[Hanoi5]

Red vs white,

♠Kxx
♥9xx
♦AQJxx
♣Tx

Partner opens 2♦ multi, you bid 3♥ (pass or correct), LHO bids 4♥ and it goes, pass, pass to you. What now?

[aguahombre]

await partner's lead. Oops, I have to put a green card on the table first. Opener must have a weak two in spades, but I don't care if it was a weak two in hearts. With any strong hand, partner would not have passed.

[pooltuna]

Hanoi5, on Apr 15 2010, 11:56 AM, said:

Red vs white,

♠Kxx
♥9xx
♦AQJxx
♣Tx

Partner opens 2♦ multi, you bid 3♥ (pass or correct), LHO bids 4♥ and it goes, pass, pass to you. What now?

Depends on scoring. IMO IMPS requirements are more stringent at these colors than MP. Also depends on whether partner adheres to those IMP requirements fairly strictly.

[pooltuna]

aguahombre, on Apr 15 2010, 12:12 PM, said:

await partner's lead. Oops, I have to put a green card on the table first. Opener must have a weak two in spades, but I don't care if it was a weak two in hearts. With any strong hand, partner would not have passed.

good last point and one I overlooked so I would clearly pass here.

[whereagles]

If pard can be trusted to have a classic weak 2, 4♠. Else pass.

[vang]

so, the bidding was 2♠ - 3♠ - (4♥) - and now you ask if i't all right to preempt again?

[rogerclee]

Looks like a 4S bid to me.

vang the difference is that opposite a 2S opener there is no way I would have bid only 3S.

[Fluffy]

vang, on Apr 15 2010, 07:58 PM, said:

so, the bidding was 2♠ - 3♠ - (4♥) - and now you ask if i't all right to preempt again?

not really, we jsut said that we only wanted to play 3♥ if partner had hearts, we never said we didn't wanna play more if he had spades.

[Phil]

So if pard opened 2♠, we'd bid 4♠ with this?

Thanks, just checking.

[Jlall]

A lot of this depends on style. Obviously if AQxxxx xx xx Qxx is a 2S opener to you (which it is to most people), you cannot bid imo.

If you are quite sound with your weak 2s then bidding 2S p 4S is reasonable since it might shut LHO out and it will often make. I would probably just bid 2N because if partner had no feature I would not want to go higher, but presumably roger's goal is to shut them out since they might make game when partner has no feature (and if partner has a stiff heart it can be a double game swing).

Now we have the same problem, we are in double game swing territory if partner has a stiff heart. If he has more hearts it's possible both 4H and 4S are down though (imagine partner with 6214...oops).

Also, for some people they would never imagine preempting and then bidding again. Other people (esp if they preempt quite soundly) would often X 4H to say "I want to bid 4S" at these colors, eg AQTxxx x xx Kxxx should do that imo, also some hand with 7 spades and short hearts. If partner might have done that with a max and a stiff heart, then bidding 4S now loses a lot of its appeal.

I would pass fwiw.

[vang]

LHO has just guessed. how about partner having 3 hearts instead of the hoped singleton?

[Codo]

I had a long posting about why pass must be right (which had been my impression all the time since I got to know the hand) . But I changed my mind. Partner opens red/white, so I give him at least AQxxxx. If he holds a singelton heart, we are very close to a making game.

[aguahombre]

So, we used up 2D for multi. Has opener:

1) Already denied a good weak 2M hand?
2) Already denied having a side four-card minor?

In other words, what would 2M have shown?
And how do we know the opponents have not had an accident (partner's suit is hearts)?

[Codo]

aguahombre, on Apr 16 2010, 09:01 PM, said:

And how do we know the opponents have not had an accident (partner's suit is hearts)?

Come on, do you really think that someone is silly enough to bid 4♥ here on a say 6115 hand? This will never happen.

But seriously, is partner thinking that the 4 hearts bid shows spades+minor, hoping that they will have an accident and will not double 4 Heart because of this? Very far fetched. This will never happen.

With solid hearts- say AKxxxx, he will always double.

[aguahombre]

Codo, on Apr 16 2010, 06:28 AM, said:

With solid hearts- say AKxxxx, he will always double.

I discovered a long time ago that doubling when the opps bid my suit, in auctions like this, doesn't gain. It guarantees that the cue bidder will never have to play in his cue bid; it gives the opps more tools; and very seldom gives any useful information to partner.

[aguahombre]

I just now saw the other thread with the actual hand. A true advertisement for bidding one's hand only once then not bidding the same values again, and a true confirmation that a double by the multi hand with AKXXXX of hearts is silly, unless partner will bid his same values twice if 4H is passed back around.

A hand which might want to be in a spade game, but not a heart game should be able to start with 2H or 2NT ---unless multi is so unworkable that 2NT cannot sort out the strain and the strength of the 2D bid.

[Codo]

May I disagree Agua?

The original hand did not advertise passing 4 ♥. You did see that partner- like many here- did bid 4 ♠, which was no success.

[aguahombre]

disagree, fine...but if, after deciding to bid for the 3 level only --passing out 4H in the balance seat is the correct answer, for the reasons given in my very first post. If he had made his bid the first time, then passed 4H, he might have gone plus defending with 9 trumps. Just a guess.

If that isn't an advertisement for bidding the same hand only once and then subsiding, I don't know what is.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Apr 15 2010, 09:39 PM, said:

A lot of this depends on style. Obviously if AQxxxx xx xx Qxx is a 2S opener to you (which it is to most people), you cannot bid imo.

If you are quite sound with your weak 2s then bidding 2S p 4S is reasonable since it might shut LHO out and it will often make.

Are you saying that some poeple might consider AQxxxx xx xx Qxx too weak for a weak two? I realise that one might not do it because of the lack of stuffing in the trump suit, but it sounds as though you think people would reject it because of a lack of overall strength. Or have I misunderstood?

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Apr 18 2010, 03:09 AM, said:

Or have I misunderstood?

I think so