[helene_t]

IMPs, w/w, we play 5cM, 15-17, usually open 1♦ with 44m:

♠986
♥QJ72
♦T643
♣K7

1♣-(pass)-1♥*-(3♠)
dbl-(pass)-?

*Walsh

[Winstonm]

Hopefully partner is 1345 or 1444 and not 2335 because I'm bailing out to 4D as I don't want to defend their 9-card fit at the 3 level.

[gszes]

helene_t, on 2013-May-08, 06:12, said:

IMPs, w/w, we play 5cM, 15-17, usually open 1♦ with 44m:

♠986
♥QJ72
♦T643
♣K7

1♣-(pass)-1♥*-(3♠)
dbl-(pass)-?

*Walsh

I would take a chance at MP and pass (its only 1 board) but the risk vs reward is so badly
skewed at IMPS I have to run. I agree with Winstonm

4d

seems like the best overall bet from a seriously flawed set of choices. P should not be using
x with 1444. There is this nagging feeling that 4c will be right more often than 4d (surely Kx is
just as good as xxx). If someone x 4c then smart money would be to run to 4d so a 4c bid has
one extra way to be a winner than an outright 4d bid. Overall I think of 4c as the pessimists bid
assuming the worst of everything. The downside of 4c is we might all too easily miss 5d that
way. The real problem with this hand comes if p bids 4h over our minor suit bid. While the
hand looks like it might play well in 4h we can easily envision having troubles pulling trumps
with our lack of entries even if we do get to ruff spade losers. If p proceeds to 4h over a 4c/d
bid it is probably best to bid 5c and let p decide which suit is best. This sequence is the main
reason 4d is better than 4c.

[rmnka447]

4 ♦ -- not much choice.

If opener had a 4+ card ♥ fit and a big hand, then pard could have bid 4 ♥.

Likewise, with a big hand and a long ♣ suit, pard could bid 4 ♣.

With ♠s well stopped and a big hand, 3 NT may be an option.

For me, Double in this auction can't be for penalties. Your 1 ♥ response can be made on even weaker values than you actually hold.

You have only 4 ♥s and pard has denied 4 ♥s, so a ♥ rebid is out.

So essentially by default, 4 ♦.

.

[helene_t]

interesting, I thought that 4♣ was better than 4♦, in clubs we have at least a 5-2 fit. but the concensus appears to be 4♦. Is it mainly because declarer's long clubs will be tapped when opps keep playing spades? Do you think a 4-3 fit in diamonds is likely to play better, or at least as well as, a 5-2 clubs fit?

[gnasher]

helene_t, on 2013-May-09, 02:02, said:

interesting, I thought that 4♣ was better than 4♦, in clubs we have at least a 5-2 fit. but the concensus appears to be 4♦. Is it mainly because declarer's long clubs will be tapped when opps keep playing spades? Do you think a 4-3 fit in diamonds is likely to play better, or at least as well as, a 5-2 clubs fit?

I chose 4♦ because I'm hoping partner has four diamonds. His typical, and most likely, shape is 1345. It would be a shame to make him struggle in 4♣ with something like x Kxx AKxx AQxxx.

If he's 1336 he may convert 4♦ to 5♣ anyway, or he might not have doubled in the first place. If he's 2335 4♦ may be horrible, but 4♣ might not be good either.

[Fluffy]

with all this minor trouble I am starting to think 4♥ might be the least of evils , if I just though it stood a chance to make, I might try it.

[rhm]

Assume opener has 4 cards in diamonds.
The trouble with 4♦ is, that if 4♦ has a chance you will not play there.
No matter what you can make for your side, partner is unlikely to stop in time and you may well get doubled.
Total trumps looks like 17. If 3♠ is making your side is booked for just 8 tricks.
The law could be wrong or partner might have doubled with a void in spades, but the odds for bidding on look wrong to me.
I try my chances on defense. After all partner should not have a minimum opening.

Rainer Herrmann

[Hanoi5]

If I were to lead I'd pass but there's no way partner will lead a small club. 4!d for me.

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2013-May-09, 03:25, said:

Assume opener has 4 cards in diamonds.
The trouble with 4♦ is, that if 4♦ has a chance you will not play there.
No matter what you can make for your side, partner is unlikely to stop in time and you may well get doubled.

If my partner raised 4♦ to 5♦ I'd be quite optimistic, with all of my high cards working. What sort of hand do you think partner needs for a raise to game?

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2013-May-09, 04:32, said:

If my partner raised 4♦ to 5♦ I'd be quite optimistic, with all of my high cards working. What sort of hand do you think partner needs for a raise to game?

That all our points are working is no surprise. Otherwise Pass (or 3NT) would often be a stand out and you would not bid 4♦ in the first place.
Of course opener will have 4 cards for a raise.
Take your own example, which is certainly a good fitting one, x Kxx AKxx AQxxx.
I doubt that opener would pass just because you might be minimum. I at least deem it a sound strategy not to stop one below game when partners assets are unclear in a competitive situation.
Would you bid differently if your hand were

♠986
♥QJ72
♦QJT6
♣K7

Bidding 4♦ with Txxx scares me.
If opener bids 5♦ and next hand doubles with ♦QJxx good night. In 3♠ declarer has still only 8 tricks on a trump lead and he could have only six spades at this vulnerability.

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

As a general rule, I tend to pass when partner makes a non-forcing bid, we have found a fit, and I am minimum for my previous bidding.

I also wouldn't make a non-forcing bid when I have 9 working hcp in partner's suit, and partner forced to the 4-level opposite a one-level response.

[rhm]

cherdano, on 2013-May-09, 05:36, said:

I also wouldn't make a non-forcing bid when I have 9 working hcp in partner's suit, and partner forced to the 4-level opposite a one-level response.

♠986
♥QJ72
♦QJT6
♣K7

Calling that "9 working HCP" for a high level suit contracts, whose strain we have not found yet, is not my cup of tea.
But I understand that even good players often never progress beyond Milton work count, which was originally designed for notrump hands.
Anyway we have a very concrete situation.

gnasher, on 2013-May-09, 02:35, said:

If he's 1336 he may convert 4♦ to 5♣ anyway, or he might not have doubled in the first place. If he's 2335 4♦ may be horrible, but 4♣ might not be good either.

Tell us the "forcing bid" you would make (4NT???), on which opener will stop below slam when game just makes.
Please remember that you are essentially unlimited. Of course you could get very lucky, but I doubt it. It may work well if your partner is a very conservative bidder.

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

QJ in a suit where partner has implied 3+ cards is worth a trick, and sometimes 1.5 tricks. That's 3 well working hcp no matter which level a suit contract you are playing it. Same for Kx in partner's main suit.

And yes, of course I would bid 4N for the minors with that hand.

Anyway, you should just say that you need less than the rest of us to double 3♠ to make your point - no need to add any insults.

[PhilKing]

A good (standard) agreement when pulling the double is to play 4♠ as slammish (over which partner can retry with 4NT, so 4♠ needn't promise the earth) and a direct 4NT as just asking partner to pick a minor with no slam interest.

Obviously we would drive game with nine Quilton's, but only after having noticed that they are likely to be working - it won't always be cold, but it can't be far off. And now partner should never bury us over either 4♦ or 4NT.

[rhm]

cherdano, on 2013-May-09, 06:00, said:

QJ in a suit where partner has implied 3+ cards is worth a trick, and sometimes 1.5 tricks. That's 3 well working hcp no matter which level a suit contract you are playing it. Same for Kx in partner's main suit.

And yes, of course I would bid 4N for the minors with that hand.

Anyway, you should just say that you need less than the rest of us to double 3♠ to make your point - no need to add any insults.

No I need not less, I just weigh the likely outcomes differently.
Sometimes one simply has to clench one's teeth and defend.
Always bidding on is not the solution.
Of course I would prefer to defend 3♠ undoubled. But this is not an option.

Rainer Herrmann

[Winstonm]

rhm, on 2013-May-09, 06:22, said:

No I need not less, I just weigh the likely outcomes differently.
Sometimes one simply has to clench one's teeth and defend.
Always bidding on is not the solution.
Of course I would prefer to defend 3♠ undoubled. But this is not an option.

Rainer Herrmann

I would think that if given the choice 100% of us would chose to defend 3S undoubled.