Just Checking - II

[Phil]

A97x KJx QT7x xx

 

1♦ - (1♥) - dbl* - (p);

2♣ - (2♥) - 3♦ - (3♥);

3♠ - (p) - 3N - (p);

4♦ - (p) - ?

 

* - 4 or 5 spades

[BunnyGo]

I assume this is also IMPs? I bid 5D.

[kfay]

I think I should have bid 2NT.

 

Partner's bidding doesn't seem very consistent. Did we discuss what he's supposed to do over the first double? Slam seems a little distant (Kxx x AKxxx AKxx, and even then it's not a lock [if trumps don't break they can screw up my simple-played-as-double with 2 spade leads]) but maybe he was trying to show a hand in this range by bidding the way he did. Although it seems to me that I should bid more than 2-only-♣, partner's double shows something after all.

 

5-only-♦ it is.

[Phil]

Sorry its IMPs. NV as I recall.

[mikeh]

I echo kfay's comment about needing to know about his action over our double....I would have thought 1♠ would show 3 and 2♠ would show 4....but I suspect that isn't universal. We do have to wonder why he went out of his way to bid clubs when he clearly has at least some liking for spades. I would have thought maybe he was 3=0=5=5, but, if so, I have to wonder why the opps are so relatively tame.

 

All of which is by way of saying that his bidding puzzles me but even though I have marginal values, I don't think I can stay out of game......5♦....please, please don't tell me he is 3=1=4=5 and thought it was appropriate to start with 1♦ and then bid clubs.

 

I am far more afraid we are too high than that we've missed a decent slam.

[ggwhiz]

I am far more afraid we are too high than that we've missed a decent slam.

 

I'm afraid we are too high in 4♦. 3-1-5-4 seems most likely, wouldn't be keen on 3nt after my failure to bid 2nt and bid ONLY 2♣ over my double.

 

Opposite short hearts I have a working 6 count, perhaps a pitch on my ♥K and perhaps it's a useless pitch.

 

Using the first double to show 4 or 5 spades instead of just 4 is problematic and could entice pards 3♠ competition on some marginal hands with 3 trumps and shortness in hearts. The following 3nt bid just sounds like only 4 with marginal stoppers/tricks and gets the Yikes! (we ain't makin THAT) 4♦ bid.

 

I've been wrong before and will be again but slam thoughts or even game are lol here. I would have passed 3♠.

[mike777]

A97x KJx QT7x xx

 

1♦ - (1♥) - dbl* - (p);

2♣ - (2♥) - 3♦ - (3♥);

3♠ - (p) - 3N - (p);

4♦ - (p) - ?

 

* - 4 or 5 spades

 

 

 

4d sounds like a slam try

I value my hand as dead minimum

 

 

 

5d

[Phil]

I'm afraid we are too high in 4♦. 3-1-5-4 seems most likely, wouldn't be keen on 3nt after my failure to bid 2nt and bid ONLY 2♣ over my double.

 

Opposite short hearts I have a working 6 count, perhaps a pitch on my ♥K and perhaps it's a useless pitch.

 

Using the first double to show 4 or 5 spades instead of just 4 is problematic and could entice pards 3♠ competition on some marginal hands with 3 trumps and shortness in hearts. The following 3nt bid just sounds like only 4 with marginal stoppers/tricks and gets the Yikes! (we ain't makin THAT) 4[diamon

 

I've been wrong before and will be again but slam thoughts or even game are lol here. I would have passed 3♠.

 

You don't think 3♠ is forcing?

[Hanoi5]

5♦

[mikeh]

You don't think 3♠ is forcing?

should it be?

 

who showed any strength to this point? 2♣ was distinctly nf. 3♦ was purely competitive....what? I was supposed to pass 2♥ with 4 diamonds and a 7 count? Axxxx Jxx Q10xx x, I have to defend 2♥?

 

 

3♠ was strong in context, but unless somebody found an Ace on the 3rd round of bidding, how can anyone now have a slam try? Or even a gf? We went on to accept his gametry but 3N was definitely NOT what he was hoping to hear.....to construe his running to 4♦ as a try for slam seems a tad inconsistent. Don't get me wrong...I expect to have play for game if he has the values for his auction, but I think it more likely we fail than that slam is good.

[andy_h]

First instinct was to cue 4S because I think we have a good hand. SA, 4th trump (with the Q) and the doubleton club, which might just be enough for what partner's looking for (maybe he has Qx x AKxxxx AKxx with the opening leader having the SK). Our 3D bid is just competitive and it can be made with a wide variety of hands, including some hands with just 3 card diamond support. However, I'm not sure why partner bid 4D instead of 4C over our 3NT. If partner truly doesn't have a club control (KQ -- AKJxxxx QJxx?) then I better just bid 5D now instead of 4S.

[the_clown]

5♦, I have the worst possible ♥holding and p could only bid a nf 2♣ over the X.

[Zelandakh]

My first thought on this was that partner has a 3064 hand and extras, something like 17. Mike's arguments suggest perhaps the 3055 is more likely, not sure, but two things which are certain are that slam is unlikely and partner is making a forcing bid. So our choices appear to be 5♦ and 4♠, and the latter only if this is not a cue. I am going with 5♦. If partner has ggw's weak 3154 hand then we need to have a small chat about the hand after the session. I am clearly too old for these boards if a bid like 3♠ does not show extras in the latest style. If we only wanted to play a part-score then we already have a fit in diamonds; and if we wanted to play a Moysian spade partial then we should have rebid 1♠.

[quiddity]

With two likely stoppers I think 4nt is worth consideration.

[ggwhiz]

if a bid like 3♠ does not show extras in the latest style. If we only wanted to play a part-score then we already have a fit in diamonds; and if we wanted to play a Moysian spade partial then we should have rebid 1♠.

 

I agree with the above and that's the style I play but the OP notes that double of 1♥ shows 4 OR 5 spades.

 

I don't like that but under those conditions think that pard simply doesn't want to defend 3♥ hoping for a 5-3 spade fit and denying much extras's by pulling 3nt to 4♦. Something like KQx, x, AKJxx, not much 4th?

 

The opponents bid 1, 2 then 3 of their suit. They aren't broke and if pard wanted to be in game (other than 3nt) they could just bid it or cue.

 

In my partnership a 5-3 spade fit is out of the question and we absolutely have extras for this bid.

[Phil]

My first thought on this was that partner has a 3064 hand and extras, something like 17. Mike's arguments suggest perhaps the 3055 is more likely, not sure, but two things which are certain are that slam is unlikely and partner is making a forcing bid. So our choices appear to be 5♦ and 4♠, and the latter only if this is not a cue. I am going with 5♦. If partner has ggw's weak 3154 hand then we need to have a small chat about the hand after the session. I am clearly too old for these boards if a bid like 3♠ does not show extras in the latest style. If we only wanted to play a part-score then we already have a fit in diamonds; and if we wanted to play a Moysian spade partial then we should have rebid 1♠.

 

This is exactly what I thought. Kxx void AKJxxx AQxx? Anyway, I bid 5♦ - he had KTx x A9xxx KQxx.

 

I don't think he realizes that 1♠ shows this hand type.

 

He also might consider pass of 3♥ LOL.

[Phil]

should it be?

 

 

I would take 3♠ as a 3-step sequence, much like:

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣ - 2N

3♠

[Phil]

Using the first double to show 4 or 5 spades instead of just 4 is problematic and could entice pards 3♠ competition on some marginal hands with 3 trumps and shortness in hearts.

 

LOL

[BunnyGo]

 

I don't think he realizes that 1♠ shows this hand type.

 

 

Perhaps it's worth discussing why double of 1 heart is 4-5 spades?

[Phil]

Perhaps it's worth discussing why double of 1 heart is 4-5 spades?

 

This is a very common method he seemed to understand the nuances of it pre-game.

[mikeh]

Perhaps it's worth discussing why double of 1 heart is 4-5 spades?

This treatment can be very effective, but only if partner understands the implications.

 

It is (in my limited experience) usually played in conjunction with 1♠ being a hand that denies spades.

 

Thus with say xxx Jx KQ10xx Qxx and partner opening 1♣, with RHO overcalling 1♥, standard methods are stuck. We have enough that we want to be in the auction, yet we have no descriptive bid. Having 1♠ available for this type of hand serves a useful purpose. Imagine having to pass and then hearing LHO raise hearts.

 

We can use 2 level bids to deal with the 6+ spade length. Thus, in 2 of my partnerships, we use 2♥ as a transfer to 2♠, promising 6+ in length. Partner can play us for a weak hand, and we'll take more action later with a better hand.

 

After the double, if 4th hand passes, opener is expected to bid 1♠ with a 3 card holding, unless he has a reason to show another aspect of his hand...more on this below.

 

With 4 spades and a minimum, he bids 2♠...this 'gets you back to the field' compared to an uncontested auction in which responder had bid spades and we raised.

 

If 4th seat bids, then (depending on the auction and partnership agreement) opener can choose to raise spades to show 4 or to make a support double to show 3.

 

Properly handled, the partnership will usually be able to identify the degree of fit fairly well, unless the opps preempt beyond our support double range.

 

I don't play very often so I can't claim that the method is 'wonderful', since I have only a limited number of real life experiences with it, but it seems to me to be a useful method. In particular, the 1♠ bid comes up fairly often and I can say that it is a very useful gadget. Where I am uncertain is whether, in the long run, the undoubted cost of using double and 2♥ as indicated above is justified by the gains.

 

I should add that in one of the partnerships we play a weak 1N, which means that 1♣ is (quite often) based on a strong 1N hand, and now the transfer double and the transfer 2♥ both seem likely to work effectively, by right-siding spade contracts and keeping the overcaller on lead.

 

As for when opener should not show 3 spades....in my view it should be when opener has extras and, say, 3=1=5=4, or extra shape, say 3=0=5=5 or a single suiter with weak spades: Jxx xx AKJxxx Kx

 

So in the given sequence, I would expect a strong, in context, 3=1=5=4...say Kxx x AKxxx KQxx, catering to our holding AJxxx xxx Qxxx x or the like.

[Phil]

You give a perfect summary of the methods along with: (snipped)

 

 

So in the given sequence, I would expect a strong, in context, 3=1=5=4...say Kxx x AKxxx KQxx, catering to our holding AJxxx xxx Qxxx x or the like.

 

Then why did you ask this:

 

should it be?

 

 

Two MikeH's again??

[mikeh]

You give a perfect summary of the methods along with: (snipped)

 

 

 

Then why did you ask this:

 

 

 

Two MikeH's again??

You know what they say about consistency, don't you?

 

Besides, I don't see my posts as inconsistent. 'Strong in context' is not the same as 'forcing'.

 

All I did was to express curiosity about whether 3♠ ought to be 'forcing', given that neither bidder has yet taken more than a minimum action.....I mean, would anyone pass 2♥ with a 5=3=4=1 6 or 7 count?

 

I don't see 3♦ as promising values.....I think it to be a wide-range action, foisted upon us by the deprivation of bidding space and the pressure created by 2♥. We MAY have an invitational hand, and that possibility makes it appropriate for opener to bid out his pattern when he has a hand that would accept an invite

 

Thus 3♠ need not, on this view of the auction, be forcing.

 

The counter argument is that opener is clearly prepared to play at the 4 level should we have only 4 spades, so when we have 5, and hence a better playing hand, we should be forced to bid 4♠, even with a weak hand.

 

But Jxxxx Kxx QJxx x doesn't look like a hand that should pass 2♥ nor a hand that should play either 4♠ or 5♦.....imagine either opposite Kxx x AKxxx KQxx

 

Should we just say that the game is too tough....that we have to either defend 3♥ or go minus, possibly doubled, because we need to have a limited non-forcing sequence suddenly become forcing in a competitive auction?

 

I ask the question because I'm interested in the discussion, not because I have a firm view.

[phil_20686]

I thought partners bidding would show 3154 14-16 (or the equivalent in extra shape), like how you should raise at once after 1d-1s with 3 cards and min, but bid your clubs first with 3154 and 14-16.

[ggwhiz]

I thought partners bidding would show 3154 14-16 (or the equivalent in extra shape), like how you should raise at once after 1d-1s with 3 cards and min, but bid your clubs first with 3154 and 14-16.

 

Sorry Phil, I disagree, well maybe 14 but a poor 14.

 

The idea from an earlier construct of yours that pard can have 17 after the opps bid 1, 2 then 3♥ and pard tried to simply buy the partscore at every step points to aliens at the table.

 

I don't think the double showing 4 OR 5 spades is common at all and the posters here don't seem to be familiar with it....... at all. And it gave your pard a big headache. Re-think it?