what's partner's got this time?

[Fluffy]

[hv=pc=n&s=sh87542dqt2cqj853&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1sp1n(f1r)2ddp2hp3dd3hp3sp]133|200[/hv]

MPs, 2/1, transfer walsh, 2NT rebid GF not neccesarilly balanced. 2♣ opening 100% GF.

 

 

I had another dissagreement with my dad, what is a typical hand for north here?, and what do you do now?

 

Please notice the free 3♥ bid wich should matter.

[mikeh]

I'm not sure what he's got so far, but I predict a disappointed look on his face as I lay down this dummy in 3♠.

 

More seriously, he should have a near 2♣ bid with solid spades, expecting us to roll off 9 winners if we can bid 3N. We can't. RHO's double makes it too dangerous. I wouldn't bid it at imps, red, and I sure as heck am not bidding it at mps.

[aguahombre]

Please notice the free 3♥ bid wich should matter.

I noticed. Was it an Irish Bluhmer?

[JLOGIC]

.

 

More seriously, he should have a near 2♣ bid with solid spades, expecting us to roll off 9 winners if we can bid 3N.

 

IMO this hand would start with a 3D cue. GF spade 1 suiters or GF spade/club 2 suiters that have no heart tolerance (can't X) and want to leave 3N in the game (can't bid 4C) start with 3D. Other hands start with double.

 

I think partners bidding is perfectly consistent with something like AKQTx Ax xx AKxx, he is just trying to find the right game at this point.

 

Obviously based on that I don't think X then 3C by partner is forcing, it is just a flexible hand trying to find the right spot and show extra values (AKxxx Axx x KQxx).

[Codo]

I bid 4 ♣

 

AS Justin said, Partner has no one suiter, no two suiter, but a strong hand. So I try to find a fit in his second suit... Maybe I will regret my 1 NT bid or my 3 ♥ bid, but whatever will happen, it won`t be worse then 3 ♠.

[gszes]

first things first do we really want to play in a heart contract opposite a

p with a max of 3 hearts and probable dia taps for the defense wiping

out their top trumps? Once you realize hearts will make a poor contract

we should not comptete with 2h but with 3c. this will leave us much better

placed should the bidding continue since we could then bid 3h over 3d

for ex. At this point it looks like your best bet is

 

4c

 

but it carries far less weight this way than a 3c bid would have if we

bid it immediately

[dake50]

As Justin reasons, isn't this a 3Nt bid?

Likely D:Q10x stops DAKxxx from LHO.

Has LHO any less for his 2D bid?

Likely 3xS-tops +5xClubs +HA +DQ.

Partner is pushing hard for game, try 3Nt.

[Fluffy]

As Justin reasons, isn't this a 3Nt bid?

Likely D:Q10x stops DAKxxx from LHO.

Has LHO any less for his 2D bid?

Likely 3xS-tops +5xClubs +HA +DQ.

Partner is pushing hard for game, try 3Nt.

Missunderstanding Justin doesn't give your reasoning any more weight :), read mike and you will realice why opponents run first 6 tricks in 3NT. Reread Justin and you will see the difference between double+3♦ versus direct 3♦

[Fluffy]

IObviously based on that I don't think X then 3C by partner is forcing, it is just a flexible hand trying to find the right spot and show extra values (AKxxx Axx x KQxx).

 

I though double + 3♣ showed a big hand with 2 suits more than a flexible hand, something like AKxxx x Kx KQ10xx would bid like that, maybe with spades+clubs its not that good, but with touching suits like hearts+ diamonds or spades+hearts I would do that for sure.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I think 3S is forcing, with 6 spades and a hand not worth a GF, North could have bid 3S 1-2 rounds earlier,

and the GF should be established with the 3D bid.

The 3H bid basically showes only a 5th heart, denies 2 spades, and most likely denies a diamond control,

showing the 5th heart 8xxxx instead of the diamond stopper.

I would bid 3NT now, and wont worry about partners hand, I have a feature partner I did not show earlies, I

show it now.

 

No idea, what partner has, but I dont care, as long as I have an idea, what to do.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Missed the X of 3D ..., 4C is now a lot better.

[JLOGIC]

I though double + 3♣ showed a big hand with 2 suits more than a flexible hand, something like AKxxx x Kx KQ10xx would bid like that, maybe with spades+clubs its not that good, but with touching suits like hearts+ diamonds or spades+hearts I would do that for sure.

 

Yeah I personally wouldn't do that because you're getting into the dangerous zone of your hand not being good enough to control the auction if partner starts jumping in hearts. I want my partner to be able to get excited and jump to 4H with 6 hearts, or with 5 hearts good hearts and no diamond wastage, even with not that many HCP. Something like Qx AQJxx xxxx xx would be a very exciting hand to me if partner Xed 2D, it seems like the type of hand where you might make a 20-22 point game. That is why I don't think you should be able to double without heart tolerance (usually 3 but with a very strong hand and 2 that is stuck for a bid it's probably fine also, with that hand type if partner gets excited in hearts you will still make even in a 5-2, in fact that will probably be your best spot).

 

This leaves me with passing with minimum 5-5s, game forcing with 5-5 17 counts, and still having a pretty wide range for a 3C bid (I would bid with a pure hand like AKTxx xx x AQTxx all the way up to a good 16). This leaves a lot to be desired, presumably thats why some people play good/bad 2N but that leaves you stuck on natural 2N bids also. To be honest this kind of thing is one reason I switched to precision lol.

 

By the way, I am sure there are many ways to play this kind of situation I am not saying mine is the best way or the right way so hopefully it doesn't read that way. It's pretty messy.

[rhm]

I can understand 2♥, but I would not want to make an unforced 3♥ rebid with this suit and this rubbish opposite a very strong hand.

Without specific agreements I would have passed last round.

Now I would bid 4♣. If 3♠ is our last available plus score, so be it.

If partner has semisolid spades he can bid them himself again, but otherwise there is just too much risk that we may belong in clubs.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[jogs]

[hv=pc=n&s=sh87542dqt2cqj853&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1sp1n(f1r)2dd]133|200[/hv]

MPs, 2/1, transfer walsh, 2NT rebid GF not neccesarilly balanced. 2♣ opening 100% GF.

 

 

I had another dissagreement with my dad, what is a typical hand for north here?, and what do you do now?

 

Please notice the free 3♥ bid wich should matter.

Back up the bidding.

[hv=pc=n&s=sh87542dqt2cqj853&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1sp1n(f1r)2dd]133|200[/hv]

 

Is this double clearly takeout? Might it not show diamonds?

[aguahombre]

Yes, Jogs. It could be, if your partner is as old as me...something like 5-1-4-3 with a strong suggestion to nail them for their insolence.

 

But, I don't believe in this day and age we would dare assume that interpretation without discussion. And, many jurisdictions would insist we alert the opponents that they have made a mistake.

[jogs]

We're informal here. Lower case j, jogs.

 

With 5-4 in spades and hearts we can bid 2♥.

Opponents are overcalling nowadays with AJxxx

at the two level. It's like they have impunity

from punishment.

 

Do we really need the double for 5=3=1=4?

[gnasher]

Do we really need the double for 5=3=1=4?

It's certainly useful to be able to show this shape.

[ArtK78]

We need to play adjective bridge. Opener could say "takeout double" or "penalty double" or, if he wanted to show extras without either pure takeout shape or a trump stack, he could say "optional double."

 

When I first saw this thread, I was wondering when someone would mention that the double of 2♦ might show diamonds. I know it is a quaint idea, but that is how I would take it. But I was born in the 50's, which means by the standards of these fora I am ancient.

[gordontd]

It's like they have impunity

from punishment.

 

:)

[gnasher]

When I first saw this thread, I was wondering when someone would mention that the double of 2♦ might show diamonds.

Why is it relevant that some people play the double as showing diamonds? It's obvious that the NS in the original post don't.

[ArtK78]

Why is it relevant that some people play the double as showing diamonds? It's obvious that the NS in the original post don't.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sh87542dqt2cqj853&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1sp1n(f1r)2ddp2hp3dd3hp3sp]133|200[/hv]

MPs, 2/1, transfer walsh, 2NT rebid GF not neccesarilly balanced. 2♣ opening 100% GF.

 

 

I had another dissagreement with my dad, what is a typical hand for north here?, and what do you do now?

 

Please notice the free 3♥ bid wich should matter.

 

If the question is "what is a typical hand for north here?" it is far from clear that this partnership plays the double as takeout. Yes, the 2♥ bid indicates that the double was interpreted as takeout, and the subsequent double by East of North's 3♦ bid points in that direction, but I would be interested in finding out if the partnership has a firm agreement that the double of 2♦ was a takeout double.

[PhilKing]

but I would be interested in finding out if partner meant it as takeout.

 

Given that partner followed up his double with a game-forcing cue bid and a 3♠ bid, I am going to go out on a limb and predict that he meant it as take-out.

[jogs]

 

I had another dissagreement with my dad, what is a typical hand for north here?, and what do you do now?

 

 

That sounds like there was no agreement on the meaning of this double.

[Fluffy]

That sounds like there was no agreement on the meaning of this double.

 

LOL, if we had no agreement about basic bidding I would refrain from posting on the Expert bridge forum. This problem is not about obvious meanings of the second round, it is about the nuances of 4th bid by opener.

 

 

In retrospect I think neither dad nor me got this one right, he though 3♠ was forcing offering a COG, I though at first partner was trying 3NT with solid spades, missing that he would had bid 3♦ the round before with it, but even if he didn't I didn't wanna go any higher.

 

 

As it turns out the best contract was 4♣, partner had ♠AKxxxxx ♥KQx ♦- ♣Axx, with spades 1-5 I think nothing makes. A misdefence in 3♠ allowed -1 for a 70% MP score.

[benlessard]

I would play partner for a strong 6214. Because i dont see any other hands fitting the bill.

[dake50]

Missunderstanding Justin doesn't give your reasoning any more weight :), read mike and you will realice why opponents run first 6 tricks in 3NT. Reread Justin and you will see the difference between double+3♦ versus direct 3♦

*** SIMPLY count the tricks in Justin's example hands.

Reread Justin to see this IS A 3NT.