[mike777]

BOTH VUL IMPS

JT953....QT9....Q642....7

P=P=(1S)=X
P=2D=P=3D
P=?

Your bid and why?

[goobers]

Partner has a huge hand, should be ~18+ for this stunt, I have a stiff club, my hearts will help fill in his suit. I would move, but I don't know with what.

[mikeh]

Pass

Partner had several choices to describe his hand:

The double and single raise shows a good hand: worth about a King more (maybe in playing strength as much as hcp) than a normal, minimum-range double. However, it is weaker than a cue-bid and is definitely not forcing.


These 2/1 non-jump advances of takeout doubles are a problem area in standard bidding, because jumping to the 3-level is risky on a 4 card suit even with a good 9-10 hcp, so our range for 2♦ is much wider than the range shown by, for example, an advance of 1♠ to a takeout double of a lower 1 level suit opening.

But regardless of the range shown, the single raise is typically played as range-asking: pass if you are in the lower half of the range, make an intelligent bid if you are mid-range or higher.

(I know that there are some fine players who espouse a raise of partner's advance of 1 major with all doubling hands holding 4 card fit, but that is not the traditional standard, and I think it is still (deservedly, in my view) a minority position... but I don't think that approach applies here... )

So the question is how do we feel about this hand?

Frankly, I feel pessimistic.

We have short, weak trumps. Our ♠ stopper, altho assured, is slow, and we lack any Aces or Kings. We have a lot of spades to get rid of in 5♦s, and East may be in a position to overruff unless we pull trump, which of course means we can't ruff as many ♠s anyway.

It is difficult, for me anyway, to picture a hand that makes game good.

x AJ10x AKxx AQxx would work, but I think that is a bit rich: I'd bid 2♠, not 3♦. x AJxx AJxx AQxx is more like it, and while game has chances, I'd rather not be there.

So I pass.. but I consider my hand near max for the call.

[foo]

As usual, mikeh is 100% right.

[Fluffy]

Stopping oppponent's suit with teh Jack makes 3NT likelly, but we are still too weak for it. A 5th diamond, or ♦K instead of the Q could be almost enough.

[kenrexford]

3♥. Bid my card for partner.

I have two cards for partner. I don't care whether they are Aces, Kings, or Queens. Whatever I have is what partner is missing.

I also have a stiff. That's four covers. What the heck does partner need? My four covers add up to 11 tricks if partner has 7. If he actually raised to 3♦ with a 7-loser hand (very strange), then he can bid 4♦ and we will play it there.

Maybe partner has the hand I jumped to 3NT on, not expecting that clubs would be so friggin' wide open? Something like Ax-AKxx-AK10xx-xx? Five losers. We end up winning five diamonds on power, three hearts, and a spade, for nice tricks on power. We surely take a 10th with a club ruff. If hearts are not 3-3 and diamonds are not 2-2, we probably still make this, using an established spade for a heart pitch.

Passing is sick.

Counting points is silliness. You have four covers. Partner did not explore 3NT; he raised diamonds. You don't raise 2♦ to 3♦ because you like your chance at 3NT. If this is a "low-end" hand, then I suppose the "much better" Axx-xxx-Axxx-xxx looks more appealing? That eight-count is trash in comparison to the actual hand.

[foo]

How does 2 Q's and a stiff equal 4 cover cards?

I could buy 3; assuming pd has length & values where I have Q's and length w/o values where I have a stiff.

But how do you count 4 cover cards?

[skjaeran]

This is very close IMO, between pass and 3♥.
At the table I think I'd pass - see Mike's post.

I guess this is the same hand as shown in another thread, where partner's got Ax AKxx AKxxx xx, and 5♦ is a good contract, but not laydown.

[kenrexford]

foo, on Jul 3 2007, 11:48 PM, said:

How does 2 Q's and a stiff equal 4 cover cards?

I could buy 3; assuming pd has length & values where I have Q's and length w/o values where I have a stiff.

But how do you count 4 cover cards?

I'll grant that a stiff and two queens probably is three, but may be four. That was a tad hyperbolic. I have that tendency sometimes.

Nonetheless, I made up for it with an absurd construction of a plausible 7-loser 3♦ call. The reality is that 3♦ should show something extra, usually 5-6 losers, 6 being questionable. Three covers, even, is enough.

If I bid 3♥, showing a card, partner will know if a slow heart value is working.

If he replies 3♠, I'll bid 4♦, denying a spade honor value and denying a club honor value (why not bid 4♣?), which will imply (because I must have something) diamond honor value(s) and/or club distribution values.

If he bids 3NT, I have a decision to make. If I decide to move that contract out, 4♣ has to be shortness.

In sum, then, I have three assured covers, and sometimes four.

[neilkaz]

skaeran, on Jul 4 2007, 04:53 AM, said:

This is very close IMO, between pass and 3♥.
At the table I think I'd pass - see Mike's post.

I guess this is the same hand as shown in another thread, where partner's got Ax AKxx AKxxx xx, and 5♦ is a good contract, but not laydown.

Also a very close decision for me, but I pass as well.

[pclayton]

Pass, and I don't consider it close either.

[whereagles]

I think I would bid 4♦ on this one. I'm not completely broke and 5 might make if pard has a singleton spade.