[MrAce]

I think those who bids 4♠ expects their pd to hold 6 spades all the time and also thinks that a constructive 2 raise promises 2 tricks in defense, which i disagree.

A 1 opener promises 2 tricks in defense in theory but even this was faded long time ago when people started to open very light. We did not make a limit raise, constructive or not we made a simple 2 raise. I am having hard time to understand the complaints about this hand being look like a preempt 3♠ more than 2♠ because it has no defense values. Since when we created a rule that says a constructive 2 raise should have 1 or 2 tricks in defense ?

I also dont understand the prediction of pd having Axxxxx xx AKx xx. Really ? If you opponents bid 4♥ on 21 hcp and only 8 card fit, and they masterfully figured out the location of ♥Q even when the doubler is pd, what are we supposed to do ? Do you think 4♠ doubled or undoubled -1 or -2 will be a good score ? Just say weldone to your opponents and move on, they deserved it if thats the case.

[rhm]

 MrAce, on 2012-September-13, 07:01, said:

We all predict that due to hand being posted in this forum. And i have a feeling we will find out that there was something wrong with either 3♠ bid or DBL or both at the end.

I still replied ignoring this.

My motives are not the ulterior ones you seem to suspect.
First there seem to be 18 total trumps. If there are as many tricks you will only gain if they divide 9-9. If there are more tricks passing the DBL is always wrong. Partner could have 6 spades.
I use to tell my partner:
If I have confirmed a fit and then double opponents in their fit my doubles are only a suggestion and never show a trump stack.
This is one of my most important agreements, because this scenario is very common.
I believe these DBL are left in far too quickly.
Partner is simply showing more than a minimum opening hand with his double and uncertainty whether to bid on or defend.
I do not like my hand for defense.

Rainer Herrmann

[CSGibson]

 rhm, on 2012-September-13, 09:14, said:

My motives are not the ulterior ones you seem to suspect.
First there seem to be 18 total trumps. If there are as many tricks you will only gain if they divide 9-9. If there are more tricks passing the DBL is always wrong. Partner could have 6 spades.
I use to tell my partner:
If I have confirmed a fit and then double opponents in their fit my doubles are only a suggestion and never show a trump stack.
This is one of my most important agreements, because this scenario is very common.
I believe these DBL are left in far too quickly.
Partner is simply showing more than a minimum opening hand with his double and uncertainty whether to bid on or defend.
I do not like my hand for defense.

Rainer Herrmann

Disagree with this. If partner had a hand that was uncertain whether he wanted to bid 4♠ to make, he would have make a game try. In fact, its certain that he does not want to bid 4♠ as an attempt to make, and that his double is a strong indication that he does NOT want me to save.

[gnasher]

 rhm, on 2012-September-13, 09:14, said:

I use to tell my partner:
If I have confirmed a fit and then double opponents in their fit my doubles are only a suggestion and never show a trump stack.
This is one of my most important agreements, because this scenario is very common.
I believe these DBL are left in far too quickly.
Partner is simply showing more than a minimum opening hand with his double and uncertainty whether to bid on or defend.

I could live with that at IMPs, but at matchpoints you have to be able to make a penalty double in this type of sequence. What is partner supposed to do with something like AJxxxx x xxx AKx, where he thinks he was making 3♠, he doesn't think the opponents are making 4♥, and he has no interest in playing 4♠?

[rhm]

 gnasher, on 2012-September-13, 09:51, said:

I could live with that at IMPs, but at matchpoints you have to be able to make a penalty double in this type of sequence. What is partner supposed to do with something like AJxxxx x xxx AKx, where he thinks he was making 3♠, he doesn't think the opponents are making 4♥, and he has no interest in playing 4♠?

I do not see where I disagree with you. You call it penalty I call it optional. But if you change ♣AK for the ♦AK where is your defense going?
I agree with your double but I am pretty sure my partner does not have 4 defensive tricks on this bidding.
Your hand is an example where both sides have 9 tricks.
It is just too close for my liking.

Rainer Herrmann

[ggwhiz]

 Codo, on 2012-September-13, 07:11, said:

What about a pure hand with 3 tricks, like Axxxxx,xx,AKx,xx?

I consider a double with this hand to be a serious error. Pard more likely has only 5 cards in spades of dubious quality and more defensive stuff than that.

You have to give me 6 petunias in spades (moving the Ace somewhere else) and add a body card or two to make this look like a double in my partnership.

[rhm]

 ggwhiz, on 2012-September-13, 10:15, said:

I consider a double with this hand to be a serious error. Pard more likely has only 5 cards in spades of dubious quality and more defensive stuff than that.

You have to give me 6 petunias in spades (moving the Ace somewhere else) and add a body card or two to make this look like a double in my partnership.

If pard has slightly more we have good play for 4♠

Rainer Herrmann

[ggwhiz]

 rhm, on 2012-September-13, 10:22, said:

If pard has slightly more we have good play for 4♠

Rainer Herrmann

Not opposite a slow minor suit trick like ♣QJx or ♦Qx you don't.

[han]

I think that partner is more likely to have a 5-1-3-4 or 5-1-3-3 with some tricks.

[CSGibson]

 han, on 2012-September-13, 13:37, said:

I think that partner is more likely to have a 5-1-3-4 or 5-1-3-3 with some tricks.

I find 5-1-3-3 very unlikely.

[Fluffy]

Partner had AJ10xx x AQxx Qxx

none of the 4 queens worked on defence and declarer made 12 tricks when spades weren't led, -1190 was 0%, but -680 wasn't much better.

[Fluffy]

 CSGibson, on 2012-September-13, 09:48, said:

Disagree with this. If partner had a hand that was uncertain whether he wanted to bid 4♠ to make, he would have make a game try. In fact, its certain that he does not want to bid 4♠ as an attempt to make, and that his double is a strong indication that he does NOT want me to save.

Did you see the auction wrong? partner's double is in reopening position, you passed 4♥ around with this cards (bidding 4♠ is also an option althou nobody comented on it)

[CSGibson]

 Fluffy, on 2012-September-14, 05:49, said:

Did you see the auction wrong? partner's double is in reopening position, you passed 4♥ around with this cards (bidding 4♠ is also an option althou nobody comented on it)

I did see the auction wrong.

[lalldonn]

 Fluffy, on 2012-September-14, 05:03, said:

Partner had AJ10xx x AQxx Qxx

none of the 4 queens worked on defence and declarer made 12 tricks when spades weren't led, -1190 was 0%, but -680 wasn't much better.

I have no idea why he doubled, or why he didn't lead spades?

[rhm]

 lalldonn, on 2012-September-14, 10:39, said:

I have no idea why he doubled, or why he didn't lead spades?

Because it is MP, you made a constructive raise and he thought he had to protect his plus score.
2 overtricks was admittedly unlucky.

Rainer Herrmann

[sathyab]

The double made it worse but only marginally. The more fundamental problem is not bidding an obvious 4-over-4 with 9 ♠. The opponents could yet make 5♥, but you'd have bid the limit of your hands. If you were playing a dreaded convention that starts with a "B" and made the appropriate 3-level bid to show a mixed raise with four trumps, partner would have an easier time bidding 4♠. Since you were not playing that convention, you have a guess both over 4♥ and whether to pull or pass partner's eventual double of 4♥. It'd be clearly wrong to bid 4♠ directly as there're many hands where 9 tricks are the limit for both sides. And as some posters have pointed out, partner could easily have had his competitive 3♠ bid and his double of 4♥.

[lalldonn]

 rhm, on 2012-September-14, 11:45, said:

Because it is MP, you made a constructive raise and he thought he had to protect his plus score.
2 overtricks was admittedly unlucky.

Rainer Herrmann

The raise is not defined as constructive (even if you have to throw that word in to make your point more effective), nor did he know if he was getting a plus score, nor did he know if failing to protect it would result in a bad score, nor did he have reason to believe it was protect-able (i.e. that the opponents would be down).

So I suppose I agree with "it is MP" and with "2 overtricks was admittedly unlucky" but not with anything else. And it still doesn't explain why he didn't lead spades. Any other lead looks strange.

[rhm]

 lalldonn, on 2012-September-14, 11:56, said:

The raise is not defined as constructive (even if you have to throw that word in to make your point more effective), nor did he know if he was getting a plus score, nor did he know if failing to protect it would result in a bad score, nor did he have reason to believe it was protect-able (i.e. that the opponents would be down).

So I suppose I agree with "it is MP" and with "2 overtricks was admittedly unlucky" but not with anything else. And it still doesn't explain why he didn't lead spades. Any other lead looks strange.

In chronological sequence:

 Fluffy, on 2012-September-12, 14:49, said:

2♠ is a constructive raise (8-10 balanced typically)

 rhm, on 2012-September-13, 03:19, said:

I pull. I expect my partner to have a singleton heart and a good hand. My thin constructive raise contains no defensive tricks.
...
I bet one game is making

 MrAce, on 2012-September-13, 07:53, said:

We did not make a limit raise, constructive or not we made a simple 2 raise. I am having hard time to understand the complaints about this hand being look like a preempt 3♠ more than 2♠ because it has no defense values. Since when we created a rule that says a constructive 2 raise should have 1 or 2 tricks in defense ?

There seems to be no agreement what a constructive raise shows.

Rainer Herrmann