[mike777]

ditto...4D

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Dec 4 2007, 03:13 PM, said:

mikeh, on Dec 4 2007, 07:17 PM, said:

As for whereagle's 4♣... I am left (almost) speechless by the idea that partner can correct this call with 6412

Well, some people like to dbl on any hand that has a singleton in opps' suit, hoping that pard has stuff stacked over declarer. I'm sure you know what type of player I mean

Pard may not be of this kind, of course. But since I wasn't told of pard's tendencies, I have to cater for him being bloodlusty.. lol.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that this is not the first time partner has played bridge. Now you have full information.

[mike777]

Jlall, on Dec 4 2007, 04:09 PM, said:

3S, I don't think this hand is so great and partner may have just balanced light. I think 6313 or something is more likely than 5413.

Interesting that you think red vs white partner is balancing at imps over 3D.

[kenrexford]

mike777, on Dec 4 2007, 04:13 PM, said:

Jlall, on Dec 4 2007, 04:09 PM, said:

3S, I don't think this hand is so great and partner may have just balanced light. I think 6313 or something is more likely than 5413.

Interesting that you think red vs white partner is balancing at imps over 3D.

What? You are afraid of reporting -800 against air? LOL

[jdonn]

I posted this because I thought it was a very close choice regarding both strain and level at the same time. Unfortunately I still feel none the wiser about what is really right. My suspicion is it depends who partner is, and maybe something minimal is right with some and 4♦ is right with others.

Partner was nuts on the actual hand so it's not really relevant, but I still thought in theory it's an interesting problem. He had AKJTxx KTx Qx Jx I think. I guess that's a reason to sign off, partner might not have his bid

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Dec 4 2007, 08:31 PM, said:

Sorry, I forgot to mention that this is not the first time partner has played bridge. Now you have full information.

You're almost as good at disclosing stuff as OPEC is at saying how much oil they got left.

[the hog]

I agree with the majority. I like a 4D bid here. Hopefully partner can infer that I have 4H for this bid.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I guess, I would pass.

The double is certainly not 100% t/o, partner will be
aware, that the double will get passed out very often,
and I have some defence.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenrexford]

The_Hog, on Dec 5 2007, 05:20 AM, said:

I agree with the majority. I like a 4D bid here. Hopefully partner can infer that I have 4H for this bid.

God help you if partner cannot. LOL

[benlessard]

3S. Partner is surely bidding some of my values. Partner most probable shape is 6313 and it doesnt look too attractive to me. Partner red against white isnt balancing too light but still hes playing me for some values and i dont feel ive got that much extras. (where are my H spots ?).

However the fact that LHO respond 1Nt tend to say to me that the M will break but not clubs. (the 3D bids is probably done on C shortness). So partner AJx of clubs will be a great holding. But stiff club to the A and club ruff will sunk our contract quite often. Also if partner doesnt have the J♣ our Q♣ is useless.

AKQxxx
KJx
x
KJx , club lead followed by club ruff.

AKJTxx
Kxx
x
Axx

lose 1H,1D,1 or 2C + may be a S.

AKxxxx
KJx
x
AJx

1S + 1D maybe 1H.

Its probably a close call between 3S and 4D-4S after all. (PS For me 4D would suggest 4H and 2S)