[hanp]

Here are three more hands from the club game last night. All are playing imp pairs.

1)

Qxxx
109x
Jx
AQxx

Red against white

p - p - 1C - Dbl
1S - (2D) - Dbl* - p
??

Partner's double showed exactly 3 spades.

2)

White against red.

Axxxx
QJ
KJ10xx
x

1S - (2C) - Dbl - (3C)
??

3)

KQx
Q10x
xx
xxxxx

2C - 2D
3D - 3NT
4D - 4S
5C

This is a rough translation into standard American of our auction, which started with 2D (multi) instead of 2C. 3D was GF with diamonds, no 4-card side suit, 2D didn't say anything about strength.

[gwnn]

3C close
3D close
I'll reply to this later

[Apollo81]

1. Normally I would just bid 3c, but if I was in an experimental mood (e.g. at the club) I would bid 2h. Partner's only going to pass with four of them, so if he bids 2s I can bid 3c safely knowing it's a real fit. The danger of doing this is that partner might raise to 3h

2. 3d, seems routine.

3. If this was a Standard auction then I would bid 5s, since with a better hand I would have made a positive response to 2c. In the actual auction it seems like I could still bid 3NT with an ill fitting 8 or 9 count, so I'm not sure whether I have the extras parnter needs. With just a King, I might not have cuebid, so I'd say I have a Queen extra. I suppose this is enough to bid 5s, but I am much less confident about it than I would normally be.

[rhm]

1) 3♣

opener is most likely to have at least 4 cards in ♣.
♠ suit is a bit weak for a 4-3 fit.

2) 3♦

What else? You opened to get your suits in quickly, didn't you?
Since partner negative doubled for the red suits, I do not think showing one, shows extra here. Anyway this hand has improved by the bidding significantly, but not enough for stronger action.

3) 5♦

4♠ was encouragement enough. Raising ♦ or bidding 4NT would have been weaker

Rainer Herrmann

[hanp]

I have lots of comments, but will make only one now to clarify our methods. Double on (2) showed 4+ hearts and said nothing about diamonds. Of course partner might well have diamonds. I would be interested to see more discussion about 3D.

[655321]

1) 3♣ wtp
2) 3♦
3) 5♦

rhm, on Aug 24 2010, 09:47 AM, said:

Since partner negative doubled for the red suits

More likely it is a negative double showing hearts, I expect han would have told us if double had a special meaning. I bid 3♦ anyway because the auction is competitive, we have a 5/5 hand and need to show our suits. If any more excuse is necessary (I don't think it is), partner shouldn't expect the world for a competitive bid at the vulnerability.

On (3), it is possible we should bid more than 5♦. I feel as though we need something useful like a trump card, or a doubleton (outside trumps), or another King. Maybe I am wrong, we did bid 3NT instead of supporting diamonds earlier, and partner still has interest. Perhaps the major suit queens are enough for 12 tricks. Anyway when I am not sure I prefer not to bid above game.

This post has been edited by 655321: 2010-August-24, 09:12

[pooltuna]

1) 2♠
2) unless it shows extras I call 3♦ and pass 3♥
3) I would just call 5♦ as we might have 2♥ losers

[655321]

pooltuna, on Aug 24 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

3) I would just call 5♦ as we might have 2♥ losers

Partner heard you bypass hearts to bid 4♠ before he bid 5♣. One thing you can be sure of is that you don't have 2 heart losers.

[whereagles]

1. Pard is a serious candidate to a 3433, 3334 or 3235 shape. Opps rate to be in a good contract, so I'm going to pull them out of there: 3♣.

2. Seems like an easy 3♦. Where's the catch?

3. Hmm... how about 5♠? Shows the queen and little else, no?

How did I do?

[Phil]

1. 3♣.

2. 3♦, but 5♦ has some perverse appeal.

3. I'll go out on a limb here and bid 6♦. In my style, (and I'm guessing yours), 2♣ followed by diamonds is a good hand. The pull to 4♦ shows an even better hand. I interpret 5♣ as last train. so pard is looking for just a little more. Do we have extras? Well, 4♠ looked like a courtesy cue, respecting a 5♦ signoff if I had less. I can't tell if both of my Q's are working, but certainly one of them is.

[rogerclee]

I actually thought 3C, 3D, and 6D were all pretty clear.

5D on the last hand is a huge underbid I think. Partner is asking us if we have anything other than the SK, since we have shown nothing so far, so in context our hand is pretty amazing (doubleton diamond and two extra queens).

[inquiry]

I am not too creative.

1. 3♣. I got clubs, my spades are yuck. I can imagine bidding 2♥ on some three card holdings, but not this one.

2. 3♦. ok your partner only promised hearts with the double. Either he has a lot of hearts, or adequate support for one of your two suits (I anticipate only 3♣ for him at most, but he could have as many as five I guess. I am liking my QJ doubleton of hearts, but not enough to bid them. I am liking my 5-5 so I don't see anything at all that would make me hesitate. 3♦ looks right, feels right. so I make it.

3. I use 2♥ as instant negative after 2♣. I will assume here my 2♦ bid promised a little something. My 4♠ bid also showed a willingness to make a move onward. I am thinking I not only showed the spade control, but something EXTRA, and no heart control. Partner was not interested in ACES (no 4NT) and is not worried about losing two quick heart tricks, but still, I am not overjoyed with hand. So I am going to bid just 5♦... as transfer the blame to him if he stops (I showed extra when I cue-bid) if slam makes and we play there, or "I signed off why did you bid on, if he bids on and slam goes down.

[bluecalm]

1)
2♠.
It seems likely that they have only 6-7 hearts (responder would bid his 4-5 heart suit instead of diamonds) so chances of partner being 3-3-3-4/3-4-3-3 are too high to risk 3♣.

2)
3♦ ?
I am posting my picks before reading the replies I wonder if anybody comes up with other bid here.

3)
No idea. It seems that we have super maximum and lack of aces shouldn't bother us too much (as partner could've asked for those if they were the only problem).
It would be nice if we could offer choice of slams here. If not such option I think I am going for 6♦.

EDIT: after reading the comments I still don't like 3♣ in the first one. If partner is 3-3-2-5 they will probably compete to 3♦ no matter what we do now.
If he is 3-4-3-3 we are too high in wrong strain and risking being doubled.
If he is 3-3-3-4 I don't think 3♣ makes more often than 2♠ anyway.

[benlessard]

3C WTP

3D WTP

6D wtp, if 6D is a bad contract than either partner misbid or my methods are poor.

I sometimes play that 5C is asking for a club cuebid. But i dont think its standard

edited maybe 5S is a better bid.

PS we dont have 2H losers since by bidding 4S we denied a H control, therefore partner 5C is showing a H control

[Echognome]

1. 3♣
2. 3♦
3. Depends on what I have shown. My likely answer is 6♦, but if I have already shown a modicum of values, then I will change my answer to 5♦.

[JLOGIC]

Wow I would automatically bid 2S on the first one. We have a known 4-3 fit that we can play at the 2 level, or we can choose to play what is not that unlikely to be a 4-3 fit at the 3 level. 3433 is a likely shape as bluecalm says, and even if partner has 4 clubs it won't necessarily play 2 tricks better in clubs.

Also 2H is just a game try in spades as far as I'm concerned since it shows 5 spades, so bidding it on this hand doesn't seem very good. Playing it as 5-4 NF does not seem useful at all, you sometimes get to play 2H in the 4-4 instead of 2S in the 5-3 when you are pretty weak and they magically don't bid 3D, great.

[mikeh]

1. I choose 3♣...I am not happy....I hope that we don't play that he had to show the 3 card support even with a horrible minimum.

2. I wouldn't have opened this hand...I don't even think it is close, so what do I know? Having opened it, I certainly wouldn't bid 3♦. Partner is still there...if he can't reopen, what have we missed?

3. 6♦...I think this is almost as big an overbid as 5♦ would be an underbid, but he's pushing as hard as he can, and I have just barely enough to accept.

[cherdanno]

1) 3C, i think the chance of partner having 3 clubs only is small enough. I don't like the 4-3 fit with such bad trumps.

2) 3D

3) 6D. I think at worst this will be on 2-2 diamonds, and it can be much better.

[gnasher]

I'm surprised that so many people are being so negative about the third hand. 2♦ didn't show any values, and nor did 3NT, did it?

I actually think this hand is too good for 3NT - I'd have bid a natural 4NT. Obviously, that's not a great sequence for the methods.

In the context of having shown nothing, I have a huge hand, which seems clearly worth a grand-slam move. 5♥ seems best: partner knows I don't have first- or second-round control, so this must show the queen.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-August-24, 14:29

[Echognome]

gnasher, on Aug 24 2010, 01:28 PM, said:

I'm surprised that so many people are being so negative about the third hand. 2♦ didn't show any values, and nor did 3NT, did it?

I think this is the important question.

On the given auction it started 2♣ - 2♦. Many play 2♦ as negative and many play a 2♥ double negative, so that 2♦ is game forcing.

But wait, Han mentioned that there auction was entirely different and the 2♣ - 2♦ start was a translation of their actual auction. So I think we need to figure out what the meaning of our bidding is here before we can make an intelligent decision on what to do now.