ATB 5cX -1100

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj943h8d76cakq642&w=sa865h754dat3c975&n=st2hqt32dq9854c83&e=skq7hakj96dkj2cjt&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1h2c2hp3d3s4dp4hppdp5cdppp]399|300|

dwar0123 asks "2/1 gf imps. So I guess we have 3 questions.

1. Did north have his double given partners bidding?

2. What exactly does south show with the 3♠ bid?

3. Should south run to 5♣ here?"

 

I agree with Fluffy about the meaning of 3♠ so IMO..

1. No. Double doomed NS to a bad score.

2. 4+ ♠ 6+ ♣ with playing rather defensive strength. e.g. ♠ AQxx ♥ - ♦ xx ♣ QJxxxxx would suffice.

3. No. Rather than jump out of the frying pan into the fire, South should trust his partner. (so blame 50-50).

[/hv]

I can tell you now that if my pd held the South card's and bid like that the opponents were going down.. Anyway, who says I have 0 tricks?

Han... but, as the cards lie, North's hand seems to be worth a trick. e.g. Declarer might ruff the third ♣, cash ♥A, cross to ♠A, finesse ♥J, Cash ♥K, continue with ♠KQ and a fourth trump, to end-play North and avoid a ♦ guess.

[rmnka447]

1. No, partner may be bidding a distributional player. Besides, both opponents have shown red suit fits with the strong hand behind you. Doubling may just be giving too much information about how to play the hand to declarer. Another thing to consider is what your side can make. It certainly doesn't look like you and your partner have anything more than a partscore. So if you beat 4 ♥, there's unlikely to be much of a swing.

 

2. A hand with longer ♠s than ♣s. The more distributional the hand the less HCP needed to make the bid. Kxxxx x x KQJxxx would be enough.

 

3. No, there's no reason to believe that 5 ♣ will yield a better result than 4 ♥. This hand is a good advertisement for the Fred Will approach. Fred was a very fine, wise old player from Detroit. When asked about his secret to success, he said "I never do anything that I can be criticized for in the post mortem." Simple, but sage advice. You don't want to be explaining to partner why you pulled the double when partner shows up with ♥ QJ109 and 4 ♥ never makes.

[mgoetze]

2. A hand with longer ♠s than ♣s. The more distributional the hand the less HCP needed to make the bid. Kxxxx x x KQJxxx would be enough.

Surely not what you meant, or are you serious AND giving hands in reverse suit order?

[the hog]

"2. A hand with longer ♠s than ♣s. The more distributional the hand the less HCP needed to make the bid. Kxxxx x x KQJxxx would be enough."

 

I assume you don't play Michaels?

[rmnka447]

My bad -- meant longer ♣s than ♠.

[the hog]

I still assume you don't play Michaels as this is a classic Michael's hand.

[phil_20686]

I still assume you don't play Michaels as this is a classic Michael's hand.

 

A lot of people play split range, so there are 5-6 hands that would fit in there.

 

I dont like split range, For me 5-6 hands would need a big suit disparitly to bid this way: JTxxx - xx AKJxxx would probably be enough.