A Couple from Philadelphia III

[kenrexford]

♠x ♥AJxx ♦J10xxx ♣?xx

 

LHO opens 1♣, and partner doubles. RHO bids 1♠ and you bid 2♦ (agree? Double would show spades by agreement.) LHO raises to 2♠, passed to you. Your bid? If the "?" matters, explain.

[paulg]

I'd bid 2♥ on the first round and balance with 3♦ on the second.

[keylime]

I'd double in again, now showing hearts. For me, 3♦ is ok if white/red.

[manudude03]

I bid 3♦ if the ? is A,K or Q.

 

Assuming it's not one of those, i bid 3♥ now.

[pooltuna]

♠x ♥AJxx ♦J10xxx ♣?xx

 

LHO opens 1♣, and partner doubles.  RHO bids 1♠ and you bid 2♦ (agree?  Double would show spades by agreement.)  LHO raises to 2♠, passed to you.  Your bid?  If the "?" matters, explain.

As ten tricks are easier than eleven I would try 2♥ over 1♠ now I can pass 2♠ or try 3♦. A pretty close choice depending on colours and scoring.

[gnasher]

I'd bid 2♥ on the first round and balance with 3♦ on the second.

So would I, as long as the "?" was the queen or worse. x AJxx J10xxx Kxx looks to me like a 2♣ cue-bid, assuming that it's forcing only to agreement.

 

In fact, I think it's better to play 2♣ in this sequence as like a responsive double - just showing the unbid suits without promising a rebid. Playing that, this would be a 2♣ bid regardless of the club holding.

[Fluffy]

♣? won't be the King or ace, else I didn't bid 2♦, with the queen its close.

 

Biddign 2♥ then 3♦ sounds a bit resulting, but its actually what I'd do, because I know the bidding is somehow coming back at 2♠ giventhat they have a fit. 3♦ just shows a 4-4 red hand.

[nigel_k]

Agree with gnasher. 2♥ the first time then 3♦, unless the ? is an ace or king, then I cue bid the first time.

[jonottawa]

The 2♦ bid was awful. What was I thinking?

[Cascade]

Hearts then diamonds for me.

 

The ? only starts to matter when its an ace.

[655321]

Enrol me in the 2♥ then 3♦ club.

[Rodney26]

What are the colors?

 

I like 2♦ followed by 2NT on the second round, and correcting 3♣ to 3♦ if it comes to that. I don't think I'm good enough to x on the second round (I can't risk defending with one trick when partner passed 2♠) and I think a balancing 2NT has to imply the reds (or the minors) given the lack of a double on the first round.

 

I don't like the 2♥/3♦ plan so much because partner will pick 3♥ with equal length. With the 2NT plan, partner is going to know you have exactly 4♥.

 

The club spot doesn't matter; I actually would prefer to have x versus K.

[655321]

I don't like the 2♥/3♦ plan so much because partner will pick 3♥ with equal length.

Partner shouldn't play us for 5 hearts on this auction, this is a standard way to compete with exactly 4 hearts and (probably) longer diamonds. If we had 5 hearts we would know we had at least an eight card fit and wouldn't mess around with diamond bids.

[Rodney26]

I don't like the 2♥/3♦ plan so much because partner will pick 3♥ with equal length.

Partner shouldn't play us for 5 hearts on this auction, this is a standard way to compete with exactly 4 hearts and (probably) longer diamonds. If we had 5 hearts we would know we had at least an eight card fit and wouldn't mess around with diamond bids.

I think it's a huge mistake to big your shorter suits first when competing with spades. I totally disagree with the notion that you would not bid diamonds at the three level if you were 5-5 or something like that. You might still have quite a good hand even though you have passed. Even if you were 4-4 with say a balanced 8 count, you'd want to bid hearts and then diamonds at matchpoints. The diamonds are longer; diamonds is probably a better strain to sustain a tap in if you play it when partner has equal length -- it has to be better to show partner this.

 

You're bidding hearts first when you're 5-5, 5-4, and 4-4. Let partner in on the news that your minor is longer than your four card heart suit. Forget the whole major thing when it comes to hearts; against spades, hearts is a glorified minor.

[ceeb]

Agree with Nigel's agreement with Gnasher (not to imply disagreement with the rest of Gnasher).

[kenrexford]

FWIW, the winning action would have been to pass, but I think the problem is off.

 

Partner had ♠Axxx ♥Q10x ♦Ax ♣Axxx. I competed in diamond twice (and I think this is the practical course unless 2♣ shows this diamond imbalance) because of the tap problem and because of an expectation of a likely 3-4 imbalance from partner in the majors. I was given the charge by partner, but I think the double was the cause of the poor result, myself.

[gwnn]

I like his double very much. I would have bid 2♥+3♦ and on this hand it would have worked poorly. That's the way bridge is. Why is the practical course to conceal a 4 card major? I thought you liked bidding even 3 card majors from time to time? :)