[Walddk]

Scoring: IMP

---

You are South, non vulnerable against vulnerable. East opens a weak 2♥, and you decide (whether you like it or not) that 3♠ is the proper bid. LHO raises to 4♥, and that comes back to you.

Do you bid again?

Roland

[Mr. Dodgy]

reluctantly, yes

[mikeh]

3♠: I must have lost an Ace or two (or three) by the time the bid came back to me

My guess is that partner hesitated over 4♥ and now it is my turn. The problem for me is that I cannot put myself in the position of a 3♠ bidder: having made a bizarre bid, how can I say what is normal now?

Pass is a logical alternative: for all I know, the opps have missed slam due to my bid

[mr1303]

Presumably I bid 3S because I think I'm playing weak jump overcalls over weak 2s. This is a pretty good one, but it's nothing approaching a strong jump overcall, and an intermediate jump overcall has defence, which this doesn't.

In which case, no, I definitely don't bid again, at this or any vulnerability.

[joker_gib]

3♠ wow

Having made that bid, I will pass now and hope that opps have missed a slam.

Alain

[the hog]

3S? I would much rather pull out a Leaping Michaels 4C; I even prefer a unilateral 4S. Yes an overbid, but at least we will play in the correct suit. Having totally misbid previously. I pass now.

[helene_t]

Maybe 5♠ will be a good sacrifice. 4♠ makes little sense since partner will double 5♥ and I have no reason to believe it will go down. So if I don't pass I must be willing to bid 5♠ and maybe I might as well bid it right away.

If my 3♠ call was according to partnership agreement, I could try 4♠ now. But I suppose it wasn't.

[Blofeld]

"One view per hand."

Good maxim. I obviously took my view when I bid 3♠. I'm not quite sure what I was thinking when I did so, but I'd better pass now.

[Jurek S]

Yes, someone told m long ago to play the hand with 11 cards in 2 suits,
Bd 4♠

[Fluffy]

I have no clue, is 3♠ preemptive in my partnership? then I will pas to be consistent

[pclayton]

Roland - I hope youre not even remotely suggesting that 3♠ can be bid on this hand.......

I'd overcall 2♠ and throw it in against 4♥.

To bid 3♠ and then bid 4? Aye carumba!

[Walddk]

pclayton, on Oct 18 2005, 06:36 PM, said:

Roland - I hope youre not even remotely suggesting that 3♠ can be bid on this hand.......

I am not suggesting anything. This was what happened at the table. Here is the full deal (rotated for convenience):

Scoring: IMP

---

South opened 2♥, 3♠ by West and 4♥ from North. Now, as MikeH rightly spotted, an agreed hesitation by East before passing. West bid 4♠, doubled by North for 300.

The Tournament Director adjusted the score to 4♥+1 for NS, but the committee overruled, and back it was to 4♠X down 2. The committee:

1. Pass is not a logical alternative for West.
2. Bidding 4♠ is not demonstrably better after the hesitation, so it has not become more attractive for West to bid.

What do I think? Wrong decision by the committee.

Roland

[Blofeld]

Can you tell us what 3♠ showed under the partnership's agreements?

[Walddk]

Blofeld, on Oct 18 2005, 07:54 PM, said:

Can you tell us what 3♠ showed under the partnership's agreements?

West thought he was too weak to overcall 2♠ and 4♠, so he settled for the compromise. East said that he tried to figure out what 3♠ was, hence the hesitation.

I am not quite sure what to do with the West hand, by the way. 2♠, 3♠ and 4♠ are all strong to me. "You don't pre-empt over pre-empts". I don't think EW had a clear agreement about this.

Roland

[mycroft]

I believe Pass to be a logical alternative anywhere; I'm not sure, however, that bidding is demonstrably suggested over passing by the hesitation. It does depend on what 2S, 3S (if anything) and 4S initially would mean.

I know we aren't supposed to be looking at the hands, but apart from East's three Spades - and it's a flat hand, so we aren't getting any ruffs in the short hand - there's nothing that I would want to encourage sacrificing with. My only asset is pure for defence.

Okay, so East doesn't have his hesitation. What does the hesitation show - demonstrably? The AC said "bidding" - I assume over passing or doubling; ok, show me.

Michael.

[han]

I think that pass is a logical alternative to anybody who would consider bidding 3S. To get a better answer you would have to check his/her peers, so post this in the BI forum.

[Walddk]

Hannie, on Oct 18 2005, 09:46 PM, said:

I think that pass is a logical alternative to anybody who would consider bidding 3S. To get a better answer you would have to check his/her peers, so post this in the BI forum.

I find this somewhat insulting considering that the person who bid 3♠ is a junior international. He did not play with his regular partner at the time, and as I said, I don't think they had an agreement regarding jumps over a weak 2.

Anyway, it's beside the point. The point is: is he allowed to bid 4♠ next, so please answer that question instead.

Let me add that on the Danish web site, http://www.netbridge.dk, there is far from a unanimous decision among 38 replies. The tendency goes towards "no, you can't bid, and blame it on partner, because he had nothing to think about".

Finally, it could be nice to know how you define 2♠, 3♠ and 4♠ over a weak 2. Or do you also want me to raise that question in the BI forum?

Roland

[Al_U_Card]

Seems to me that the "bidders" are thinking a 4S sac on that 6-5 in the blacks no matter what so why not bid 4? The 3S bid is not my particular choice and while leaping michaels has potential, does it not tend to show a better hand re: hcp etc?

Since a lot can be said for 4S initially or eventually, how you got there (hesitations or not) was more or less irrelevent.