonds and doubled, so I'm expecting something like a 1=4=5=3 for the call. x AQxx AQxxx Axx looks about right to me.

While I agree with much of this, I don't think partner is favourite to hold Axx in clubs... rho overcalled 2♣ and I have QJxx in the suit. 2=4=6=1 is more the shape I'd expect, but in any event, he has a good lead, I have trouble for them in clubs so that if they pull trump, they can't run the clubs, and if they don't pull trump, partner gets to overruff and so on.

 

Bidding here is an insult to partner.

 

As for the auction to date, I actually like it.. I might have doubled, but I really don't want to hear partner bid hearts, because I will be torn between showing my spades and running back to the known diamond fit. Double then spades, for me, promises more in the suit than Jxxxx. It's how I bid a decent 6 card suit with a hand not good enough for 2♠.

 

I know that I am in a small minority in my treatment of a free 2♠ here as a good hand, at least invitational values, but even if I were to lower my requirements to accord with the more popular approach, there are still going to be hands on which my route has to be double then spades, and the prototypical hands for that sequence always has longer/stronger spades.

 

By contrast, my actual sequence has timed out wonderfully: by inference, I need real spade support, my spades might not stand a lead from Kx, as an example, and I have shown my diamond fit, and extra shape/values.

[cherdano]

With two unbid majors I play negative-double-then-bid-a-major as major+partner's suit. Only when there is just one unbid major I would play it as showing a long major.

 

Isn't this standard these days?

[dburn]

With two unbid majors I play negative-double-then-bid-a-major as major+partner's suit. Only when there is just one unbid major I would play it as showing a long major.

 

Isn't this standard these days?

Not sure. Do you play negative free bids? For example, with:

 

♠KJ10xxx ♥Jxx ♦x ♣Qxx

 

would you bid 2♠ after 1♦ (2♣)? Or would you double, planning to bid spades at your next turn? Or would you pass, hoping to bid spades at your next turn if you were given a next turn?

 

Not that I see much wrong with the approach you advocate, although I confess I have never heard of it and would be surprised if it were regarded as "standard". But I am not sure how it would work.

[cherdano]

I would pass for now with that hand.

[han]

Actually we (=cherdano and me) can bid 2H showing spades with that, although it is subpar in our style.