[kayin801]

All IMPs

1)

---

Is this hand worth more than a simple 2♠? Comment if it matters that we play limited openings here.

2)

---

a) Agree with the support X?
b) Does 4♠ show this kind of hand now? (Again, comment on relevance to limited openings)

3)

---

... See the theme yet?

[gnasher]

1) I usually play 3♠ as this type of hand, with 3♣ or 2NT showing a stronger raise, and 2♠ usually being balanced.

If your only spade raises are 2♠ and 3♠ (why?), then I suppose this is only a 2♠ bid.

2) a) Yes
b) Yes. Good bid.

3) I wouldn't bid with this at this vulnerability. If we belong in game, partner will double again. If I bid straight away, I risk going for a penalty, or being carried too high opposite a good hand.

[han]

I agree with gnasher on all the hands except that I think hand 1 is perhaps too light for 3S.

[Hanoi5]

I think the first hand is worth bidding 3♠. We have a couple of aces, 4 nice cards in support of partner's response and a singleton club. I think we could bid 3♣ if we held a much better hand (15).

I think I'd pass on the second one. Partner knows we just opened and promised 3 card support instead of 4, he might have a stash of hearts (badly placed but still) and we have 5 nice clubs noone knew about and we're leading that.

This might be the hardest, I have short hearts and 5 spades but my hand is so weak that I think I'll pass.

The theme? What to do with spades and shortness in their suit?

[kayin801]

gnasher, on 2011-May-01, 13:54, said:

1) I usually play 3♠ as this type of hand, with 3♣ or 2NT showing a stronger raise, and 2♠ usually being balanced.

If your only spade raises are 2♠ and 3♠ (why?), then I suppose this is only a 2♠ bid.

3♣ would be a bigger spade raise, so we have that available as well. We don't have 2NT discussed here, I don't think.

[chasetb]

1.) Playing Support Doubles, 2♠ looks right. We can always take the plunge to 3♠ if needed, and if partner makes any move I'll jump. In my Precision partnership, we play 3♠ as a Max and no shortness, and 3♣ as a Max with Club shortness (3♥ shows shortness in Hearts). 2NT here is also undefined for me, maybe 2NT there should show something like a Max 3154 hand with Clubs stopped but not so good to stand for penalty.

2.) Yes and Yes. I don't expect partner to have 5 Hearts, or even 4 good ones, so I take DBL here as 'cards'.

3.) Vulnerability makes cowards of us all, so I pass. I agree with what the people above said.

[JLOGIC]

han, on 2011-May-01, 13:59, said:

I agree with gnasher on all the hands except that I think hand 1 is perhaps too light for 3S.

Huh? This is a textbook 3S bid in precision. I agree with gnasher that even in standard 3S bids in comp should just be unbalanced and not horrible, but I cannot imagine not bidding it in a strong club frame work.

[MrAce]

1- If 1♦ already showed an unbalanced hand then 2♠, if not then 3♠.

2-Yes-Yes

3-Pass

[Fluffy]

I don't think the second one is that clear. 3064 or 3163 even are more likelly shapes for the 4♠ bid IMO. Getting to clubs will be hard after that. Obviously getting to spades would be also very hard if we bid clubs, but ain't clubs a more likelly strain at this point?.

Also having weak spades doesn't make 4♠much better, all in all I lean towards 5♣.

[bluecalm]

Why not 4NT in 2nd ? Maybe 4♠ is better but for me clearly 4NT >>>> 5♣

[kayin801]

Fluffy, on 2011-May-02, 13:33, said:

I don't think the second one is that clear. 3064 or 3163 even are more likelly shapes for the 4♠ bid IMO. Getting to clubs will be hard after that. Obviously getting to spades would be also very hard if we bid clubs, but ain't clubs a more likelly strain at this point?.

Also having weak spades doesn't make 4♠much better, all in all I lean towards 5♣.

Would you have preferred bidding 3♣ to start then, and then trying spades later? While this technically violates support doubles, I would imagine if the auction went... (2♥)-3♣-(4♥)-X-(P)-? 4♠ now would strongly suggest 3 card support, though maybe more by way of high cards.

Anyway, on the first one I bid a simple 2♠ but didn't run into trouble since partner had a 5224 with AKK and just blasted game, but in retrospect I thought that 3♣ or 3♠ would be better, glad to see most people agree.

On the second I bid 4♠ and we made 5 I think (they lead ♥A), but we would have taken 4♥X for 800 on best defense. Partner had Q109xx, KQx, Ax, Jxx and all suits split evenly their way.

On 3) I bid 4♠ and made it Xed, partner had A1098, Ax, xxx, AQxx, and spades were 2-2, AND the ♦AK were onside, AND the ♣K was onside. 4♥ was unbeatable from the W since I couldn't get in to lead a club through. Obviously a very lucky make .

[MrAce]

bluecalm, on 2011-May-02, 14:11, said:

Why not 4NT in 2nd ? Maybe 4♠ is better but for me clearly 4NT >>>> 5[clubs}

Because as u asked in original post 4♠ shows this type and by bidding 4♠ u dont have to play 5♠ if only fit is ♠?

[MrAce]

kayin801, on 2011-May-02, 14:47, said:

On 3) I bid 4♠ and made it Xed, partner had A1098, Ax, xxx, AQxx, and spades were 2-2, AND the ♦AK were onside, AND the ♣K was onside. 4♥ was unbeatable from the W since I couldn't get in to lead a club through. Obviously a very lucky make .

That was my first choice but Andy convinced me otherwise and i still agree with him, if i knew i would be playing 4♠ only, i wld definetely bid it, but as he said at these colors i cant blame pd for placing me with a better hand than this and carry higher than we belong to.

[pooltuna]

1]moderate improvement so 3♠ is probably a better choice than 2♠ because 2♠ could be a call with about a K less playing value. After all what would you do with ♠xxxx ♥AQx ♦ AJxx ♣Jx, pass???

2a] If you have it, you have to use it, otherwise you're denying a hand that could.
2b] my problem with 4♠now, is partner has already expressed a preference, he may only hold marginal values including offensively wasteful ♥ holdings, plus he may only have 4♠.

3] well for me X shows a bigger hand than an X of 1♥ plus the 2♥ call will put a lot of pressure on E making a penalty X more difficult. So yes 4♠

[Fluffy]

kayin801, on 2011-May-02, 14:47, said:

Would you have preferred bidding 3♣ to start then, and then trying spades later? While this technically violates support doubles, I would imagine if the auction went... (2♥)-3♣-(4♥)-X-(P)-? 4♠ now would strongly suggest 3 card support, though maybe more by way of high cards.

Not at all, with 3 card support and a side void it is overthinking to do anything but a support double. I think a 4♠ bid after would be a 2155 or alike.

[dcohio]

Hand 1 is textbook 3S for me. It shows a hand worth ~14-15 in support points. 3C would show 17 or so support (max 15HCP opener with shape & fit)

Hand 2 I'm leaving it in at this vulnerability. We're white they're red, partner knows I have 3 card support, and he decided to double instead of bidding 4S. All we need to do is set it 2. Switch the vul and I'll bid 4S.

Hand 3 I'm passing all day long and twice on sundays.