[mikeh]

Sorry about that Missed a couple of entries, including one from Phil Clayton with good comments.

Onto the show:

We pick up AK98752 K5 Q108s void, red v white at imps. RHO opens 1♠ in 3rd chair, we pass and partner doubles LHO's semi-forcing 1N. RHO bids 2♣ and here we are, with probably the nest hand, and definitely the best suit, at the table. What do we do and why?

Of the 19 answers, 8 opted for ♠s, choosing with 2 or 3♠. However, the expert panel chose to aim low, no doubt to avoid disappointment.

Fred: 2♦: not likely RHO has only 4♠s: usually a 3rd seat 4 card major is based on a strong suit, and we know his suit is not good. And bidding 2♣ over 1N is suicidal (Ed: because it invites a preference, which is the worst bid opener can hear on what his suit must look like if 4 cards long). Unless partner has 5♦s, 2♦ is enough for now.

Justin: no reason to suspect foul play. May make 4♠ if RHO owns only 4 and has no club wastage, but I am not going to aim for that contract. May make a lot of ♦s if partner has 5 card support.

Ritong: 4♦. I'd prefer a 9 card fit, so I hope partner has a 5th trump (Ed: Farfie always has good dummy's for Henri, so we can forgive him this enthusiasm...however, not all of us have such good partners so Henri will be disappointed in his score)

Other 2♦ bidders noted that we may be missing a game, but worried, rightly in my view, that partner may well have club wastage.

The ♠ bidders, as a whole, did not justify their calls, and there was no real discussion about how many ♠s to bid. My own thoughts are that 2♠ is ok in that it aims for the correct level in the suit, and allows us to bid 3♦ next over an anticipated 3♣ bid on our left. But 3♠ leaves me cold: it is a level higher and thus slightly more dangerous, and there is little likelihood that partner can go right if we are on for game. If we are bidding ♠s, I have a sneaking admiration for 4♠: it may well be a good spot even if RHO has 5 of them. However, the downside is too great: when 4♠ is wrong, it may be really wrong and -500 would be a poor score to report to our teammates.

As for the 2 Passers, neither commented, and I frankly do not understand the logic. While it is true that 2♣ MIGHT fail, it is odds on that we can do better on offence than on defence. The solitary cue-bidder (3♣) did not comment, so I do not know if this is a slow vote for ♦s or ♠s.

My allocation of the scores, including a couple of calls which received no votes, is:

2♦ 100
2♠ 90
3♦ 70 no votes
4♦ 70... only out of respect
3♠ 60
4♠ 50....would like to give it 70, but no votes
Pass 40 only because it got 2 votes
3♣ 40...may be unfair, but no follow up discussed.

[inquiry]

The interesting thing here is could 1♠ be a psyche. I commented on this issue since life would be so "easy" if this was in a tourney that "disallowed" psyches. My comments were....

"Board 1... Shakey 2♦---- Wouldn't it be great if we were playing in a tournament where psyches were illegal. You wouldn't have to worry too much about spades then. As it is, RHO may have stolen the hand with a clever 1st seat psyche. Still, there is enough for him to have four or five spades, and if I bid 2♠ it is not clear partner will understand. So, I will make a free bid of 2♦."

[pclayton]

Here's my submittal:

2D. Pard is most certainly a very good 1=4=4=4 or 0-4-4-5 to double 1N red on white at IMPs. Unlike 1S – pass – 2S – dbl, there is no implied fit after 1S – p – 1N – dbl. A typical hand would be: v, Axxx, Axxx, Kxxxx or x, Axxx, Kxxx, Axxx. The challenge is that I can’t tell how much club duplication we have. RHO is at least 5-4 in the blacks and may be a little lite, but whatever RHO is missing, LHO has. A diamond contract will play just fine since I will be ruffing spades after LHO and H/C after RHO. Double Dummy they should lead a trump, but LHO is short in spades and will be itching to take a spade ruff.

[keylime]

I did not elaborate I think in my answer (besides the I hope part) but I would think of it similar to (1x) X (1Y) 2Y as being natural.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I did not comment on the 2S bid,
since I just hoped, partner will take
it as natural,
... and I wanted not to think longer about
this hand, because if I would have started,
I am pretty certain, I would not have
stopped.

I will certainly discuss this hand
with my partner.

At the table, I may pass, bid diamond or
spades, and may get to see the TD at the
end of the board.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

inquiry, on Jan 2 2007, 09:54 PM, said:

The interesting thing here is could 1♠ be a psyche.

I thought 1S was unlikely to be a psyche than might appear at first sight.
i) Because RHO bid 2C over the double. Fred's comment explains why that makes real spades more likely.
ii) Because partner is short in spades (passed hand take-out double), and LHO usually has at most a doubleton spade (no Drury or spade raise).

[inquiry]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 3 2007, 11:09 AM, said:

inquiry, on Jan 2 2007, 09:54 PM, said:

The interesting thing here is could 1♠ be a psyche.

I thought 1S was unlikely to be a psyche than might appear at first sight.
i) Because RHO bid 2C over the double. Fred's comment explains why that makes real spades more likely.
ii) Because partner is short in spades (passed hand take-out double), and LHO usually has at most a doubleton spade (no Drury or spade raise).

You and fred are correct, of course. I didn't think aobut the implications of the 2♣ bid long enough. But my comment was more a protest against BBO tourneys that outlaw psyches as they are a part of the game, and an interesting part when you ahve to factor them in.....

And a note to Mikeh... .it would probably be best if someone else totalled up the votes from the non-panel members...That way, when you post the number of votes for a particular bid, we would know they were all panel votes. Take this hand for instance. It is not clear if any panelist voted for 2♠.. (you hinted you thought it was "ok".. and your 90 socre supports this view)... what we now is that 8 people voted for 2 or 3♠ and two people voted for pass. Where any of these votes from panelist? This is what we want to know (I think).