[Echognome]

♠Tx
♥AK9x
♦AQT87
♣9x

Uncontested auction. You are dealer, love all at MP.

1♦ - 1♠
1NT - 2♦ (ART GF)
2♥ - 2♠
3♦ - 3NT
?

1) Do you pass now?

2) If you are a passer, would you change your call with Qx or Kx in spades? (and say no ♥K)

[Apollo81]

1. Yes, I think we have told our story.

2. No, I think partner is showing a club stopper and would have bid 3M if he was interested in our black suit holdings.

[han]

Seems like an easy pass.

[whereagles]

yup pass

[inquiry]

2♦ was only game force. You have said your peace. Pass seems clear to me. Partner could have bid 4NT as quantitative if he had grander visions.

[Echognome]

Maybe I'm thinking differently here. The issue is not trying for slam. It's whether we think we are in the right strain. Doesn't this sound like a hand where the 5-2 spade fit might play better?

[rogerclee]

4♠ is too creative for me. With Hx in spades, I would consider it much, much more seriously, but I would still pass.

[cherdano]

Echognome, on Feb 12 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Maybe I'm thinking differently here. The issue is not trying for slam. It's whether we think we are in the right strain. Doesn't this sound like a hand where the 5-2 spade fit might play better?

Of course this is about choice of games, but we have described our hand very well and partner made a decision. The only clue about partner's hand that we have is that he was still interested in playing a 5-3 fit over 2♥. I don't see any reason to overrule partner when he bid 3N rather than stalling with 3♥. He could see himself that we have two spades (no 3♣ bid) and probably no club stopper (no 2N bid).

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Feb 12 2008, 12:42 PM, said:

Of course this is about choice of games, but we have described our hand very well and partner made a decision. The only clue about partner's hand that we have is that he was still interested in playing a 5-3 fit over 2♥. I don't see any reason to overrule partner when he bid 3N rather than stalling with 3♥. He could see himself that we have two spades (no 3♣ bid) and probably no club stopper (no 2N bid).

Those are some good points. Thx. I was just trying to think of hands for partner to hold. Would he bid this way with:

AQJxx xxx xx AQx?

If so, might the club lead through us at trick 1 give us some trouble in 3N, whereas 4♠ stands better chances?

I don't know. I was just trying to think what hands are likely based on the bidding.

[bid_em_up]

Echognome, on Feb 12 2008, 03:28 PM, said:

Maybe I'm thinking differently here. The issue is not trying for slam. It's whether we think we are in the right strain. Doesn't this sound like a hand where the 5-2 spade fit might play better?

Shouldn't it be a 6-2 fit? Otherwise, what was the purpose of 2S? Partner could have bid 2N with only 5 spades and a club stop (instead of 2S).

Mark me down for 4S.

[mikeh]

For me, I would have shown the 2=4=5=2 shape with this sequence, and can rest comfortably in the knowledge that partner would usually be able to have chosen 4♠ if that were best (I would not have patterned out with 2=4=5=2 and a club stop... I would have bid 2N).

If you are amongst those who rebid 1N on 1=4=5=3 hands, then maybe you have a problem, since now you have an 'extra' spade and an undisclosed ruffing value, but I think pass is still correct.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Feb 12 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

If you are amongst those who rebid 1N on 1=4=5=3 hands, then maybe you have a problem, since now you have an 'extra' spade and an undisclosed ruffing value, but I think pass is still correct.

Those who rebid 1N with 1=4=5=3 might well rebid 3♣ over 2♠ with that shape.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on Feb 12 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 12 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

If you are amongst those who rebid 1N on 1=4=5=3 hands, then maybe you have a problem, since now you have an 'extra' spade and an undisclosed ruffing value, but I think pass is still correct.

Those who rebid 1N with 1=4=5=3 might well rebid 3♣ over 2♠ with that shape.

on x AKxx AQxxx xxx? I am not saying you are wrong, because I don't play the style: my 1N rebids come with 2+ support assured

But I would have thought that some of the 'rebid 1N with a stiff' school might do it with some 1=4=4=4 hands, and now surely 3♣ would be the rebid here?

As I say, I don't play this approach, nor do any local experts where I live so I am willing to learn... but I sure don't, at first blush, like the idea of 3♣ showing xxx.

In fact, I think that for me the sequence of 1♦, then 1N then 2♥ then 3♣ would be a 3=4=4=2 hand with the club Ace and full values, co-operating with partner (Assuming that one shows the 4 card heart suit over 2♦ with 3=4 majors, as I do in my partnerships).

[gnasher]

Assuming that this is part of two-way checkback, you have three ways to show five spades and game values. I think you should use them like this:
2C then 3NT = five spades, notrump oriented - opener can pass with three spades
2D then 3NT = five spades, to play any 5-3 fit. Opener must bid 4S with three.
2D then 2S = five spades, suit oriented. Raises the possibility of a 5-2 fit.
2D then 2NT = a slam try without five spades.

With this agreement, I'd bid 4S.

Without any agreement about the different routes to 3NT, you have to guess what he's trying to show. That's a consequence of not having detailed agreements.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Feb 13 2008, 04:10 AM, said:

Don't agree with 2D then 3N, I think that you are just bidding 3N with the new knowledge that partner has 4 hearts. You may have just been worried about hearts.

So responder has only four spades, short hearts and fewer than five clubs (because he didn't respond 2C to 1D); after a 2S or 2NT reply he would have investigated the possibility of five of a minor, but is now happy to play 3NT without further investigation, having drawn attention to his heart weakness. Something like a 4=1=5=3 with a stiff honour, or maybe a 4=2=4=3?

That's quite a specific hand, though having three ways to show five spades on the way to game is also quite specific.