[TMorris]

Auction has gone

1♠ (2♥)

You have

QJ10xx
KJx
xx
xxx

You are vulnerable v non-vulnerable at IMPS

[bill1157]

2♠ is fine, itsa balanced hand and really needs shortness to consider a jump.

Bill

[pooltuna]

TMorris, on Nov 21 2009, 06:03 AM, said:

Auction has gone

1♠ (2♥)

You have

QJ10xx
KJx
xx
xxx

You are vulnerable v non-vulnerable at IMPS

you probably have the same number of ♠losers as the hand below so bid it the same

xxxxx
KJx
xx
xxx

[jdonn]

3♥, I can't just bid 2 with QJTxx. Of course this hand is at least slightly better than if I had xxxxx since those are values partner doesn't have so he has something else to make up his bid. Besides spades have broken 3-0 before.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Nov 21 2009, 12:33 PM, said:

3♥, I can't just bid 2 with QJTxx. Of course this hand is at least slightly better than if I had xxxxx since those are values partner doesn't have so he has something else to make up his bid. Besides spades have broken 3-0 before.

Good hand for a mixed raise.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Nov 21 2009, 12:33 PM, said:

3♥, I can't just bid 2 with QJTxx. Of course this hand is at least slightly better than if I had xxxxx since those are values partner doesn't have so he has something else to make up his bid. Besides spades have broken 3-0 before.

yep they have broken 3-0 before but I suggest you kneel and beg Han to run a simul on this hand for you.

[Phil]

pooltuna, on Nov 21 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 21 2009, 12:33 PM, said:

3♥, I can't just bid 2 with QJTxx. Of course this hand is at least slightly better than if I had xxxxx since those are values partner doesn't have so he has something else to make up his bid. Besides spades have broken 3-0 before.

yep they have broken 3-0 before but I suggest you kneel and beg Han to run a simul on this hand for you.

LOL pard always has AKxxx here? I think the ♠Q is worth something.

The JT, now thats another matter

[TMorris]

Thanks for the comments. Trumps were indeed 3-0 but as partner had Kxxxx that wouldn't have been too bad in itself. They can probably make 6H as overcallers partner has

void
A10xx
Axxxxxx
Jxx

and the overcaller has

Axx
Qxxxx
x
AQ10x

had we got to 4S it goes for 1100 on best defence although they are rather more likely to bid on in hearts.

I was told afterwards by an expert that 2S (which is what I bid) "was not bridge" and that 3S was the minimum reasonable bid with 4S being not at all unreasonable. I didn't think 2S was quite as bad as that hence the query.

[Jlall]

I would just bid 4S, man up people.

[lamford]

TMorris, on Nov 21 2009, 03:41 PM, said:

They can probably make 6H

And why will they get the trumps right? With KJx over a 2H bidder I would expect to have two trump tricks most of the time.

As goldilocks would say "Three spades. Just right."

[neilkaz]

lamford, on Nov 21 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

TMorris, on Nov 21 2009, 03:41 PM, said:

They can probably make 6H

And why will they get the trumps right? With KJx over a 2H bidder I would expect to have two trump tricks most of the time.

As goldilocks would say "Three spades. Just right."

I agree with 3♠ as we have at least 10 trumps and this hand looks reasonably preemtive to me. 2♠ just doesn't seem enough here and are we aren't going to be very happy passing 3♥ and if we then bid 3♠ the opps have more info to either carry on or whack us.

I also expect two ♥ tricks quite often on defence and to me that means 4♥ will fail quite often if the opps bid it.

3♠ doesn't prevent partner from carrying on to game.

I have to risk disagreeing with Justin here ( runs and hides) but I think we're too flat for 4♠ and it will get whacked too often at these colors and I'd hate to be -800 in 4♠x rather than +50 vs 4♥.

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Nov 21 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

I would just bid 4S, man up people.

sorry but my tantō is in the shop being sharpened so I will stick with 2♠. Need some help here though I need a phrase similar in tone to "man up people" except it would be a euphemism for "get sane people" Han, We REALLY, REALLY need a simul for this hand

[gwnn]

a simulation would not work for this hand at all. Suppose someone said "4♠ makes 10% of the time, 4♥ makes 34% and 5♥ 10% of the time". (completely arbitrary numbers) We could use these numbers only if we could somehow estimate how often they bid over 2♠/3♠/4♠, how often they double us, how often we go down more than one, how often we make an overtrick in 4♠x, also how often partner takes the push if we bid 4♠ or 3♠. etc. this is just impossible to do. anyway i bid 3♠, i have once solemnly vowed that i would never bid 2M on five and i'm sticking to it (and Im still happy to have kept that vow). i'm too chickin for 4♠.

[hanp]

4S is really bad, I don't need a simulation for that.

[pooltuna]

hanp, on Nov 22 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

4S is really bad, I don't need a simulation for that.

I agree obv but am too old to "man up"

[hanp]

Oh don't take me serious, I just enjoyed saying that.

[Jlall]

hanp, on Nov 22 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

Oh don't take me serious, I just enjoyed saying that.

[Codo]

2 Spade is horrible and des not show this hand.

A mixed raise is fine, but I prefer 4 Spade too.