[jillybean]

A lesson for me "trust your partner"

---

Lead A♣ tricks = 9

Other table:

1D 2C X P
2D 2H 2S 3H
3S 4H 4S X

tricks = 6

-18imp

[ArtK78]

I am having nightmares about this hand.

With my negative double followed by 2♠, I showed a constructive hand not good enough to bid 2♠ directly over 2♣. Given that, my partner's 3♠ bid on two small spades is truly strange. I had quite a different picture of his hand than what came down in the dummy. Something like AJx of spades, KQxxxx of diamonds, 3-1 in the other suits or maybe a rounded suit A would have been nice.

The only way I could have shown diamond support would have been to ignore my spade suit. The opps made the auction more difficult for me. But I just don't understand the 3♠ bid.

Perhaps my 2♠ bid was too aggressive. But it didn't have to result in anything as silly as the actual result.

-1700 is embarrassing.

EDIT: My partner is of the opinion that I should never have introduced the spade suit, and that I should have bid 3♦ over 2♥. He also thought that his 3♠ bid was competitive, not invitational. I leave these comments to stand on their own merit, whether you choose to agree or disagree with them.

[lycier]

---

after double,I think that it was best for the west bid 2♥ was a non-forcing bid to show 4-6 distribution .

[jillybean]

 lycier, on 2013-July-31, 04:12, said:

after double,I think that it was best for the west bid 2♥ was a non-forcing bid to show 4-6 distribution .

2♥ would show a much stronger hand for us.

[c_corgi]

With the North hand I would fit jump over 2C. I would prefer a stronger hand, especially since it would set up a forcing pass at this vulnerability, but it seems worth it to get the whole hand off my chest in one go. Other routes are not attractive either.

[quiddity]

 ArtK78, on 2013-July-28, 23:17, said:

EDIT: My partner is of the opinion that I should never have introduced the spade suit, and that I should have bid 3♦ over 2♥. He also thought that his 3♠ bid was competitive, not invitational. I leave these comments to stand on their own merit, whether you choose to agree or disagree with them.[/size][/font]

Tough hand. I guess Versace passed in a similar spot so that's one vote for not showing the spade suit. Still, as you point out, you could have a double fit and roll 4♠. Partner's 3♠ bid is terrible.

At table one I might have redoubled with the East hand to show tolerance/values, though it is a bit light. I'd probably bid with West over 2♦ - 7-4 bid some more. It just seems wrong to pass out 2♦ with a nice 7-card club suit. And having passed the first round as East I would reopen with double - why ignore the majors?

[mike777]

 ArtK78, on 2013-July-28, 23:17, said:

I am having nightmares about this hand.

With my negative double followed by 2♠, I showed a constructive hand not good enough to bid 2♠ directly over 2♣. Given that, my partner's 3♠ bid on two small spades is truly strange. I had quite a different picture of his hand than what came down in the dummy. Something like AJx of spades, KQxxxx of diamonds, 3-1 in the other suits or maybe a rounded suit A would have been nice.

The only way I could have shown diamond support would have been to ignore my spade suit. The opps made the auction more difficult for me. But I just don't understand the 3♠ bid.

Perhaps my 2♠ bid was too aggressive. But it didn't have to result in anything as silly as the actual result.

-1700 is embarrassing.

EDIT: My partner is of the opinion that I should never have introduced the spade suit, and that I should have bid 3♦ over 2♥. He also thought that his 3♠ bid was competitive, not invitational. I leave these comments to stand on their own merit, whether you choose to agree or disagree with them.

a good discussion hand to have....do you show the spade suit or not and if so how?

I might just bid 2d over 2c but again a good discussion hand.

A question I would think about is playing NFB at unfav vul can we bid 2s here?

[Fluffy]

3♠ is competitive but its a poor bid IMO.

2♠ shows a 6 card suit or an excellent 5 card one, this means that bidding spades again was a bad idea, bad idea if you were in the pass out seat, being on the live seat with partner still to act was a suicide, and playing him for an automatic 4♠ bid, pehaps the round before was lazy.

[ArtK78]

 Fluffy, on 2013-August-01, 08:05, said:

3♠ is competitive but its a poor bid IMO.

2♠ shows a 6 card suit or an excellent 5 card one, this means that bidding spades again was a bad idea, bad idea if you were in the pass out seat, being on the live seat with partner still to act was a suicide, and playing him for an automatic 4♠ bid, pehaps the round before was lazy.

I don't quite get your point.

Which bids are you criticizing? 2♠, 3♠ or 4♠?