[nigel_k]

We lost a Swiss teams last night after leading going into the last round, mainly because of three slam (or not) hands. The third one is below:

Scoring: IMP

---

Bid these hands. North overcalls 2♥. Unfortunately you are not playing Kickback though perhaps you will consider doing so after this hand.

[Cascade]

1♠ (2♥) Dbl (PASS)
3♠ (PASS) 4♠ (PASS)
PASS (PASS)

[Fluffy]

I'm torn between 3♠ or 3♥ response to double.


1♠-(2♥)-X
3♥-4♣ 3♥ = any GF
4♥-4NT 4♥= agrees clubs
5♣-pass

[gnasher]

Cascade, on Aug 26 2009, 11:04 PM, said:

1♠ (2♥) Dbl (PASS)
3♠ (PASS) 4♠ (PASS)
PASS (PASS)

Me too

[olliebol]

1♠ 2♥ D p
3♠ p 4♣ P
4♦ P 4♠ P
4NT P 5♣ P
P whereby 4♣l is real or cue for clubs 4♠ confirms cue 5♣1or 4

but more realistically east bids 4♠ after 3♠

[Phil]

3♠ feels like an underbid to me with the likely side fit after a negative double.

Mark me down for 4♠.

[Cascade]

Yes the minor cards are fitting.

[TimG]

Phil, on Aug 26 2009, 06:39 PM, said:

3♠ feels like an underbid to me with the likely side fit after a negative double.

Mark me down for 4♠.

Are you suggesting that 3♠ would be non-forcing? I'd expect the negative double of 2♥ (which may force the 3-level) plus opener's jump rebid to establish a force at least until suit agreement. I would not expect all those minor suit fillers to accompany a 4♠ bid.

Bidding 3♠ or 4♠ may be right, but it carries a certain amount of risk.

[ONEferBRID]

I agree with Tim who wrote:

Quote

Are you suggesting that 3♠ would be non-forcing? I'd expect the negative double of 2♥ (which may force the 3-level) plus opener's jump rebid to establish a force at least until suit agreement.

My thoughts exactly.

[the hog]

Fluffy, on Aug 27 2009, 05:15 AM, said:

I'm torn between 3♠ or 3♥ response to double.


1♠-(2♥)-X
3♥-4♣ 3♥ = any GF
4♥-4NT 4♥= agrees clubs
5♣-pass

Why would you bid 3H?
I'm torn between 3S and 4C.

[Phil]

TimG, on Aug 26 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that 3♠ would be non-forcing?

If I were suggesting it before, I will state it now.

3♠ is non-forcing.

This isn't the same as the sayc auction of:

1♠ - 2♣ - 3♠ which is forcing.

[WesleyC]

East's negative double is fine but I think I slightly prefer 3C which gets the values of the hand across in one bid and guarantees the right lead if we end up defending.

I'd bid:

1S (2H) 3C (P)
4H* (P) 5C (AP)

[andy_h]

gnasher, on Aug 27 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 26 2009, 11:04 PM, said:

1♠ (2♥) Dbl (PASS)
3♠ (PASS) 4♠ (PASS)
PASS (PASS)

Me too

Me three.

[benlessard]

I prefer 3C to a neg double since partner can still introduce D with 3D. Switch the minors and ill double.



X-------3H
3S------4S

I think west hand is strong enough for 3H (i dont see why 3S would be forcing ? the neg double can be weakish 7-8 pts). East is strong enough to bid 3S instead of 4S. West is missing AK of C, A of D and the A of H plus he might have a S loser if they are 4-1 so i think hes got an easy soff.

[gnasher]

Phil, on Aug 27 2009, 04:32 AM, said:

3♠ is non-forcing.

This isn't the same as the sayc auction of:

1♠ - 2♣ - 3♠ which is forcing.

Can you give an example of a hand that would make a negative double of 2♥, not respond at the two level in SAYC, pass 3♠ after making a negative double, and provide a good play for game opposite this opener? I'm not saying that such hands don't exist, but it seems worthwhile to try to make sure that they do, before choosing a committal action like 4♠ on a slightly flaky trump suit.

In my world, a negative double of 2♥ promises enough for an SAYC two-level response, so logically 3♠ is forcing.

[Fluffy]

The_Hog, on Aug 27 2009, 03:26 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 27 2009, 05:15 AM, said:

I'm torn between  3♠ or 3♥ response to double.


1♠-(2♥)-X
3♥-4♣  3♥ = any GF
4♥-4NT      4♥= agrees clubs
5♣-pass

Why would you bid 3H?
I'm torn between 3S and 4C.

Because 4♣ sounds as a 5-5 to me. Playing 2NT artificial, I would double with some 2443 and 2353.


I play 3♠ as invitational, a typical hand would be

KQJxxx
xx
Axx
Kx

[rhm]

1♠ (2♥) 3♣
4♥ 4 NT
5♣ Pass


4NT RKB (1430)
5♣ 1 (or 4) key card

I prefer 3♣ to DBL because it shows a game forcing hand while DBL does not
4♥ splinter in support of ♣ as a slam try is more important than rebidding the ♠

I would rebid the ♠ in a pairs tournament

Rainer Herrmann

[Phil]

gnasher, on Aug 27 2009, 02:41 AM, said:

Phil, on Aug 27 2009, 04:32 AM, said:

3♠ is non-forcing.

This isn't the same as the sayc auction of:

1♠ - 2♣ - 3♠ which is forcing.

Can you give an example of a hand that would make a negative double of 2♥, not respond at the two level in SAYC, pass 3♠ after making a negative double, and provide a good play for game opposite this opener? I'm not saying that such hands don't exist, but it seems worthwhile to try to make sure that they do, before choosing a committal action like 4♠ on a slightly flaky trump suit.

In my world, a negative double of 2♥ promises enough for an SAYC two-level response, so logically 3♠ is forcing.

I brought up "not responding at the two level in SAYC" to point out that some might think this is a parallel auction, where I think it isn't.

There are hands that would make a negative double of 2♥, but would not make a 2/1 in sayc, i.e., :

x, xxx, Axxx, KJxxx

and I think this is a clear pass of 3♠ after a negative double.

Maybe our standards are different for negative doubles here?

[gnasher]

Phil, on Aug 27 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

Maybe our standards are different for negative doubles here?

Yes, they are. I thought we'd already established that.

[TimG]

Phil, on Aug 27 2009, 09:48 AM, said:

There are hands that would make a negative double of 2♥, but would not make a 2/1 in sayc, i.e., :

x, xxx, Axxx, KJxxx

Can't we wait for partner's reopening action with this hand?