Torrance - III and IV

[Phil]

Still MPs

 

(r/w)

 

♠J8xxx ♥K8xxx ♦Qx ♣x

 

(1♦) - 1♠ - (2♠) - ?

 

and similarly....

 

♠T6xxx ♥AKJ8x ♦x ♣K9

 

p - 1♠;

2♣* - ?

 

* limit raise - trump length unknown.

[wyman]

Pass looks really attractive on hand 1. Maybe this is masterminding, but I don't think 3S does enough damage, and 4S is probably too rich r/w.

 

I'd bid 2H natural on 2.

[nigel_k]

I'll bid 4♠ on 1 despite the vulnerability. Maybe too much but I'm worth three and a half at least, and partner won't expect this much shape if I just bid three.

 

On the second one I'll bid 2♥, which I would pretty much always do when holding hearts and too good to sign off. Obviously we care a lot whether partner has three or four card support so may well have a problem on the next round. 2♥ isn't weaker or stronger than 2♦ the way I play, but not 100% sure what is standard here.

[Fluffy]

first one I am happy with 3♠, I might try 3♥ as a passed hand but not here.

 

second one its close to just blast game and let them guess, even if partner has ♠xxx we ain't down yet.

 

but if partner will knows how to evaluate after 2♥ I prefer it.

[ggwhiz]

I'm in for 3♠ on #1 which may well park them in 4♦ with the problem of evaluating spade shortness (or not) in their pards hand and if pard has a good one, we'll hear about it.

 

On #2, pard can evaluate after 2♥ but so can they, finding a good sac? (same r/w I assume). I'm blasting 4♠ and damn the torpedoes.

[bigbenvic]

3♠ on the first one, 4 tends to get whacked and go for 5's or 8's too often.

 

2♥ if it is Nat and if isn't a GF.

[kayin801]

I think anything but 4♠ on #1 is crazy. Wouldn't overthink it. Even at these colors I'd wager it's right more often than not.

 

On #2 if I don't bid 2♥ I guess I bid 4♠, may as well not give away any extra info. Sorta depends on your lower limit, if partner promises at least a good 10 then just blasting is a reasonable gamble, maybe they'll make a bad lead and our heart suit will surprise them. If it can be less then 2♥ seems better to let partner evaluate.

[the hog]

4S on the first, 2H on the second.

[gnasher]

4♠ looks obvious on 1. Yes, it might go for 500, but it might also be cold. Or it might be going down but provoke them into bidding something that's going down.

[Fluffy]

4♠ looks obvious on 1. Yes, it might go for 500, but it might also be cold. Or it might be going down but provoke them into bidding something that's going down.

 

change 500 for a larger number and the sentence is right for every deal :P

[mikeh]

On the first one, 3♠ seems about right. I really don't like the Qx diamonds....4♠ could obviously work, but invites -200 as well as 500. This is mps, so -200 on a partscore hand won't be wonderful.

 

On the 2nd, this seems like an advertisement for 2 way drury, where we'd just bid game if we knew partner held 4 trump. As it is, a natural 2♥ seems reasonable. There are hands where natural bidding loses out to blasting, because we give away too much information, but I'm not worried about that on this hand, not compared to the trump problem.

[rmnka447]

4 ♠ on the first hand and I'd be ready to apologize, if it doesn't work out.

 

2 ♥ on the second, the hand is definitely worth a game try.