[kenrexford]

♠A109xxx ♥AKxx ♦x ♣Ax

(3♦)-P-P-?

This may develop more if my decision is repeated by others. I'm still not sure about this one.

[Hanoi5]

Vulnerability? Scoring?

I like double first but it might get us to trouble (partner will bid hearts first with 3-3 in the Majors). 3♠ for me.

[JLOGIC]

double of course

[gwnn]

Double. Partner should usually pass, bid 3NT or 4♣ with 3-3 in the majors. He shouldn't bid 3M.

[phil_20686]

JLOGIC, on 2011-June-14, 06:00, said:

double of course

what are you planning to do over 3N? Would 4!s not show a strong single suiter at this point?

[JLOGIC]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-14, 06:17, said:

what are you planning to do over 3N? Would 4!s not show a strong single suiter at this point?

With a strong single suiter I would have bid 4S over 3D. It shows a strong flexible hand (like possibly 6-4 in the majors!), likely with a 6 card suit if we aren't passing 3N (but if partner had bid a suit could def be a 5 card suit).

I don't think it matters much, what's so bad about playing 4S opposite a hand that bids 3N over a balancing X? If partner has a good hand for a spade slam and moves, my hand is pretty good for that too.

[ArtK78]

Agree with double. Only a 4♣ response causes any problem.

[pooltuna]

WHACK...oops not a penalty double... hm so ....tox (I'm trying 4♠ over partner's 4♣ call)

[kenrexford]

OK, so of course I also doubled.

This develops into the following next call decision:

(3♦)-P-P-X
P-3♥-(4♦)-?

This one probably is easy, but we get further to one more round, regardless of what you do...

[whereagles]

Dbl first, now 4♥. If they go to 5♦, dbl.

[JLOGIC]

kenrexford, on 2011-June-14, 12:05, said:

OK, so of course I also doubled.

This develops into the following next call decision:

(3♦)-P-P-X
P-3♥-(4♦)-?

This one probably is easy, but we get further to one more round, regardless of what you do...

4H

[kenrexford]

So far, so good.

Now, the final decision...

(3♦)-P-P-X
P-3♥-4♦-4♥
5♦-P!-P-?

[mr1303]

Now I double. I have this set in my own hand, with no safety at the 5 level. Partner could be completely broke over there.

[kenrexford]

mr1303, on 2011-June-16, 05:06, said:

Now I double. I have this set in my own hand, with no safety at the 5 level. Partner could be completely broke over there.

Really? I would have thought that this auction established a forcing pass.

[whereagles]

Come on, pard bid a mere 3♥. He's broke: how can he now make a forcing pass? Just dbl and take the money.

[nige1]

kenrexford, on 2011-June-14, 12:05, said:

♠A109xxx ♥AKxx ♦x ♣Ax
(3♦) _P (_P) _X
(_P) 3♥ (4♦) 4♥
(5♦) P! (_P) ??

IMO

• Over 3♦, agree with double
• Over 4♦, 4♥= 10, 4♠ = 7, _X = 6, _P = 2
• Over 5♦ (even with a BIT by partner) _X = 10, 5♥ = 5, _P = 1
• Oh I see now: Partner's pass may be forcing. I think I still double.

[kenrexford]

whereagles, on 2011-June-16, 11:39, said:

Come on, pard bid a mere 3♥. He's broke: how can he now make a forcing pass? Just dbl and take the money.

This has nothing to do with what partner might or might not have. It has more to do with what is going on in the auction. IF, and that's the "if," the opponents are clearly sacrificing contextually and we are clearly setting this, forcing pass is in play, it seems. More precisely, if this is an auction that cannot end with 5♦ undoubled as the final contract, whether that would be the best decision or not, then this is a forcing pass auction.

[whereagles]

Your reasoning is correct, but the situation is, as you said, iffy as to whether we were making 4♥. I wouldn't be surprised hcps are 20-20 and both 4♥ and 5♦ go like 1 down.

[mycroft]

3H is "broke, given that balancing doubles could be moderately weak hands" (certainly, weaker than what we have). That could be zero, but it could be 8 or 9 in secondaries.