[Phil]

xx x KQJTxxx Kxx

vul/not ,mps

1♥ - 3♠ - ?

[karlson]

I suppose I should. 5♦ if that's not a fit jump.

[Free]

karlson, on Apr 18 2009, 04:28 AM, said:

I suppose I should. 5♦ if that's not a fit jump.

Jumps to game are never fit jumps.

[655321]

5♦

[karlson]

Free, on Apr 17 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

karlson, on Apr 18 2009, 04:28 AM, said:

I suppose I should. 5♦ if that's not a fit jump.

Jumps to game are never fit jumps.

I agree that that's pretty standard, but I've certainly had a partner for whom all jumps in competition were fit.

[rogerclee]

I would double and I don't really get why I might want to bid 5♦ when

1) I have no aces and two small spades.
2) I am happy to pass 3NT if partner bids that over my double.
2) I can always get to 5♦ later.

[FrancesHinden]

1♥ - (3♠) - x - (P)
4♥ - (P) - 5♦

shows this hand?

[JLOL]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 18 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

1♥ - (3♠) - x - (P)
4♥ - (P) - 5♦

shows this hand?

umm...yes? How about xx x AKQJxxx xxx hoping to hear 3N.

Anyways I would pass.

Edit: my dad votes for double.

[karlson]

I was thinking about this, it seems reasonable that 5♦ over 4♥ shows this hand, since it doesn't leave room for any other strains. But if the minors were reversed, would you still bid the same way and bid 5♣ over 4♥? That sure sounds like both minors.

Anyway, the idea of making a negative double with only one suit that I actually want to ever play in makes me uneasy, but I guess it will work fine on this hand.

[jdonn]

I think the double is clear and I can't believe there are 5♦ bids. Partner opened our singleton, they bid our small doubleton on our right, and now we are worth 5♦?? I would much sooner just pass.

[Phil]

JLOL, on Apr 18 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Apr 18 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

1♥ - (3♠) - x - (P)
4♥ - (P) - 5♦

shows this hand?

umm...yes? How about xx x AKQJxxx xxx hoping to hear 3N.

Anyways I would pass.

Edit: my dad votes for double.

Jeez you're getting chicken in your old age . I passed too.

Pard also passed with Ax JTxxx Ax AQxx. I guess the doublers are +150 (or is this a 5♦ call after 4♦ ?!), but -140 was pretty lousy when I led my heart and pard ducked the spade off the board.

[jdonn]

Phil, on Apr 18 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

I guess the doublers are +150 (or is this a 5♦ call after 4♦ ?!)

Uh, yes?!?! But why would partner not bid 3NT anyway?

[JLOL]

karlson, on Apr 18 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

I was thinking about this, it seems reasonable that 5♦ over 4♥ shows this hand, since it doesn't leave room for any other strains. But if the minors were reversed, would you still bid the same way and bid 5♣ over 4♥? That sure sounds like both minors.

Anyway, the idea of making a negative double with only one suit that I actually want to ever play in makes me uneasy, but I guess it will work fine on this hand.

It is weird to me that making a negative double with a 1 suiter hoping to find 3N makes you more uneasy than with a hand that has 11 cards in 2 suits at least. I mean even with 1156 you would pass partners 4H if you somehow made a negative double. So we are talking about either 12 minor cards or 2056.

2056 is a problem, but it seems obvious to me that no other shapes would start with a negative double or pull 4H. With 2056 you just take your chances whatever you do.