[wyman]

---

Is this just an issue of judgment? Luck? Should S do something different over X? Should N bid 6H over 5? Should N bid 6N over 6S? Pass 6S? Is 6S passable?

and so on...

[aguahombre]

6S must be passable, but seems pointless and dangerous. It is too subtle for me if 6S shows solid spades and the AK of Hearts, not knowing about 1st round diamond control.

IMO, South has done his job showing the great spades and heart support ---and should bid 6H. If North still goes to 7, it is all on him.

[ArtK78]

If you think that you should bid 6♠ over 6♥, you probably should not have supported hearts in the first place.

[mikeh]

Just announcing that 3♦ was u/u doesn't help all that much, since there are several versions of u/u. For me, 3♦ showed spades, limit or better, but I know of at least two very good players I have partnered who prefer that 3♠ would be a forcing spade bid, and 3♦ is a negative double type of hand.

In any event, I would never support hearts here. This hand is about spades.

Picture North with xx Axxxx AKx AKx: obviously a 'cooked' hand as an example, but the only reason to prefer hearts to spades would be if we knew that they'd get a ruff in hearts, with spades trump. That has to be less than the odds that we have a slow heart loser (or two) that can be avoided unless hearts are trump.

It's tough to know what N should do over 5♣. Was he, for example, in a fp situation? That, in turn, depends on what 3♦ meant.

If we were in a fp, then I think he should pass. He has undisclosed heart length. I think he passes no matter whether S has shown hearts or spades.

S would then bid 5♠, I assume, and then it is up to N to decide: I think he's worth a nudge to slam, tho I may be resulting.

If we accept the double, S should in any event pull to 5♠ imo: he should never suggest hearts as trump. Equally, I think it close but I think pulling the double is the better call. Again, I may be being influenced by seeing the 2 hands. I must confess, as S I'd never dream that partner held the hand he did. I would double as N with, say, x AQxxx AJxx Kxx, to come up with what seems to me to be a pretty clear example of a hand with no spade support, no great heart length, lots of wastage in the minors.

Having suggested hearts, he should NEVER pull. All he is doing is adding a layer of unnecessary confusion to an already grope-filled auction.

When you do that, when you gratuitously increase the stress on partner, you have to share in the responsibility for a bad outcome.

[the hog]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-29, 13:21, said:

6S must be passable, but seems pointless and dangerous. It is too subtle for me if 6S shows solid spades and the AK of Hearts, not knowing about 1st round diamond control.

IMO, South has done his job showing the great spades and heart support ---and should bid 6H. If North still goes to 7, it is all on him.

I agree with this post by agh. 6S isa silly bid and 7H is even sillier. I would pass 6S and hope the A of H is stiff.

[Fluffy]

I would never try to play in hearts with south's hand, you can pitch third heart on a side winner, and you can get problems in 5♥ if someone has ♥Axx and the force you to ruff.

Agree with mikeh that it is hard to judge the bidding without knowing methods, what is double of 5♣?

[wyman]

3D = inv+ in spades
Partner and I were split over whether we are forced over 5C, but we've agreed now that we aren't.

[aguahombre]

wyman, on 2013-July-30, 09:02, said:

3D = inv+ in spades

Sometime we might debate the value of that vs 3D=G.f. in spades ---and what 3S would be. 3C=inv+ for Hearts works, but I don't see the point of 3D with invite only and long spades.

[PhilKing]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-30, 09:26, said:

Sometime we might debate the value of that vs 3D=G.f. in spades ---and what 3S would be. 3C=inv+ for Hearts works, but I don't see the point of 3D with invite only and long spades.

GF >>>>>>> inv+.

[wyman]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-30, 09:26, said:

Sometime we might debate the value of that vs 3D=G.f. in spades ---and what 3S would be. 3C=inv+ for Hearts works, but I don't see the point of 3D with invite only and long spades.

PhilKing, on 2013-July-30, 10:21, said:

GF >>>>>>> inv+.

Agree. Unfortunately, sometimes one only gets to tweak basic agreements (e.g., "we're playing U/U") with regular partners where one has system notes, etc.

[aguahombre]

I was quite surprised to discover some people had actually written it up as one of the options, since I can count 4 ways of showing length and varying values for the suit not Opened and would not see the need to combine two of those, creating space for a 5th way.

[ArtK78]

I play that 3♦ is less than game forcing with spades and 3♠ is game forcing with spades. This lets opener get out in 3♥ with a minimum and no spade fit.

[PhilKing]

Having more room to choose between 3NT/4♥/4♠ >>>>> than choosing between 3♥/♠ when we both have 6.

[sathyab]

Fluffy, on 2013-July-30, 08:49, said:

I would never try to play in hearts with south's hand, you can pitch third heart on a side winner, and you can get problems in 5♥ if someone has ♥Axx and the force you to ruff.

Agree with mikeh that it is hard to judge the bidding without knowing methods, what is double of 5♣?

I can understand that there may be many ways of playing 3♦, but it's obvious by looking at the hand how they were playing 3♦, as forcing in ♠. After that it is double of 5♣ by partner and it's all judgement. I don't understand how people expect such sequences to be worked out in more detail.

As a general rule, when the bidding gets competitive at higher levels, double says I don't have a fit for you suit. The double of 5♣ appears to fall in that category, doesn't it ?

[mikeh]

sathyab, on 2013-July-30, 12:08, said:

.

As a general rule, when the bidding gets competitive at higher levels, double says I don't have a fit for you suit. The double of 5♣ appears to fall in that category, doesn't it ?

Not exactly how I play it, since partner's suit could be, as here, self-sufficient. I would use the double to say that, assuming partner has a near minimum sort of hand, I'd rather defend than declare. Obviously, I wouldn't feel that way if I had a good fit for partner, but I wouldn't feel that way either even without a fit if I had, as did N here, an unusually strong offensive hand in context.

Look at our hcp and the opps's bidding. Partner almost certainly has no values in the minors, so finding, say, AKxxxx Axx xxx x wouldn't be a shock and we sure as heck don't want him passing with that hand! But were we x KQxxx KQxx Kxx, for example, we surely wouldn't want him bidding on with that hand either. How is he to know, if we simply play that double speaks to spades?

So double, in a fp situation (assuming not playing the meckwell inversion) is not simply about fit: it is about offensive v defensive prospects.

[RSClyde]

Am I being too double dummy to think that 6nt looks right over 6S?
I mean partner has a heart fit so you have your heart losers and a spade if partner lack the AK (pretty much impossible). You have those losers in 6S anyway plus the potential of a ruff or slow spade loser. I mean as long as there's a heart fit, how can 6S make and 6nt go down?

[Fluffy]

since 3♦ is inv+ I am wondering if FP even applies. North's hand really doesn't look like a penalty slow down double to me, it looks like a take out double to show extras if pass was not forcing.

[wyman]

N thought FP because 3D claimed a balance of the hcp.
S thought not because we're short of GF.

Just to be clear about the auction thru 5Cx

[Fluffy]

Then I think if you solved your disagreement there you would be fine:

1: North doubles or passes, wichever is forward going after you agree.
2: South has a big hand and bids 5♠, 5♥ is a mistake for me as stated before.
3: North has enough for slam once partner bids on, but not enough to try for grand IMO, he should bid 5NT pick a slam if available, 6♥ otherwise.
4: South has a difficult decision in the end between 6♠ and 6♥, I think I would still play in spades which is wrong on this one.