[nigel_k]

Scoring: IMP

---

RHO opens 1♦, you double and partner bids 1♥.

What's the plan from here, i.e. how do you find your best trump fit or NT and play at the right level? I assume this is too good to just bid 1♠ now.

[MarkDean]

I would just bid 1♠. It is a bit heavy, but not by that much, especially given just a five card suit, and 2♦ really does not appeal to me.

[Dirk Kuijt]

FWIW, I would, nevertheless, bid 1S.

Suppose partner has

xx
QJxx
xxx
xxxx

This hand will not play all that well in Spades. After three rounds of diamonds, you can use your one dummy entry to try to finesse spades (more or less giving up on finding a pitch for the third club), or play AK and another spade. If spades are 3-3 you're golden; if not, you're leaden. The hand doesn't play all that well in hearts, either, after three rounds of diamonds. If you ruff low, and it lives, you don't have a fast entry to the dummy; if you ruff high, you kind of need 3-3 hearts to make game.

The problem, as I see it, is that, once you have bid a new suit, showing length and strength, you have canceled the message of the takeout double (that is, that you have support for the unbid suits). You would, or at least I would, double and rebid spades with:

AKJxxx
xx
Ax
AJx

or, even

AKJxxx
x
Ax
AJxx

so partner can not count on any heart support. So, even if partner has ♥ QJxxx, he will be wary of bidding hearts again.

Tough hand.

[mike777]

I know many hate ltc but per ltc..i have a 5 loser really 4 loser adjusted hand......1s is way too little....so

cue 2d for me easy really easy....

-------------


in your example hand I play 2h in 4-3 with 23 hcp so be it....

2d=giant ..huge hand......not borderline...

[gnasher]

I don't think it's too good for 1♠. If I did, I'd bid 2♦, followed by 2♠. I think that shows a more flexible hand than a jump to 2♠ over 1♥.

[mike777]

guys i think insane.......i cue..and tthen pass...cue=huge...not tiny

[pooltuna]

mike777, on Jul 31 2010, 04:23 AM, said:

guys i think insane.......i cue..and tthen pass...cue=huge...not tiny

I agree Mike. 2♦ looks right and we are not dead yet as I suspect many auctions will go ...(1♦) X (P) 1♥ ; (P) 2♦ (P) 2♥; does 2♠ at this point really mean I got a big ♠ only hand? I would think NOT as at your second call you did not choose 2,3,or 4 ♠ but I expect it to show a monster.

BTW Mike trying for relief into the wind can often be ....moist?

[pirate22]

2d for me------ does not define to pard i have fantastic support for your suit,but pard shld realise maybe 3 card support----------and 2d asking

[ggwhiz]

Quote

guys i think insane.......i cue..and tthen pass...cue=huge...not tiny

I agree with all the stuff except the cue then pass.

five hearts to the left and out plus many 4-card heart suits make game in ♥ or ♠ most often, very rarely 3nt and it's imps. I think a cue followed by spades is forcing and I'm bidding game eventually and will eat the few minus scores.

Yum!

[Phil]

2♦ then 2♠. You can't pass 2♥ because partner may have ♥xxx.

[billw55]

(deleted)

why can't we just delete posts?

[gwnn]

to cause pain and embarrassment

[pooltuna]

billw55, on Jul 31 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

(deleted)

why can't we just delete posts?

I think the idea BBO has is to try to make you think and self edit a little before you post. That of course didn't work with me as I display my humanity frequently

[peachy]

Bid 1S. Partner is marked with about 2HCP and three or more hearts and likely fewer spades than hearts. What contract would I like to be in, considering this?

[Phil]

peachy, on Jul 31 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

Bid 1S. Partner is marked with about 2HCP and three or more hearts and likely fewer spades than hearts.  What contract would I like to be in, considering this?

Unfortunately with a two count, and some spades, game is excellent on the bidding. xxx Qxxx xxx xxx.

[peachy]

Phil, on Jul 31 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

peachy, on Jul 31 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

Bid 1S. Partner is marked with about 2HCP and three or more hearts and likely fewer spades than hearts.  What contract would I like to be in, considering this?

Unfortunately with a two count, and some spades, game is excellent on the bidding. xxx Qxxx xxx xxx.

Change the Qxxx to Jxxx. I understand there are layouts where game could possibly make. They just are rare. Besides, with my luck, partners never hold the ideal hand... and often even not his fair share (in this case, 2) of the outstanding HCP.

[gnasher]

Phil, on Jul 31 2010, 10:04 PM, said:

peachy, on Jul 31 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

Bid 1S. Partner is marked with about 2HCP and three or more hearts and likely fewer spades than hearts.  What contract would I like to be in, considering this?

Unfortunately with a two count, and some spades, game is excellent on the bidding. xxx Qxxx xxx xxx.

What do you think is a minimum for a 1♠ bid with this shape?

[barryallen]

gnasher, on Jul 31 2010, 04:10 AM, said:

I don't think it's too good for 1♠. If I did, I'd bid 2♦, followed by 2♠. I think that shows a more flexible hand than a jump to 2♠ over 1♥.

If you don't get 1♠ passed out and you can relay the strength of the hand with a subsequent bid, 1♠ could work out very well. But I like Mikes treatment of the situation, giving better definition and opportunities. There are so many sub minimal hands partner can have to make game, I believe Mikes bid gives full opportunity to fully exploit those sub minimal hands.

[Phil]

gnasher, on Aug 1 2010, 03:34 AM, said:

What do you think is a minimum for a 1♠ bid with this shape?

A King less.

What do you think a maximum 1♠ looks like?

[gnasher]

Phil, on Aug 1 2010, 05:12 PM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 1 2010, 03:34 AM, said:

What do you think is a minimum for a 1♠ bid with this shape?

A King less.

What do you think a maximum 1♠ looks like?

Probably about this. My minimum would be a bit weaker than yours - say AKJxx AKx Jx Kxx.

It seems to me that we ought to be able to cope with a 4-point range for a bid at the one level. With the example you gave earlier - xxx Qxxx xxx xxx - advancer can afford to raise 1♠ to the two-level. That seems better than having to use the murky cue-bid on the hand in the original post.