[mike777]

MP Both NV
VOID=AKQ9=AQ9876=KT9
(3C)=?

EDITED.

[gwnn]

Hmm. Are you sure you put the suits in the right order?

[bid_em_up]

If the hands are correct, I pass and pray my partner can find a reopening double.

[awm]

I really dislike doubling without spades in situations like this. In fact I prefer to play "double then correct" as a flexible hand rather than a hand "too strong for an overcall." I'm sure that if I double partner will bid 4♠; the question is whether my bidding diamonds over that implies the hand I actually have (rather than being a cuebid for spades or showing some strong 3361), and whether we have a reasonable contract at the five-level. I'd rather avoid the whole issue with my first call.

With this hand I'd try 4♦, regardless of whether that's a strong one-suiter or a strong two-suiter with diamonds and a major.

[temp3600]

3♦, mainly because the diamond suit is not that great, and it keeps the bidding low.

[whereagles]

3♦ for me. I don't like dbl on this kind of hand.

[HeartA]

Jlall, on Dec 19 2006, 12:19 PM, said:

double, 5D over 4S.

and 3NT over 3S.

[pclayton]

awm, on Dec 19 2006, 09:23 AM, said:

I really dislike doubling without spades in situations like this. In fact I prefer to play "double then correct" as a flexible hand rather than a hand "too strong for an overcall." I'm sure that if I double partner will bid 4♠; the question is whether my bidding diamonds over that implies the hand I actually have (rather than being a cuebid for spades or showing some strong 3361), and whether we have a reasonable contract at the five-level. I'd rather avoid the whole issue with my first call.

With this hand I'd try 4♦, regardless of whether that's a strong one-suiter or a strong two-suiter with diamonds and a major.

Ditto. Can't stand doubling with a void in the higher ranking suit.

[inquiry]

4♦ - i use to require 5-5 or 5-6 for this bid (diamonds and unbid major). Mishovnbg pushed me to include 4-6 type hands as well. I will bid 5♦ over 4♠.

[the hog]

I bid 4D because that is 5D and a 5 card Major. This hand is so good that I am going to treat is as a 5/5. I can't believe some of the comments I am reading here like pass. - World's greatest optimist, deserving all pass!

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Dec 20 2006, 12:40 AM, said:

I bid 4D because that is 5D and a 5 card Major. This hand is so good that I am going to treat is as a 5/5. I can't believe some of the comments I am reading here like pass. - World's greatest optimist, deserving all pass!

The hand was originally posted with the diamond and club suits reversed. That explains the early passers

[gwnn]

Ah. Like this I dbl. Hearts are nice.

[mike777]

Come on guys and gals..this is newer player section....ok!

You got to agree on something!

[gwnn]

This is why preempting as often and random is so nice

The point is whether or not X can include GOSH's (good one suited hands) -if it can then doubling seems a bit incorrect and whether or not 4♦ is Leaping Michaels or just a hand too strong to bid 3♦ (in former case, this hand is ideal, in latter it is a little bit misdescriptive). This is why it's good to have as many situations as possible like this discussed.

[the hog]

inquiry, on Dec 20 2006, 03:53 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Dec 20 2006, 12:40 AM, said:

I bid 4D because that is 5D and a 5 card Major. This hand is so good that I am going to treat is as a 5/5. I can't believe some of the comments I am reading here like pass. - World's greatest optimist, deserving all pass!

The hand was originally posted with the diamond and club suits reversed. That explains the early passers

Thanks Ben, that does make a huge difference.

[mike777]

But this assumes fixed and in depth partnerships....no one has convinced me that 99+ partnerships are not this.......in over decades

[helene_t]

As Ben and Ron, I use whatever (non)-leaping Michaels I play (4♣ in my IRL partnership). If that's not available I bid 3NT.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Dec 20 2006, 04:19 AM, said:

As Ben and Ron, I use whatever (non)-leaping Michaels I play (4♣ in my IRL partnership). If that's not available I bid 3NT.

What ever this means I bet this is a winner .....just not sure what the heck it means in the middle of the battle heat.

I assume we are not expert players.

[cherdano]

awm, on Dec 19 2006, 07:23 PM, said:

I really dislike doubling without spades in situations like this. In fact I prefer to play "double then correct" as a flexible hand rather than a hand "too strong for an overcall." I'm sure that if I double partner will bid 4♠; the question is whether my bidding diamonds over that implies the hand I actually have (rather than being a cuebid for spades or showing some strong 3361), and whether we have a reasonable contract at the five-level. I'd rather avoid the whole issue with my first call.

With this hand I'd try 4♦, regardless of whether that's a strong one-suiter or a strong two-suiter with diamonds and a major.

1) I agree 100% that doubling is never a one-suited hand too strong to overcall. That hand can bid 4♦ or 5♦.
2) If you bid 5♦ over 4♠, that is IMO clearly a suggestion to play. If you want to make a slam try for spades, you can always bid 5♣. Finding a strain is too important to make ALL bids a slam try for spades here.
3) So the question is how much tolerance 5♦ promises for spades. With 3 spades, you have to accept spades as trumps, 4♠ will pretty much always have 5+ cards, so I don't think 3361 is possible. I as partner would expect some tolerance though, a small doubleton or singleton honor.

So I do think doubling-then-5♦ is a misdecription of the hand. But what is better? What do you do after 3♦-3♠? I have the feeling I will never get to describe my shape nor my strength after 3♦. So I will go with double.