[dkham]

---

You're sitting West halfway through a matchpoints evening, playing weak NT and four card majors.

Partner opens 1♥ and RHO overcalls 2♦.

What's your plan?

[MrAce]

I double.

[Codo]

X does not show 5/6 in the black suits. But if parter freely bids spades, we surely have enough for game. If he does not, I will take my chances in whatever contract he announces. So yes to the double...

[MrAce]

Codo, on 2012-September-10, 03:42, said:

X does not show 5/6 in the black suits. But if parter freely bids spades, we surely have enough for game. If he does not, I will take my chances in whatever contract he announces. So yes to the double...

We don't need to show anything yet, pd will. Good thing about dbl is, pd is aware that (at least the way i play) i may have 5 card spades and not enough strength to start with 2♠. So he is allowed to bid 2♠ with 3 card spades. 4-3 fit at 2 level is is not a crime. If he bids 2♥ i will bid 3♣ as if i have 4♠+ 6 ♣ and not enough money to start with 3♣ previous round.

Yes i play 2♠ over 2♦ as F1 and can be weak buy i would not do it with those spades. It is forcing pd to bid at 3 level. 3♣ is gf. I have to either pass or DBL, i wouldnt pass either.

By the way, DBL for me is about spades, doesnt promise anything about clubs yet.

[Codo]

Timo,

we do show something, usually 4 spades, in many partnerships a weaker hand with 5+ spades too.

And I would not pass 2 ♠, even if this often bid on a three card suit. Make it QTx,Axxxx,xxx,Qx and game is possible.
If partner bids 2 ♥, I guess it is close. I would pass, despite the fact that 3 ♣ could be the winner, if it is played as nonforcing. I prefer it to show another hand type, so it would be forcing to me. The difference between a direct 3 ♣ and X and 3 ♣ had not been the strength but the spade length.

I have no idea, what is common wisdom here, but I am sure that my agreement is this way.

[SteveMoe]

I double. Following MrAce's reasoning here.
I do not care if partner bids ♠ on 3 or 4 - I am raising to game.
Over 2♥ I will rebid 3♣ if allowed by RHO. If RHO persists w/3♦ I double again.
Over 3♦ cue by pard I will rebid 3♠. I hate singleton ♦A as a NT stopper.
Over 3♥ I will (reluctantly) rebid 3N....

[dkham]

Here's what actually happened on the hand:

---

West did choose to double. I was East, and replied to the double with 2♥ (didn't occur to me to bid 2♠).

2♥ played quite well, going just one off despite the bad break.

4♠ looks good on the EW cards but on this layout also goes one off, according to the hand records.

[Fluffy]

I would double and bid 3♣ over 2♥, but this 4cM thing I am not familiar to.

[MrAce]

Codo, on 2012-September-10, 07:09, said:

Timo,

we do show something, usually 4 spades, in many partnerships a weaker hand with 5+ spades too.

And I would not pass 2 ♠, even if this often bid on a three card suit. Make it QTx,Axxxx,xxx,Qx and game is possible.
If partner bids 2 ♥, I guess it is close. I would pass, despite the fact that 3 ♣ could be the winner, if it is played as nonforcing. I prefer it to show another hand type, so it would be forcing to me. The difference between a direct 3 ♣ and X and 3 ♣ had not been the strength but the spade length.

I have no idea, what is common wisdom here, but I am sure that my agreement is this way.

I didn't mean to say we should pass 2♠ with this hand, you may or you may make another move is another story. I was refering to bidding 2♠ with 3 cards. Some people don't bid it unless they have 4 of them, which is something i can't get why.

[lalldonn]

If I were east I would just rebid 2NT. Maybe there are hands I would bid 2♥ with 5 or 2♠ with 3, but when I have an easy bid to make then why complicate things?

(I also like the negative double).

[ggwhiz]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-12, 13:50, said:

If I were east I would just rebid 2NT. Maybe there are hands I would bid 2♥ with 5 or 2♠ with 3, but when I have an easy bid to make then why complicate things?

(I also like the negative double).

Yes and it leads to a 3♣ contract where I would be headed anyway. Maybe risk 3♠ when/if they compete to 3♦ but the 2nt bid would limit me to partscore ambitions.

[Phil]

Double.

Add this hand to your list of "reasons to play Flannery".

[SteveMoe]

delete duplicate post

[lalldonn]

ggwhiz, on 2012-October-12, 14:45, said:

Yes and it leads to a 3♣ contract where I would be headed anyway. Maybe risk 3♠ when/if they compete to 3♦ but the 2nt bid would limit me to partscore ambitions.

Did you notice you are playing a weak notrump? I assume the 2NT rebid would show 15-17. If I were playing a strong notrump then I would have opened 1NT to begin with.

[cloa513]

dkham, on 2012-October-12, 03:35, said:

Here's what actually happened on the hand:

---

West did choose to double. I was East, and replied to the double with 2♥ (didn't occur to me to bid 2♠).

2♥ played quite well, going just one off despite the bad break.

4♠ looks good on the EW cards but on this layout also goes one off, according to the hand records.

What is South's killing lead for 4 ♠? If he lead spades, I lead to the K♣ and drop the ace and do one ruff so South only gets 2 spades and the ace of clubs.

[ggwhiz]

cloa513, on 2012-October-12, 17:48, said:

What is South's killing lead for 4 ♠? If he lead spades, I lead to the K♣ and drop the ace and do one ruff so South only gets 2 spades and the ace of clubs.

Diamond leads

[bigbenvic]

I'd double, partner will rebid 2nt, since he has a balanced hand better than a 1NT opener!

Assuming the opps are done bidding then bidding naturally it would go 3♣ (nat) 3♥ (showing the 5th) 3♠ (4+) 3NT 4♠ showing the 5th♠ and therefore 6♣ and not slam interested.
An agreement I like here is that 4♦ after 3NT shows the same as 4♠ but is slam interested, thus allowing opener to pass 4♠ in teh sequence I used.