[luke warm]

i voted 3S, but i do believe i'm on the cusp of 4S... the reason for 3S is the shape (4225).. with 4135 i'd probably go for 4S

[Fluffy]

I also voted for 3♠ althou Loser trick count goes against it today (even without the ♣Q), very close to 4♦. With the ♦J I would bid that, maybe even with the 10.

[Winstonm]

3S. Guess it's possible to miss game but it's also possible to not have a making game.

On really big hands,

AQ10x
xx
AKJ9x
Ax

I like to use a 4D bid on this type hand as the frequency is higher than solid suit rebids thereby making it more useful and almost as descriptive.

Winston

[Chamaco]

Fluffy, on Oct 23 2005, 10:41 PM, said:

I also voted for 3♠ althou Loser trick count goes against it today

No, LTC is ok with bidding 3S.

In spades, AJ109 is not 2 losers but rather less than 1.5 losers (75% chances that the double finesse yields 1 loser only).

So we have at most 5.5 losers (2+2+1.5) and 5-5.5 losers is worth a reverse (as usual, once we find a fit).

[Kalvan14]

Fluffy, on Oct 23 2005, 05:41 PM, said:

I also voted for 3♠ althou Loser trick count goes against it today (even without the ♣Q), very close to 4♦. With the ♦J I would bid that, maybe even with the 10.

Ditto.
My problem is that partner does not have a honor in ♦, and he might be more reluctant to go to 4♠ with a minimum (I can play 4♠ with a couple of kings in front - even with Q♠ and a side king).
The more I think about it, the more I like 4♦ (the problem is that 4♦ for me is 6 cards, but AKQxx is almost as good)

[microcap]

I caught partner with a huge hand, 14 HCP all in Aces and Kings. 6 spades was cold, though Rex bid 6NT. That made only because of a defensive error. Since he thought i would have a minimum of 18 HCP, not the 16 I held, 6NT was reasonable and we didn't have one of our usual slugfest arguments! LOL

After reading the posts, I think I would bid just 3♠ next time. The key question is how many 5-7 point hands will miss a good game if 3♠ gets passed around. I think most of the time, 4 spades will not be a good play. You will often be off the AK of both♥♣ and go down quickly.

Thanks all for the input.

[P_Marlowe]

Kalvan14, on Oct 24 2005, 12:40 AM, said:

The more I think about it, the more I like 4♦ (the problem is that 4♦ for me is 6 cards, but AKQxx is almost as good)

Of course 4D does not only promise 6 cards,
it promises a solid 6 card suit, i.e. AKQxxx
maybe AQJxxx, i.e. AKQxx is not almost as
good, also 4 card trump support, hence a
singleton in one of the other two suits, I think
5-4-2-2 is quite different than 6-4-2-1.

Marlowe

[joker_gib]

Walddk, on Oct 22 2005, 11:05 PM, said:

If this is not a 3♠ rebid I don't know what is. Shows 16-18 where I come from.

Roland

We don't come from the same country but this is obviously the same here !

Alain

[Trpltrbl]

3♠
Not crazy about ♣Qx, but have to try.
My pd's tend to go even with minimal hand, if they have 2 good cards.

GBB

[tysen2k]

Down the middle 3♠. Not good enough for a jump to 4.

Quote

Heavy invites and light acceptances.

I try to follow this code as well. I've always explained it as "Invite rarely, accept often"

Tysen

[Al_U_Card]

Fluffy, on Oct 23 2005, 05:41 PM, said:

I also voted for 3♠ althou Loser trick count goes against it today (even without the ♣Q), very close to 4♦. With the ♦J I would bid that, maybe even with the 10.

My only compunction concerning 3S. The LTC on this type of hand where I have a nice source of sure tricks versus the very soft rounded suits......am I top-heavy or am I off 4 tricks to start?

[Kalvan14]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 24 2005, 08:13 AM, said:

Kalvan14, on Oct 24 2005, 12:40 AM, said:

The more I think about it, the more I like 4♦ (the problem is that 4♦ for me is 6 cards, but AKQxx is almost as good)

Of course 4D does not only promise 6 cards,
it promises a solid 6 card suit, i.e. AKQxxx
maybe AQJxxx, i.e. AKQxx is not almost as
good, also 4 card trump support, hence a
singleton in one of the other two suits, I think
5-4-2-2 is quite different than 6-4-2-1.

Marlowe

Well, I play a re-bid of 4♦ a bit more flexible: 6 cards, with 2 major honors (otherwise you have a bid which will come once in a blue moon ). For that reason, AKQxx is "almost" as good.
If you just look at HCPs, the hand is worth a good 2♠ (the ♣Q is not pulling full weight). The reasons for being excited abt. it are the honor concentration in ♦ and the very good intermediates in ♠.