[mtvesuvius]

All Vulnerable at IMPs you hold:

AKx
xx
KQ9x
AK9x

1♦* - (3♥) - ?

*11-12 if Balanced or 10-15 Unbalanced (1NT would be 13-15 by partner here)

[kenrexford]

Double? Seems too obvious. Must be wrong.

[mtvesuvius]

Partner bids 3♠, now what?

[kenrexford]

mtvesuvius, on May 29 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

Partner bids 3♠, now what?

4♣

[jdonn]

Lol, awesome, lie about your spade length, then clarify by still not showing diamonds!

[kenrexford]

4♣ is a diamond flag for me. 4♥ would be a spade flag.

Sure, I don't have a way to bid clubs now, but I can live with that.

But, I guess I should have specified what 4♣ meant. LOL

[JLOL]

How do we know we have a diamond fit? my understanding is that partner can still be 4225 or w/e after 3S.

[kenrexford]

JLOL, on May 29 2009, 06:32 PM, said:

How do we know we have a diamond fit? my understanding is that partner can still be 4225 or w/e after 3S.

Oh yeah. Damned nebulous diamond. That really spices things up here.

I suppose now we have a serious problem.

I confess a lack of knowledge here, but it seems to me that after 3♥, maybe a direct 4♥ should be a slammish choice of games whereas a double, followed by some sort of scrambling, might be less interesting. Double, followed by 4♥, intuitively sounds like slammish and partner's call just made me excited. That's what I would expect playing an unbalanced 1♦ opening if partner instead opened a nebulous 1♣ and 3♥ was the overcall.

[xcurt]

Having doubled (negative) I would just take my game-sized plus with 4♠ and change my methods after this session.

[hanp]

Double to start with seems clear. It's tough over 3S, maybe 4C isn't so bad.

[whereagles]

Pard's most likely hand is some balanced 11-12. If I bid 4♦ now, there might not be a fit, nor will there be a chance to play 4♠.

I only see 2 bids: 3NT or 4♠. Since Pard could have bid 3NT himself with a good 1-2 stopper(s), I'll try 4♠.

Sure, pard may have an unbalanced good min, but I can't find out.

[gnasher]

QJxx Ax Axxxx xx is a good grand slam, so I think we should make some effort. Is double then 4♣ forcing? Or perhaps the double was wrong: an immediate 4♣ would at least have fished out some information about diamond length.

[jdonn]

I like double then 5NT. Maybe it's not perfect but at least if partner has 5 in either minor we will hear about it, and maybe (?) if he has 4. I'm not that worried about lack of heart control, I have so many outside values that I'm simply going to depend on partner for one or hope for another lead. Besides it's hard enough getting to the right strain without adding other concerns.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on May 30 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

I like double then 5NT. Maybe it's not perfect but at least if partner has 5 in either minor we will hear about it, and maybe (?) if he has 4. I'm not that worried about lack of heart control, I have so many outside values that I'm simply going to depend on partner for one or hope for another lead. Besides it's hard enough getting to the right strain without adding other concerns.

That never occured to me.
Sounds like a good idea.

[JLOL]

jdonn, on May 30 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

I like double then 5NT. Maybe it's not perfect but at least if partner has 5 in either minor we will hear about it, and maybe (?) if he has 4. I'm not that worried about lack of heart control, I have so many outside values that I'm simply going to depend on partner for one or hope for another lead. Besides it's hard enough getting to the right strain without adding other concerns.

Way too optimistic imo.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on May 30 2009, 12:02 AM, said:

Lol, awesome, lie about your spade length, then clarify by still not showing diamonds!

Disagree. I think dbl is an honest bid, it doesn´t show spades.