[sathyab]

Frequently the choices at MP, you're dealt,

Scoring: MP

---

The bidding goes:

(p) 1♦ (p) p
(1♥) 1♠ (2♦) p
(2♥) ?

With so much playing strength, it feels wrong to sell out to 2♥. So, say you double, looking for a spade contract first before being forced to the three-level. Partner bids 3♣, which you correct to 3♦ which gets doubled.

Would you sell out sell out to 2♥, given LHO's cue-bid and the vulnerability ?
Can you get to 3♦ with a different bidding sequence that makes it harder for opponents to double ? If for instance you had bid 2♦ over 1♥ instead of 1♠, planning to bid 2♠ later if possible, LHO doesn't have a cue-bid available now.

[kenrexford]

When I bid 1♠ opposite a passed-hand partner, I said I had a hand that did not want to sell out to 2♥. If I pass, and partner agrees, partner can bid. If he disagrees with my thought, and passes also, he's probably right.

[JLOL]

kenrexford, on Apr 8 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

When I bid 1♠ opposite a passed-hand partner, I said I had a hand that did not want to sell out to 2♥. If I pass, and partner agrees, partner can bid. If he disagrees with my thought, and passes also, he's probably right.

wow nice post ken!

[MFA]

I would try 3♦ on my own, although risky of course. I don't see why 1♠ should promise so much. Opposite xxx, xx, xx, xxxxxx we have a reasonable chance in practice in 3♦.

[MarkDean]

I pass and am not close to bidding.

Given my auction so far, my hand is quite defensive: A,AK, plus Kxx of their suit and a void. It seems rather likely that partner is sitting on a boatload of clubs other there - I certainly would have expected him to bid 2♠ with basically any hand with 4+ spades last round.

[whereagles]

I bid and I'm not close to passing.

Pard's expected hand is something like 3235 or thereabouts. Maybe he was going to bid 3♦ anyway, but he doesn't know I have 6 of those.

[oldman5757]

I don't see much point in the X. If P had 4 ♠, he'd have raised. So, for me, it's 3♦ or pass, and I wouldn't like it, but I'd bid 3♦. On a good day we can make it, or maybe they won't X (I know they did), and we'll only go -100. Of course, we may be -200 even without the X. Really close.

[sathyab]

oldman5757, on Apr 9 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

I don't see much point in the X.  If P had 4 ♠, he'd have raised.  So, for me, it's 3♦ or pass, and I wouldn't like it, but I'd bid 3♦.  On a good day we can make it, or maybe they won't X (I know they did), and we'll only go -100.  Of course, we may be -200 even without the X.  Really close. 

I agree, most likely partner doesn't have four spades or he'd have bid 2♠ before. At the table I thought I ought to try to get to a seven-card spade fit if there was one, before bidding 3♦. If he has a 3=2=2=6 pattern, he might bid 2♠. 2♠ probably won't play well, but it may be harder to double hopefully. The goal of the experiment was to see if we can avoid defending 2♥ somehow without being offered game bonus in a pointed suit contract

[Stephen Tu]

Don't know if it makes a difference to anyone but the hand posted was dealer not 2nd position. So RHO's upper limit is effectively slightly higher.

-----
LHO

(who, after the 1S bid, was going to take a crack at anything above 2H, knowing it would give the game bonus some portion of the time)

[jdonn]

If you fear getting doubled this much, perhaps you should not be bidding at all. Prayer is not a good matchpoint strategy.

I don't see what's wrong with defending 2♥. I try not to save my opponents from every 6-0 fit when I've already described my hand pretty well.

[sathyab]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

If you fear getting doubled this much, perhaps you should not be bidding at all. Prayer is not a good matchpoint strategy.

I don't see what's wrong with defending 2♥. I try not to save my opponents from every 6-0 fit when I've already described my hand pretty well.

LOL

[jdonn]

Well I thought I was being constructive, even posting according to your preferences. But if you want to act like children I can play that way too.

sathyab, on Apr 8 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

Can you get to 3♦ with a different bidding sequence that makes it harder for opponents to double ?

LOL

sathyab, on Apr 9 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

At the table I thought I ought to try to get to a seven-card spade fit if there was one, before bidding 3♦.

LOL

Quote

2♠ probably won't play well, but it may be harder to double hopefully.

LOL

(If you must know I misread the auction and missed the 2♦ bid. But having seen it gave me a lot of good LOL material to dig through anyway, so even better!)

[the hog]

I would definitely pass 2H. Pd has heard me bid 2 suits, a good hand and still passed. I think Ken summed it up well.

[neilkaz]

I think there's just a bit too much danger of ending up -200 to bid here at MP with this vulnerability.