[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

1♣ - (P) - 1♠ - (3♦)
?

---

You've got a bid hand. What do you do now?

[mr1303]

Dare I say it: Hamman's rule as always applies. I'd quite like to double them for penalty, but I don't think a double here is penalty, and I'm not too confident about partner reopening on this one.

[Chamaco]

mr1303, on Nov 14 2005, 11:02 AM, said:

Dare I say it: Hamman's rule as always applies. I'd quite like to double them for penalty, but I don't think a double here is penalty, and I'm not too confident about partner reopening on this one.

I love Hamman's rule, but it seems to me that the hand screams a suit contract (all Aces and Ks) , and that it's very likely to score in a a suit contract 2+ tricks than in NT...

I might double (which is not penalty, here but shows "cards", often takeout oriented, I bid it here despite length in opps suit ) and play either 4S or 5C because I consider Axxx stopper much better in a suit contract..

[MickyB]

No way I want to double for penalties, even if I could - unless RHO is me, of course. In 4th seat he should be more likely to have 7 diamonds, which is likely to equate to six tricks immediately. 3NT felt obvious until I realised that I'd have to bid that on a flat 19 count as well...this hand could play quite beautifully if partner has a club fit and the expected diamond shortage. Doubling for takeout will surely make partner misevaluate his hand completely. Is 4♣ forcing here?

Stop posting awkward problems that just cause me to woffle without giving an answer

[whereagles]

4♣, hoping for the best.

[Fluffy]

Chamaco, on Nov 14 2005, 11:35 AM, said:

mr1303, on Nov 14 2005, 11:02 AM, said:

Dare I say it: Hamman's rule as always applies. I'd quite like to double them for penalty, but I don't think a double here is penalty, and I'm not too confident about partner reopening on this one.

I love Hamman's rule, but it seems to me that the hand screams a suit contract (all Aces and Ks) , and that it's very likely to score in a a suit contract 2+ tricks than in NT...

I might double (which is not penalty, here but shows "cards", often takeout oriented, I bid it here despite length in opps suit ) and play either 4S or 5C because I consider Axxx stopper much better in a suit contract..

Italians are well prepared for this hands, while many others sadly play double as showing 3♠ and extras like me.

Still I don't find a better bid than double, might have to play in the 5-2, but there is no better way to describe these.

[joker_gib]

Dbl and let's see what happens. (I also like 3NT )

Partner is short in ♦ so I can still correct to 5♣

Alain

[Winstonm]

Any bid here shows extra values - with weaker hands you pass and see if partner can act again. Therefore, with only 1 suit (hearts) to worry about why would double here be anything other that a generally big hand with no bid to make? Hearts, spades, and clubs can all be bid naturally - so wouldn't double show no more than 3 spades, 3 hearts, and therefore some sort of diamond cards and a holding unsuited to 3N? I really don't see the need to be jumping into the aution to show 2425 or 3424 or 3414 without a huge hand in which case I could use 4D for these hands or bid 3H naturally, which should inply some kind of spade tolerance one would think.

With pass available to show hands upwards to 15, bids available to show hands in the 18+ range, the only hands unbiddable are the 16-18 with some sort of diamond holding - 3325 being the odd man out.

So it would seem to me the best use of this double is "do something intelligent pard" - I have too much to pass and I'm stuck.

Winston

[Al_U_Card]

What kind of a hand would 3NT show here then? Pard will rebid 4S with 6, won't he?

[Trpltrbl]

I guess double would be the value bid.
Too bad I can't always double since with some of my pd's that would be support, with these pd's I will have to bid 3NT.
It might very well be 6 or even 7♣ for us, I have many controls.
Maybe the preempt just worked.

I will double, going for the ♣ slam. Pd must have ♣ and if not he must have many many ♠ and we'll play ♠ slam.
Slam it is

GBB

[Kalvan14]

There is just a lil problem with double (which is not an unreasonable bid, mind): your suit is clubs, and opening 1♣ is always ambiguous (could be 3 cards, and show a balanced hand, which you are not).
This time the pre-empt in ♦ worked very well.
My choice would be 4♣ (which is forcing witout any doubt: if partner passes, there might be stormy times ahead for our partnership )
A possible alternative is 3NT, hoping to attract a 4♠ (what would you bid over 4♠? This is a sub-poll )

[han]

I would also play 4C as non-forcing.

[beatrix45]

Hamman's law applies. "If 3NT is a possible bid, it is correct".

[beatrix45]

Chamaco, on Nov 14 2005, 04:35 AM, said:

I love Hamman's rule, but it seems to me that the hand screams a suit contract (all Aces and Ks)

But you got six clubs that might run, and a hold up in the diamond suit may well take it completely out of play. No guarantees, but 3NT looks great to me. Good bidding is mental play, not parroting somebody else's 'rules'.

[pclayton]

Flawed 3N looks fine to me. Double leads to heart and spade contracts which don't look appetizing. 4♣ is possible, but it gambles that pard has a club fit and spots.

[EricK]

Chamaco, on Nov 14 2005, 11:35 AM, said:

mr1303, on Nov 14 2005, 11:02 AM, said:

Dare I say it: Hamman's rule as always applies. I'd quite like to double them for penalty, but I don't think a double here is penalty, and I'm not too confident about partner reopening on this one.

I love Hamman's rule, but it seems to me that the hand screams a suit contract (all Aces and Ks) , and that it's very likely to score in a a suit contract 2+ tricks than in NT...

I might double (which is not penalty, here but shows "cards", often takeout oriented, I bid it here despite length in opps suit ) and play either 4S or 5C because I consider Axxx stopper much better in a suit contract..

While As & Ks normally call for a suit contract, it is also the case that a running suit plus 3 outside Aces is a laydown 3NT.

Eric

[hrothgar]

White versus white at IMPs, I'm gonna double their sorry ass...

I'll be well position if partner pulls and i'm happy to defend

[han]

Richard, do you really play that this is a penalty double?