Expert Treatment?

[BrianEDuran]

Hi all

 

A few nights ago I held[hv=d=l&v=n&s=sxhakqxxxdkqtxxcx]133|100|Scoring: MPs[/hv] Playing against the best pair around

LHO opens (1C)-p-(2S!) WJS 2-5,

 

If anyone has an interesting treatment for this situation I would be interested in hearing it, but lets say you try 4H, LHO 4S and partner doubles.

 

Complete auction

(1C)-p-(2S)-4H

(4S)-X-(p)-??

 

A) What do you do an why?

 

B) The expert on my left said he "thinks" it is right to treats this double as values guarenteeing the ability to move on. Thus, just holding values in spades is not enough. One would give up on the small sets, but part would now feel safe to move own. It seemed to be the claim that the number of hands one wanted to show general values well outweighted the ones were you wanted to show spade specific values, thus making this treatment a winner in the long run. Thoughts?

[Flame]

This kind of double doesnt show a very long spade suit, it shows a hand which opposite what partner has shown so far wish to penalty the opponents rather then overbid them, this is usually mean not too great fit, some cards in opponents suit, semi balance hand, soft hcp in other then partner's suits. the higher the level is the less diffensive you can be for this double, on 4sp your hand can be more offensive then on 3sp, but less ofensive then what you can have for 5sp double.

partner should leave the double unless he has more shape then he showed (one card more is usually not enough) or have other resson to prefer to play, like when he is strong and we are vul vs not vul.

[flytoox]

i think i will bid 5d, 6511 is too good for def.

[mikestar]

I agree with fly, the 5 diamonds are too much of a surprise to defend. Better would have been 2NT unusal for the red suits on the previous round, instead of 4H. This is constructive rather than preemptive here (we don't preempt over preempts) and emphasizes shape, while a double would emphasize HCP and might be only 4-4 in the reds.

[the hog]

I bid 5D but I am not that happy about it and would not really be that surprised to go one off. I too would feel a bit more commfortable had I made a 2 suited bid on the first round. I can understand why you did not though as there is a large disparity in quality between the H and D.

[Flame]

I agree with fly, the 5 diamonds are too much of a surprise to defend. Better would have been 2NT unusal for the red suits on the previous round, instead of 4H. This is constructive rather than preemptive here (we don't preempt over preempts) and emphasizes shape, while a double would emphasize HCP and might be only 4-4 in the reds.

Not sure that 2nt isnt natural here.

[Fluffy]

Not sure if 2NT is a 2 suiter, but surelly 3♣ and 3♠ arent so you have a way to show your 2 suiter, oh well you didn´t, trust your partner? If we were vulnerable I would be scared of partner being confident of our defensive strenght, but not being vulnerable I think double has defensive values rather than not.

 

Still 5♦ seems a good try, just hate to switch 300 for -100 so I would pass.

[Flame]

You dont have to bid two suiter with this.

What you need to do is plan a head, if you plan was to bid 4h, and later if they bid 4sp continue to 5d which will show two suiter with supirior heart (becauser you didnt use a direct two suiter) then we are thinking alike.

I would continue with the plan and bid 5d now.

[Trpltrbl]

I would X first, I do have other 2 suits :angry:

But now I have to bid 5♦, 6-5 is offensive, not defensive. Pd's X shows values, not based on ♠ cards.

I think we can make 6 in one of the red suits, that's why I would have X first, let pd know I have good hand, and I need Aces. Maybe now he can make good decision.

 

Mike :blink: