[ArcLight]

Imps, all Vuln, pard deals and opens 1♥ pleaying 2/1

You hold
♠ Q
♥ x x
♦ K Q J x x
♣ Q T x x x

Bidding goes

1♥ - pass - 1NT (by us) - 2♠ [Natural, presumably a good hand]
pass - pass - X [pard do something] - pass
3♣ - 3♠ - ???


What do you do?
What do you think of:
1 - bididng 4♣?
2 - passing
3 - X (pard bid on, or else pass for penalty)


[Edit - a 2NT rebid would have shown a Spade stopper]

[Hanoi5]

I'd bid 4♣.

1. 4♣ 'cause I want to compete. I hope we have a 9-card fit and if partner has a maximum he might get us to a makeable game (xxx AKxxx x AKxx and sometimes with less).
2. Passing is too cowardly unless these are opponents who pass and later get to game, making it.
3. Why bother doubling again when we have already found a fit?

[hanp]

I'd pass. 4C could be the winner but at all red it doesn't feel right to compete this high for the partscore.

Had partner bid 3D instead it would have been more attractive to bid 4D.

[Fluffy]

I think the opposite han, partner bidding clubs is right cos he is liekelly filling our hole there.

If partne rhas a magical AAK it will be a double partial, and he could even have more.

I'd try 4♣.

[Codo]

If I belive the bidding so far, partner is a big favourite to have a hand around a 3514. This sounds more like defence then offense.

At mps I would like to double, but at imps this is too risky. So I go for 4 ♣ too.

[gnasher]

I would have bid 2NT, showing the minors, on the previous round. I think double suggested a more balanced hand than what I have.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on Jul 15 2010, 08:42 AM, said:

I would have bid 2NT, showing the minors, on the previous round.   I think double suggested a more balanced hand than what I have.

Yes. This cannot be confused by partner. There are many situations where 2NT might be a natural bid. This is not one of them. And, having shown our hand with 2NT, rather than the action double, we don't have to do anything if 3S comes back.

[hanp]

Fluffy, on Jul 15 2010, 08:09 AM, said:

I think the opposite han, partner bidding clubs is right cos he is liekelly filling our hole there.

Are you really saying that partner having a fit for our Q10xxx suit is better than partner having a fit opposite our KQJxx suit?

Do you also think our defense is better if partner has shortness opposite our Q10xxx than if partner has shortness opposite our KQJxx?

Pretty amazed to read your post but maybe I misunderstood "cos" and "liekelly".

[hanp]

Aqua (and maybe gnasher, who didn't claim that 2NT can't be confused), why can't 2NT be interpreted as a balanced 11-count?

[aguahombre]

Because the double, after a forcing NT would take care of the balanced 10-12 counts, allowing opener to pass (or scramble).

With less (say 3-2-4-4 and a minimum response), we can just subside.

[gnasher]

hanp, on Jul 15 2010, 04:19 PM, said:

Aqua (and maybe gnasher, who didn't claim that 2NT can't be confused), why can't 2NT be interpreted as a balanced 11-count?

Obviously it can be interpreted that way, but that would mean that we're playing 2NT and double the wrong way around.

We have two calls to cover the hands that range from balanced 3244 11-count to a 1255 8-count. Isn't it obvious that the hands at the offensive end of this range should bid 2NT and the more defensive hands should double?

[hanp]

It's not obvious to me because I have never played that the double shows invitational strength. I would want to compete holding xx Kx Kxxx Q10xxx, is that a 2NT bid? Of course I'd rather double because partner can bid 2NT with equal length.

Also, if you double (showing the balanced 11-count?), should partner bid 2NT missing a stopper?

Maybe your agreements are entirely different from what I can imagine, but I don't see how doubling will help us get to 3NT, or how it lets us play 2NT when that seems right.

Doubling with shortness will also lead to some penalties when partner has 4 spades. In that case we are unlikely to be 3244.

No, I don't think it is so obvious at all.

[hanp]

aguahombre, on Jul 15 2010, 10:37 AM, said:

With less (say 3-2-4-4 and a minimum response), we can just subside.

How about a 9-count, will you just subside with a 9-count?

[aguahombre]

hanp, on Jul 15 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Jul 15 2010, 10:37 AM, said:

With less (say 3-2-4-4 and a minimum response), we can just subside.

How about a 9-count, will you just subside with a 9-count?

Yep. I don't see the need to be at the 3-level when my initial plan was to give a courtesy response to an opening bid and end at the 2-level opposite a routine minimum. The 5-5 hand with a minimum is different from a normal 3-2-4-4.

And yes, we might be coming from different styles --partner had G/B available over 2S, so we won't be missing a nine-card minor fit. Double of 2S would have been "informative" suggesting they have made a mistake or willingness to play game in NT or both.

[ArcLight]

>>I would have bid 2NT, showing the minors, on the previous round. I think double suggested a more balanced hand than what I have.

This wasn't the agreement that was in place, 2NT would have shown a spade stopper. Rgardless of if you don't like the agreement, thats what it was at the table, so please don't consider 2NT (even if your methods would have allowed it) for replying to this topic.

[hanp]

Oh, why not? You may not have appreciated gnasher's post but I did and maybe others too. Even though I did not think things were as obvious as he did, his comments were interesting and thought-provoking.

[hanp]

aguahombre, on Jul 15 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

Double of 2S would have been "informative" suggesting they have made a mistake or willingness to play game in NT or both.

I also like my doubles to be informative but it is not yet clear to me which information your double gives.

Say partner has a 14-count, let's give him xx AQJxx Kxx KJx. What should he do over your double and why? Maybe your double suggest that they have made a mistake, but maybe not? How does he know whether you are willing to play in 3NT or not? Did you show a spade stopper or can you have 3 (or 2?) small?

[ArcLight]

hanp, on Jul 15 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

Oh, why not? You may not have appreciated gnasher's post but I did and maybe others too. Even though I did not think things were as obvious as he did, his comments were interesting and thought-provoking.

I do find it interesting to read other opinions, and alternative bididng methods.
I don't mean to discourage anyone.

At the same time I am interested in this particular hand, and would prefer that the methods that were available at the time be used to discuss the bidding.
In other words I would like my question answered, rather than the thread morph into something different. (I see threads go astray, and just wanted to keep it focused)

Maybe start a new thread on the merits of using 2NT to show unbalanced hands in certain sequences, such as after a forcing 1NT.


>>Say partner has a 14-count, let's give him xx AQJxx Kxx KJx. What should he do over your double and why? Maybe your double suggest that they have made a mistake, but maybe not? How does he know whether you are willing to play in 3NT or not? Did you show a spade stopper or can you have 3 (or 2?) small?

What is standard? What is becoming the new standard?
I'm not saying 2NT as suggested is a bad idea, just that it was not available as a 2 suited take out at the time, it would have shown a stopper. That may turn out to not be best, but thats the method.

[JLOGIC]

If they have 10 spades, bidding 4C is probably right. Assuming they have 9 spades, partner is either 3514 or 3523.

If he's 3514 our KQJ of diamonds are good on defense, and not that effective offensively. If he is 3523 then we only have 8 trumps and definitely don't want to be bidding.

It is possible they got to 3S this way with a 6-4 fit but it's pretty unlikely. Even if they have and partner is 2524 its not clear that 4C will be right, though it probably is.

[aguahombre]

hanp, on Jul 15 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jul 15 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

Double of 2S would have been "informative" suggesting they have made a mistake or willingness to play game in NT or both.

I also like my doubles to be informative but it is not yet clear to me which information your double gives.

Say partner has a 14-count, let's give him xx AQJxx Kxx KJx. What should he do over your double and why? Maybe your double suggest that they have made a mistake, but maybe not? How does he know whether you are willing to play in 3NT or not? Did you show a spade stopper or can you have 3 (or 2?) small?

getting off track there. The "informative" double would have been if opener had doubled 2S, and she wouldn't do that with the 2-5-3-3 14 count hand. She would have a hand with spades in back of the bidder and a powerful hand to defend with. Or maybe an 18-19 balanced.

The double by the forcing NT bidder when 2S came back around would be of the "action" variety. Can't have 4 spades, can't have 3 hearts, balanced hand ---therefore extra HCP (10-12). Worst case would be if opener has the 14 (2-5-3-3) without a spade stop, doubler is max with a spade stop and it makes 3NT. More frequently 3NT will go down even with a spade stop, and we get something for beating 2SX.