[Phil]

1. r/w QTx T9xxxx xx AK. 1♦ by pard, 2♠ on right, you double, 3S on left, p, p - ?

2. r/w ♠xx ♥Jx ♦AK9xx ♣Q9xx. 1♠ pard, p, 1N you, 2♥ on left, p, 3♥ on right - ?

3. AKQ, Axxx, A, AKTxx

What is your choice - 1C or 2C?

Thanks.

[Jlall]

Don't we have 24 with no jacks on the last hand?

[jdonn]

1. I'll take another crack at it.
2. Double I guess. Could be right to pass but feels wimpy.
3. Another bizarro world? Let's suppose we open 1♣ and are fortunate enough to have partner respond 1♦. It's not like we are even close to off the hook. We rebid 2♥ which might be an 18 count with this shape, but we really have a 24 count all in top tricks! Our hand can never get shown. I don't even see a rebid problem after 2♣. We can follow with 3♣, always raising if partner bids a major, or bidding 3♥ or 3NT next over 3♦ depending on what it shows.

[kfay]

Am I playing against uber-experts?

[rhm]

Jlall, on Nov 23 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

Don't we have 24 with no jacks on the last hand?

Shows only how far this nonsense about 2C requirements has gone.

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

You're playing against two **STARS** !

[kenrexford]

1. Ugh! Double seems right if penalty, but I'm not sure that's what double means. However, whatever it means, I think partner guesses right. I think double is values at this point.

2. Double. What else? I like the heart Jack a little bit.

3. 2♣.

On this last one. Playing normal stuff, I'll treat this as balanced and bid Kokish. I get all the majors in the picture, and I might be able to introduce clubs myself later.

I would, however, have a really nice auction using my two-way strong openings, and it is so nice that I thought I'd mention it. When 2♦ openings show 4+ spades and big, 2♣-P-2♦-P-2♠ is freed up for an artificial meaning. I use this to show a heart-minor canape. When Responder has hearts, he raises immediately (some way) and this is good. One likely scenario is a 3♣ artificial raise and a pattern completion by Opener. Again, good stuff.

But, if Responder does not have a heart fit, his 2NT relay works wonders too. Opener rebids 3♥ to show specifically 4♥, 3♠, and 5-6♣. You cannot get much better than that.

[ArtK78]

1) I am bidding 4♥ on this. Partner is marked with short spades and did not bid over 3♠, so it is very unlikely that he is 5-5 in the minors. So he must have a heart fit.

Could be wrong, but that is my action.

2) Pass.

3) I have about the highest requirements for 2♣ openings on these Fora, and even I cannot come up with a reason for not opening 2♣ on these cards.

Is this a serious question?

[pooltuna]

Phil, on Nov 23 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

1. r/w QTx T9xxxx xx AK. 1♦ by pard, 2♠ on right, you double, 3S on left, p, p - ?

2. r/w ♠xx ♥Jx ♦AK9xx ♣Q9xx. 1♠ pard, p, 1N you, 2♥ on left, p, 3♥ on right - ?

3. AKQ, Axxx, A, AKTxx

What is your choice - 1C or 2C?

Thanks.

1)pass
2)pass IMPS: DSIPX MP
3)2C

pass is "never" the right choice in bidding puzzles or contests hmmm and maybe questions too

[gnasher]

I'd pass on the first one. I have a nine-count with all of my values in the wrong suits, and partner couldn't bid anything over 3♠ despite having spade shortage. I'd be surprised if we could make anything at the four-level.

I'd like to make a penalty double, but I can't. The double shows the same shape as suggested by the double of 2♠, but with more high-card strength. If I do double, partner, holding a singleton spade, is likely to take it out, converting a likely plus into a likely minus.

One of the consequences of playing doubles as takeout is that you can't make a penalty double when you're dealt one.

[gnasher]

On the second one I'd double. My double is takeout-oriented. Is that what everyone else means by it?

[Jlall]

Very surprised by all the doublers on the second one, I would just pass. I expect partner to have 6 spades almost never and a stiff heart rarely. I expect him to have 15+ HCP never. If he is just 5233/52(42)/53xx minimum then I don't see why we want to bid anything. I mean if he removes to 3N that is very likely bad, if he removes to 4C and he has a 3 card suit it's bad, if he bids 3S it could be ok but I'd rather be defending than having him play a 5-2 fit. Even if we catch a 4 card club suit with partner it doesn't seem so clear that we should be bidding, our values are in diamonds where he's short and we have shortness in spades. If he has 4 diamonds I guess it's always good to compete, and I should add in he could be 52(15) as well with a min so that's a case for Xing.

Meh dunno, I feel pretty strongly about pass on that one.

[Phil]

1. I bid a tilted 4♥. Pard had a 2-1-5-5 with the non spade aces. Really ugly splits mean an undoubled 300 in 5♦. If I were to double, I think pard bids 4♣ but maybe not. In retrospect I really hate my 4♥ - even if pard has the short spades as hoped for, his hand might be ruffing spades with high trump. I still don't know whats right here tbh between dbl and pass.

2. I doubled. Maybe a little unlucky that we got -730; pard held Kxxxx xx QJxx AK which doesn't terrible for defense but diamonds went 4-0.

3. I opened 2♣ of course but on the traveler Betheau and Hallberg played the hand and he opened 1♣ (the auction looked natural to me).

Continued:

2♣ - 2♦
3♣ - 3♦
3♥ - 3N
?

[jdonn]

Personally I still like double on the second one. Partner will usually be balanced and I think he will usually pass when he is balanced, and I'm fine with that since we have the majority of the strength (I would lead a trump). The bad luck wasn't so much that diamonds broke 4-0, but that partner had that diamond fit to begin with.

On 3, obv pass over 3NT. We have a little extra but not that much, and nothing happened to improve our hand. The dangers of going down in 4NT (or 3NT?) are very real.

[mikeh]

My initial answers, formed before I read more, were double, double and 2♣.

justin's answer on number 2 has persuaded me that pass, altho conservative, is the better call. I wonder if Justin would double w/r, when the prospect of 200 looms large? Maybe it would depend on the opps and partner... if partner is known to be aggressive, pass...if the opps then double (if both, flip a coin).

As for the last one, I have opened a 23 count at the 1-level, but even I draw the line at 24.

What bothers me most, and almost pushed me towards opening 1♣, was my rebid problem. But.... I might not have one (ok...I'd estimate that i will have one 93% of the time)...and I can always rebid 3♣ and still find all our major suit fits (3♦ by partner over 3♣ is a noise, permitting opener to bid a 4 card major or 3N). So maybe I don't have a rebid problem anyway....btw, I strongly object to any approach aimed at showing a balanced hand with this holding.

In the meantime, I can't see how I can catch up if I open 1♣....the main risk is getting too high after any response...'cos I won't be able to let partner off the hook if we have any semblance of a fit.

Oh, and I agree that passing 3N is 'obvious' on the last hand. Indeed, even thinking about it, with this honour distribution and overall shape, is an overbid. But then, my partners know that this sequence already showed a BIG hand. if you routinely open and bid this way on 21, then you have a problem now.

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Nov 23 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

I'd pass on the first one.  I have a nine-count with all of my values in the wrong suits, and partner couldn't bid anything over 3♠ despite having spade shortage.  I'd be surprised if we could make anything at the four-level.

I totally agree with this. I don't understand the point of doubling here, I want to defend, and double is takeout.

I thought it was between bidding 4H (maybe partner has 3!) and passing. I don't like my chances of making 4H, partner will often have 2 hearts and on a bad day just 1, and my hearts are terrible. On the other hand my defense is pretty good, my SQTx which is wasted on offense is probably a trick on defense.

It's ok to just defend a partial at the 3 level sometimes...

[sathyab]

jdonn, on Nov 23 2009, 05:25 PM, said:

The bad luck wasn't so much that diamonds broke 4-0, but that partner had that diamond fit to begin with.

The opener looking at Kxxxx xx QJxx AK knows that there is a ♦ fit and that the hand won't play badly in 4♦. But it doesn't take much for +200, two high ♣s, a high ♦, a ♣ ruff and a ♠ are well within the realm of reality. Had the opponents not been Vul, I think there's a good case to be made to pull the double to 4♦.