[MickyB]

pclayton, on Nov 8 2007, 08:48 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 8 2007, 11:40 AM, said:

Give partner ♠AK ♦xxx ♥xxx ♣AQxxx, and 5♣ looks decent.

If thats its hand, we'll at least compete to 3♣ after a xx as pard won't be doubling 2♥.

The 2♠ bidders will play 2♠ which isn't that bad a spot but I'd rather be in clubs.

Only if they find a way to bar partner before they bid 2♠.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Nov 8 2007, 02:51 PM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 8 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

2♠ is vile on this suit. Its likely you are on a 5-2 or possibly even a 5-1 here.

Only if you play american style, where 1NT might be a 1345 "unfit for rebidding clubs".

What's the difference, we already supported clubs so partner will never pass 2♠ with a singleton.

1345 is automatically unfit for rebidding clubs That's the style that will really get you to 5-1 fits.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Nov 8 2007, 07:59 PM, said:

What's the difference, we already supported clubs so partner will never pass 2♠ with a singleton.

true, true..

[skjaeran]

Interesting everyday hand.
I redouble, but this is very close.

[mikeh]

I redouble.

Several ways to win and only one way to lose.

The alternatives:

Pass: clearly awful, since partner is virtually forced to pass their inevitable 2♥ and now I am guessing

2♠: ok in a sense: better than passing, but this hand won't play well in spades opposite Qx and a likely 4-2 break

3♣: why should I assume partner has long clubs? If I do this, I deserve to find Kxx AQ10x Kxx xxx opposite.

Redouble is 'wrong' only when partner doubles 2♥ and it makes (or goes for 100 when we have 110).

In the meantime, redouble will get partner bidding 2♠ on 3 when he can stand 3♣ or 3♣ directly with a 5 card suit. It will also get him doubling when it is right to do so: Ax KJ10x xxx AJxx is a typical double and we rate to do well. Heck: Axx KJ10x J10x AJx.... yes, I am dreaming, but maybe rho is Kx Axxx Kxxx xxx... this shows how wrong any call than redouble is at mps.

[Halo]

2S

Very commital, but I just prefer to play at this low level rather than speculate on a penalty.

[mikegill]

Ok, so currently, I have

6 votes for XX (counting me, even tho I'm biased)

0 votes for 3c

4 votes for 2s

2 votes for pass

So the issue here was that partner tanked before passing 2c, which clearly marks him with 3 spades (what the hell else would he be thinking about). So this I would think clearly would bar the 2s bidders from bidding 2s, since you know it's an 8-card fit. So...

1) is the consensus on XX clear enough that this bid would still be allowed no matter what?

2) Does the hesitation even suggest XXing over the other alternatives?

Curious to know what people think.

[kenrexford]

I'd find it hard to put a panel together who would suggest that XX was suggested by the hesitation.

As far as logical alternatives go, they have to be alternatives. That suggests counter-intuitive (against the message). Pass is silly.

[pclayton]

mikegill, on Nov 8 2007, 02:39 PM, said:

Ok, so currently, I have

6 votes for XX (counting me, even tho I'm biased)

0 votes for 3c

4 votes for 2s

2 votes for pass

So the issue here was that partner tanked before passing 2c, which clearly marks him with 3 spades (what the hell else would he be thinking about). So this I would think clearly would bar the 2s bidders from bidding 2s, since you know it's an 8-card fit. So...

1) is the consensus on XX clear enough that this bid would still be allowed no matter what?

2) Does the hesitation even suggest XXing over the other alternatives?

Curious to know what people think.

If pard does have 3 spades, don't you think that he's about to bid them over 2♥ whether or not we redouble?

From the tone of the redoublers, getting to spades is only one reason for making the call. Extracting a penalty and being able to compete to 3♣ are just as important.

I think its the 2♠ bidders that should be drawn and quartered. Pard's hitch makes bidding 2♠ *much* more attractive.

[jdonn]

I don't see how 2♠ is suggested over redouble, since if you redouble partner will bid 2♠ anyway on the hand you think his tank suggests. To me the UI suggests not-passing over passing, not 2♠ over redouble. Since I don't think pass is a LA at matchpoints, I wouldn't feel constrained to avoid 2♠.

[han]

I like the redouble. If partner can't double 2H then I will compete to 2S. Seems like this is clearly superior over a direct 2S, because if partner can double 2H then that's great.

[kenrexford]

I would never bid 2♠ after the hesitation.

The last thing I want is for a ruling in my favor, an appeal to committee, and a write-up in the Daily Bulletin. Then everyone would know that I made a dumb 2♠ bid.

[Codo]

I agree with XX.

For the ruling: There had been two passers out of 12 (?), so I think that is enough to make it an alternative.
So as a TD I must decide that you must pass with this hand, even if this had been not my choice. Actually I think pass is very bad bridge, but as there had been votes for this call, it must be handled as an alternative.

[Halo]

I'd pass after the hesitation. Not exactly cutting my own throat anyway: partner's got a full set of cards in his bidding box.

[mikegill]

At the table XX was the bid made, even after the hesitation - still not sure if this is kosher or not. Jlall called this one right. They bid 2H and partner Xed it for 300, even though he had KQ9x of hearts and the AJTx were behind him. If you don't XX, I don't think partner can X 2H, but I'm open to opinions on that too - his hand was ATx KQ9x Kxx QTx. Also open to opinions about whether or not he should correct 2♣ to 2♠, my opinion is that correcting is right.

[jdonn]

mikegill, on Nov 9 2007, 12:44 PM, said:

Also open to opinions about whether or not he should correct 2♣ to 2♠, my opinion is that correcting is right.

I don't think so. Partner would rebid many five card suits, and this doesn't look like the time for a 4-3 fit (the clubs were a 4-3 but could well have been 5-3 or better.)

[han]

Agree with Josh.