[Cascade]

I am going to game but slam is easily possible opposite ♦KQ, a fitting heart honour and an ace (probably the ♠A) so I make a try with 4♣. If we are on the same wave-length this would show a club shortage and diamond support. We would double to try for 3NT.

[han]

I'd bid 5D.

[mike777]

rogerclee, on Feb 5 2008, 04:32 AM, said:

Playing IMPs, all white

♠xxx ♥AQxxx ♦Axxx ♣x

Partner opens:

1♦-(P)-1♥-(2♣)
2♦*-(3♣)-?

2♦ usually denies holding 3-card ♥ support.

Looks like another tough bidding hand where we might cuebid or double.
I will try the cuebid this time, not sure what hand double promises on this auction.

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Feb 5 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Everyone else is trying for slam and I'm trying for partscore

My feelings exactly. 3♦

[Cascade]

Well 3♦ and not 4♦ is the right bid to try for a part-score.

I can't help but think that this is a serious underbid:

1. Partner's 2♦ bid surely shows six

2. We have aces

3. We have a singleton

4. Our honours are all in our long suits

5. The opponents bid and raised clubs - while it is not impossible that partner has some club honours it is less likely on this bidding

3♦ is something I would bid with a six-count with four diamonds - perhaps the same hand with no ♦A. So I think that is significantly pessimistic.

[jdeegan]

Jlall, on Feb 5 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

Everyone else is trying for slam and I'm trying for partscore 

4♦.
I love my hand, but enough to force an 11+ trick contract? True, it is close, but partner could be as weak as (or weaker than):
AJx
x
KQJxxx
Jxx
and my play for 5♦ is moderate to say the least.

Another way of looking at things is that my hand is worth 13 dummy points opposite partner's hand worth around 14. Close, but this doesn't quite add up to an 11 trick game.

On the other hand, 4♦ hardly risks missing a slam since pard can and should cue bid on his way to 5♦ with a nice hand with some good controls and extra playing strength.
Ax
x
KQJ10xxx
Jxx

[han]

jdeegan, on Feb 6 2008, 02:49 AM, said:

I love my hand, but enough to force an 11+ trick contract? True, it is close, but partner could be as weak as (or weaker than):
AJx
x
KQJxxx
Jxx
and my play for 5♦ is moderate to say the least.

A moderate finesse?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

4C may also help, if the overcaller
bids 5C next.
Not likely, but it is alos not an impossible
scenario.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdeegan]

han, on Feb 6 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

jdeegan, on Feb 6 2008, 02:49 AM, said:

I love my hand, but enough to force an 11+ trick contract?  True, it is close, but partner could be as weak as (or weaker than):
AJx
x
KQJxxx
Jxx
and my play for 5♦ is moderate to say the least.

A moderate finesse?

The finesse is into the bidder, however. Also, the way I like to play (you may disagree), the example hand could be quite a bit worse - six good diamonds to be sure, but not necessarily much in addition. You may feel differently about this issue of extra values, but I just see it as a bidders' game, and it is time to clarify the diamond suit situation (and suggest a possible opening lead) at a safe and secure bidding level.

[gwnn]

jdeegan, on Feb 7 2008, 10:00 AM, said:

the example hand could be quite a bit worse (...)

like eliminating the two black jacks?

[the hog]

Easy 4C bid. Definitely going to bid at game and hope for more.

[pclayton]

4♣ or 5♦.

I think I want a forcing pass in place - so I'll 4♣.