[jillybean]

Scoring: MP

(P) 1♠ (2♥) P
(p) ?

---

No need to tell you what I bid, what would you bid?

[firmit]

3D seems right, but I considered 4D to show 5-5+

[the hog]

4D. As little as Qx of S in partner's hand gives me a good play for 4S. I am not going to X, (I guess you did Kathryn). The reason for not doubling is because I don't really want to sit a penalty X with this hand if my partner passes.

[mike777]

I would have started with x even with this 6-5 hand, ready to pull 3clubs to 4d.

[pbleighton]

4D. I'd like to have better spades to go this high, but I have to show my shape, and as Ron says, partner doesn't need much.

I don't like double, this is definitely a *show* hand rather than an *ask* hand.

Peter

[FrancesHinden]

I don't understand the comments for 4D.
I would bid 3D. This shows a lot of spades and diamonds.
To bid 4D I would want the ace of spades in addition.

[Walddk]

3♦. I don't really see the problem. I have spades and diamonds and I am vulnerable. Partner may have nothing so 3♦ is enough. It shows a good hand at these colours.

Roland

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 26 2007, 08:43 AM, said:

I don't understand the comments for 4D.
I would bid 3D. This shows a lot of spades and diamonds.
To bid 4D I would want the ace of spades in addition.

agreed

[SoTired]

3D for me, but can't blame 4D. If responder has spade preference and bids 3S over 3D, opener can risk 4S.

The problem with 4D is if responder has diam preference and bids 5D. This will likely be doubled and fail unless responder has some aces, which is unlikely.

I don't like a dbl and pull, because it serves no purpose. Responder will bid 3C, opener will bid 3D (or 4D as one poster suggests) and nothing has been gained. Worse, 2HX will really suck.

[jillybean]

Here's the full hand 4♠XX-1, my ♠KJ look very poor now.

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  1♠
 2♥    Pass  Pass  4♦
 Pass  4♠    Pass  Pass
 Dbl   RDbl  Pass  Pass
 Pass  

[1eyedjack]

So, 4S is a normal spot. Double is also normal, although it doesn't come with a guarantee. Clearly a "Turkish" redouble.

[Walddk]

I would also get to 4♠ after my partner's raise (2♠ or 3♠ depending on agreement). The redouble is ... well, optimistic.

Roland

[mike777]

4s seems fine, I would not xx but getting there seems fine. Some partners might bid 2s over 2h.

[kenrexford]

One call to consider is 3♥. I'm frankly not sure what most people would expect that to show, but it seems to me that 3♥-P-3♠ would be passable and might keep us low enough on some hands. If partner bids 4♠, it probably is a fair contract. If partner bids something else, 4♦ probably would not be misunderstood.

If I had my druthers, I'd expect 3♥ to show either Michaels-type (presumed) or my weird call might change that message if I am very strong, not GF but distributional and very strong for that reason.

In practice, however, I do not think I am strong enough for that and would personally settle for 3♦ on most days.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Feb 26 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

One call to consider is 3♥.  I'm frankly not sure what most people would expect that to show, but it seems to me that 3♥-P-3♠ would be passable and might keep us low enough on some hands.  If partner bids 4♠, it probably is a fair contract.  If partner bids something else, 4♦ probably would not be misunderstood.

If I had my druthers, I'd expect 3♥ to show either Michaels-type (presumed) or my weird call might change that message if I am very strong, not GF but distributional and very strong for that reason.

In practice, however, I do not think I am strong enough for that and would personally settle for 3♦ on most days.

I am morally certain that the expert community would take 3♥ as a monster 5=0=4=4. Note that earlier threads have shown that most good players are very reluctant to open 2♣ on 3-suited hands. So 3♥ would be a perfect description of, say, AKJxx void AQxx AQxx.

[mikeh]

Let me add that I couldn't imagine passing 2♥ with the North hand. I have 4 trump, a K that is almost assuredly upgradable and a stiff! While a jump to 4♠ would, imho, be a very bad bid, it is closer to an accurate valuation than is pass.

The main question, for me, would be whether to bid 2♠ or a preemptive 3♠. I actually think the hand is too good for 3♠! Make it 4=3=2=3, with the same honour, and I'd bid 3♠. That stiff, combined with the 4th trump, is just too good.

We are odds on for game opposite many 15-16 counts.

As for the final result, the 4♦ bid was a big overbid (just what does S think 3♦ shows? When partner passes 2♥, he (should) deny a decent hand in support of ♠s, so why are we forcing to the 4-level?) and it prompted N to redouble.

The final outcome was therefore due to underbidding by North and overbidding by S. Had North raised immediately (and either 2 or 3♠ would get S to game), then neither would have felt that they had such undisclosed extras as to warrant a redouble.

[FrancesHinden]

SoTired, on Feb 26 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

3D for me, but can't blame 4D. If responder has spade preference and bids 3S over 3D, opener can risk 4S.

There is no reason to bid 4S over 3S. If partner gives preference to 3S over 3D, he hasn't shown spade support. All he has done is say he has as many spades as diamonds. He heard you bid 3D. If he had a hand where 4S might be making, he'll bid it.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Feb 26 2007, 06:19 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 26 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

One call to consider is 3♥.  I'm frankly not sure what most people would expect that to show, but it seems to me that 3♥-P-3♠ would be passable and might keep us low enough on some hands.  If partner bids 4♠, it probably is a fair contract.  If partner bids something else, 4♦ probably would not be misunderstood.

If I had my druthers, I'd expect 3♥ to show either Michaels-type (presumed) or my weird call might change that message if I am very strong, not GF but distributional and very strong for that reason.

In practice, however, I do not think I am strong enough for that and would personally settle for 3♦ on most days.

I am morally certain that the expert community would take 3♥ as a monster 5=0=4=4. Note that earlier threads have shown that most good players are very reluctant to open 2♣ on 3-suited hands. So 3♥ would be a perfect description of, say, AKJxx void AQxx AQxx.

Hmmm. Another one not to try without discussion.
I would expect

1D (2H) P P
3H

possibly to show 9 tricks opposite a heart stop (Ax xx AKQxxxx Ax is a hand I wouldn't open 2C on).

It's a little different when we've opened 1M, but I'm not totally confident of the 5044 suggestion.

The one hand I wouldn't expect is the Michael's type, because that hand can just bid a minor, at the 3- or 4- level depending on strength.

[Walddk]

If it hadn't been for that unneccesary redouble, 4♠X down 1 is not a bad result even vulnerable against not. 4♥ is easy for EW, and with careful play they can even make 5 on this layout.

Another culprit at the table was East who failed to support hearts with a hand that was quite suitable for a raise.

Roland