not a lot pard..

[gwnn]

xxx

JT9xx

xx

Jxx

 

leftie opens, no one vulnerable @ MP

 

1♦-x-1♥-p

2♣-2♠-3♣-?

[Free]

I have 0 tricks, unless I can (over)ruff a ♦, so I'll pass.

[Hanoi5]

I don't want to get partner excited, I pass, too.

[pooltuna]

depends on your doubling structure. If partner's bidding shows the equivalent of a strong 2♣ then call 3♠. If your partner has some discretion between 2, 3, and 4 ♠ then while he holds xtras pass should be clear.

[kenrexford]

depends on your doubling structure. If partner's bidding shows the equivalent of a strong 2♣ then call 3♠. If your partner has some discretion between 2, 3, and 4 ♠ then while he holds xtras pass should be clear.

 

Are you afraid that with a hand where partner would have opened a Strong 2♣ and then would have jumped to 3♠ he will sell out to the opponents playing 3♣? Just how conservative (chicken) is your partner?

[pooltuna]

Are you afraid that with a hand where partner would have opened a Strong 2♣ and then would have jumped to 3♠ he will sell out to the opponents playing 3♣? Just how conservative (chicken) is your partner?

I expect 4♠ shows a hand stronger than 3♠ shows a hand stronger than 2♠ shows more than a minimum TOX

[kenrexford]

I expect 4♠ shows a hand stronger than 3♠ shows a hand stronger than 2♠ shows more than a minimum TOX

 

I'm not sure what all of this means, then.

 

It seems like you are saying that if 2♠ is only sufficient for a 2♠ call, then you pass, but if 2♠ shows a hand where partner should or could have bid 3♠, then you would bid 3♠. But, if that is true, then I think my question remains valid -- why bid 3♠ simply to ensure that partner, who should not pass 3♣ when bidding to 3♠ is right, does not pass 3♣?

 

Maybe bidding 3♠ as Advancer is right or wrong, but your reasoning as to why seems to imply protection against an idiot partner rather than making a valid, descriptive call. But that might just be my take.

[ggwhiz]

The 2♠ bid shows a good hand not a rock crusher, 3♠ shows that.

 

I pass, over to pard and believe strongly that this kind of decision belongs to pass out seat. ie. Pard can double and then I will bid.

[Zelandakh]

If I read it correctly, what the tuna is saying in his second post is that 2S is weaker than 3S and 3S is weaker than 4S, and that all 3 are stronger than a minimum take-out double. Note also that with a 2C opener Doubler could have bid 2D (or 4S). I would tend to agree with this and 2S shows about 16-20 or so for me. However, if 2S was defined as worth a 2C opener (as per tuna's first post) then I would certainly not consider a 3S call but instead be going for 4S, which ought to show a weak hand without any key cards.

[Trinidad]

I would bid 3♠, but then again, I would have 3♦ available to show a decent raise to 3♠.

 

Rik

[han]

I think pass is better, especially with random Dutch partners.