[han]

Csaba told me about this hand:

xxxx
109x
KJxxx
x

IMP pairs (butler), every two boards are converted to VPs. I don't know the vulnerability and doubt it matters.

p - (1C) - p - (1H)
p - (2H) - 3C -(3H)
p - (p) - Dbl - (p)
??

Your call?

[hrothgar]

3♠

I have no defense. Partner probably has no defense
Sure can't afford to let 3HX through

[helene_t]

Pass, if p had a good 4-card spades he would have overcalled.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on May 25 2008, 10:48 PM, said:

Pass, if p had a good 4-card spades he would have overcalled.

If we believe the opponents bidding partner is sitting on a stiff Heart. Two at most.

Partner doesn't have any values and sure doesn't look to have much defense.
I don't have any defense either, so why would I want to let the opponents make 3HX?

On the other hand, partner might very well hold a 4=1=2=6, maybe even a 4=0=3=6 with too much shape to be willing to sell out to 3H...

[rogerclee]

I'll just pass. I like my singleton club.

[helene_t]

I think partner does have values. Typically 3136 and some 15-17 points at least.

[jdonn]

Pass is unfathomable to me. I'll go 3♠.

[whereagles]

3♦. I'm not convinced pard has 4 spades, but he probably will have 3 diamonds. Expect a 3145 or 4135 shape across.

[gnasher]

whereagles, on May 25 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

3♦. I'm not convinced pard has 4 spades, but he probably will have 3 diamonds.

Me too. The thought of bidding 3♠ fills me with horror.

Quote

Expect a 3145 or 4135 shape across.

With these shapes he might well have doubled 2♥. To me, 3136 seems pretty likely.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2008-May-25, 15:31

[han]

Guys, 3H is higher than 3D, if you want to bid diamonds it will have to be 4D.

Partner doesn't have values Richard?

Agree with Andy that 3-1-3-6 is most likely, partner would certainly double with 4-1-3-5 or 3-1-4-5. Partner could have 4-1-2-6 or 2-1-4-6 or 4-0-3-6 or 3-0-4-6 or 3-0-3-7 shape?

[Winstonm]

4C.

The 6-1 should play as well as any 4-3 and I think it less likely this gets doubled.

[kenrexford]

4♦ is my choice.

If I had to name option #2, 3♠ is the obvious alternative.

Incidentally, this is why a lot of people I know have converted to 2♦ as Michaels and 2♣ as natural. Sure, loses the diamond preempt and all. So, grab low and bid 3♦.

[gnasher]

han, on May 25 2008, 10:44 PM, said:

Guys, 3H is higher than 3D, if you want to bid diamonds it will have to be 4D.

Good point about the level of the bidding. I was wondering why everyone seemed to have taken leave of their senses; it's quite a relief to discover that it was me.

This is pretty horrible. With 4=6 I think partner should bid 3♠ himself, and 4135 is still a takeout double of 2♥, so 3♠ still feels wrong. Put me down for 4♦.

[655321]

4♦. Agree partner is likely 3136.

[655321]

kenrexford, on May 25 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

Incidentally, this is why a lot of people I know have converted to 2♦ as Michaels and 2♣ as natural.  Sure, loses the diamond preempt and all.

Hmmm, I suspect this statement might only be true for small values of 'a lot'

Certainly, I see no benefit of giving up a natural 2♦ in favor of being able to bid their suit naturally at the 2 level.

[andy_h]

Agree with 4D.

[han]

The Romanian partner had AK10x x xx AQJxxx, comments?

[655321]

The Romanian partner's hand looks like a 1♠ overcall to me.

Still, I suppose 4126 was (barely) possible, though I do think 3136 much more likely.
I can see why he doubled 3♥ instead of bidding 3♠, but I probably still prefer 3♠.

Anyway, as is often the case, acting as soon as possible (1♠ overcall) makes the auction much simpler.

[jdonn]

I would have bid 3♠ at the end but I understand why he doubled.

IMO overcalling 1♠ is terrible. Passing is the only easy way of getting both suits in since you can next bid them in order, and this will probably play terribly in a 4-3 fit since you have to set up clubs to make tricks but you will be ruffing red suits in your hand the whole time.

[kenrexford]

Easy 2♣...2♠.

Oh, wait!

Easy Pass...3♣...3♠.