[kenrexford]

1♦-(1♠)-?

All white; IMP.

♠-- ♥xxxx ♦AKQxx ♣xxxx

If an unusual-looking option comes to mind, what would that call show? If an unusual call is rejected because it is close but is off by a bit, what problem is there with that option?

[Trinidad]

I would just double. But since Ken is asking, the answer is probably 2♣.

Rik

[aguahombre]

double is barfy enough...hope you werent thinking of 2S --whatever it shows you cannot handle the followup.
I would barf and double.

[nigel_k]

2♠.

I like to play that dbl is a hand that would have bid one heart (not a classic negative double) but either way I prefer to show a diamond raise immediately given the likelihood of further action from opponents. Partner has a bad diamond suit and won't be able to participate intelligently unless he knows I have them.

This could do well if partner is short in hearts or clubs but could also play poorly opposite quite a good balanced hand, e.g. Axx AKx Jxxx AQx. When 5♦ is in danger opposite that hand a splinter must be too much.

[the hog]

2S. I think it is far better to emphasise the ds with this hand rather than make a sputnik double with that H suit.

[pooltuna]

kenrexford, on Sep 1 2009, 07:41 PM, said:

1♦-(1♠)-?

All white; IMP.

♠-- ♥xxxx ♦AKQxx ♣xxxx

If an unusual-looking option comes to mind, what would that call show? If an unusual call is rejected because it is close but is off by a bit, what problem is there with that option?

Well the options look to be a negX, 2♠, and 3♠. In order of preference for me I would use the negX followed by 3♠

[kenrexford]

As a side question, if you opt X, what would you do if the auction happens to proceed as expected:

1♦-1♠-X-3♠
P-4♠-?

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Sep 2 2009, 11:22 AM, said:

As a side question, if you opt X, what would you do if the auction happens to proceed as expected:

1♦-1♠-X-3♠
P-4♠-?

5♦, obviously. You can't conceal AKQxx support for ever, and you're probably no worse off than if you'd started with 2♠.

[olliebol]

double first but have been looking at 5 ♦long and hard, very tempting...you know what ,im gonna try it:5♦

[kenrexford]

The results (hidden) and my friend's thoughts (also hidden):

Spoiler

5♦ gets doubled and set three tricks. 4♠ would be set one trick. Partner has a legit 1♦ opening, with KQxx in spades, maybe Q in one side suit, diamond Jack, and something like AQ in the other side suit.

A friend thought that this hand should be handled either with a 3♠ splinter or a 4♦ call. In retrospect, I think he's right, but I tend toward 4♦ whereas he tends toward 3♠. He thinks 3♠ should be a weak splinter, with 2♠ handling any stronger hands. I think 3♠ would be right with maybe a queen on the side extra, at a minimum, but that 3♠ is too much. We both agreed that the hand probably should focus diamonds immediately, to involve partner in the real decision about to be made, a practical move. Not sure, though.

[Phil]

3♠ is reasonable and does help pard evaluate. I think the hand has too much slam potential for 4♦.

I think its fantasy that we will be able to play 4♥ here.

[cherdanno]

kenrexford, on Sep 2 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

The results (hidden) and my friend's thoughts (also hidden):

5♦ gets doubled and set three tricks. 4♠ would be set one trick. Partner has a legit 1♦ opening, with KQxx in spades, maybe Q in one side suit, diamond Jack, and something like AQ in the other side suit.

A friend thought that this hand should be handled either with a 3♠ splinter or a 4♦ call. In retrospect, I think he's right, but I tend toward 4♦ whereas he tends toward 3♠. He thinks 3♠ should be a weak splinter, with 2♠ handling any stronger hands. I think 3♠ would be right with maybe a queen on the side extra, at a minimum, but that 3♠ is too much. We both agreed that the hand probably should focus diamonds immediately, to involve partner in the real decision about to be made, a practical move. Not sure, though.

I don't get why you always hide your follow-ups. Is it because you think after you gave your thought, we will be too shy to voice an differing opinion? Or because we won't be able to think clearly after you revealed the right answer?

[kenrexford]

cherdanno, on Sep 2 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 2 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

The results (hidden) and my friend's thoughts (also hidden):

5♦ gets doubled and set three tricks.  4♠ would be set one trick.  Partner has a legit 1♦ opening, with KQxx in spades, maybe Q in one side suit, diamond Jack, and something like AQ in the other side suit.

A friend thought that this hand should be handled either with a 3♠ splinter or a 4♦ call.  In retrospect, I think he's right, but I tend toward 4♦ whereas he tends toward 3♠.  He thinks 3♠ should be a weak splinter, with 2♠ handling any stronger hands.  I think 3♠ would be right with maybe a queen on the side extra, at a minimum, but that 3♠ is too much.  We both agreed that the hand probably should focus diamonds immediately, to involve partner in the real decision about to be made, a practical move.  Not sure, though.

I don't get why you always hide your follow-ups. Is it because you think after you gave your thought, we will be too shy to voice an differing opinion? Or because we won't be able to think clearly after you revealed the right answer?

Because I figure that some people might like to think about it without accidentally seeing some clue to the hand. It doesn't seem like that much to un-hide things, kept hidden for the benefit of those who still want to think about it. Geez!

I mean, I personally like to think about others' posts without accidentally reading the next post that gives away the problem and taints my own view.

[cherdanno]

It's not a big deal, I just find the unhiding annoying on BBF, and I don't see how reading you or your friend's opinion or seeing the actual hand "gives away the problem".

[pooltuna]

kenrexford, on Sep 2 2009, 08:03 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Sep 2 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 2 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

The results (hidden) and my friend's thoughts (also hidden):

5♦ gets doubled and set three tricks.  4♠ would be set one trick.  Partner has a legit 1♦ opening, with KQxx in spades, maybe Q in one side suit, diamond Jack, and something like AQ in the other side suit.

A friend thought that this hand should be handled either with a 3♠ splinter or a 4♦ call.  In retrospect, I think he's right, but I tend toward 4♦ whereas he tends toward 3♠.  He thinks 3♠ should be a weak splinter, with 2♠ handling any stronger hands.  I think 3♠ would be right with maybe a queen on the side extra, at a minimum, but that 3♠ is too much.  We both agreed that the hand probably should focus diamonds immediately, to involve partner in the real decision about to be made, a practical move.  Not sure, though.

I don't get why you always hide your follow-ups. Is it because you think after you gave your thought, we will be too shy to voice an differing opinion? Or because we won't be able to think clearly after you revealed the right answer?

Because I figure that some people might like to think about it without accidentally seeing some clue to the hand. It doesn't seem like that much to un-hide things, kept hidden for the benefit of those who still want to think about it. Geez!

I mean, I personally like to think about others' posts without accidentally reading the next post that gives away the problem and taints my own view.

better to keep it hidden for unbiased opinions