compete, pass or pull

[ggwhiz]

What about a pure hand with 3 tricks, like Axxxxx,xx,AKx,xx?

 

I consider a double with this hand to be a serious error. Pard more likely has only 5 cards in spades of dubious quality and more defensive stuff than that.

 

You have to give me 6 petunias in spades (moving the Ace somewhere else) and add a body card or two to make this look like a double in my partnership.

[rhm]

I consider a double with this hand to be a serious error. Pard more likely has only 5 cards in spades of dubious quality and more defensive stuff than that.

 

You have to give me 6 petunias in spades (moving the Ace somewhere else) and add a body card or two to make this look like a double in my partnership.

If pard has slightly more we have good play for 4♠

 

Rainer Herrmann

[ggwhiz]

If pard has slightly more we have good play for 4♠

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Not opposite a slow minor suit trick like ♣QJx or ♦Qx you don't.

[han]

I think that partner is more likely to have a 5-1-3-4 or 5-1-3-3 with some tricks.

[CSGibson]

I think that partner is more likely to have a 5-1-3-4 or 5-1-3-3 with some tricks.

 

I find 5-1-3-3 very unlikely.

[Fluffy]

Partner had AJ10xx x AQxx Qxx

 

none of the 4 queens worked on defence and declarer made 12 tricks when spades weren't led, -1190 was 0%, but -680 wasn't much better.

[Fluffy]

Disagree with this. If partner had a hand that was uncertain whether he wanted to bid 4♠ to make, he would have make a game try. In fact, its certain that he does not want to bid 4♠ as an attempt to make, and that his double is a strong indication that he does NOT want me to save.

 

Did you see the auction wrong? partner's double is in reopening position, you passed 4♥ around with this cards (bidding 4♠ is also an option althou nobody comented on it)

[CSGibson]

Did you see the auction wrong? partner's double is in reopening position, you passed 4♥ around with this cards (bidding 4♠ is also an option althou nobody comented on it)

 

I did see the auction wrong.

[lalldonn]

Partner had AJ10xx x AQxx Qxx

 

none of the 4 queens worked on defence and declarer made 12 tricks when spades weren't led, -1190 was 0%, but -680 wasn't much better.

I have no idea why he doubled, or why he didn't lead spades?

[rhm]

I have no idea why he doubled, or why he didn't lead spades?

Because it is MP, you made a constructive raise and he thought he had to protect his plus score.

2 overtricks was admittedly unlucky.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[sathyab]

The double made it worse but only marginally. The more fundamental problem is not bidding an obvious 4-over-4 with 9 ♠. The opponents could yet make 5♥, but you'd have bid the limit of your hands. If you were playing a dreaded convention that starts with a "B" and made the appropriate 3-level bid to show a mixed raise with four trumps, partner would have an easier time bidding 4♠. Since you were not playing that convention, you have a guess both over 4♥ and whether to pull or pass partner's eventual double of 4♥. It'd be clearly wrong to bid 4♠ directly as there're many hands where 9 tricks are the limit for both sides. And as some posters have pointed out, partner could easily have had his competitive 3♠ bid and his double of 4♥.

[lalldonn]

Because it is MP, you made a constructive raise and he thought he had to protect his plus score.

2 overtricks was admittedly unlucky.

 

Rainer Herrmann

The raise is not defined as constructive (even if you have to throw that word in to make your point more effective), nor did he know if he was getting a plus score, nor did he know if failing to protect it would result in a bad score, nor did he have reason to believe it was protect-able (i.e. that the opponents would be down).

 

So I suppose I agree with "it is MP" and with "2 overtricks was admittedly unlucky" but not with anything else. And it still doesn't explain why he didn't lead spades. Any other lead looks strange.

[rhm]

The raise is not defined as constructive (even if you have to throw that word in to make your point more effective), nor did he know if he was getting a plus score, nor did he know if failing to protect it would result in a bad score, nor did he have reason to believe it was protect-able (i.e. that the opponents would be down).

 

So I suppose I agree with "it is MP" and with "2 overtricks was admittedly unlucky" but not with anything else. And it still doesn't explain why he didn't lead spades. Any other lead looks strange.

In chronological sequence:

 

2♠ is a constructive raise (8-10 balanced typically)

 

I pull. I expect my partner to have a singleton heart and a good hand. My thin constructive raise contains no defensive tricks.

...

I bet one game is making

 

We did not make a limit raise, constructive or not we made a simple 2 raise. I am having hard time to understand the complaints about this hand being look like a preempt 3♠ more than 2♠ because it has no defense values. Since when we created a rule that says a constructive 2 raise should have 1 or 2 tricks in defense ?

There seems to be no agreement what a constructive raise shows.

 

Rainer Herrmann