vs 5/5

[H_KARLUK]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=saqhak52dq84ca762]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

p    p    p    1♣

p   1♥ 1nt*   ?

*alerted as 5/5 rest suits

 

What would you call please?

Thanks

[kenrexford]

I would have opened 2NT.

 

Now, I double.

[Codo]

I make a game try with 4 HEart.

 

And I had opened this hand 1 ♣, this is 18-19 balanced, so 1 ♣ is obvious.

[mtvesuvius]

I also would have opened 2NT.

 

Now I will bid 2♠ which is obviously stronger than 3♥ or even 4♥, since I think that in this situation, they are both based on distrubution. Cuebid 2♠ then 3♥/4♥ show the Balanced/Semi-Balanced raises. Double should be support.

[gnasher]

This started off as a below-average 19-count: the aces don't compensate for the lack of spots and horrid spade holding. Having 8HCP in their suits makes it worse, so it's not worth more than the three level.

 

Whatever you play against two-suiters in general, in this auction 2♦ should be a high-card raise in hearts, so I'd do that and then raise to 3♥.

[Hanoi5]

4♥. If I played 2♠ as a feature showing cue-bid (if such a thing exists) I'd bid that.

[mtvesuvius]

If I played 2♠ as a feature showing cue-bid (if such a thing exists) I'd bid that.

C'mon Ken... We are all waiting for you to elaborate on this point :(

[Fluffy]

2♠ showing stopper in spades, followed by 4♥.

 

a direct raise should be unbalanced hand.

[ArtK78]

4♥ - the same bid I would have made if RHO had not bid 1NT.

[Fluffy]

4♥ - the same bid I would have made if RHO had not bid 1NT.

Your psrtner is having a problem to differentiate between 19 balanced and a 6-4 IMO

[jdonn]

I double planning to raise hearts next. No reason to bid 4 which may go down (agree with gnasher its a below average 19) when I can show the same strength while not getting as high.

[Phil]

I would not open this 2N. There's zero spot cards. The AQ and Qxx are negative adjustments if anything. Sure, the controls are nice, but nothing else is. Frankly its a below-average 19.

 

I play support doubles here, so I won't double.

 

TYO for telling me the spade hook is on. 4♥.

[jdonn]

I would not open this 2N. There's zero spot cards. The AQ and Qxx are negative adjustments if anything. Sure, the controls are nice, but nothing else is. Frankly its a below-average 19.

 

I play support doubles here, so I won't double.

 

TYO for telling me the spade hook is on. 4♥.

You know, so do I and I have no idea why I had a brain fart in my answer.

[Codo]

I double planning to raise hearts next. No reason to bid 4 which may go down (agree with gnasher its a below average 19) when I can show the same strength while not getting as high.

I would hate the chance that x and raising hearts to 3 later would not show this hand.

And I would not like the idea that they are able to get to know about their best suit at a low level.

 

So some biging problems which may occur after a double:

1♣ (pass) 1♥ (1NT)

x (2♦) 3 ♣ pass

 

I hope you are sure that 3 ♥ here is forcing and a 4 card suit. (Of course it should be)

Same is true after

 

1♣ (pass) 1♥ (1NT)

x (2♠) pass pass

 

 

Or

 

1♣ (pass) 1♥ (1NT)

x (pass) pass (2♠)

 

I won't argue that you (and Andy) are able to handle these situations, but I am not. So I like a less sientific approach.

[jdonn]

If you are worried 3♥ as a nonjump on those auctions is weaker, just bid 4 anyway. At least you will sometimes be able to jump to 3 after doubling.

[hanp]

And it would be NF.

[kenrexford]

I double planning to raise hearts next. No reason to bid 4 which may go down (agree with gnasher its a below average 19) when I can show the same strength while not getting as high.

That's my elaboration on the prior point, to the T.

 

Well, except for the part about not opening 2NT...

 

And, except for the part about caring that X is a support double.

 

On that last point. I don't think it is necessary to have a strict "3-card vs. 4-card" definition to a support double, nor it is wise. IMO, it makes more sense to have two exceptions, namely that you might make a support double with four-card support but an unexpectedly high defense to offense ration OR that you might make a straight raise with three-card support with an unexpectedly high offense to defense ratio.

 

Whether any hand satisfies the later, this hand clearly satisfies the former, IMO.

 

So, I double.

[gnasher]

You have three cue-bids below the 3♥ level, as well as direct raises to 2♥ and 3♥. Do you really need to include some four-card raises in your support double?

[andy_h]

Noone plays 2NT here as a raise also?

[kenrexford]

You have three cue-bids below the 3♥ level, as well as direct raises to 2♥ and 3♥. Do you really need to include some four-card raises in your support double?

Yes.

 

Hands like this, where I'm leaning penalty.

 

RHO has 5-5, right? I have what appears to be AK-A on his outside, and AQ-Qxx in his inside. That looks like a solid 5-6 defensive tricks.

 

However, offensively, I hate this hand. I have n extremely dubious Qxx in diamonds, for starters. I have absolutely no body in either of my suits, which makes for difficulty handling the fact that RHO only will have 1.5 in each suit, and hence both suits will likely split poorly. Sure, I seem to have five assured tricks on offense, but I'll need five more from partner with clubs and hearts splitting poorly.

 

If partner has a COV in clubs and/or hearts, or at least a high ODR, he'll bid. If, on the other hand, he has something like 4-4-4-1 shape, we'll likely pound 2-something into the dirt.

 

So, again -- yes. I really need that.