[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♦
 1♥    1♠    2♣    2♠
 3♣    Pass  Pass  4♦
 Dbl   4♠    Pass  Pass
 Dbl   Pass  Pass  Pass
 

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I think the 4D bid is inconsistent with the 2S bid.
Either South thinks, that his hand is strong enough
to force to game, or he thinks the hand is too weak.

I can live with 2S, 3D and 3S as South 2nd bid, but
if I would have bid 2S, than I would have just bid 3D
over 3C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ArcLight]

Why did North run from the DBL of 4♦?
He doesnt know what pards hand is, and his ♠ aren't so good.

[jillybean]

My thinking; south cant have a strong hand, 2♠ limits his hand immediately so is 4♦ to play? Or perhaps just an impossible bid with this hand.

[gwnn]

I'm a simple soul - I play in my 8 card major fits once I find them (and both members of the partnership know about it!).

*sorry for any non-constructive nuances that may lurk between the lines

[FrancesHinden]

Were you playing that the 1♠ bid promised a 5-card suit? If not, I definitely would not have bid 2♠ over 2♣. Even then, although this may sound like heresy, there's a lot to be said for bidding your solid 7-card suit again rather than raising 2♠.

Anyway, if 1♠ promised five spades, then 2♠ is not obviously wrong.

However, on the next round what's wrong with bidding 3♦? It shows a good 6-card diamond suit, which is what you have. It shows extra offence, which is what you have. More to the point, you might be allowed to play there!

[jtfanclub]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 1 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

Were you playing that the 1♠ bid promised a 5-card suit? If not, I definitely would not have bid 2♠ over 2♣. Even then, although this may sound like heresy, there's a lot to be said for bidding your solid 7-card suit again rather than raising 2♠.

Anyway, if 1♠ promised five spades, then 2♠ is not obviously wrong.

I think you're seriously undervaluing the opponent's two club bid.

If you're playing 1♠ as a 4+ card suit, then I think double stands out. Some people have formalized it as a support double, others merely take it as takeout. Either way, your hand fits just fine. Otherwise, you get to underbid with 2♦ or overbid with 3.

I may be a bit extreme here, but if 1♠ promises 5, or mostly promises 5, I think you've got a 3♣ bid. You're much too strong for a 2♠ bid...if your partner has the AK of spades and no other points you're odds on for 4♠. I'd like a fourth spade, but the diamond suit is nice compensation.

IMHO, this hand is a lot tougher to bid without the 2♣ bid in there.

[mikeh]

I agree with Frances.

I recognize that (virtually) the whole world will want to raise 1♠, since it (in most methods, absent specific agreement) promises 5+, but this hand is, initially, all about diamonds..

Having raised spades, and I think that the raise would be the popular choice, so it is not an error, rebidding 4♦ is wrong. Partner denied any game interest, and, indeed, any interest in competing to the 3 level even tho you raised his suit. So he has a BAD hand, and the auction has told you that.

So listen to the auction. Bid 3♦ and hope you can make it.

I think that one of the most challenging aspects of the game is learning to really listen to what the other 3 players are telling you, and drawing inferences. All too often, we focus on drawing inferences from active bidding, but passing is informative too..... partner, knowing of at least an 8 card fit, was prepared to sell to 3♣, and we hold a minimum hand... a good playing hand in diamonds, of course, but that is what 3♦ says.

[skjaeran]

I'm very much in agreement with Frances and Mike on this one. The whole auction should tell south off jumping to 4♦.

[ArtK78]

The end of the auction is a bafflement.

The 4♦ call is inconsistent with the 2♠ call. Either the hand is worth a game force or it is not (and it is not).

3♦ was sufficient.

Having bid 4♦ and having been doubled in 4♦, why run to 4♠? Clearly the trump suit is good enough. If partner has good spades, say, AJTxx or better, 4♦x will have play. It is very unlikely that 4♠ will have better play than 4♦. And one is not bidding 4♠ because it is game. After all, 4♦x is game.

[han]

Agree with Art, 4D is inconsistent with 2S.

2S says "minimal hand, spade support".

4D says "a lot of extra playing strength".

So that can't both be right on the same hand. I think 2S was wrong, this hand is too good. And yes, it's all about diamonds too.

[gwnn]

btw,

3NT-p-4♣*
4♦-end

for -50 or -100 is a nice auction {and 3NT-all pass for -350 isn't!}.

I know you probably didn't agree to gambling 3NT on this occasion but this hand just goes to show that if you have a long and strong minor, opening 3NT on it (when appropriate) is a nice way of getting the hand off your chest as it's a reasonably accurate description of your hand and also keeps out opps of the auction.

[han]

Jlall, on Feb 1 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

Hannie, on Feb 1 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

I think 2S was wrong, this hand is too good.

Wow, I can see saying it's wrong because you want to rebid diamonds but because it's too good? That seems like a stretch. Would you really bid 3S or 3D with this hand? I think those are big overbids.

Yes I think I would have bid 3D. If partner bids again (quite likely) then I will try my best to play in spades, hoping that partner plays there when it is right.

[the hog]

Agree with Frances. 4D is totally inconsistent with 2S.

[Codo]

I agree that 2 ♠ and 4 ♦ do not fit together.

But I disagree with the great players here that 2 Spade was correct. You need Akxxx of spade and out from partner to make game on a 3-2 break in spades.
I doubt that 2 Spade containes this message. SO I had bid 3 Spade and maybe played there, because pd surely had declined the invitation with 4 working HCPs.

Okay on this hand, you and your partner have 8 spades with no intermedeates which puts 3 Spade in big danger, but I still would try it. If 3 Spade is not making, they will often make something in one of their suits.