[bd71]

Playing a 12-board team match against a better team (they beat you 16-36 IMPs on an earlier 12-board match).

Only basic agreements with your intermediate partner, who is a solid player but can get flustered in unfamiliar bidding territory.

---

[the hog]

No idea. 6C probably.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I cancelled my original brainfade reply....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If Responder had bid 2S ( instead of "waiting"), then I could get excited since 2S would show 5+ w/2 of top 3 .
As it is, the 3S bid AFTER the waiting bid just showed a 5+ suit w/o 2 of top 3.

6C looks about right. Hopefully, I can set up the Sp suit for a Diam discard.

[Fluffy]

I'd try once more with 5♥ if I trsuted my partner, but as it is I think 6♣ is enough.

There is also a diamond to worry about, partner oculd have only 2 clubs. With ♦J or 10 it might be closer to 7.

[hotShot]

Partners 3♠ bid should have shown a 5+ card suit that has some high cards and if he has KQxxx I can drop the ♦ loser.
5♣ should promise 2+ cards.

We are the weaker team and this match has only 12-boards, if we want to win, we have to take more risk.

So I will try 7♣.

[the hog]

 hotShot, on 2010-November-06, 05:02, said:

Partners 3♠ bid should have shown a 5+ card suit that has some high cards and if he has KQxxx I can drop the ♦ loser.

Why? you have forced to game. There is no suggestion you play 2nd negatives, in fact the op strongly suggested you dont.
What is your partner supposed to bid with
xxxxx
xxxx
xx
xx

and not one high card in his hand?

[paulg]

 Fluffy, on 2010-November-06, 04:49, said:

I'd try once more with 5♥ if I trsuted my partner, but as it is I think 6♣ is enough.

There is also a diamond to worry about, partner oculd have only 2 clubs. With ♦J or 10 it might be closer to 7.

I agree.

Those who think that 3♠ shows a huge hand, what do you expect partner to bid with Qxxxxx xxx xx xx? If partner really has ♠KQxxx then perhaps 2♠ would have been a better response than 2♦.

[hotShot]

 paulg, on 2010-November-06, 05:37, said:

Those who think that 3♠ shows a huge hand, what do you expect partner to bid with Qxxxxx xxx xx xx? If partner really has ♠KQxxx then perhaps 2♠ would have been a better response than 2♦.

The alerted 2♦ bid says "waiting" and not "negative", this could be weak but it doesn't have to.

 the hog, on 2010-November-06, 05:25, said:

Why? you have forced to game. There is no suggestion you play 2nd negatives, in fact the op strongly suggested you dont.
What is your partner supposed to bid with
xxxxx
xxxx
xx
xx

and not one high card in his hand?

Perhaps I'm to used to our style, but we would kill the GF bidding 3NT.

[bd71]

 the hog, on 2010-November-06, 05:25, said:

There is no suggestion you play 2nd negatives, in fact the op strongly suggested you dont.

My apologies for the omission...the limited agreements do include lowest minor rebid as a negative, so the 3♠ bid does suggest more than a bust.

[paulg]

 bd71, on 2010-November-06, 09:34, said:

My apologies for the omission...the limited agreements do include lowest minor rebid as a negative, so the 3♠ bid does suggest more than a bust.

Most partnerships seem to have limited agreements over a 2♣ opener. In this case, however, if you cannot show Hxxxxx in a major on the second round then the suit is going to get totally lost so it will often be better to bid it than show a second negative.

It is clear in this style, really any style, that you should not use the waiting 2♦ when you have a descriptive bid available. So in this auction I expect partner to be quite weak with spades but I'm still worth one more try with 5♥.

[Siegmund]

In light of the second-negative agreement, I am subsiding in six. I tend to assume SKQ is extremely unlikely, and just SQ+HQ or similar is possible in a long spade suit. (With Qxxxxx(x) x(x) xx xxx, are we allowed to respond 3S the first time or not?)

From the alert, I had initially assumed that 2D was value-promising waiting with 2H as an immediate second negative - and knowing partner was guaranteed to have a king would be enough for me to shoot 7. There is still a risk of SQ+HK+no entry, but seems like the percentage course.

Good question, if it's too close to call without knowing details of partner's style. Usually at-the-table we would opt for only six when in doubt. But it's certainly a fair shot to try to pick up 10 imps against a stronger team. In context of the match I wouldnt be mad at a partner who tried 7.

[Cascade]

6♣ is very poor you are worth one more try.

[the hog]

 Cascade, on 2010-November-06, 17:51, said:

6♣ is very poor you are worth one more try.

Yes, but only in view of the OP's clarification! And what, pray tell do you suggest that "one more try is, Wayne, especially in view of the op's comment that his partner gets confused by complicated bidding? If you are thinking of 5H, which Fluffy suggested and was also my first thought, then you might find yourself playing there!

[bd71]

FWIW, at the table I bid 7♣. I was slightly influenced by the prospect of taking the risk against the stronger team, but I also thought there were a lot of chances to get 2 tricks beyond the 11 in my hand. I basically need two of the following from partner:

1. K♠
2. J♦
3. Chances if partner has 0, 1, 2, 4, or 5 diamonds. With less than 3, I have ruff opportunities. With 4/5, I have opportunity to establish the suit.
4. K♥ (although need in conjunciton with an entry from 1-3)
5. Q♠ (although need in conjunction with #1)

Obviously, the math here is impossible at the table (anybody run a sim?), but my gut feel was that chances were >50% so I ran with it...

...and it paid off. Partner held K♠, singleton ♦, and 3♣.

[Cascade]

 bd71, on 2010-November-06, 20:09, said:

3. Chances if partner has 0, 1, 2, 4, or 5 diamonds. With less than 3, I have ruff opportunities. With 4/5, I have opportunity to establish the suit.

It seems incredibly unlikely that partner will have 4+ diamonds and give a preference to clubs.

[Cascade]

 the hog, on 2010-November-06, 18:54, said:

Yes, but only in view of the OP's clarification! And what, pray tell do you suggest that "one more try is, Wayne, especially in view of the op's comment that his partner gets confused by complicated bidding? If you are thinking of 5H, which Fluffy suggested and was also my first thought, then you might find yourself playing there!

Disagree Ron.

Even without a "bust" available there is always the possibility that partner will have something extra.

I would be willing to risk bidding a third suit. I think it would be a very inexperienced partner who passes my third suit.

[Fluffy]

Its not the pass out that I am worried about Wayne, its just that from what I know he has zero chance of evaluating his hand accordingly, all you can get is some UI from his hesitations before he bids now 5♠ with his Qxxxxx to play. Forcing you to make a wrong decision. So I better evaluate for him.

But only if I am to maximice the result, I normally bid 5♥ anyway just to give partner some experience even if it brings bad results, but wih team mates it is a bit different.

[the hog]

 Cascade, on 2010-November-06, 20:19, said:

Disagree Ron.

Even without a "bust" available there is always the possibility that partner will have something extra.

I would be willing to risk bidding a third suit. I think it would be a very inexperienced partner who passes my third suit.

I am going on this comment by the op, Wayne:

"who is a solid player but can get flustered in unfamiliar bidding territory. "
Maybe I should just ignore that comment.

[Free]

6♣ is ridiculous, I'd bid grand for sure. Nobody thinking of 7NT?

[Phil]

Imagine our poor partner sitting there with Kxxxx xxx xxx xx wondering what to do over 4♦. And we trot out 5♥ - should he now show the ♠ King that has not been promised? You have to know your customer!

I play with some partners where I have to simplify things. I would already be in 6♣ (after 3♠). As Clee can attest, I am still in pain after laying down this dummy in 3♣ yesterday: AKQx x AQxx AQxx after 1♦ -2♣ (GF) - 3♣...