[Cascade]

hanp, on Mar 3 2010, 10:04 AM, said:

I passed and partner had - Jxxx KJ10xx KQxx and passed it out. So that was +50 instead of 650. Further thoughts?

The actual west had AQx xx AJxxx xxx Wayne. That wouldn't pass your constraints but doesn't seem unreasonable white against red.

I had two lots of constraints one with a shortage forced on the raiser and one without and commented that the real distribution was likely to be somewhere between the two.

Double of 2♠ looks very normal.

[Fluffy]

I would pass 2♠ but double 3♠ later

[hanp]

I looked up the hand again, partner didn't have the diamond jack but K109xx.

[the hog]

I agree with Richard here. Call me crazy as well, but I am bidding 4H.

[Cyberyeti]

OleBerg, on Mar 2 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Mar 2 2010, 09:44 PM, said:

Yes but similarly his pard has just bid 3 spades and not enquired which minor, so that has an impact on how many minor suit cards (and hence how many hearts) he holds.

A raise to 3♠ on a 3-card suit, could very well indicate some kind of fit for both minors, on a hand that simply want to take up bidding space.

That might not be the case, but implying that it should indicate long hearts, seems far-fetched to me.

So maybe the only difference bidding 4♥ makes, is who is going to declare. Playing with myself, I would definitely bid 4♥, as I don't want me to declare.

A style thing I suppose, but I'd be bidding 2N with a lot of 32(53) hands opposite the 2S rather than 3S to know which minor partner had in case I needed to know so I could take a sensible decision over 4H. Maybe this makes it more likely they get into this auction, but if 2N is usually strong and unlimited, maybe not.

On the hand originally listed AQx xx AJxxx xxx I'd certainly do this, partner could easily have KJxxx, xxx, Kxxx, x where I want to be in 4S.