[Flame]

You are playing a strong club system in a strong field against strong opponenets.
You hold:

---

the bidding goes: (parnter bid first)
1♣-1NT*-P-2♥
Dbl -2♠-P-3♠
P - P - ???

1♣ = 16+ but if bal its 17+ and if 5♥s its 20+
1NT = either ♠ and ♦ or ♣ and ♥
2♥ = pass or correct.
Dbl = expained as points, penaltish see also our 1♣ definition/
3♠ = not invite.

You might have bid before,all doubles show penaltish hands and the first double is defined as 7+ bal. Im intrested in wather you would have act before and how but more intrest in whather you double now or pass the 3♠ ?
Thanks in advance to those who answer.

[whereagles]

I should have bid before. Having not done so, I have to bid now.

4♣.

[jtfanclub]

Not sure why I didn't bid 3♣ over 2♠.

Originally, I was going to X. But I don't see where this is going. Partner should be short on spades (both opps bid them, I have 3), 3NT is out of the question. I don't like 4♥ with the 5-2 when the 5 is going to be doing the ruffing. 5♦ looks next to impossible. That just leaves clubs.

So I have to agree, 4♣.

I'm still not an expert.

[Fluffy]

4♣ looks like a reasonable option, I wouldn't pass for sure, defendig 3♠ undoubled doesn't score very good when you have game values with fit.

Not familiar to strrong club systems anyway.

[jdonn]

I think I had a clear 3♥ bid last round. We know neither opponent is long in hearts most likely, one has spades and diamonds and the other would have bid 3♥ p/c not 2♥ if he had good support for hearts. Partner doubled to show hearts (I see your definition but it's hard for me to believe he would double that without 5 or more hearts) and I have KJ, this was my chance to make the bid he wanted to hear. If I had done that I would have an easy double now since if I understand you I denied 7+ by not doubling 1NT. In that context I would have great defense and partner would know when to pull.

I agree with bidding last round, but neither then or now should I bid clubs. I have a good holding in partner's major and I'm going to bid Txxxx of a minor?

[whereagles]

Since we passed 1NT and 2♠, our clubs can't really be KQJxxx, can they??

[Fluffy]

Also you would have doubled 2♠ with 4 of them, double is probably based on better spades, but its not so far.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on May 11 2007, 04:37 PM, said:

Since we passed 1NT and 2♠, our clubs can't really be KQJxxx, can they??

Why not xxx x xx KJxxxxx?

It's easy to say to yourself my clubs can be very bad since I didn't them before, but think how it looks to partner who can't see your hand. You pass forever then bid 4♣ all of a sudden, and you expect him to put you on Txxxx, instead of very long clubs in a very bad hand? I don't think so.

[hrothgar]

Life would have been a lot easier if you had been able to show a balanced semi-positive directly over the 1NT bid. This is a very common hand type that you need to be able to describe from the get go. Regardless, now you're stuck trying to figure out what do do over 3♠.

From my perspective, the answer very much depends on what partner's double showed

Does it show long Hearts? Is it Penalty oriented with a balanced hand (in which case partner could easily have a (2=4=4=3) 16 count.

I lean towards passing.

If you are going to bid, Double seems obvious

[Flame]

hrothgar, on May 11 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

Is it Penalty oriented with a balanced hand (in which case partner could easily have a (2=4=4=3) 16 count.

I lean towards passing.

It is defined as penalty oriented, but my logic (and my partner) is that since our 1C showed 16+ (17 when bal) you wont make another move with a min.
This is hat david_c define as the default hand, his defaul hand is 17-18 bal, and with that hand he should pass, imo even if he got KQ10X♥ and 18 hcp he would have passed.

[hrothgar]

Flame, on May 12 2007, 02:25 AM, said:

hrothgar, on May 11 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

Is it Penalty oriented with a balanced hand (in which case partner could easily have a (2=4=4=3) 16 count.

I lean towards passing.

It is defined as penalty oriented, but my logic (and my partner) is that since our 1C showed 16+ (17 when bal) you wont make another move with a min.
This is hat david_c define as the default hand, his defaul hand is 17-18 bal, and with that hand he should pass, imo even if he got KQ10X♥ and 18 hcp he would have passed.

You might want to rethink this...

Balanced minimums are quite common. Folks like to overcall strong club openings on complete crap. Its very useful being able to differentiate between a balanced minimum with good trumps and a balanced minimum with xx or even Hxx in the suit in question.

From the sounds of things, partner needs to have a real heart suit for his double. If he'd pass holding a KQTx and an eighteen count then he (probably) has a 5+ card suit.

4♥ is looking a bit more reasonable, but I'd be worried that the tap is going into the wrong hand.

[pclayton]

I don't think we can assume pard has real long hearts. RHO has the shapes; and LHO could have bid 2♣ / 2♦ as p/c. If 2♥ is a 'true' call, I'd say his shape is 4=4=(2-3) or close to that.

I would have bid 3♣ over 2♠. Now, anything I bid sounds like I have a lot of clubs, and not a lot of points.

I guess I bid 4♣. I certainly don't like pass or double here.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on May 11 2007, 07:54 PM, said:

I don't think we can assume pard has real long hearts. RHO has the shapes; and LHO could have bid 2♣ / 2♦ as p/c. If 2♥ is a 'true' call, I'd say his shape is 4=4=(2-3) or close to that.

I would have bid 3♣ over 2♠. Now, anything I bid sounds like I have a lot of clubs, and not a lot of points.

I guess I bid 4♣. I certainly don't like pass or double here.

All 2♥ means is he prefers hearts to clubs and spades to diamonds, and he would probably bid this with no preference just to take up more spaces. He could just be 5242 or something.

[dake50]

After 1C(strong) play forcing pass below 2S, 4+level. So pass over 1NT was 'good stuff' = forcing. Now pass, opponents can escape 3-level undoubled.

[Apollo81]

I 100% agree with Josh here.

[Winstonm]

With the described methods, it is somewhat difficult to know as opener's other options have not been revealed - what would pass of 2H meant? Does 2H confirm 5+ length or simply a powerful 4-card holding?

This seems to be a total tricks question at this point. Assuming 18 total tricks, if we can make 10 tricks they should make 8; if the fits only produce 17 total tricks, then they should come to only 7 when we can make 10; this last is slightly more probable as when opps hold a 9-card fit we are guaranteed to hold an 8-card fit but not necessarily a 9-card ourselves.

On the basis of an estimated 17 total tricks + our side holding a resonable advantage in HCP superiority, I double and will lead trumps.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on May 11 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

whereagles, on May 11 2007, 04:37 PM, said:

Since we passed 1NT and 2♠, our clubs can't really be KQJxxx, can they??

Why not xxx x xx KJxxxxx?

doh! I would have already bid 3♣ over 2♠

[han]

What did our first pass show?

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on May 12 2007, 02:50 AM, said:

how can partner have a balanced minimum with 4 hearts, we have shown 0 points. He can't double if he doesn't have them set. This could be based on a balanced hand with good hearts, but it'd certainly be more than minimum.

This may help - poster's definitions:

Quote

1♣ = 16+ but if bal its 17+ and if 5♥s its 20+
Dbl = expained as points, penaltish see also our 1♣ definition/

So, it looks by agreement that doubler has either 5 hearts and 20+ HCP or 4 hearts and maybe 19+ HCP.

Either way we should be in game territory so allowing a undoubled partial is quite a deep position and to bid game with no known fit is a guess, hence double and go for the decent plus seems a reasonable course of action.

It may even turn out that either overcaller or lurker may have been pushing the envelope with less that expected shape - perhaps overcalled is 4-5 and the fit is only 8-cards.

On the surface it sounds like partner's shape is either 1534 or 1543 with 20+ HCP but could even turn out to be 2443 or 2434 with 19+.
With no certainty of game, isn't it better to take the almost sure plus of double?

I can't say I like the agreements but that is another thread.