[vianu2]

I often received hands like that;

---

Perhaps at equal vulnerability i would pass (does anyone agree with that or is kind of stupidity ?).
At mps i would pass again, but here i'm playing imps and i am vulnerable.
I assume that is not a new bidding problem, but because of the lack of knowledge (as our friendly poster X noticed in another threat ) i'm not sure how to deal with that.
Is there any solution or is just kind of luck? Or i could prevent that with a X over 3cl?

[paulg]

I'll just bid 4♦. Partner should be pretty good to double at this vulnerability, either in points or distribution, and if he has a singleton club then we can only lead trumps once.

Pass would be my second choice, so I do not think it is a stupid call. Now doubling the 3♣ is getting closer to stupidity imho , really need some values to do that.

[phil_20686]

paulg, on 2011-August-08, 04:21, said:

I'll just bid 4♦. Partner should be pretty good to double at this vulnerability, either in points or distribution, and if he has a singleton club then we can only lead trumps once.

Pass would be my second choice, so I do not think it is a stupid call. Now doubling the 3♣ is getting closer to stupidity imho , really need some values to do that.

I disagree with this.

partner could be a 4432 18-19 count. Perhaps you are swayed by playing an unbalanced 1D, in which case i think 4d is clear. I suspect 18-19 bal is not uncommon here. If you bid 4M you will be happy whenever partner has an 18-19 bal normally. I would try 4S.

[vianu2]

phil_20686, on 2011-August-08, 04:41, said:

I disagree with this.

partner could be a 4432 18-19 count. Perhaps you are swayed by playing an unbalanced 1D, in which case i think 4d is clear. I suspect 18-19 bal is not uncommon here. If you bid 4M you will be happy whenever partner has an 18-19 bal normally. I would try 4S.

let's assume we are playing 4cards ♦ please i did not mentioned before.

[mich-b]

I would just Pass , and think this is easier in IMPs than in mp, since even if we are making game (and can find a way to get to it) , and get "only" 500 defending 4C , this is not a disaster , while going down in game surely is.
I estimate we are getting usually 300 and often 500 against 4CX , and who knows if game is making for us - and how exactly can we know to get to our best fit?
I have often seen opps that bid very aggressively at these colors, and I will not be surprised if partner has 2 clubs.
I think Pass and lead a trump, and take whatever penalty is coming.

[JLOGIC]

300? 500? We don't have any tricks!

[WellSpyder]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-08, 08:39, said:

300? 500? We don't have any tricks!

Game can be tough to make if you haven't any tricks, too (especially if you don't know which is the best trump suit).....

[JLOGIC]

WellSpyder, on 2011-August-08, 09:14, said:

Game can be tough to make if you haven't any tricks, too (especially if you don't know which is the best trump suit).....

I agree, at least I won't go minus a making doubled partscore.

[gnasher]

I'd bid 4♠. It would be a shame to work hard for ten tricks and then not get a game bonus.

I'm also surprised at the suggestion that we might pass. The primary message of partner's double is that he thinks we might have game on, not that we can take a large penalty.

[xxhong]

Against solid opps, I tend to bid 4S here with good spades. If partner holds 4-4-4-1 or 4-3-5-1 or 3-4-5-1 and about 19 HCPs, we rate to have some plays in 4S. If partner holds 3-4-6-0 or 4-3-6-0, we really should play this hand instead of defending, because sometimes, they may make 4C. I don't mind going down sometimes when we may get 100 or 300 if we pass. Of course, it is very passable if opps frequently bid 3C with 6 or 5 cards and raise with 3.

vianu2, on 2011-August-08, 03:59, said:

I often received hands like that;

---

Perhaps at equal vulnerability i would pass (does anyone agree with that or is kind of stupidity ?).
At mps i would pass again, but here i'm playing imps and i am vulnerable.
I assume that is not a new bidding problem, but because of the lack of knowledge (as our friendly poster X noticed in another threat ) i'm not sure how to deal with that.
Is there any solution or is just kind of luck? Or i could prevent that with a X over 3cl?

[vianu2]

I tend to agree with bidding a major (but i cannot imagine that i can't set 4♣!).
At the table i didn't think to bid spades (but now i understand the reason:) my spade suit is much better than the heart suit).
I still doubt about making the major contract in 4-3 fit when trumps are probably 4-2 to opps, but again one good thing is that ill ruff clubs from dummy.
I doubt again about entries to my hand, if i need to clear the diamond suit.
But the real problem is that:
If we play in the 7 cards fit, then there are 17 total trics and if we make 10 they go down 3 (i.e. 5oo). Even with a correction, it seems to me that pass may work better .

[aguahombre]

vianu2, on 2011-August-08, 15:42, said:

But the real problem is that:
If we play in the 7 cards fit, then there are 17 total trics and if we make 10 they go down 3 (i.e. 5oo). Even with a correction, it seems to me that pass may work better .

The LoTT doesn't work that way. The suit you play as trumps is not the controlling factor.
If they have 10 clubs per your reasoning, then Pard has only one. By necessity, your side will have either two 8-card fits, or a 9-fit in diamonds. Without adjustment they are 18 or nineteen total tricks.

[MrAce]

I agree with Aguaman on LOTT. Often it will be 18 trumps with adjustments which brings us to what Justin said. Most frequent results will be either -1 or just made imo. 300 or 500 is extremely optimistic and even then we should be making game. Not even mentioning the advantages of declaring vs defending.

[dake50]

I was supposed to NegX over 3C.
Partner would already decide this one.

[aguahombre]

dake50, on 2011-August-08, 20:47, said:

I was supposed to NegX over 3C.
Partner would already decide this one.

Yes, and his decision would be not to trust your neg doubles for the 3-level in the future to have anywhere near the strength they represent.

[MrAce]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-08, 21:37, said:

Yes, and his decision would be not to trust your neg doubles for the 3-level in the future to have anywhere near the strength they represent.

Maybe they play strong ♦ system.

[vianu2]

At the table i bid 4♥ and i managed to go down 1 . Dummy had:
AKxx Axx AJxxx A
I didn't find diamonds and i lost 2, and didn't play for trumps 3-3 (the preemptive hand had kjx ♥).
Perhaps i could declare better.
I still don't think we can make 4♠ (if we lose 2♦).
And 4♣ is 500.
I think if they go down less, then my 4M contract is much worse.
So in that particular case, pass seems better.Hmm
Edit. I'm not sure what diamonds i had in my hand (not sure i had the ten or if i had , then missed the 9)

[JLOGIC]

Why would you bid 4H and not 4S? You do have QJT9 of spades which is very strong. I guess 4H allows partner to pull to 4S if he's 4261 but if he's 2461 4S does not allow him to do that, but that seems like a remote option compared to just playing your much stronger suit.

Also, what is the layout that 4S won't make? It's possible but 4S is quite a good spot. Of course it is random that partner had 4 spades and 3 hearts rather than vice versa.

[vianu2]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-09, 01:31, said:

Also, what is the layout that 4S won't make? It's possible but 4S is quite a good spot. Of course it is random that partner had 4 spades and 3 hearts rather than vice versa.

Dint think too much but i suppose on club lead I need to clear diamonds and if i lose 2 ♦ they will back club again and again (even ruff-sluff) and ill have troubles with clearing the heart suit for 10 trics.
Of course makes with 3-2 spades , with k♥ onside etc etc...

I bid hearts because i was a monk

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-08, 16:08, said:

The LoTT doesn't work that way. The suit you play as trumps is not the controlling factor.
If they have 10 clubs per your reasoning, then Pard has only one. By necessity, your side will have either two 8-card fits, or a 9-fit in diamonds. Without adjustment they are 18 or nineteen total tricks.

I agree with the first four words of this post.