Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

[gwnn]

IMP's. Don't remember the vulnerability.

 

2♦*-p-2♥*-x

2♠-3♣-3♦*-5♣

 

2♦ was multi, 2♥ was p/c, 3♦ was natural.

 

 

Kxx

xxx

Kx

JT9xx

 

opp

 

Ax

AJxxx

x

AQxxx

 

What do you think of the auction? We had absolutely no agreements about defending vs. multi. Apparently partner thought x showed short or long hearts.

[helene_t]

As South I would at least try for 6♣. Maybe bidding 3♠ en route or something.

 

Dbl showing short or long hearts is popular in NL I think. Then you can dbl as North asking S to pass with short hearts and take out with long hearts. I suppose I would bid 3♣ also, less prone to misunderstandings and may be better anyway.

[pooltuna]

IMP's. Don't remember the vulnerability.

 

2♦*-p-2♥*-x

2♠-3♣-3♦*-5♣

 

2♦ was multi, 2♥ was p/c, 3♦ was natural.

 

 

Kxx

xxx

Kx

JT9xx

 

opp

 

Ax

AJxxx

x

AQxxx

 

What do you think of the auction? We had absolutely no agreements about defending vs. multi. Apparently partner thought x showed short or long hearts.

you're not down yet!! WTP?

[suokko]

you're not down yet!! WTP?

We need a midnight line. :)

 

This again show that you need clear special case agreements or some simple general agreements. In my option double of 2♥ falls in to first category but there was no explicit agreement about it. I think everyone has general agreement to play t/o doubles at this level so using this general rule double of 2♥ should be t/o for ♥. In fact this simple agreement works so well that I happen to play it against multi.

 

What we learned? nothing .... or maybe KISS if no good special agreement.