Spades.

[mtvesuvius]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8732haq74d82c85&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1hdp]133|200|IMPs - R/W<br>Your call?[/hv]

[l milne]

3♠. Tempted by 4, not tempted by 2.

[mike777]

4s

 

very close second choice 2h.

 

-

 

 

as south I would have opened 1s btw. pard will never play me for a hand this good.

[HeartA]

2♠. ♥Q is a wasted card, not enough for 2♥.

I play 3♠ as weak hands and looong suit (good 6 or 7+), nothing much on side suit.

What if pd's hand is double-bid hand? maybe there is a slam...

[the hog]

Pretty clear 3S, unless you play this as pre emptive.

[Phil]

2♠.

 

Restart discussions about the American vs European versions interpretations of 3♠ please. Even if I played 3♠ to be 5 spades + an invite, I can't believe this is the right hand for it.

[rogerclee]

I think we have too much for 2S, I would just bid 4S.

[psyck]

I would bid 2♥ with max hands & 4 or less ♠ and 2♠ with max hands & 5 card ♠ (as here). Jumps to 3♠/4♠ by passed hands do not exist for me.

[Siegmund]

2S is fine by me. It's at the top end of the bid, even after we discount our HQ, but it's far from the best hand we could have (one with nothing wasted in hearts), and, even if you ARE a maximum passed hand, that doesn't make your hand a game force opposite a minimum double.

 

(And yes, 3S is preemptive in my part of the world, but I am not good enough for it if it's strong.)

[655321]

Agree with rogerclee, disagree with others.

[l milne]

2♠ bidders seem to hate vul games. If 3♠ is preemptive, and I don't really understand why it would be, especially as a passed hand, then I would bid 4♠.

 

2♥ has some merit but I also don't really see the point.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8732haq74d82c85&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1hdp]133|200|IMPs - R/W<br>Your call?[/hv]

IMO 3♠ = 10, 4♠ = 9, 2♠ = 8, 1N = 6, 1♠ = 5, 2♥ = 4.

[whereagles]

Pretty clear 3S, unless you play this as pre emptive.

 

agree, though I could even go as far as bidding 4 if I feel lucky :)

[pooltuna]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8732haq74d82c85&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1hdp]133|200|IMPs - R/W<br>Your call?[/hv]

 

It of course depends on your response structure. With this particular hand I would venture 3♠ hoping for extra benefit from the long ♠ to offset the Q♥ not pulling full weight. If the AQ were in the minors this would be an easy call but I can understand others only choosing 2♠ which I would probably choose as well if NV.

 

 

EDIT : I find the 4♠ bidders LOL as many would say ♠KQx ♥xx♦Kxxx♣Kxxx is a clear TOX in this auction, Well more power to them. Personally I can never manage to have my cake and eat it too but I guess they figured out how to manage that as well.

[Phil]

Wow, amazed at some of the 4♠ calls here, especially if you look at Karlson's TOx on the other thread. I'm wondering what kind of hand the 4♠ bidders are worried about where we would miss a game and partner cannot make a move over 2♠.

[nigel_k]

2♠.

 

Restart discussions about the American vs European versions interpretations of 3♠ please. Even if I played 3♠ to be 5 spades + an invite, I can't believe this is the right hand for it.

Agree with restarting discussions. To me this is an obvious 3♠ and I can't remember ever holding the preemptive one.

[lexlogan]

2♠. Nice shape, good controls, and the Q♥ is protected from the opening lead, but it's still a poorly placed card for suit play.

[lexlogan]

Pretty clear 3S, unless you play this as pre emptive.

 

Who doesn't? I thought cue-bid with a hand too strong for a single jump was normal in Acol as well as American styles, but I don't have a book handy. Anyway, 3♠ is certainly not appropriate in SAYC or 2/1 bidding.

[Fluffy]

Who doesn't? I thought cue-bid with a hand too strong for a single jump was normal in Acol as well as American styles, but I don't have a book handy. Anyway, 3♠ is certainly not appropriate in SAYC or 2/1 bidding.

I believe the rest of the world, but I can't say it confidently.

 

This is a pretty obvious 3♠ on my style (Spain), wich is french style also. So sad we don't have many Italians speaking english here (missing Mauro), I am sure they would give us an interesting different look to many situations

[gordontd]

I thought cue-bid with a hand too strong for a single jump was normal in Acol as well as American styles, but I don't have a book handy.

I used to think the standard in Acol was to bid as though raising partner's opening bid, so 3♠ is a limit raise. However I've learned from previous discussions of this nature that there's some variation in understanding.

 

The one Acol-based book I found then that discusses it explicitly, Sally Brock's "Double Trouble", doesn't play the double jump as pre-emptive.

[Free]

Agree with rogerclee, disagree with others.

If I also agree with rogerclee, then you just created a paradox! That's very dangerous you know.

 

Luckily I disagree :P 3♠ unless that's preemptive.

[mike gill]

I would bid 2♠. I'm finding it hard to construct hands without the hK where partner passes 2♠ and game is good (I guess KQJT xx AQxx xxx, but partner's spade quality is really important because of overruffs, and the dK could be off). Meanwhile I'm finding it very easy to construct normal takeout doubles where game is just silly (Kxx xx AKTx QJxx).

[ArtK78]

To me, an obvious 2♠ call. Before I read the responses to the opening post, I thought that this would have been an LOL. Obviously not.

 

I would expect a hand like this for a 2♠ bid opposite a takeout double. Given the dreck that passes for takeout doubles today, this is a normal 2♠ response.

[mtvesuvius]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt95h83dkjt3ckq4&n=sa8732haq74d82c85&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1hdp2hp2sp4sppp]266|200|Originally I rotated the hand for ease of presentation. I was extremely unhappy with my bidding on this hand, but still considered it to be a problem... Anyway, West has the QJx♠, and East has everything else... So 4♠ was down 1.[/hv]

[wank]

well, it rather looks like you would have made 4S from the north side then unless east leads his singleton trump.

 

wrong-siding it by cue-ing 2H was rather predictable. you've got 5 spades - i wouldn't think you needed a dialogue to select the strain.

 

personally i think 2♠ is an underbid. I'd bid 3 or 4, though to be fair, I don't play the same style of take-out doubles espoused on here.