[Apollo81]

Jxxx
10xx
Qx
J109x

all red, IMPs

(1NT)-p-(2♦)-p
(2♥)-X-(p)-2♠
(p)-3♦-(p)-?

methods over 1NT:
double = major+minor
2♣ = majors
2♦♥♠ = natural

[inquiry]

I bid 3♠.

• If partner had just diamonds he would have bid 2♦ over 1NT
  
• If partner had minor two suiter, he would have bid 2NT over 1NT or over 2♥ or perhaps bid 3♣ over 2♥
  
• So, partner has spade fit and is looking for game, and 3♦ is showing were his values are, the ♦Q is good, but nothing else here is.

I bid 3♠ and leave well enough lone after that, yes we are red, yes partner makes a strong game try..but I am not going to bid 4♠ here.

[helene_t]

I find it difficult to construct a hand for partner. It looks as if he has opening strength, yet he did not bid immediately. The most likely hand is a 3253.

I have some diamond tollerance and not much else so I pass. Since we don't seem to have a hearts guard and we don't seem to have a spades fit, we probably won't miss game.

[kenrexford]

I would ask partner to pass it over to me, take a big hit, hold my breath for a few seconds, and then at least be on partner's same wavelength when I decide.

[jdonn]

I pass, he couldn't bid this way unless he was willing to play diamonds opposite Qx. I will assume he has a 3163 hand with decent strength but fairly moderate diamonds, and doubled in case I could pass or convert back to spades with very long ones. Not that I would do this, but it's the most logical thing he could be doing that I can come up with.

[inquiry]

jdonn, on Mar 30 2007, 10:43 AM, said:

I pass, he couldn't bid this way unless he was willing to play diamonds opposite Qx. I will assume he has a 3163 hand with decent strength but fairly moderate diamonds, and doubled in case I could pass or convert back to spades with very long ones. Not that I would do this, but it's the most logical thing he could be doing that I can come up with.

Given partner has a good hand, why didn't he bid a natural 2♦ with 3-1-6-3? Just curious, because I don't think this distribution is at all possible with the methods advocated.

[jdonn]

inquiry, on Mar 30 2007, 11:05 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 30 2007, 10:43 AM, said:

I pass, he couldn't bid this way unless he was willing to play diamonds opposite Qx. I will assume he has a 3163 hand with decent strength but fairly moderate diamonds, and doubled in case I could pass or convert back to spades with very long ones. Not that I would do this, but it's the most logical thing he could be doing that I can come up with.

Given partner has a good hand, why didn't he bid a natural 2♦ with 3-1-6-3? Just curious, because I don't think this distribution is at all possible with the methods advocated.

Because his diamonds were bad.

Reiterating, I am not saying what I would do in his position, I am saying what I think he was doing.

[bid_em_up]

kenrexford, on Mar 30 2007, 09:13 AM, said:

I would ask partner to pass it over to me, take a big hit, hold my breath for a few seconds, and then at least be on partner's same wavelength when I decide.

LOL!

[dake50]

Opposite an inviting 3-suiter short H, I think I'm losing 0-1S, 1H, 0D, 1-2C.
I try 4S.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Mar 30 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

His diamonds were bad so he couldn't bid 2D...but now he can drive to 3D... makes sense.

Of course not, that's why I said I wouldn't do it 3♦ as a descriptive spade raise or something is definitely the best technical meaning but to me it's too much to ask someone to read it that way without discussion.

Haven't you seen auctions like 1♥ p 1NT p 2♦ 2♠ before? And in my experience, when people do that they have a good hand with a bad suit. Stupid? To me yes, but people still do it.

[Apollo81]

Frankly I'm surprised no one else reads this as a strong hand with just diamonds.

What was partner supposed to do over 1NT? Double? Now when he bids 3♦ this hand is definitely going to bid spades. 2♦? Not appropriate for a strong hand.

[bid_em_up]

Apollo81, on Mar 30 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

Now when he bids 3♦ this hand is definitely going to bid spades.  2♦?  Not appropriate for a strong hand.

So instead your methods force you to pass and let them find their fit first before coming in at the 3 level?

Hmmm.

[Apollo81]

bid_em_up, on Mar 30 2007, 02:40 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Mar 30 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

Now when he bids 3♦ this hand is definitely going to bid spades.  2♦?  Not appropriate for a strong hand.

So instead your methods force you to pass and let them find their fit first before coming in at the 3 level?

Hmmm.

and your methods over strong 1n provide for a way to show an 18 count with 6♦ before they can bid hearts?
hmmm

[whereagles]

yep. a good hand with diams. that's why pard didnt dbl 1N: he doesn't have a pen dbl available and the diam suit is a bit too moot to bid 2♦ directly (prolly only 5 carder)

[cherdano]

I think partner should have a good hand and didn't bid earlier because he was happy just beating 1N. Maybe Axx Ax KQJTxx xx. (I know I have the ♦Q, just saying what I think his bidding should show.)

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Mar 31 2007, 01:14 AM, said:

cherdano, on Mar 30 2007, 05:46 PM, said:

I think partner should have a good hand and didn't bid earlier because he was happy just beating 1N. Maybe Axx Ax KQJTxx xx. (I know I have the ♦Q, just saying what I think his bidding should show.)

then why did he X 2H and not bid 3D immediately?

I think it's slightly risky to take inferences from the fact that pard dbled instead of bidding 3♦ because sometimes pards think in strange ways

[awm]

I would pass. I think partner is showing:

(1) A hand too good for a direct 2♦ bid.
(2) A hand with some flexibility (probably 3-card spades).

Typical might be:

Axx
x
AKJxxx
Axx

or perhaps even with an extra black king.

However, it's not clear to me we have game opposite this hands. Even with the extra king making 5♦ or 4♠ will be a struggle. Our hand really contains only one useful card (the ♦Q) and I'd be surprised if this were really enough for game.