[mtvesuvius]

All Vul. at IMPs you hold:

AJx
T9
AKxxxxx
A

LHO ruins yours plan by opening 1♥, and RHO bids 2♥. What's your new plan?

[hanp]

I prefer to play similar defense hear as over a weak 2 bid: leaping Michaels and 3H shows a long suit and asks for a stopper. So 3H it is.

[rogerclee]

I don't play Han's methods, so I would start with a double.

[hanp]

You play 3H is Michaels? I wonder what is "standard' now.

[Echognome]

I also play that 3♥ is Michael's (as I would if a weak 2♥ was opened on my right), so I will start with double as well. I won't be disappointed if partner jumps to 4♠.

[helene_t]

Agree with Han.

[jdonn]

hanp, on May 11 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

You play 3H is Michaels? I wonder what is "standard' now.

I think it would be suicide to make the cuebid here or over a weak 2 bid undiscussed. I have no idea what is standard. I generally play michaels there. I would double on this hand.

[cherdanno]

I would double, the hand doesn't look very much like NT to me.

[whereagles]

I think I would bid 2♦ + balance over 2♥ with 4♦.

[hanp]

cherdanno, on May 11 2009, 07:38 PM, said:

I would double, the hand doesn't look very much like NT to me.

I didn't say the hand looks like NT. Anyway, I will pull a slow 3NT bid.

[the hog]

3D for me. We are vul, so this shows a good hand. Pd does not have 5 reasonable S - no S overcall.

[Codo]

Ron has stopped to be a junior at last.

I agree with him and thought 3 ♦ was obvious.

3 ♥ would include running diamonds, the queen more.

[rogerclee]

The_Hog, on May 11 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

3D for me. We are vul, so this shows a good hand. Pd does not have 5 reasonable S - no S overcall.

Presumably Axx xx AQxxxx Ax is also a good hand?

[neilkaz]

The_Hog, on May 11 2009, 11:08 PM, said:

3D for me. We are vul, so this shows a good hand. Pd does not have 5 reasonable S - no S overcall.

We agree.

[skjaeran]

Double for me. But just a tad heavy for 3♦.

[hanp]

Are people seriously bidding 3D or is that a joke?

[bid_em_up]

hanp, on May 11 2009, 10:53 PM, said:

cherdanno, on May 11 2009, 07:38 PM, said:

I would double, the hand doesn't look very much like NT to me.

I didn't say the hand looks like NT. Anyway, I will pull a slow 3NT bid.

Was this also a joke?

What happened to not taking actions based on partners "hesitations" when pass is a logical alternative?

(I think I would bid a heavy 3D also, fwiw, but wouldn't disagree with X or 3H asking for stop either).

[jdonn]

Yeah han, don't you know that is a very unethical thing to do?

[mikeh]

hanp, on May 12 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

Are people seriously bidding 3D or is that a joke?

I don't consider 3♦ to be a joke.... it is not my choice... I double... but it is not a silly call, since the odds are very much against our having any game here... assume we have no heart stopper and we have 2 quick heart losers: to make game now we must have zero losers elsewhere. I would expect that to be so less than 20% of the time, and that doubling and then bidding won't often help find out which ones they are: Give partner KQx xxx xx xxxxx or xxx xxx xx KQxxx, and how can we tell? As one simple (simplistic?) example.

As for an argument that doubling finds spades, I suspect it does only if we have a secret decoder ring so that we can tell when partner holds 5 of them... I assume that we intend to bid diamonds over 2♠ by partner? If not, good luck with a moysian and no control of the hand.... if so, good luck finding the 5-3 spade fit on most hands!

[hanp]

jdonn, on May 13 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

Yeah han, don't you know that is a very unethical thing to do?

Been hanging out with your friends Josh.