[ggwhiz]

cherdano, on 2013-November-23, 18:36, said:

too lazy to construct hands.

So how about constructing a hand where the initial double makes any sense whatsoever in light of the 3♦ game try if it's not too much trouble. They only have 8 spades with partner showing some in my world, not as worried about hearts as diamonds to make the try in that suit.........

Good luck but kibosh that lazy bit. It applies just as much to the bidders. The only thing I'm sure of is rho or partner is waay out there.

[cherdano]

ggwhiz, on 2013-November-23, 22:10, said:

So how about constructing a hand where the initial double makes any sense whatsoever in light of the 3♦ game try if it's not too much trouble. They only have 8 spades with partner showing some in my world, not as worried about hearts as diamonds to make the try in that suit.........

Good luck but kibosh that lazy bit. It applies just as much to the bidders. The only thing I'm sure of is rho or partner is waay out there.

To be honest I didn't understand your earlier post at all. You said something about pre-balancing based on my presumed spade shortness - that does not make sense to me: if partner bids 3♣ on that auction, it means he was always planning to X-and-bid-clubs. That shows a strong hand.

But in any case, "lower standards" or "too lazy to construct hands", it is clear that you are in the former category.

As for the 3♦ "game try" - I have seen people overbid with shapely hands before. But I will rely on my partner having a double-and-bid-hand when he shows a double-and-bid-hand.

[Winstonm]

I learned the game using lower standards so I could visualize xxx, AKx, x, AKQJxx that has no play in 5C. If you counter that this should be a 2C overcall, I would not disagree, but that is not the issue here. I think the issue of the OP is to find out the consensus of most players - the minority view is clearly out of favor. Regardless of style, though, it is clearly right to bid at least 4C.

[ggwhiz]

cherdano, on 2013-November-24, 04:07, said:

As for the 3♦ "game try" - I have seen people overbid with shapely hands before. But I will rely on my partner having a double-and-bid-hand when he shows a double-and-bid-hand.

I don't even play what I said in my first post (the pre=balance bit) but it was the only thing that made sense to me. Both opponents are short to very short in clubs and sniffing a game.

Ben mentioned ♥AQxx ♣AK(Q) 7th in the doublers hand and from the start I'm guessing that whatever it is it's not a hand I would ever have doubled 1♦ with

[gszes]

JLOGIC, on 2013-November-22, 22:42, said:

I was thinking about this, and I cannot come up with 1 reasonable hand where 5C is down 2. Like, let's start with 2 small spades and a stiff diamond (unlikely but possible on the bidding). In that case, we have the rest lol. Maybe xx AKQx Q AKxxxx with 3-0 clubs off but even that is impossible with a 3D bid... opener must be 4450 with a club void so that's down 1.

How about xx AQxx x AKQxxx and the heart hook off? Doubt anyone is doubling and bidding clubs with that.

The fact that there is no hand where 5C is down 2 means there is no hand where 4C is not making, so not bidding it must be pretty terrible. I invite all posters who passed to construct a hand where 4C is even down. I do not remember ever making a partscore bid where I thought I was about 100 % to make lol.

I was imagining hands like Ax Axx K AQxxxxx where one loser in each suit is possible---I totally agree that down 2 would
be a unlucky result. It is also this type of hand where I would be very afraid to leave 4sx in if that came back to me thus I
opted for 5c which might have a chance to make and I would be a whole ton happier to sit if p x 5s:)))

[JLOGIC]

gszes, on 2013-November-24, 11:18, said:

I was imagining hands like Ax Axx K AQxxxxx where one loser in each suit is possible---I totally agree that down 2 would
be a unlucky result. It is also this type of hand where I would be very afraid to leave 4sx in if that came back to me thus I
opted for 5c which might have a chance to make and I would be a whole ton happier to sit if p x 5s:)))

If partner had that hand and we had a club loser it would mean that opener was 4450, which would give responder 5422. Not possible as he bid 3D and not 3H. Based on the bidding I'd say 4C is cold opposite this hand.

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on 2013-November-24, 08:10, said:

I learned the game using lower standards so I could visualize xxx, AKx, x, AKQJxx that has no play in 5C. If you counter that this should be a 2C overcall, I would not disagree, but that is not the issue here. I think the issue of the OP is to find out the consensus of most players - the minority view is clearly out of favor. Regardless of style, though, it is clearly right to bid at least 4C.

This is what I was referring to when I said some pessimistic bidders are being lazy! We hold only 2 hearts, and the most that LHO has is 4. If partner holds only 3, then RHO has at least 4. If he holds 4 hearts, he has to hold 5+ spades, since he bid 1♠ over the double. It is unlikely that rho is 5-5 majors, since he'd probably make his game try in hearts, not diamonds. Anyway, the point is that if he has 4 or more hearts, partner has at most 2 spades, so can't be 3=3=1=6.

When constructing hands, from the auction, one needs to assume that the opps aren't insane.

[mikeh]

ggwhiz, on 2013-November-24, 08:29, said:

I don't even play what I said in my first post (the pre=balance bit) but it was the only thing that made sense to me. Both opponents are short to very short in clubs and sniffing a game.

Ben mentioned ♥AQxx ♣AK(Q) 7th in the doublers hand and from the start I'm guessing that whatever it is it's not a hand I would ever have doubled 1♦ with

RHO has to cater to his partner being 15-17 balanced, so if RHO is something like 5=3=4=1 with a good 7 or 8 count, with a stiff small club, he has to make a gametry, counting on partner's shape to make the 3 level safe if he has the unbalanced minimum that we, seeing the auction and looking at our hand, have deduced him to hold.

The opps could well have as few as 18 hcp between them. When we realize that all our hcp in clubs take at most 1 trick on defence, and their 10 hcp in diamonds may take none, it is foolish to be a point counter in deciding level.