[awm]

Scoring: IMP

---

You're playing in a KO match with a world-class partner. Opponents are decent but unspectacular.

Partner is in first seat and passes. RHO opens with bidding with 1♦. You choose to double (feel free to disagree), LHO passes and partner bids 2♠. Now RHO ups the ante with 3♦. What now? The auction so far:

Pass - 1♦ - X - Pass
2♠ - 3♦ - ???

[Winstonm]

3S - IMO, this should be competitive and not show extras. I agree with the original double.

Although minimal in HCP, the hand is strong in controls and shape and in these situations the hand with shortness in opps suit needs to take the action - in reality, I am closer to bidding 4S than passing - if partner has a weak 5 or 6 card spade suit 4S problably makes, but I can't force him to hold perfect cards.

[jtfanclub]

I HATE tennis. Well, I like tennis, but play it on the tennis court, not the bridge table.

Lemme see. You have 2 heart losers, 1 diamond loser, 3 club losers. Your partner should have 3 covers (both round queens are covers, which is a bonus). 4 spades.

If 3 spades means something other than "I dunno. Whadda you wanna do?" then I apologize.

[kenrexford]

Well, we're back to an old discussion again.

For me, 2♠ showed a hand with five spades and a belief that we will probably make 2♠ opposite my expected average of three cards and a ruffing value. In other words, partner has about a nine-loser hand with five spades, up to a bad/questionable eight-loser hand with five spades.

Three reasons for me to bid 3♠:

1. I have four trumps. The LOTT still has some merit.

2. I have that one extra card or one extra ruffing value needed for 3♠ to possibly make, in this instance an extra ruffing value.

3. Because I have A-K in spades, partner is likely on the high side. Something like ♠Qxxxx ♥Qxx ♦xxx ♣Ax would make sense -- a hesitant 8-loser approximation. Opposite that hand, I expect to lose a diamond and a club and a heart no matter what. If spades cooperate 2-2 and the Ax in hearts is with Opener, this will make 4♠. However, that seems to be asking a lot. If partner's hesitant 8-loser was quite timid, like adding in a major Jack or two, he'll bite.

[helene_t]

I think I voted 3♠ but in that case I changed my mind, at least partly. I think 3♠ should be forward-going. Partner might double 3♦ in which case I bid 3♠.

[pclayton]

4S - this hands a playa. Sorry partner if wrong.

[P_Marlowe]

3S, I find the X ok, would have done the
same, 3S now should be compeitive,
showing the fit, if partner has something
to add, he will bid 4S, he knows we are
red and playing IMP's.

3H is out, and I would say the hand is to weak
to bid 4S, after all partner is a passed hand.

Pass is out as well, we have a fit (most likely
a 9 card fit), but if I pass, partner may give me
only a 3 carder (and a weak NT type hand), and
3H should show a stronger hand and denying a
spade fit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pbleighton]

Quote

4S - this hands a playa. Sorry partner if wrong.

Agree.

Peter

[mike777]

4s game try.
thought that was clear until I read the other posts.

1) I got an opening hand and a stiff.
2) Partner has something
3) partner is playing the hand.
4) imps....game try.

[the hog]

4S at imps

[Apollo81]

I'd bid 3♠ without much thought

[awm]

Here's partner's hand:

---

Spades are 4-1, but the ♥A is on and 3♠ still rolls home on careful play (losing two spades, one heart, one club). I chose to pass, and 3♦ also made. No swing, since our opponents bid michaels instead of double on the original hand, ending up in 4♠ one down.

[kenrexford]

After Advnacer's hand is known, the stylistic differences come out. I'd never jump to 2♠ with four little spades and AJx in diamonds. I'd either bid a simple 1♠, expecting partner to raise when it matters, or would cue 2♦, or would bid 1NT (nice diamond spots).

On this deal, the auction might well have proceeded:

1♦-X-P-1♠
3♦-P-P-X
P-3♥-P-3♠-
P-P-P.

Advancer's double being "do something intelligent."
Overcaller's 3♥ catering to 4441 (short club).

Had Advancer been aggressive, the alternative:

1♦-X-P-2♦
3♦-P-P-3♠
P-P/4♠-P(-P-P)

The aggressive bidding by South might cause problems, obviously.

Had advancer decided to "be practical," the auction:

1♦-X-P-1NT
2♦-P-P-2♠
P/3♦-3♠-P-P-P

or

1♦-X-P-1NT-
3♦-P-P-X-
P-P/3♥-P(-3♠-P-P-P)

[mike777]

very interesting hand. We have the choice of double or one heart, partner has at least 3 choices, one spade, two spades or 1nt.

I hope people will comment more on this deal.

[han]

I voted for 3S, I would have bid 2S with partner's hand.

[mikeh]

I came here too late to post without knowing the hand.

Howevfer, I made up my mind before the actual cards were shown, and that decision was, I thought, a relatively straightforward 3♠.

The hand feels as if the double, which was acceptable but not clear, has become fully justified... but to bid 4♠ is hanging partner.

3♠ is an in-between bid: it is not a strong invitation to game, but, in my view, it is not completely sign-off. It shows the 4th spade, which partner will appreciate since he may hold 4 or a poor 5 card suit, and it confirms more than a minimum double.... with which we would pass it around to partner, expecting him to pass with 4 spades and take a call with a decent, in context, hand with 5 spades.

My hand has become better than a minimum, so I tell him about it. He knows the vulnerability and the game bonus... if he passes 3♠, I wouldn't expect to miss a good(ish) game.

[mike777]

mikeh, on Jul 8 2007, 04:56 PM, said:

I came here too late to post without knowing the hand.

Howevfer, I made up my mind before the actual cards were shown, and that decision was, I thought, a relatively straightforward 3♠.

The hand feels as if the double, which was acceptable but not clear, has become fully justified... but to bid 4♠ is hanging partner.

3♠ is an in-between bid: it is not a strong invitation to game, but, in my view, it is not completely sign-off. It shows the 4th spade, which partner will appreciate since he may hold 4 or a poor 5 card suit, and it confirms more than a minimum double.... with which we would pass it around to partner, expecting him to pass with 4 spades and take a call with a decent, in context, hand with 5 spades.

My hand has become better than a minimum, so I tell him about it. He knows the vulnerability and the game bonus... if he passes 3♠, I wouldn't expect to miss a good(ish) game.

So does that mean you think partner's 2s is clear as opposed to one spade or 1nt?

[mikeh]

mike777, on Jul 8 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 8 2007, 04:56 PM, said:

I came here too late to post without knowing the hand.

Howevfer, I made up my mind before the actual cards were shown, and that decision was, I thought, a relatively straightforward 3♠.

The hand feels as if the double, which was acceptable but not clear, has become fully justified... but to bid 4♠ is hanging partner.

3♠ is an in-between bid: it is not a strong invitation to game, but, in my view, it is not completely sign-off. It shows the 4th spade, which partner will appreciate since he may hold 4 or a poor 5 card suit, and it confirms more than a minimum double.... with which we would pass it around to partner, expecting him to pass with 4 spades and take a call with a decent, in context, hand with 5 spades.

My hand has become better than a minimum, so I tell him about it. He knows the vulnerability and the game bonus... if he passes 3♠, I wouldn't expect to miss a good(ish) game.

So does that mean you think partner's 2s is clear as opposed to one spade or 1nt?

2♠ seems right to me, and clearly right, at that.

1♠ is silly. 10 hcp, a good 10... and I am bidding 1♠? Only if on really good drugs (or is that..really bad drugs?)

1N shows the hcp and the stopper(s): I am at the top of the range, but there's no law against that.

However, in my experience, one can often get out of spades and into notrump, when right, far easier than one can get out of notrump and into spades.

Give partner AKJx Axx Kx Jxxx and he will simply put us in 3N... now, we rate to make it, but maybe opener holds xx KQJx Q10xx Axx and 3N fails.... yes, it is possible to go down in 4♠ also, but I know which game I'd rather be in (please, I did not try to do a deep analysis of the hands, so no quibbling please ).

I recognize that this belief (easier to get to nt from a suit than vice versa) is not always applicable, and this hand is close to an exception.. but I am a simple man, and I generally live by this type of rule unless the hand is clearly exceptional... give me xxxx Jxx AJ10 KJxx and I think I'd try 1N.

[han]

mikeh, on Jul 8 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

give me xxxx Jxx AJ10 KJxx and I think I'd try 1N.

I'd like to quibble!