[FrancesHinden]

Scoring: IMP

1♠ P 1NT x
P 2♣ P 2♥
P ?

---

Partner has shown a similar hand type to an initial double of 1S followed by a 2H bid.

Are you going to go any further?

[rogerclee]

Yes, it seems absolutely clear to make a 3♦ bid here, followed by 3♠ over 3♥. I expect to make game!

[paulg]

rogerclee, on Oct 27 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

Yes, it seems absolutely clear to make a 3♦ bid here, followed by 3♠ over 3♥. I expect to make game!

I'm less confident but feel that 3♦ is clear.

Paul

[P_Marlowe]

2S.

Asking for a stopper.

You have to move, but I dont like 3D,
since this forces us to game, I will give
partner the option to check out.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[655321]

Pass for me.

I would bid when vulnerable.

But we don't have a heart fit. We have 3 small spades over the 1♠ bidder, partner's (3?) spades are under the 1♠ bidder. Our values are marginal, our cards don't seem so well placed, we are only talking about a non-vulnerable game. Partner's 2♥ shows a strong hand, but not the world. We are still at the 2 level. I am content with a partscore here.

[TylerE]

I think some of you might be misreading 1NT...I'm guessing it's an Overcall Structure (or similar) bid, and purely takeout. (e.g. short spades, decent values)

[helene_t]

I think one of us is misreading the auction, Tyler. 1NT was a response, not an overcall.

I pass.

[Codo]

There are many warning signs: 765 in spade 9 in hearts. But still: I have a little more thene pd expects, so I give it one more try bid 3 ♦ and pray that this shows my hand. Second choice is 2 Spade if this is asking for stopper, third choice pass.

[han]

3D, will pass 3H.

[pclayton]

3♦ for me too. I wouldn't be surprised if LHO was horsing around here.

I don't like my xxx of spades, but so far I've shown nothing.

[cherdano]

Certainly 3♦ for me, passing seems a huge view with two kings.

[mikeh]

I pass, happy I am not vulnerable.

3♦ may work out.... we have the high card power to warrant game, but this hand smells like a misfit. Assuming partner has some spade length (he is almost marked with 2-3 spades) and 6 hearts, and there is no room for a minor fit.. surely not enough to warrant an 11 trick contract. As for 3N: he will need some fairly specific holdings for 3N to work out. Even Axx AKQxxx Axx x has us needing a 3-3 heart break for any game to come home.... and that gives him a better heart suit that he promises and more Aces than he may have.

My take on the hand is that this is one of those on which most good players bid, because of they feel that missing a game is a sin. But my feeling is that pass is the long term winner, albeit by a slim margin.

[hrothgar]

URK: Am I the only one who preferred 2NT to 2♣ a round earlier (I probably am).

In any case, I'm left with a rather unpalatable decision: I have nough values for game, however, my trump support seems shakey to say the least.

Mark me down for 2♠

[TimG]

Not many comments for the most popular choice: pass. I pass because of the apparent misfit, the three small spades and because partner failed to bid 3♥ instead of 2♥.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Oct 27 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

URK: Am I the only one who preferred 2NT to 2♣ a round earlier (I probably am).

If you think you can make 2NT, you should just pass 1NX. :-)

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Oct 27 2008, 09:27 AM, said:

As for 3N: he will need some fairly specific holdings for 3N to work out. Even Axx AKQxxx Axx x has us needing a 3-3 heart break for any game to come home.... and that gives him a better heart suit that he promises and more Aces than he may have.

To me, this hands looks more like a minimum than a maximum for X-then-2♥.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Oct 27 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 27 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

URK:  Am I the only one who preferred 2NT to 2♣ a round earlier (I probably am).

If you think you can make 2NT, you should just pass 1NX. :-)

Which is a pretty good reason why 2NT isn't natural

[mikeh]

cherdano, on Oct 27 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

mikeh, on Oct 27 2008, 09:27 AM, said:

As for 3N: he will need some fairly specific holdings for 3N to work out. Even Axx AKQxxx Axx x has us needing a 3-3 heart break for any game to come home.... and that gives him a better heart suit that he promises and more Aces than he may have.

To me, this hands looks more like a minimum than a maximum for X-then-2♥.

Well, I am not much of a walter the walrus, but for those who love to count points... Axx AKxxxx AQJ Q... happier now? Still think game is good?

BTW, while maybe the opps are fooling around, I don't think that this is so clear that we are entitled to start placing partner with maximums for his bidding. Since the example hand I gave is a prime holding on which the entire expert world would double and bid (ok, maybe 'entire' is an example of hyperbole), and since it seems to me (due to the fact that I upgrade Aces and good 6 card suits) a non-minimum, I thought it was a reasonable example of why bidding 3♦ would usually work out poorly. I also thought it to be a fair illustration because game has some play... rather than, for example, the 20 count I just posted on which game has no play, assuming that opener holds the club Ace.

Making up examples can be a fool's game, because for every example a passer gives, a bidder can come up with a counter-example: Kxx AKQJxx Ax xx... now game is wonderful if LHO holds the club A.

One point not previously made, however, is that if partner holds 6 solid hearts and a spade stopper and a diamond card, he may well choose to bid 2N rather than 2♥... the bidding tells him that there is a reasonable chance that we hold no ruffing value and that a 9 trick game may be easier than a 10 trick one.

[jdonn]

Passing is so unfathomable to me. We have shown nothing at all and we have K and KJ! It's completely anti partnership, we could easily have 28 or 29 between us (ignore the opponents pls, they are not always honest fellows). Partner bidding my singleton doesn't make the hand automatically a misft, we can have a fit in either minor or his hearts could be self sustaining.

3♦ for sure.

[cherdano]

I am not sure what your walter-the-walrus remark is trying to say. I guess I am supposed to reply that those who pass are overthinking by working out partner's holding exactly (in particular partner is apparently likely to hold a singleton opposite our main suit), instead of showing their values and let partner decide, but let me make bridge arguments instead.

If you replace one of the aces with a king, I would overcall 2♥. Now of course that is a big difference in a strong shapely hand, but given that X-then-2♥ is a wide-ranging bid this still shows that the given hand is more like a minimum than a maximum.

The thought that partner possibly has 3 spades doesn't worry me as much, 3631 hands have a higher minimum for double-then-bid than 2632 hands, obviously. Partner could also be 3541 or 2542, with 2♥ going down and 5♦ making.