[hanp]

Apologies for the misleading title. What would your call be in this situation:

Scoring: IMP

---

(1C) - p - (1D) - Dbl
(p) - 1H - (p) - ??

[Fluffy]

I want to bid NT and hearts but I cannot find how.

I'll try 2♥.

[gwnn]

3♥, invitational

[rogerclee]

This seems like a routine 3♥ bid to me.

[MarkDean]

I would bid 2♥. I find 3♥ to be a pretty huge overbid.

[jdonn]

I think 3 is normal.

[Phil]

Close between 2 and 3. Weaken or strengthen it in any way and I would say this is a wtp. Pard is limited to 8, so our game prospects are really limited unless pard has a max.

As it is, I'll take the low road and bid 2. I expect at least the ♠A to be offside, and the ♦K might be off too.

[ArtK78]

3♥ is my choice.

However, partner will not be happy if he was boxed into a corner by my double. For example:

xx
xxx
Qxxx
Qxxx

[Fluffy]

3♥ must be 5 hearts, 2♦ would be the way to show more than 2♥

[mtvesuvius]

There are 2 cuebids, a simple raise and a jump raise available. IMO 2♣ here should be a 2 1/2♥ bid, 2♦ as a 3 1/2♥ bid. With 3♥ being Invitational and 2♥ being just a blocking bid. So... I'll try 2♣.

[rogerclee]

mtvesuvius, on Mar 2 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

There are 2 cuebids, a simple raise and a jump raise available. IMO 2♣ here should be a 2 1/2♥ bid, 2♦ as a 3 1/2♥ bid. With 3♥ being Invitational and 2♥ being just a blocking bid. So... I'll try 2♣.

Why is everything a heart raise? Surely you realize there are problems with giving yourself 5 ways to raise hearts and no bids that mean anything else.

[jdonn]

It is a fair point that one of the cuebids could be a heart raise. Partner has fewer than four hearts here often enough that I think it's definitely worth worrying about.

[mtvesuvius]

jdonn, on Mar 2 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

It is a fair point that one of the cuebids could be a heart raise. Partner has fewer than four hearts here often enough that I think it's definitely worth worrying about.

Correct, if one cuebid should be a ♥ raise, it should be 2♣, leaving a 2♦ cuebid available for partner.

[hanp]

Partner had something like Jx Qx 109xx xxxxx. That's right, a doubleton.

[Echognome]

hanp, on Mar 2 2009, 03:43 PM, said:

Partner had something like Jx Qx 109xx xxxxx. That's right, a doubleton.

I have sympathy for his call. Ugly problem from his side.

[gnasher]

hanp, on Mar 3 2009, 12:43 AM, said:

Partner had something like Jx Qx 109xx xxxxx.

What a horrible problem.

[Phil]

hanp, on Mar 2 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

Partner had something like Jx Qx 109xx xxxxx. That's right, a doubleton.

2♥ looks playable. I'm betting against the overtrick though

[gnasher]

Passing 1♦ doubled might have worked.

[hanp]

I heard the story from the person who was so lucky to have partner's hand. She first gave me her hand. I said I wasn't willing to bid 1H on a doubleton so I bid 2C. I don't think you can pass on 4 diamonds without an honor, it's too pessimistic.

We both thought that partner should have bid 1NT instead of 3H, since 1H will often be bid on a 3-card suit (not so often on a doubleton though!).

Further thoughts?

[mikeh]

hanp, on Mar 2 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

I heard the story from the person who was so lucky to have partner's hand. She first gave me her hand. I said I wasn't willing to bid 1H on a doubleton so I bid 2C. I don't think you can pass on 4 diamonds without an honor, it's too pessimistic.

We both thought that partner should have bid 1NT instead of 3H, since 1H will often be bid on a 3-card suit (not so often on a doubleton though!).

Further thoughts?

When I looked at the hand, my thought was 1N... then I read the posts before posting and thought that my vote would look like it was influenced by the actual hand. I confess that I hadn't made up my mind, so that maybe my current thinking has been pushed even harder towards 1N. 1N shows the general strength and shape, distorting by only 1 card, altho admittedly a very important card if partner holds 4 hearts