[MrAce]

---

MP

[jillybean]

4♦

[whereagles]

Dbl. Not perfect, but you can't have it all.

[dake50]

Thrump.

[aguahombre]

Double is about the best I can think of. Partner playing a 4-3 spade fit opposite this dummy is probably o.k. Playing a 3-3 fit probably isn't.

[mtvesuvius]

Double for me. If partner bids spades, I am not terribly unhappy. If partner bids something else, I will be well placed on the next round.

[MrAce]

Those who DBL, what over 3♠ now ?

[Phil]

MrAce, on 2011-July-18, 17:34, said:

Those who DBL, what over 3♠ now ?

4♥ - choice of games. 4♠ or 5m are all in play.

Hopefully partner reads me for diamond length but probably not until the post mortem.

[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2011-July-18, 17:34, said:

Those who DBL, what over 3♠ now ?

4♦. I've got to bid them some time. I hope partner thinks it's forcing. I think this route shows a flexibile hand, so we may still get to clubs or spades.

The double has worked out well in that it gave partner a chance to limit his hand, so we can stop worring about slam possibilities.

[han]

gnasher, on 2011-July-19, 00:29, said:

4♦.

Definitely, and much better than 4H which leaves partner guessing even if the agreement is clear.

[Free]

Dbl followed by 4♦, it's pretty clear what I have and leaves partner some choice.

[jogs]

MrAce, on 2011-July-18, 17:34, said:

Those who DBL, what over 3♠ now ?

I favor the super conservative follow up bid of 4♣.
Partner is likely to have 5-4 in clubs/spades.
He can bid again if he chooses.

[ArtK78]

My preference would be an immediate overcall of 4♦, but double followed by 4♦ is not unreasonable.

[Phil]

han, on 2011-July-19, 04:50, said:

Definitely, and much better than 4H which leaves partner guessing even if the agreement is clear.

I agree that 4♦ is better if understood as forcing, but it risks a serious disaster if it gets passed.

[whereagles]

I'm not sure 4♦ is best... after all, while he can have 4324, it can also be he has 4315, no? And will he be brazen enough to bid 4♠ now?

I'll just stick to the original plan and put pard in the moysian. 4♠.

[mikeh]

I thought this was a great problem, even before my fears were confirmed (sort of) by the apparent uncertainty, even amongst some of its proponents, about the meaning of 4♦ after partner responded to our double via 3♠.

If we knew that 4♦ were forcing, this would, I think, be close to a wtp?

it is possible that we might end up defending at mps, gathering only 500 for our game, but that's not likely....partner can see the vulnerability as well as we can. Otherwise, double is fine provided that we know what we are going to do over any response.

I think we pass 3N, especially at mps. I think we make a slam try (4♥?) over 4♣. We have a problem over 4♠, but I think we afford a move.

3♠ is the real problem, unless 4♦ is forcing.

For any who think logic dictates that this is forcing, what do you call, over 3♥, with some 3=1=6=3 10 count or hands of similar shape and strength? You may feel that you can't pass, since partner will often hold enough heart length to make balancing difficult, even if you managed to bid in tempo.

The problem is so interesting that I have asked my current partner, without showing him the hand, whether 4♦ is forcing. I suggest that those who think it is, but who haven't expressly agreed in their partnerships that it is, do likewise.

My concern is such that I stick with my original pedestrian, and flawed, 4♦ call over 3♥. it's not flawed in the sense of being misdescriptive....it is perfect in terms of description...the flaw is that it amy endplay partner in the auction. However, while I wouldn't take 4♥, over 3♠ as COG (to me it's a raise to 4♠ with slam interest), I would take 4♥ by opener over my immediate 4♦ as COG (for me, a choice of clubs or diamonds, I would think 4♠ by responder over this would be natural and forcing, but haven't discussed this with anyone).

Anyway, good problem.

[whereagles]

'sup mike?

[MrAce]

Of course one of the reasons that led some of us to start with DBL was the possibility of 3NT in MP scoring. It is hard to ignore 3NT in MP especially when our side is known to have no 8 cards major fit.

Pd had

Kxxx
Qxx
Kx
KJxx

Preempter had

Jx
AKJxxxx
-
xxx

I bid 4♠ over pd's 3♠ since my pd was GIB and i cldnt afford to make any fancy bid to be honest. But as Mike said, i thought this could be a problem hand even for established pships.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2011-July-19, 13:18, said:

For any who think logic dictates that this is forcing, what do you call, over 3♥, with some 3=1=6=3 10 count or hands of similar shape and strength? You may feel that you can't pass, since partner will often hold enough heart length to make balancing difficult, even if you managed to bid in tempo.

The problem is so interesting that I have asked my current partner, without showing him the hand, whether 4♦ is forcing. I suggest that those who think it is, but who haven't expressly agreed in their partnerships that it is, do likewise.

I was a week ahead of you on this, because of this thread:

http://www.bridgebas...-do-we-proceed/

In that discussion, I blithely said that if I had a 4M-6m where I wanted to play in my four-card major, I would start with double. Then I realised that a corollary was that double followed by four of my minor would have to be forcing. So, I asked two serious partners what it means if you double a three-level jump overcall and then bid four of a minor.

One of them hasn't replied. The other asked me what the people on BBF said it meant.

[gnasher]

As for what I'd bid with a 3163 10-count: I'd probably still double and follow with 4♦, and live with its being forcing.