[rogerclee]

MP all red

KJ5x QT8x 9xx Tx

1C 1D X P
2D P 2S P
3C P ?

At the table my LHO hitched over my double, so if this matters to you, give two answers.

[rduran1216]

apart from showing a spectacular hand, is there any agreement about what 2D might be showing/asking in this spot?

[aguahombre]

The hitch by my LHO was noticed by partner? If so, it might be useful in the play of the hand at 3C. I think Partner was checking for a diamond stopper with 2D, and didn't find one here.

I had 6+ with 4-4 in the majors when I doubled. Partner is content to play in 3C at least; I have the least; we play in 3C. Wow, I even got to show everyone which of my 4-card majors was the better one.

[rogerclee]

aguahombre, on Aug 14 2010, 01:09 AM, said:

The hitch by my LHO was noticed by partner? If so, it might be useful in the play of the hand at 3C. I think Partner was checking for a diamond stopper with 2D, and didn't find one here.

I had 6+ with 4-4 in the majors when I doubled. Partner is content to play in 3C at least; I have the least; we play in 3C.

I can't tell from this post if you know but 3C is forcing (not that this should necessarily prevent anyone from passing, it is a serious option IMO).

[JLOGIC]

I hate 2S, would have bid 2H. Playing in the "better" 4-4 fit is basically irrelevant especially with these holdings (and hearts could easily be better because we have better spots there), saving space should be our priority especially in an auction like this.

I would bid 3D now. Partner went out of his way not to jump to 3C which would show a very strong hand, he cuebid and then bid. We could easily have a game or even slam at this point. LHO hitching is irrelevant to me, he might have had a diamond fit and a weak hand (in fact that seems likely to me). At the end of the day whether he thought or not he couldn't find a bid over 1D and doesn't have a very good hand.

I'm all for passing forcing bids in some auctions but this one seems crazy, we have a normal full value min and partner has game forced.

[Fluffy]

what did the double show?, I normally bid 2♥ unless double showed hearts.

I am not passing a forcing bid, I'd bid now 3♥ since 3♦ shows something in diamonds to me.

[MFA]

3♣ is forcing, but there really ought to be a way to get off the hook before 5♣ when we can't play 3NT. Not that I ever had some ingenious agreements about that. It can't be right that we would have to fall back on an unexpected, undisciplined pass at some random point if we are to stay low.

Perhaps 3♣ is better played as 'almost forcing' with 2♦ then 3♦ (or 2♦ then 4♣) or a direct 3♦ available for the nuts? Give partner AKQxxxx + an ace + some secondary stuff and it is very tempting to try for 3NT with 2♦, but 5♣ is a very different thing.

Anyway, in standard I have to bid on. 3♦. I hope for a miraculous single diamond opposite so my values will carry some weight. Agree that 2♥ would have been a better bid that 2♠.

[dake50]

Even playing 1C unlimited force, I like aquahombre's reasoning: 2D as strong but where? Now 3C as disappointed quits --3D, 4C for the nuts.

[cherdanno]

I understand the temptation to pass but given we have good play for 5C opposite a meager Axx A xx AKQxxxx I couldn't do it. Okok, it's not soooo meager Partner could still have a diamond stopper, 6 running clubs and the right ace as well.
LHO's hitch could be based on some values and no diamond fit or a diamond fit and no values, so I don't think it tells us much. Of course, I hope for the latter, which isn't so unlikely at MP all red.

I think I would bid 3H now. AQ AKx xx AKxxxx.

[JLOGIC]

MFA, on Aug 14 2010, 08:09 AM, said:

3♣ is forcing, but there really ought to be a way to get off the hook before 5♣ when we can't play 3NT. Not that I ever had some ingenious agreements about that. It can't be right that we would have to fall back on an unexpected, undisciplined pass at some random point if we are to stay low.

Perhaps 3♣ is better played as 'almost forcing' with 2♦ then 3♦ (or 2♦ then 4♣) or a direct 3♦ available for the nuts? Give partner AKQxxxx + an ace + some secondary stuff and it is very tempting to try for 3NT with 2♦, but 5♣ is a very different thing.

Anyway, in standard I have to bid on. 3♦. I hope for a miraculous single diamond opposite so my values will carry some weight. Agree that 2♥ would have been a better bid that 2♠.

I think you should always be able to get out in 4C after trying for 3N and not having a stopper somewhere. I don't think you need to play anything fancy...you can just bid 4C and pass at some point. I would assume this with no agreements, if you have some slam try 4C bid you can surely bid something else in most auctions (but obv all auctions are not the same).

[aguahombre]

cherdanno, on Aug 14 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

I understand the temptation to pass but given we have good play for 5C opposite a meager Axx A xx AKQxxxx I couldn't do it.
I think I would bid 3H now. AQ AKx xx AKxxxx.

Am clearly outvoted on whether 3C is forcing. but I still haven't seen a hand where 3C is needed as forcing after:

1C (1D) double= exactly 4-4 in majors
2D ----- 2M=no diamond stop, no 3 cards in clubs
3C (so 3C won't be passed if responder has extra strength --but can't have, opposite the examples given).

The first Quoted example has enough info to place the contract in 5c.
The second one would probably already be screwed because they opened 2NT, but might try 4H now.

[MFA]

aguahombre, on Aug 14 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Aug 14 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

I understand the temptation to pass but given we have good play for 5C opposite a meager Axx A xx AKQxxxx I couldn't do it.
I think I would bid 3H now. AQ AKx xx AKxxxx.

Am clearly outvoted on whether 3C is forcing. but I still haven't seen a hand where 3C is needed as forcing after:

1C (1D) double= exactly 4-4 in majors
2D ----- 2M=no diamond stop, no 3 cards in clubs
3C (so 3C won't be passed if responder has extra strength --but can't have, opposite the examples given).

The first Quoted example has enough info to place the contract in 5c.
The second one would probably already be screwed because they opened 2NT, but might try 4H now.

I tend to agree with you about 3♣, hence my suggestion earlier. But there is a general metarule, at that is that 2♦ is gameforcing. I think it takes a specific partnership understanding if 3♣ is to be viewed as not completely forcing.

Btw, I suppose that a neg.dobl. can contain more than 4-4 if the hand is too weak to bid the suits in the normal fashion. That is a strong argument against having a NF 3♣, because opener might be looking for a 5-3 major fit and therefore he wants to explore and keep the bidding low even with very strong hands.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, my whole argument falls flat if the neg double is not exactly 4-4 Majors, for more reasons than you cite. In my world, that is a given, and I keep forgetting that a lot of people don't play it that way.

[Cascade]

I don't understand 2♠.

If double showed both majors - which is what I would think is standard without further clarification - then there seems little point in bidding a major.

In this style for me 2♦ would just be a hand too good for a limit bid in clubs so I would just bid 3♣ to show nothing further to add on the previous round.

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on Aug 14 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

I don't understand 2♠.

If double showed both majors - which is what I would think is standard without further clarification - then there seems little point in bidding a major.

In this style for me 2♦ would just be a hand too good for a limit bid in clubs so I would just bid 3♣ to show nothing further to add on the previous round.

Some people might believe 3C/2D would show something further -- a 3rd club; hence a choice of 2S or 2H after 2D. Showing better spades than hearts can't hurt. On a particular layout, opener still might want to know that the spade suit will provide side tricks or entries, whatever strain is played.

Another thought was expressed to me: that with the given distribution, responder could bid 2H with fewest HCP and 2S with slightly more, if this auction came up enough to have an agreement.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2010-August-15, 12:08

[cherdanno]

Cascade, on Aug 14 2010, 05:49 PM, said:

I don't understand 2♠.

If double showed both majors - which is what I would think is standard without further clarification - then there seems little point in bidding a major.

In this style for me 2♦ would just be a hand too good for a limit bid in clubs so I would just bid 3♣ to show nothing further to add on the previous round.

I would rather use 2H to show "nothing further to add" than 3C. In standard, 2D is most of the time based on a game-forcing one-suited hand, but it could also be based on another hand type (GF support for one of the majors, 18-19 balanced without a stopper). So it's important to give opener room to clarify his hand type.

[rduran1216]

I'm prepared to pass 3C even though its 95% forcing. I have a hand my partner may never touch, and it looks like he's chowing me a 19 count with something like 2326 or 3316 shape. We may be good enough for 3NT though so maybe 3D is the answer here.

If partner can't bid 3NT, 4C wont be that bad of a contract.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on Aug 16 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 14 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

I don't understand 2♠.

If double showed both majors - which is what I would think is standard without further clarification - then there seems little point in bidding a major.

In this style for me 2♦ would just be a hand too good for a limit bid in clubs so I would just bid 3♣ to show nothing further to add on the previous round.

Some people might believe 3C/2D would show something further -- a 3rd club; hence a choice of 2S or 2H after 2D. Showing better spades than hearts can't hurt. On a particular layout, opener still might want to know that the spade suit will provide side tricks or entries, whatever strain is played.

Another thought was expressed to me: that with the given distribution, responder could bid 2H with fewest HCP and 2S with slightly more, if this auction came up enough to have an agreement.

I think there is a real danger if you effectively rebid your major that partner will think you have five cards there.

[cherdanno]

I think there is a real danger that partner will think you have 3 clubs when you raise his suit. Seriously, what's your point? I expect my partner to know that making the cheapest possible bid here is suspect at least.

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on Aug 15 2010, 12:48 PM, said:

I think there is a real danger if you effectively rebid your major that partner will think you have five cards there.

Ok. I thought we got past that possibility.