[thebiker]

Dealer West MPs EW Vul

W N E S
1NT P 2D (trnsfer) 2S
3H ?

Your bid? with

543, AKQ, Q, 965432

1NT was 12-14

regards

thebiker

[skjaeran]

I lead a trump to have a look. After having doubled, of course. Going for +200 or more.

[hrothgar]

Club suit seems too weak for some kind of fit showing advance. (Yes its a six card suit, but do you really want partner to go ga-ga because he had Qxx in Clubs?)

At the same time, we need to do something to encourage partner. He entered a live auction when he could have waited to balance over 2S. We have three card spade support and 11 HCP. (sure, the AKQ happen to be opposite a stiff or void in partner's hand. The opponents rate to lead Hearts and he'll get a couple quick discards)

This looks to be one of those LTT hands. The look to be at least 17 total tricks. If we can make 9 tricks, they're down 1 (vulnerable). If we make 10 tricks, they're down 2.

Guess that I double, but I am sore tempted by 4♠

[ArtK78]

I bid 4♠. Partner entered a live auction - he has a good hand. Granted, the AKQ of hearts are not going to be too much help, but they are 3 tricks. We should have 5 spade tricks and a couple of ruffs in dummy. As long as we don't have 4 quick losers, we should make 10 tricks most of the time.

If we can beat 3♥, we are probably making 4♠. I don't want to defend 3♥ when the opps have a 9 or 10 card fit. It may turn out to be the winning action occasionally, but I don't think it is right in the long run.

By the way, how many pairs play weak no trumps vulnerable? I run into that every so often, but it doesn't seem like winning bridge to me.

[mikeh]

If you think that partner needs a good hand to bid 2♠, your partnership passes WAAYYYYY too often. This is like [1♦] p [1♠] 2♥... where 2♥ shows a good 6+ suit and not much else (he may have more, but he doesn't need more).

A white v red partner looking at KQJxxx x Kxx xxx should never pass the 2♦ transfer.

If this were imps, I'd pass. It being mps, I'll go out on a limb and double and lead 3 rounds of trumps and hope to beat it 1. If we can make 4♠, we will have a shot at 500 some of the time.

[jtfanclub]

So, which do people play as stronger?

1NT P 2♦ 2♠

or

1NT P 2♦ P
2♥ P -P- 2♠

I've always played the second one was stronger....

Partner may just be doing a (fairly safe) lead director in case 1.
Partner may have intended to X 4♥ in case 2, had they bid higher.

I take it that this is not standard?

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Sep 14 2007, 02:21 PM, said:

So, which do people play as stronger?

1NT  P  2♦  2♠

or

1NT P  2♦  P
2♥ P  -P-    2♠

I've always played the second one was stronger....

Partner may just be doing a (fairly safe) lead director in case 1.
Partner may have intended to X 4♥ in case 2, had they bid higher.

I take it that this is not standard?

I wouldn't have made the same differentiation, in terms of strength of hand.

The immediate bid says, to me, that I have a good 6+ suit, and may have some extras. The delayed bid would tend to be on a somewhat inferior suit: it is a balance, not (obviously) without risk. If there is any strength difference, I see the second sequence as having a slightly lower top end and about equivalent bottom end... the result of having different meanings for double of the 2♦ transfer and a balancing double of the 2♥ acceptance.

[Cascade]

Its not clear to me that double would be penalties for most partnerships.

This auction seems analogous to something like (2♥) 2♠ (3♥) ? where double would be responsive.

In most of my partnerships I have a general rule that double is takeout (responsive) when the opponents bid and raise.

With a singleton I will bid 4♠.

[mikeh]

Cascade, on Sep 14 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

Its not clear to me that double would be penalties for most partnerships.

This auction seems analogous to something like (2♥) 2♠ (3♥) ?  where double would be responsive. 

In most of my partnerships I have a general rule that double is takeout (responsive) when the opponents bid and raise.

With a singleton I will bid 4♠.

If you can't double for penalties, you are rewarding a flawed bidding scheme (weak notrumps at red, with opener allowed to bid 3♥ over a transfer). It is simply too much, when you hold a penalty double, to have to pass and hope partner, who has already shown his hand, to reopen. I strongly disagree with the analogy given. For one thing, my requirements for a 2♠ overcall of a weak 2♥ opening are not the same as those for the 2♠ call in the posted auction.

I don't disagree with the general rule, but not when the raise comes from a weak notrump and the responder can literally hold a yarborough.