[Fluffy]

MPs

---

[wanoff]

Tempting but partner may not be that strong so I'd let it go for now.

[nige1]

 Fluffy, on 2016-April-24, 14:35, said:

MPs

---

I rank

• Pass = Nat. You don't expect 3♦ to end the auction. Somebody is likely to bid ♠. You may be better placed in the later auction.
• Double = Pen double of 2♣. Doesn't promise ♦ s, so may encourage partner to compete further,

[Phil]

Time to double like:

https://g.co/kgs/hzXF9

[sfi]

 Phil, on 2016-April-24, 20:41, said:

Time to double like:

https://g.co/kgs/hzXF9

Was that for penalty partner? I wasn't sure...

And I think we're running late for the next round now.

[SteveMoe]

No ... and I expect this auction will continue. Partner cannot be a minimum.

[gordontd]

 SteveMoe, on 2016-April-24, 23:13, said:

No ... and I expect this auction will continue. Partner cannot be a minimum.

I'd quite like the auction not to continue. And I don't see why partner can't be minimum.

[wank]

why on earth do we expect the bidding to continue? we have a fair number of points. the opponents seem to have no fit but lho very likely has more diamonds than clubs. partner's already protected once.

[Tramticket]

 SteveMoe, on 2016-April-24, 23:13, said:

No ... and I expect this auction will continue. Partner cannot be a minimum.

Partner is very likely to be minimum. With values, partner is likely to re-open with a double. My expectation is that partner has shape, but not high-card strength.

[Jinksy]

I'm expecting the auction to continue for precisely three calls after mine.

[Zelandakh]

 Jinksy, on 2016-April-25, 08:50, said:

I'm expecting the auction to continue for precisely three calls after mine.

That means you are not passing, right?

[Jinksy]

X

[rmnka447]

I'm passing. It might well be that pard won't be able to stand for the double and bid on. Advancer with ♦ and short in ♣ might also be able to ruff out overcaller's ♣ losers.

[SteveMoe]

I expect partner to double with 0-2 ♣ cards on most all hands.
Partner passes with minimums that have less than promised defense or overly slow values.
Partner rebids 2♥ on hands that might jump rebid 3♥. ODR says defending not right.
Since I hold 5 ♣ partner has fewer than 2 on this auction, and a non minimum. He would double with a minimum.
Playing 2♥ opposite a passed partner on minimum values is suicide.
Doubling takes precedence over 2♥ rebid. Matter of partnership agreement.

[wank]

anyway back to the question. east has made an unusual pair of bids, not bidding 2NT on either the first or 2nd round. this should mean he has an unusual hand. 5-7 maybe so i'd be too scared to double.

[Zelandakh]

 wank, on 2016-April-25, 23:01, said:

anyway back to the question. east has made an unusual pair of bids, not bidding 2NT on either the first or 2nd round. this should mean he has an unusual hand. 5-7 maybe so i'd be too scared to double.

We are not told the level of the opps. I think that makes a considerable difference as to what we might expect.

[rhm]

 SteveMoe, on 2016-April-25, 20:31, said:

Playing 2♥ opposite a passed partner on minimum values is suicide.
Doubling takes precedence over 2♥ rebid. Matter of partnership agreement.

I think both statements are wrong.
Passing 2♣ at all white at pairs can be suicide too.
I would certainly bid with minimum values and a good suit short in the black suits.
Doubling does not take precedence over 2♥. It just shows a different hand.
If you are long in hearts but short in spades DBL is not for me.

Also if the bidding goes 1♥-(2♣)-P-(P)-DBL-(P)-2♦-(P)-2♥ can opener be minimum or does this shows a stronger hand than an immediate 2♥ rebid?

My problem is not so much that I expect 3♦ to make, but that it might chase them to spades, which may be better for them.
Where are all those spades?
LHO seems to have many major suit cards.

Rainer Herrmann

[mcphee]

So tell me what we have that takes tricks? Lets say we have 3 diamond tricks, we are now required to find at least 2 more to beat it one, a whopping 100. Where are those other 2 coming from? OK maybe we have a H trick, but this is not a sure thing. I do not expect to get rich defending frankly, unless the D bidder is some lunatic. The D bidder should hold a nice 6/5,AQ10xx AKQxxx and 2 major cards. On a bad day for defenders 3D could easily be a make. Even though this is pairs, I am not risking dble and in spite of my "wealth" will pass.

[mr1303]

If I don't double this for penalty, I might as well get rid of the card from my bidding box.

[gszes]

!D5

Oh I thought this was an opening lead problem to 3dx sorry about that. It is quite probable the reason P reopened with hearts vs x is they are short in diamonds. It is still unlikely lho has tooo many diamonds and I would like to cut down on club ruffs as much as possible. I would PASS at imps since the risk factor is too high but at MP the x seems much more likely to increase our MP score than not soooooooooo goforit. I agree somewhat that the x has a tendency to show a penalty x of 2c but it also has to have a decent amount of dia, given our lack of negative x (limiting our spades length), and lack of heart length. It seems hugely unlikely the opps will manage to safely land in spades and even then there is a great chance p has length there.