[jdeegan]

3♥ or even 2NT. Even though my high cards are all aces and kings, the bidding suggests a number of serious potential flaws.

1. Partner's single most likely distribution is 1-6-3-3, which would be a mirror hand of sorts.

2. Minor suit 'quacks' in partner's hand are in the slot in front of the doubler

3. Partner may well have a fairly light opener:
♠x
♥KQJ972
♦xxx
♣AJx
is too good for a classic weak two bid the way most people play it these days.

4. At matchpoints, going plus may be the main thing

So, take it easy and let partner decide.

[Raivis]

3♠.
Vul. game looks good.
Shows 5+♠ with game balance.
Partner, choise contract - 4♥, 4♥ or 3NT.

[Apollo81]

Jlall, on Oct 27 2007, 11:57 PM, said:

KQxxx A Axxx xxx.

red/red MP

1H X 1S p 2H p ?

A raise to 3♥ is reasonable on this hand if you don't want to bid 3♦.

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Oct 29 2007, 03:25 AM, said:

whereagles, on Oct 28 2007, 05:23 PM, said:

This makes sense. But there's no way I'm going to miss a vulnerable game.

3♦.

Why is it relevant whether game is vulnerable or not when you're playing MP?

MP? thought I'd read imps. Well, my comment doesn't apply then.

Still, not bidding game rates to be the anti-field attitude. Not sure I'd stay out, but if I did stay out, it would be at MPs.

[keylime]

I agree with Mike's rationale in the full; so much so that I think you should just get on with it at 4♥ and hide the diamond suit. Let them find the winning defense. I have good controls, pard's opened for me (ty pard) and you know where everything is sitting by the double practically.

I disagree strongly with redoubling first - I want to show my five card spade suit and I can always double to show values later, and I have clear direction in the bidding.

[dburn]

It seems to me that there will be no views to take in the play of whatever contract you reach - it will either make or it won't, regardless of who is at the helm. Try to construct a hand with which partner will face a guess at any point during the play of any contract, and then get back to me.

Still, you can overdo the kind of thinking Justin exhibits here. Only yesterday I had:

K106432 3 AJ654 Q

and opened 1S in first seat at game all (four-card majors, strong no trump). Partner bid 2C (Acol style, not game-forcing, could be a balanced 11-count with four clubs). RHO (Tony Forrester) doubled. There didn't seem to be much point in bidding diamonds now, so I bid 2S. Partner raised to 3S. I, thinking that diamonds or spades or both might break badly, passed. Partner had:

A5 A1042 1082 K982

They led the nine of diamonds (from 9x). Spades were 3-2. I made a shame-faced eleven tricks (yes, I know, but I didn't lose a club), and vowed never again to accept the premise that one should not do the normal thing because of "inferences from the bidding". Most of the time these days, no one has their bidding anyway.

Mind you, 1S was a bit silly on the hand Justin gives. How would redouble (followed by penalty doubles from both sides thereafter) have done?

[han]

Wow dburn, I am impressed. To be honest, at this point I have no idea whether the play will be clearcut or difficult.

In my experience weak partner's will often find a way to lose an extra trick, especially when you least expect it.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Oct 29 2007, 09:21 PM, said:

I passed, but I was playing with a client so I thought this was a pretty clear view to take (if she is declaring a dicey 4H we are in an ave - position anyways so may as well go for the top in the bidding and neutralize the play). However I really thought the options were pass, 2N, and 3H, I just cannot see making game if partner passes an invite. I think 3H is way better than 2N because if 3N CAN make it often needs to be played by partner anyways, given how bad a minor lead through partner into the t/o Xer is.

A couple of points:

1) in my answer (4♥), I assumed that partner was at least as competent as the field, so wanted to be in game, as I expect the field to be unable to stop short, unless we had agreed that partner could open lighter than the norm. When the problem is to be impacted by partner's skill level, you should perhaps disclose that info in the OP

2) I am not a pro: the few times I have played 'pro' have been as a teammate either playing the second half of KO's in place of the client or as part of the 'other pair'. It seems to me that taking a view (passing with a prime 13 here) is likely to be counterproductive to the partnership if one of the goals is to improve partner's bridge ability. I can understand inviting... downgrading due to the auction, but passing? When partner could still be holding x KQxxxxx KQx Ax as an example?

If, on the other hand, the object is simply to win master points, without worrying about the client's improvement or understanding of the game, once again, maybe we should be told this in the conditions of contest.... I very much doubt that Justin would have passed 2♥ playing with a good player.... unless really swinging for the fences in the hope of an anti-field top.

[y66]

Good match point problem. Understand it now, I think, after looking at a bunch of hands. Looks like 3N makes 1 time in 4 from pard's side, 1 time in 7 from mine. 4H makes 2 times in 5. Nice pass at the table.