[Fluffy]

♠87643
♥J2
♦94
♣8652

nobody vul, IMPS

(ps)-ps-(1♠)-X
(2♠)-ps-(ps)-X
(ps)-3♣-(ps)-3♥
(ps)-??

[MarkDean]

I would pass - pretty small target of hands for partner where she did not bid game and game is good opposite this hand.

[gwnn]

100% blame for partner. don't listen to him!!

[Jlall]

If he can make game opposite this don't you think he would have bid it?

[dellache]

What rubbish! Pass.

[hotShot]

I would pass.

And why did I bid 3♣?
Opps could be playing 2♠X with an unfavorable 5-0 ♠ split (if they have a fit at all), while partner seems to have some strength.

[Fluffy]

partner held

♠-
♥AK108x
♦AKQJx
♣AQ9

I made 140 althou 170 was avaible ruffing a diamond with ♥J then finesing clubs.

Reaching game wouldn't really matter much since teammates doubled 5♣ on a "similar" auction for +800

[aguahombre]

partner's hand is about right. Doubt about strain, monster hand. Maybe not quite that big. Can we go back to 2SX? I would probably WUS out 3C, too

[whereagles]

huh..? pard has an obvious 3♠ bid instead of the 2nd double

[Fluffy]

I much prefer the second double nuno, if partner bids a red suit "voluntarilly" you have a greater chance of it being 4 cards, I was willing to raise it to slam.

Not to mention that one of our best contract was 2♠X wich has 6 top losers, and opponents have to handle the 5-0 split iwth the 5 card player being shortnened.

[nige1]

Fluffy, on Nov 28 2009, 07:44 PM, said:

nobody vul, IMPS ♠87643 ♥J2 ♦94 ♣8652
(ps)-ps-(1♠)-X
(2♠)-ps-(ps)-X
(ps)-3♣-(ps)-3♥
(ps)-??

IMO ... you should pass 2♠X. Now partner's sequence is so strong that it is close what to do. You assume, however, that he has support for the other suits. So he is susceptible to a force. Hence you should probably wuss out by passing 3♥

[andy_h]

I think if you are passing 2♠X you are resulting. Would partner not double with say a 15 count with a void, like 04(54)?

[nige1]

andy_h, on Nov 30 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

I think if you are passing 2♠X you are resulting. Would partner not double with say a 15 count with a void, like 04(54)?

Perhaps you're right. I admit it's a bit of a gamble. But partner is sometimes 1444 or 1453. (Rarely, I suppose) 3♣ could be doubled and be more expensive than 2♠X making.

[hotShot]

andy_h, on Dec 1 2009, 04:31 AM, said:

I think if you are passing 2♠X you are resulting. Would partner not double with say a 15 count with a void, like 04(54)?

You only have 2 cards in each red suit, so unless partner has 6 cards in one of them you won't have a fit there. If partner had 6 cards in a suit he would not dbl twice.

So the only chance to have a fit is in ♣.
We know that opps can't have more than 8♠, so if we apply the LoTT there are 15-16 TT, if partner has 4♣ and 16-17 TT if partner has 5♣.
Without applying further adjustments, bidding 3♣ would only be suggested, if opps have an 8 card fit and partner has 5♣.

[andy_h]

hotShot, on Dec 1 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

andy_h, on Dec 1 2009, 04:31 AM, said:

I think if you are passing 2♠X you are resulting. Would partner not double with say a 15 count with a void, like 04(54)?

You only have 2 cards in each red suit, so unless partner has 6 cards in one of them you won't have a fit there. If partner had 6 cards in a suit he would not dbl twice.

So the only chance to have a fit is in ♣.
We know that opps can't have more than 8♠, so if we apply the LoTT there are 15-16 TT, if partner has 4♣ and 16-17 TT if partner has 5♣.
Without applying further adjustments, bidding 3♣ would only be suggested, if opps have an 8 card fit and partner has 5♣.

Sorry, but I'm not a high advocate on the Law of Total Tricks. They can deviate a lot of the times and I only sometimes use them as a general guideline, not something I abide by. Here we know parner has 0-1 spades and usually more often 0 depending on their style of openings in 3rd seat. If we have 9 clubs, dummy could well possibly be short in them enabling ruffs. What makes it worse is that when partner is void in spades he is unable lead trumps at all. You might say forcing declarer would be a good plan but our trumps are so small that declarer could just go on a cross ruff spree. Furthermore, this is imps and basing on what could-be's with the LoTT is like playing with fire. The opponents have also heard that partner has a decent hand and, unless they're 110% sure, why would they double knowing it's imps and would only help the declarer play? Given that it's very rare for them to double, if we only have an 8card fit we still have a chance at making, and if we go down one or two 2♠ might well make. What I don't want is to gamble to defend 2♠X for a frisky 1 off especially at imps.

Oh, as to the OP I'd pass 3♥ without thinking twice.

[whereagles]

Fluffy, on Nov 30 2009, 08:11 PM, said:

I much prefer the second double nuno, if partner bids a red suit "voluntarilly" you have a greater chance of it being 4 cards, I was willing to raise it to slam.

Well, that you're absolutely correct. But double + 3♥ probably won't be taken as forcing and you do make 10-11 tricks on your own. And pard can pass 2♠ doubled and you might not be too pleased

Perhaps we can reach an agreement: double twice, then 3♠ instead of 3♥

[suokko]

If you pass this hand you better have good defender in opposite side of table.

This hand gives may problems for partner: What he can lead/play when defending? He might have some easy suit to lead and play but what if he is "end-played" often?

I hate defending doubled contracts where I know that I have to do something creative or it is going to make. This might very well be one of them. Opponents got 5♠ tricks and they rate to make 2 side tricks. And might make more when partner has to lead from strong hand to opponents hands.

This time opponents didn't have values for their bids so 2♠x is correct. how often is it correct in practice? You better know your opponents style.

As for biding goes I like to bid conservatively when partner rates to have very few values. It is not easy to play everything wrong one hand. (That means actual biding isn't out of question in my option)

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Nov 28 2009, 08:33 PM, said:

If he can make game opposite this don't you think he would have bid it?

Amen to this!!!

[Fluffy]

the fact is, you only make game because partner has 2 card support, if he has singleton your hand doesn't go anywhere.

[Fluffy]

whereagles, on Dec 1 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

Perhaps we can reach an agreement: double twice, then 3♠ instead of 3♥

That's what our opponents did, and they reached 5♣ for -800. 3♠ later doesn't show both suits.