[Fluffy]

♠xxx
♥Ax
♦xx
♣A108xxx


EW vulnerable

1♦-(2♥)-2NT!-(3♥)
4♣-(4♥)-??


2NT shows clubs, not a rubish hand, with (7)8-11 i should be 6+ cards, willing to play 3♣ if partner is minimum, Stronger hands might have 5 cards only.

2♥ was normal weak 2, no clue of what he is doing.

[Apollo81]

Double. My hand contains much more defensive potential and less offensive potential than it could. Besides, stupid auctions should be punished.

[wclass___]

Trust vulnerable opponents

[mikeh]

The idiot sitting to my right presumably has 7 (or more?) hearts, so partner has a stiff or void. I am not doubling. I suspect that both 4♥ and 5♣ are down 1, since most of the hands on which we make 5♣ seem to suggest partner should have made that call himself. But I am still bidding, even tho the insurance may not be cheap. We may make, they may make and once in a blue moon both make.

Nobody held a gun to partner's head over 3♥, so his hand shouldn't be a total disappointment.

[pooltuna]

Fluffy, on Jun 24 2010, 02:39 PM, said:

♠xxx
♥Ax
♦xx
♣A108xxx


EW vulnerable

1♦-(2♥)-2NT!-(3♥)
4♣-(4♥)-??


2NT shows clubs, not a rubish hand, with (7)8-11 i should be 6+ cards, willing to play 3♣ if partner is minimum, Stronger hands might have 5 cards only.

2♥ was normal weak 2, no clue of what he is doing.

presentation still leaves me uncertain as to who is vulnerable but I would bid 5♣ in either case clearly not for the same reason.

[gwnn]

X

the Goded family just got richer by 1100 points.

[helene_t]

I am certainly not going to bid 5♣. I have zip extra offensive strength. P may be short in hearts but I am not going to bid his hand for him.

Playing forward doubles this is a clear pass. Not sure what it is playing standard methods. I will probably pass also.

[P_Marlowe]

5C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[the hog]

I am certainly going to bid 5C. We may make, they may make, both may make,

[Phil]

Seems like I have just about what I promised.

[gnasher]

What is it about Ax in the opponents' suit and xx in partner's suit that makes 5♣ attractive? I'm not going to trust vulnerable opponents to the extent of throwing away 5 IMPs every time they bid a stupid game.

[jdonn]

Smart players bid game here R/W every time because so many don't know the times you should and shouldn't necessarily "trust your vulnerable opponents".

[neilkaz]

I've allready bid my hand when I bid 2NT using the OP's system. I don't see any extra offensive strength but both my aces likely score on defence and may also give me a tempo.

From where I sit, I see no reason to think that 5♣ makes and I have a lot of pointed suit losers so very clearly I don't bid 5♣.

The choice is between double and pass and while I suspect 4♥ may be -1, I don't see clearly favorable IMP odds to double and also if I double, I do more to prevent my partner from bidding 5♣ if that is right.

Pass .. neilkaz ..

[bluecalm]

Truly WTP hand. 5♣.
I see doubling as major lunacy.

Btw I assumed we are non-vul. It's not clear to me who EW is.

[MickyB]

Bidding 5♣ seems like an insult to partner. I can see a case for doubling because my hand is more defensive than he might expect, but I'll pass and hope he does the right thing.

[bluecalm]

I take back my WTP comment. Pass is perfectly fine and maybe better than 5♣. I somehow thought we have extras above what we promiseed round before.

Just don't double. Double say: "let's defend partner" and we really don't want to say that.

[jdonn]

We have a minimum, the least shape possible, good defense, shortness in partner's suit, and one of our honors in the opponent's suit. What is so wrong about double?

To me it is a question of double or pass and I lean toward doubling for the reasons above. If partner makes game opposite our hand based on shape he should have bid it last round. And if partner makes game opposite our hand based on strength then we are about to cream them.

Plus he is allowed to bid 5♣ even if we do double! Sure he will usually pass but I haven't stolen his bidding box.

[junyi_zhu]

Fluffy, on Jun 24 2010, 07:39 PM, said:

♠xxx
♥Ax
♦xx
♣A108xxx


EW vulnerable

1♦-(2♥)-2NT!-(3♥)
4♣-(4♥)-??


2NT shows clubs, not a rubish hand, with (7)8-11 i should be 6+ cards, willing to play 3♣ if partner is minimum, Stronger hands might have 5 cards only.

2♥ was normal weak 2, no clue of what he is doing.

double, HA and the balanced shape certainly suggests doubling.

[bluecalm]

Quote

double, HA and the balanced shape certainly suggests doubling.

I think double should strongly discourage partner from bidding. He will pass even with ♥ stiff barring some really wild hands.
If we don't adopt this agreement we will be in the world of pain with hand like:

xx KQx xx A9xxxx because there will be no way to tell partner "let's defend".
I am not talking only about this sequence but about whole bidding philosophy. Double as "somewhat defensive hand or really defensive hand or pure penalty" is not going to work.
Also we will produce strange bidding phenomena when the more our hands are suitable for doubling them (trump stack in one, shortness in the other) the more likely we will be competing in our suit.

[whereagles]

Phil, on Jun 25 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

Seems like I have just about what I promised.

x2