[phil_20686]

And the moral of the story: Don't play a multi. It would be a brave east to bid 5c after 2s x 4s at all red. I would not do it.

I would have bid on the first one, but it feels a bit uncomfortable.

I dont think pass is right on board two. I would actually ahve considered dble, which to me suggests you have decent values in a somewhat defensive hand, although it is not a true penalty double. Partner has a pull with this hand.

I would have doubled 5C on the last one too. You would be laughing if partner had worse spades and a more defensive hand. No reason he cannot have Kxxxxx spades and a red suit ace, in which case you are laughing on a Kd lead.

[phil_20686]

PS, on teh last one, even if you guessed to bid 5S, it looks like you ahve long hearts and the defense might guess for a lead of ace and another heart. If you posted it as a lead problem I am pretty sure more than a few posters would lead the heart ace imagining north to be (at least) 4-4 in the majors and south to be short in clubs. The ace of hearts has many ways to win. Its even easier if north bids 5S.

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on 2011-August-30, 09:46, said:

And the moral of the story: Don't play a multi. It would be a brave east to bid 5c after 2s x 4s at all red. I would not do it.

I'd bid 5♣ in that auction (with xxx x Kxx KJ1098x).

[JLOGIC]

With 3 small spades and 6 good clubs and a stiff would anyone really pass 2S X 4S ?

[JLOGIC]

phil_20686, on 2011-August-30, 09:46, said:

I would have doubled 5C on the last one too. You would be laughing if partner had worse spades and a more defensive hand. No reason he cannot have Kxxxxx spades and a red suit ace, in which case you are laughing on a Kd lead.

Some people have strange ideas about what a vulnerable preempt is. Partner had a good spade suit, and not much else, rather than king sixth and an ace...what a shocker

[rduran1216]

We should talk to our partner about the difference between a 2S bid and a 3S bid after 1D p 1S x ?

7 loser 12 count in jacks doesn't qualify as a jump. That is awful.

2 is very unlucky that 4S is a winning action IMO, even with partner's great shape, a different layout would fail miserably and be consistent with the auction.

[gszes]

I am commenting on third hand only because I think this situation is pretty clear.
The opps are two passed hands and their obvious intent is a sacrifice. IMO p pass
of 5c should be considered forcing since there was no reason for p to speculate
on game vs non bidding opps (if p had doubts an asking sequence would make much more
sense) P has the goods. When p passes 5c it shows an ability to go on but it depends
on your hand.

You are max for your weak 2 and have a singleton club what more could you
possibly want to advance to 5s??? Since you can freely cue bid 5d or 5h on
the way to 5s p will know you had no red cue bid and will be better placed
on what to do next if opps bid 6c.

[MrAce]

gszes, on 2011-August-30, 19:57, said:

I am commenting on third hand only because I think this situation is pretty clear.
The opps are two passed hands and their obvious intent is a sacrifice. IMO p pass
of 5c should be considered forcing since there was no reason for p to speculate
on game vs non bidding opps (if p had doubts an asking sequence would make much more
sense) P has the goods. When p passes 5c it shows an ability to go on but it depends
on your hand.

You are max for your weak 2 and have a singleton club what more could you
possibly want to advance to 5s??? Since you can freely cue bid 5d or 5h on
the way to 5s p will know you had no red cue bid and will be better placed
on what to do next if opps bid 6c.

No.
Where did u come up with both opponents are coming from pass ?
In fact none of the opponents are coming from pass. Coming from pass and passing over a multi is totally different things. But even if u disagree with this, East is definetely not coming from pass.

Here is the 3rd hand

---

[nige1]

Duh I would have got all of them wrong, too -- 4♠ .. I mean.. 5♠, Pass, and Double
(edited)

[aguahombre]

...

[rhm]

phil_20686, on 2011-August-30, 09:46, said:

And the moral of the story: Don't play a multi. It would be a brave east to bid 5c after 2s x 4s at all red. I would not do it.

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-30, 11:40, said:

With 3 small spades and 6 good clubs and a stiff would anyone really pass 2S X 4S ?

Maybe some would bid 5♣ anyway, but it requires a lot of courage to come in at the 5 level vulnerable and I would expect few to do this beyond the top level.
Even at the top level, there would be some, who would refrain. 5♣ could be expensive, if for example 4♠ is down. A double of 4♣, however, is almost risk free.

But contrary to Phil I think the stupid bid was 4♣.
I have become very careful of bidding 4♣ (transfer) and 4♦ (bid your major directly) over 2♦, when I have huge support for either major.
The disaster is entirely foreseeable. There was no need for a transfer here. Another case of convention overuse.
My normal response is 4♥, which I still play as pass or correct. There are other means to play in ♥ opposite a ♠ weak two opened as 2♦.

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

rduran1216, on 2011-August-30, 13:52, said:

We should talk to our partner about the difference between a 2S bid and a 3S bid after 1D p 1S x ?

7 loser 12 count in jacks doesn't qualify as a jump. That is awful.

You think 3S is awful, I think 2S would have been terrible.

[rduran1216]

han, on 2011-August-31, 06:43, said:

You think 3S is awful, I think 2S would have been terrible.

why does this hand qualify for a 3S call?

[FrancesHinden]

There's another thread talking about this auction, and the merits of playing 3S as (semi-)pre-emptive and 2NT as a strong raise.

[rduran1216]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-August-31, 12:56, said:

There's another thread talking about this auction, and the merits of playing 3S as (semi-)pre-emptive and 2NT as a strong raise.

Well that's far from standard treatment. Even over t/o double which in this case can be shapely and not a big hand, why wouldn't partner bid 2S with his 7 loser 12 count rather than jump with effectively 8/9 working points.

[han]

It's a good hand and if your loser count doesn't see that then maybe you should start thinking about that. Partner is 6-4 and 10 of his 12 points are in his suits, that's quite good! You suffer from the same disease that aquahombre had in another thread, going out of your way to emphasize the negative. When counting losers you already ignore your jacks (which is wrong) and then you mention "12-count in jacks". If you cannot see the difference between this hand and Qxxx KQ Qxxxxx K (another 12-count, 7-loser hand, but no jacks!) then something is seriously wrong.

[rhm]

han, on 2011-September-01, 05:34, said:

It's a good hand and if your loser count doesn't see that then maybe you should start thinking about that. Partner is 6-4 and 10 of his 12 points are in his suits, that's quite good! You suffer from the same disease that aquahombre had in another thread, going out of your way to emphasize the negative. When counting losers you already ignore your jacks (which is wrong) and then you mention "12-count in jacks". If you cannot see the difference between this hand and Qxxx KQ Qxxxxx K (another 12-count, 7-loser hand, but no jacks!) then something is seriously wrong.

I agree with that and the old fashioned (and wrong) way people count losers gives this evaluation method a bad image.
Also jacks supported by aces are good values.
Rduran1216 point that 3♠ should show more HCP is traditional and in my view tactical wrong.
If you hold a strong hand with ♠ and good defensive values, RDBL and raise ♠ thereafter, assuming you do not have conventional agreements like a 2NT power raise available.
Raising ♠ immediately should show predominantly distributional strength.

Rainer Herrmann

[rduran1216]

han, on 2011-September-01, 05:34, said:

It's a good hand and if your loser count doesn't see that then maybe you should start thinking about that. Partner is 6-4 and 10 of his 12 points are in his suits, that's quite good! You suffer from the same disease that aquahombre had in another thread, going out of your way to emphasize the negative. When counting losers you already ignore your jacks (which is wrong) and then you mention "12-count in jacks". If you cannot see the difference between this hand and Qxxx KQ Qxxxxx K (another 12-count, 7-loser hand, but no jacks!) then something is seriously wrong.

qx in the doubler's suit is not a good holding.

treating this hand as a 3S bid is jumping to a conclusion that diamonds are working and trumps are breaking.

What is the downside to bidding 2S, which assumedly shows 4 spades.

its not necessarily HCP, AJ9x xx AQJxxx x is fine for a 3S bid. If 2S isn't gonna have any meaning other than noise, I just dont see how thats useful or as I said should be assumed standard. But this is certainly a style thing. The hand you posted is even worse than this one, but IMO neither are a 3S bid.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2011-August-30, 05:01, said:

On the third one, maybe South should remove the double of 5♣? He knows he's opposite some heart length, so his hand looks very good for declaring.

Responder has implied a hand that wants to play in 4♥ opposite a vulnerable weak two in hearts, so "some heart length" is "probably at least two hearts" Why does that make ♥Qxx so good for declaring that you would even consider pulling partner's penalty double?

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-September-03, 16:36, said:

Responder has implied a hand that wants to play in 4♥ opposite a vulnerable weak two in hearts, so "some heart length" is "probably at least two hearts" Why does that make ♥Qxx so good for declaring that you would even consider pulling partner's penalty double?

Shouldn't there be better methods over the double of 4C? There are pass and redouble available. A simple system might be Pass = good hearts, Redouble = good spades; 4D = bad hearts; 4H = bad spades. So you should pull because you forgot the system on the last round!