[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

one holds in 4th position the following everyday hand

QJ3
K42
753
Q983

And the auction develops as follows

(1S).. - X .... - (Pass) - 1NT
(2D).. - X (1) - (2S)... - Pass (2)
(Pass)- X (3) - (Pass) - ???

Assume the system played by the partnership and by the
opponents is something like SAYC.

My questions are

Q1 Is it penalty and does it promise additional strength?
Q2 Do you agree with Pass? Is it forcing?
Q3 For take out?
Q4 Your bid?

Q5 A Bonus question: Would you choose a other bid than 1NT,
if the Jack of spades would disappear or if happend to be
in a different suit? Would those changes in the layout change
your answers to Q1-Q4?

If the scoring and the vulnerability matters feel free to point
out the differences.
The main target audience is B/I level, but if you have remarks
targeted at A/E level, I would be grateful to hear those as well.

Thanks for your help.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[the hog]

Q1 Is it penalty and does it promise additional strength?

Yes and yes,

Q2 Do you agree with Pass? Is it forcing?

Agree, non forcing

Q3 For take out?

Yes

Q4 Your bid?

3NT

Qun 5. In that case i would bid 2C. Its close to that anyway.

[rogerclee]

1) Penalty.
2) Agree; no, this is not forcing.
3) Penalty.
4) Pass.
5) I would probably bid 2♣, 1NT is okay.

[jtfanclub]

Well, I expect partner has a 19-20 hcp balanced hand.

We can make 3NT, we can also set spades a bundle.

What's the vulnerability?

[effervesce]

1) Penalty
2) NF - you've already very tightly defined your hand in any case
3) Extras
4) Depends on the vul and the opponents. If they're vul and you're not I'd be more tempted to pass for penalties, hoping for at least 2 off. If they're non-vul and you are 3NT may score better. If the opponents are the type to just bid on anything, I pass for pen. If they're decent players, I'd bid 3NT.

[the hog]

rogerclee, on Jun 2 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

1) Penalty.
2) Agree; no, this is not forcing.
3) Penalty.
4) Pass.
5) I would probably bid 2♣, 1NT is okay.

Uh Roger, how can it suddenly change to penalty when the first double was for takeout? I guess you are going to suggest he has a really strong balanced hand. Well then he would need about 19+ because of the failure to overcall 1NT initially. You have 8 - doesn't leave much for the opener does it? I think something smells, particularly as opener's bidding suggests a very shapely hand, (unless he is a total nutter).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

It is a teaching hand, i.e. the hand came out of a deal generator,
... and I simulated the bidding for all players .
So this may or may not mean, that openers bid was justified,
but I am pretty certain, that most would agree with the 2D
bid.

For whats it worth: In the given scenario East was dealer, N-S
are vulnerable, ... and I am more interested in the IMP format.

For me the major question is: In case the penalty double showes
add. strength, does add. strength imply add. HCP power or could
it be based on shape alone as well, i.e. 4441 / 5440 shape with
+13-14 HCP.

Maybe the 2nd t/o should rule out something like 5440?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rogerclee]

The_Hog, on Jun 1 2008, 11:04 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Jun 2 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

1) Penalty.
2) Agree; no, this is not forcing.
3) Penalty.
4) Pass.
5) I would probably bid 2♣, 1NT is okay.

Uh Roger, how can it suddenly change to penalty when the first double was for takeout? I guess you are going to suggest he has a really strong balanced hand. Well then he would need about 19+ because of the failure to overcall 1NT initially. You have 8 - doesn't leave much for the opener does it? I think something smells, particularly as opener's bidding suggests a very shapely hand, (unless he is a total nutter).

It is penalty because I don't know of any hands that would actually pull this double consistent with the auction.

[helene_t]

Agree with The_Hog

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Jun 2 2008, 01:04 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Jun 2 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

1) Penalty.
2) Agree; no, this is not forcing.
3) Penalty.
4) Pass.
5) I would probably bid 2♣, 1NT is okay.

Uh Roger, how can it suddenly change to penalty when the first double was for takeout? I guess you are going to suggest he has a really strong balanced hand. Well then he would need about 19+ because of the failure to overcall 1NT initially. You have 8 - doesn't leave much for the opener does it?

It leaves 12-13 for opener. It leaves nothing for responder, but since all responder has done is run from 2♦X, I think that's consistent with the auction.

So something like....

---

How else would you bid these hands?

[the hog]

Well JT I doubt if I would put my head on the block with 2D on this auction.

[jtfanclub]

The_Hog, on Jun 2 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

Well JT I doubt if I would put my head on the block with 2D on this auction.

Perfectly fair, and I'm not recommending it. But surely you know some people who would do so with such a hand, yes?

Or to put it another way, we know they did put their head on the block this time, since your partner just tried to chop it off....

[rogerclee]

Are two people debating about whether or not that west hand constitutes a 2♦ call?

[jtfanclub]

rogerclee, on Jun 2 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

Are two people debating about whether or not that west hand constitutes a 2♦ call?

I wouldn't go that far.

Given that the opp bid 2♦, what hand would be both consistent with the rest of the auction and a hand that some people would bid 2♦ with? In other words, somebody's stretched a bit. I'm figuring the hand with distribution did it, not the hand that (I think should be) balanced.

Even if the 3rd X is takeout, what could West have for his bid? It has to look something like this.