[goobers]

---

South deals, it goes 1H - (2C) - x - (3C)

Where from here?

Oops MPs

[jdonn]

I like 4♦ p 5♦. Simple and natural. I guess really you want to be in slam but I think this would score fine.

[vuroth]

If I'm south, I think 4♦ next. If partner has 3♣ (LOTT) and 4♠ (for his double), we have at least an 8 card fit in the reds.

Hopefully, this bid can be passed if partner has a minimum with preference for diamonds, though here I'd expect a bid of 5♦.

Would take better players than me to find the 50% (?) slam....

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

it is either 3D (an under bid) or 4D (an overbid),
the later is an overbid, because 4D forces to game,
and 11 tricks is a long way to go, and by passes 3NT.

I would go with 3D, and miss game.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jillybean]

3♦:5♦ wtp

[Echognome]

jillybean2, on Apr 8 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

3♦:5♦ wtp

The problem is what the free bid of 3♦ shows in your view. Does it show extra strength and/or length in diamonds? Or do you want opener to be able to bid 3♦ on a minimum hand with diamond length? If you view it as the former, then yes, North can bid to game on that basis, otherwise North doesn't have any extras for the auction given the negative double. However, I do not believe this is what most would expect for a 3♦ call, so South has to do something other than bid 3♦ (as you can see by the answers above). Otherwise North should be passing 3♦. I'll put it a different way. How do you propose that N/S compete to 3♦ if south doesn't have the ♠A? Do you want North to double again over 3♣?

[neilkaz]

Echognome, on Apr 8 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 8 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

3♦:5♦  wtp

The problem is what the free bid of 3♦ shows in your view. Does it show extra strength and/or length in diamonds? Or do you want opener to be able to bid 3♦ on a minimum hand with diamond length? If you view it as the former, then yes, North can bid to game on that basis, otherwise North doesn't have any extras for the auction given the negative double. However, I do not believe this is what most would expect for a 3♦ call, so South has to do something other than bid 3♦ (as you can see by the answers above). Otherwise North should be passing 3♦. I'll put it a different way. How do you propose that N/S compete to 3♦ if south doesn't have the ♠A? Do you want North to double again over 3♣?

I am in complete agreement with your fine post and thus, bid 4♦ here as well.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

I like 4♦ p 5♦. Simple and natural. I guess really you want to be in slam but I think this would score fine.

What twelve tricks are you planning on winning?

[Cascade]

I would bid 3♦ on a minimum 5/5 opening hand so I need to do more this time.

Double should deny four spades and give us a chance of getting to 3NT when it is right. The alternative is 4♦ which I think is too committal to a suit contract.

When partner bids diamonds in response to my double I will raise to game.

[655321]

jdonn, on Apr 8 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

I like 4♦ p 5♦. Simple and natural. I guess really you want to be in slam but I think this would score fine.

Wow, jdonn is hungry to bid slams lately

Agree with 4♦

[jdonn]

655321, on Apr 8 2008, 08:40 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 8 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

I like 4♦ p 5♦. Simple and natural. I guess really you want to be in slam but I think this would score fine.

Wow, jdonn is hungry to bid slams lately

Agree with 4♦

Oh lol I was on crack and for some reason thought 3-3 hearts would be good enough. At least it shows even when I'm stupid I'm still honest, since I was bidding myself just to game when I thought slam was good.

[pclayton]

5♦ looks like a logical place to land but how about a MP 4♥ by North over 4♦?

[jillybean]

Echognome, on Apr 8 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 8 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

3♦:5♦  wtp

The problem is what the free bid of 3♦ shows in your view. Does it show extra strength and/or length in diamonds? Or do you want opener to be able to bid 3♦ on a minimum hand with diamond length? If you view it as the former, then yes, North can bid to game on that basis, otherwise North doesn't have any extras for the auction given the negative double. However, I do not believe this is what most would expect for a 3♦ call, so South has to do something other than bid 3♦ (as you can see by the answers above). Otherwise North should be passing 3♦. I'll put it a different way. How do you propose that N/S compete to 3♦ if south doesn't have the ♠A? Do you want North to double again over 3♣?

My thinking here was my partners double has implied 4♠ and shown some values, neg doubles can be made with sub min values. Opps have bid and raised their suit. We have no known fit and I am not sure I want to force game and bypass 3nt.

Having said all that, the ♠A is a key card and 4♦ is looking more and more like the expert bid.

[vuroth]

jillybean2, on Apr 9 2008, 09:08 AM, said:

We have no known fit...

The only way we have no fit is if partner has:

5 or fewer spades
2 or fewer hearts
2 or fewer diamonds.

That would mean partner has at least 4 clubs. If I trust opponents bidding, partner should not have more than 3 clubs (implied 9+ card fit).

This is not a hand where you should be afraid of not having a fit, I think.

[jdonn]

vuroth, on Apr 9 2008, 09:36 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 9 2008, 09:08 AM, said:

We have no known fit...

The only way we have no fit is if partner has:

5 or fewer spades
2 or fewer hearts
2 or fewer diamonds.

That would mean partner has at least 4 clubs. If I trust opponents bidding, partner should not have more than 3 clubs (implied 9+ card fit).

This is not a hand where you should be afraid of not having a fit, I think.

She said no KNOWN fit. That doesn't mean we don't have a fit, it just means if we have one we don't know where it is yet.

[awm]

Double of 3♣ is more penalty-oriented for me -- usually shows a big balanced hand and says "hey partner if you are balanced too let's defend."

I like 4♦ on these cards; 3♦ should show mild extras but a nice 5-5 (say this hand minus a king) seems fine to me. On the other hand, with the north cards I would raise 3♦ to 4♦ (it seems we have a ten card fit most of the time, should be worth a try for game). So whichever rebid south chooses seems to lead to game.

[Codo]

Even when I would play responsive doubles here, I would stll bid 4 Diamond.

3 NT is not the goal. Pd doubled for take out, I have a singelton and the opponents bid and raised the suit. Pd needs something like AQ in clubs to make 3 NT a superior contract.
May happen, but I pay the price and show my two suiter now like the majority with 4 Diamond, which is surely raised to 5 from Partner.

[skjaeran]

4♦ seems like the value bid here. Should lead to the great game.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Apr 8 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

I like 4♦ p 5♦. Simple and natural. I guess really you want to be in slam but I think this would score fine.

Seems like the obvious choice. South has a great two suiter, and North has enough to bid game but not enough to probe for slam.