[Ant590]

Hey all,

What's "expert standard" for hands like:

♠A75
♥AQ7
♦KQT7642
♣-

On an auction such as (1♣) - pass - (pass) - ?

Doesn't seem right to double in case partner passes, and I thought it more common to play 2♣ as Michaels still. Jumping to 2/3♦ diamonds seems weaker than this hand the way I would usually play them, and jumping to 4♦ or 5♦ seems to eat up too much space...

[pooltuna]

if you don't like X what do you see as your other options?

[MrAce]

I double. Keeps major fits in the picture.2 or 3 ♦ reasonable but 4 or 5 ♦ bids wouldn't even cross my mind tbh. If he passes double then i will live with it. And who knows , maybe 1!C doubled is the best spot for us.

[dake50]

You hit one. 'Standard' starts double, but you pointed out the flaws.
So 'Expert' hashes out this problem type.
I convert 2C Q-bid response 2M,3M to 3D,4D. This shows srtonger than intermediate 3D.
Exclusion-ask if 4M.

[Yogeshdg]

2clubs. No point in playing michaels in 4th seat when you hear two passes.

[Fluffy]

Agree with the tuna

[han]

Ant590, on 2011-January-21, 19:14, said:

Doesn't seem right to double in case partner passes

Err, what?

[Cyberyeti]

Yogeshdg, on 2011-January-22, 06:50, said:

2clubs. No point in playing michaels in 4th seat when you hear two passes.

Depends, if it's always a good hand, michaels is not stupid, particularly if the club is 4+, if it's 2+ you might want it natural.

Some people agree IJO strength for 2♦ in passout seat, some SJO, not sure exactly waht 3♦ is, but I'd bid 2♦ if is SJO, 3♦ if it isn't.

[whereagles]

Looks like a classical 3♦ bid.

(In my book it's a tad too strong for 3♦, though.)

[Free]

Yogeshdg, on 2011-January-22, 06:50, said:

2clubs. No point in playing michaels in 4th seat when you hear two passes.

As a preemptive weapon, no, but you can easily have a constructive or very strong hand in which case Michaels makes things very easy...

[dellache]

I would just bid 3♦ here meant as strong (why play it weak ??).
I don't want to take the risk to play in 1♣-X. The goal is to play 3NT or some diamonds (4M is possible, but I notice that partner could not find a 1M overcall).

Sidenote: I have always been wondering if 1♦ in BALPOS should not be strongish for fear of oppos finding an alternative contract (game) in one Major. It seems that everytime I have a moderate hand with diamonds, either I make a T/O, or I may want to pass when short in one Major. Actually, I can't remember the last time I did balance with 1♦... what do other posters think ?

[mike777]

Ant590, on 2011-January-21, 19:14, said:

Hey all,

What's "expert standard" for hands like:

♠A75
♥AQ7
♦KQT7642
♣-

On an auction such as (1♣) - pass - (pass) - ?

Doesn't seem right to double in case partner passes, and I thought it more common to play 2♣ as Michaels still. Jumping to 2/3♦ diamonds seems weaker than this hand the way I would usually play them, and jumping to 4♦ or 5♦ seems to eat up too much space...

x

no problem yet

------

with my rebid I need to find a way to show 4 loser hand with long d and short clubs.


--


btw I think 2d here would show long d and around 12-16 hcp so x and 2d is more.

[OleBerg]

How to bid in the balancing position, after a weak opening one-of-a-suit has been passed out, is one the most unexplored areas in bridge, so it wouldn't be reasonable to declare a specific style "Expert standard".

On the hand in question, I find X obvious, followed by the cheapest possible diamond-bid, not obvious, but relatively clear.

Of course, if partner shows 5+ in a majorsuit, I'll simply go to game in that, crossing my fingers for it to make.

[gwnn]

x

[peachy]

If bidding diamonds, I am puzzled by all the doublejumps to 3D when 2D is already a jump. I agree this is a bit strong for 2D (good six-carder, good opening hand) but jump to 3D is not solving the problem in this case.
My choice is Dbl, then bid diamonds.

[mfa1010]

I have for a long time thought that the standard approach of 2X=13-16 is wrong. It should be stronger, like 15-18 high card points + a 6-suiter.

The point is that we live nicely with a relatively wide-range 1 bid, but the strong one-suiters are in trouble with standard methods. Starting with a double is ok with a somewhat flexible hand, but when the hand is not flexible, double is typically dreadful.

[ArtK78]

peachy, on 2011-January-27, 12:19, said:

If bidding diamonds, I am puzzled by all the doublejumps to 3D when 2D is already a jump. I agree this is a bit strong for 2D (good six-carder, good opening hand) but jump to 3D is not solving the problem in this case.
My choice is Dbl, then bid diamonds.

Exactly. A double jump to 3♦ should show a sound preempt - a hand that might be too strong to preempt in 1st or 3rd positions but is fine as a constructive bid.

2♦ shows a good hand with a strong suit.

Double followed by 2♦ shows a stronger hand with a strong suit. If partner passes out the double, expect a large plus.

I have not thought about a cue-bid in 4th seat. Arguments can be made for Michaels or just strength showing. The classic way to show a monster hand is to double first and then cue-bid. But suppose you have a hand where you do not want partner to pass your takeout double? For example, a monster 4-4-5-0 hand or a hand with a 7 card suit and near game-in-hand? I would be interested in hearing some opinions on this.

[gwnn]

why do I not want partner to pass my takeout double when I have a monster 4450? Maybe we have no fit and they're going for 800.

[ArtK78]

gwnn, on 2011-January-28, 10:33, said:

why do I not want partner to pass my takeout double when I have a monster 4450? Maybe we have no fit and they're going for 800.

Allow me to rephrase:

A monster 4450 with no defense, such as KQJT KQJT KQJT9 ---

[gwnn]

just because we don't have aces doesn't mean they are going to make, in my little opinion. if partner has a penalty pass of 1♣ I'm quite happy to defend. Also if they run somewhere we're likely to murder them. to me it looks like we have quite a bit of defence against non-clubs, and partner will have good defence against clubs