Too Scary?

[kfay]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sakxhxdxxcaq10xxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

(P)-1♣-(2♦)-Dbl

(P)-3♣-(P)-P

(3♦)-?[/hv]

 

Agree with 3♣, right? What now?

[Free]

Dbl

[dake50]

Have denied fit to neg-X, have shown topped long clubs.

Now Dbl shows DT. Message complete.

[olliebol]

3 spades.

[jdonn]

3♠ is obvious to me. How bad can 4♣ be, but we might as well describe along the way in case something else is right. I don't want to depend on partner here, he doesn't know we have 7 good clubs so I feel I should do something and 3♠ seems like a perfect description.

[phil_20686]

Dbl

Are people really making a penalty double here, or is this some kind of action double?

 

My meta agreements suggest that when we have attempted to pass out a partscore, and the opposition bid in the pass out seat, then dble is for penalties.

[hanp]

Pass, don't understand double whatever it means.

 

We have a lot of defense and a doubleton diamond, it seems too unilateral to bid even though it could be right. Partner is still there to reopen when it is right.

[mikeh]

3♠ but only at mps and only when the opps are white.

 

We were about to play 3♣ for, probably, 110 or 130...at least, those are the scores we, as a partnership were presumably 'expecting'. If they were red, I'd pass and hope that they have misjudged...either we were too high...yes, it's possible, or they were going -200, or it was always their hand and RHO should have raised earlier. But white, we lose at least one of those 'wins'.

 

3♠ has several ways to win and fewer ways to lose, compared to pass. We may make 3♠, making the opps wish they'd passed (unless clubs makes 150). We may 'run' to 4♣, making. We may fail by a trick but find 3♦ cold.

 

Heck, maybe I am being too conservative and should try 3♠ at all scoring and all vulnerabilities.

 

It would be nice to have double show this hand, but it doesn't. Axx x QJx AKxxxx is more like a double...shorter clubs, thus more defence in the suit, and longer/stronger diamonds...not a pure penalty double but one that will/should be left in most of the time.

[kfay]

FWIW my 'too scary?' question was about whether or not to bid 3♠, so I'm glad it's at least occurred to several other players :o

 

I also thought double was totally crazy. Hopefully we set it 1 and... 50 is probably about the same as 100.

[ArtK78]

I like 3♠. It could even lead to a magic 3NT if partner has QJx(x..) QJx in both reds and the ♣K.

 

Double is WAY too scary for me.

[aguahombre]

3♠ but only at mps and only when the opps are white.

 

We were about to play 3♣ for, probably, 110 or 130...at least, those are the scores we, as a partnership were presumably 'expecting'. If they were red, I'd pass and hope that they have misjudged...either we were too high...yes, it's possible, or they were going -200, or it was always their hand and RHO should have raised earlier. But white, we lose at least one of those 'wins'.

 

3♠ has several ways to win and fewer ways to lose, compared to pass. We may make 3♠, making the opps wish they'd passed (unless clubs makes 150). We may 'run' to 4♣, making. We may fail by a trick but find 3♦ cold.

 

Heck, maybe I am being too conservative and should try 3♠ at all scoring and all vulnerabilities.

 

It would be nice to have double show this hand, but it doesn't. Axx x QJx AKxxxx is more like a double...shorter clubs, thus more defence in the suit, and longer/stronger diamonds...not a pure penalty double but one that will/should be left in most of the time.

that

[Jlall]

I would bid 3S at all forms of the game and all vuls. We could be cold for 4S, and if partner doesn't have 5 spades it's not like I'm ashamed of my hand for 4C. If partner is 4531 I will probably live to regret it but oh well.

 

3C is such a massive underbid on playing strength, we have a 3C rebid over 1D so I'm definitely disturbed by it but there's really no viable alternative that I can see. If partner bids 4S or 3N now I'm really happy though (this is why jdonn never balances).

[Jlall]

Pass, don't understand double whatever it means.

 

We have a lot of defense and a doubleton diamond, it seems too unilateral to bid even though it could be right. Partner is still there to reopen when it is right.

Hanp! You have a massive hand! You don't need much to make 4C man. Take a leap of faith, partners got yo back!

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sakxhxdxxcaq10xxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

(P)-1♣-(2♦)-Dbl

(P)-3♣-(P)-P

(3♦)-?[/hv]

 

Agree with 3♣, right? What now?

The bidders must see something in this hand that I am missing. I take the 2♦ call as a PJS usually showing 6♦ and partner's X as a negative X too weak to bid a forcing 5 card major if he has one; reinforced by his pass of our 3♣ call. The belated 3♦ raise tends to imply an opinion that 3♦ is making or only going down 1 or an undoubled 2. Consequently I am inclined to pass and give partner a chance to act. I await information from the bidders of what they see in the auction that I am missing. I am inclined to play partner to be 4432, 4531, or 5431 from more probable to less probable.

[jdonn]

Pooltuna you made a bunch of statements about the auction, which I generally agree with, then said "consequently" you don't act. It's the "consequently" part that I don't understand, as nothing you said about the auction seems like a reason to fail to act.

 

I could take your question literally too. What I see that maybe you don't is a 7th club, a great suit, and all prime cards. I mean what does it take to have fair play for 3NT? xxxx xxxxx Ax Jx?

[MFA]

Pass is out. We have too much for that. We rate to be able to make 4♣. Just for a start.

 

I would bid 3♠. But I admit that double is tempting, since it's so easy to see how it could be a big winner.

[pooltuna]

Pooltuna you made a bunch of statements about the auction, which I generally agree with, then said "consequently" you don't act. It's the "consequently" part that I don't understand, as nothing you said about the auction seems like a reason to fail to act.

 

I could take your question literally too. What I see that maybe you don't is a 7th club, a great suit, and all prime cards. I mean what does it take to have fair play for 3NT? xxxx xxxxx Ax Jx?

Presummably about the worst hand partner could have is something like [hv=s=sqxxxhkjxxdxxxcxx]133|100|[/hv]

while the best is pretty short of an opening hand. So the average hand for partner doesn't look very promising for 3NT to make. An appropriate simul could change my mind however B)

[jdonn]

We aren't bidding 3NT we are bidding 3♠. That 3NT could make was just meant as a demonstration of the power of our hand and one thing that could go right if we bid 3♠, but of course what will generally happen is partner will pass (or raise) with 5 spades or otherwise bid 4♣.

 

Your example hand is worse than the worst hand partner can have to double.

[Cyberyeti]

Is it not common in the states to play 2N artificial here with a 3C relay which you'd pass with a bad hand, so 3C already shows extras ?

 

That said 3S appears to be the best bid as it perfectly describes our hand.

[Phil]

3♠ looks good, but its easy to see how a 7-2 fit will play a lot better than a 5-3.

 

Wouldn't pass. Agree we are heavy for 3♣ but nothing else fits.

[whereagles]

(...) I feel I should do something and 3♠ seems like a perfect description.

ditto