The Wire

[Rodney26]

Red All, second chair, MP:

 

♠

♥AKJ

♦KJ762

♣KJT85

 

RHO opens 1♠. Whatever you do, 4♠ comes back to you with partner silent.

 

Yes, you get a wire, but this shouldn't be too surprising. How do you think this hand should have been handled?

[Siegmund]

If I had a wire on the board, 2D then 5C.

 

If I were faced with it at the table, I would've probably thought it was strong enough for the 'strong' flavor of unusual 2NT, and followed up with whatever shows the strong hand at my next turn (I guess X, but some pairs might think 4NT was strength rather than 6-6+.)

[Fluffy]

with the likellyhood of 4♠ being bid at some point there is some appeal to 2NT + double, but I still think I'd just double double

[mtvesuvius]

I'll do a Double Double Double :)

[mikestar13]

Clearly 2NT then whichever would show a strong unusual NT (4NT for me--4♠ would show an interest in defending as well as a strong hand, which I don't have with a ♠void.) With a weak HCP hand with enough playing strength to compete I bid ♣.

[the hog]

2D followed by 5C for me. Double is bad with these hearts. You have only 3 and will be ruffing with high trumps.

[l milne]

I'm certainly not passing second round.

 

I like X first round as we have 3 possible trump suits and a strong hand.

Second round, I think bidding for a vul game instead of trying to take a penalty with no trumps seems best. A second double would be more like a strong balanced hand or closer to 1444/1(345), I think I have more playing strength than that. I would bid 4NT second round.

 

X, 4NT isn't a poll option, and no one has suggested it, so maybe I'm kooky.

[Rodney26]

I'm certainly not passing second round.

 

I like X first round as we have 3 possible trump suits and a strong hand.

Second round, I think bidding for a vul game instead of trying to take a penalty with no trumps seems best. A second double would be more like a strong balanced hand or closer to 1444/1(345), I think I have more playing strength than that. I would bid 4NT second round.

 

X, 4NT isn't a poll option, and no one has suggested it, so maybe I'm kooky.

 

I don't think so at all -- it should have been a poll option. Sorry for the omission.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

X, followed by X.

 

Bidding a direct 2NT is possible, but will loose hearts.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[655321]

I am a double then double voter.

 

 

X, 4NT isn't a poll option, and no one has suggested it, so maybe I'm kooky.

 

This also looks a reasonable option to me. At least you avoid the -790s, and the inadequate heart fits, at the cost of never defending 4♠X when that is right. I do think the initial double is clearly correct, then we need to choose between another double (my choice), or 4NT.

 

 

2D followed by 5C for me.

 

And at the other end of the scale, it is no surprise that this, uh, eccentric approach to the hand did not find its way into the poll.

[the hog]

Numeric one, if I want to hear an opinion I value as much as yours, I will flush the loo.

[Rodney26]

Thanks everyone for all the replies (except the ones at the end).

 

At the table, I bid 2NT followed by double, thinking it was best to show my partner 10 cards and values. I now think the womanly approach favored in the poll of 2 doubles is superior. At my first call, there really are still four strains in play even if hearts and NT are unlikely. I'm never going to get to either intelligently by starting with 2NT when the two higher scoring strains are right.

 

It happens to be one of those hands where 4♠ is cold from the side they bid it, and we were never getting more than a 30% board once they did (-790 was worth half a matchpoint). 5 of a minor gets you into even more trouble according to Deep Finesse if they double, but some went plus 1 and 200 with our cards so maybe they were taking the 5 level bait.

 

Opener should be doubling 5 of a minor. Opener had ♠KJT9x ♥x ♦AQxx ♣Axx; dummy had ♠Axxx ♥Txxxxx ♦x ♣xx.