[jillybean]

IMP. 12-14nt

---

[WasWinM]

jillybean, on 2026-September-14, 17:50, said:

IMP. 12-14nt

---

I would bid 3H. Partner should be 1336 or maybe a strong 1435. Either way I want to compete yet not mislead partner as to strength.

[mw64ahw]

If West is doubling 2♠ after East's Pass I would expect some values so 4♥ works for me. Alternatively 3♠ provides a choice of the red suits here. I'd play 3♦ (can we have an explanation) as a splinter, but if not just bid 4♥

[akwoo]

First, I would've doubled 1S. I wouldn't have if we were playing strong NT, but we're playing weak NT. The average strength for the 1♣ bid is higher, so you can bid a little lighter.

Second, I suppose I have to bid 4H now.

[apollo1201]

Does the X show a strong NT type or does it show a suitable distribution and strength?

In the 1st case, it is not so obvious to bid anything and anyway thy will bid 3S next.

In the 2nd case, the 5th H is a strong thing but the sg C is an uncertain value. And the 5 small D lead me to think partner s D value are not well positioned (what is 3D btw? some semi natural 6133 or 5143 hand?). My relative S shortage is also

4H will start by sg D lead finessing dummy s K, Q, A, ruff and another trick coming (SA most likely). While in S it could be C, C ruff, HK, C ruff and sth else scoring a trick, on a good day (and 4 tricks anyway on a bad one).

So maybe 3H is enough so that partner will bid the 4th one and they will outbid us and go down?


Or is it just too pessimistic, there are 19 total tricks and they will eventually go down in 4S while we were making 4H, the save in 5H being too risky and expensive.

[jillybean]

3♦is natural, a suit

[mikeh]

I think 4H is too much of a stretch. 3H should get the job done if we belong in game. Meanwhile opposite a typical hand such as xx KQxx Axx AKJx we have 4 unavoidable losers even when hearts are breaking.

The main worry for me is that I fully expect the opps to bid 3S. LHO rates to hold 4 spades and short diamonds and will bid 3S with virtually all hands consistent with (my view of) the bidding. While I’d expect 3S to go down more often than it makes, it wouldn’t surprise me to see it make…give partner xx KQxx KQx AKJx and we rate to score 2 clubs and a heart.

But that’s not (yet) my problem. I’ll describe my hand and let partner decide. I will however, double 4S if they get there

[WasWinM]

akwoo, on 2026-September-15, 00:00, said:

First, I would've doubled 1S. I wouldn't have if we were playing strong NT, but we're playing weak NT. The average strength for the 1♣ bid is higher, so you can bid a little lighter.

Second, I suppose I have to bid 4H now.

I had the same urge but resisted as I believe my job is to describe my hand not to bid partner's hand for him. I, and usually, standardly as far as I know, a negative double that causes a 2-level bid takes more hand than one at that can be responded to at the one level. I generally think it's the 8-10-ish range. This hand falls short. I it held Q109xx of diamonds or Kxxxx, I would agree the negative double is right.
I just think a negative double here can fool partner into jumping to a hopeless game.
But, as the game has moved towards more and more weakish bidding, and I am a dinosaur, I concede my views could be out of date.

[jillybean]

---

[mw64ahw]

a) The 3♦ game try looks ill-conceived, especially given South's lack of cue-bid
b) East needs to stop counting points and understand playing strength
c) As West I'd consider a penalty X rather than 4♣
d) After 4♣ East needs to switch to ♥ to up their trick taking ability.

[WasWinM]

jillybean, on 2026-September-16, 05:51, said:

---

An initial 3H bid would have solved this problem, but now it is ludicrous not to bid 4H over 4C.

[mikeh]

WasWinM, on 2026-September-16, 12:23, said:

An initial 3H bid would have solved this problem, but now it is ludicrous not to bid 4H over 4C.

I disagree. I think that west could quite easily bid 4H if east bid 3H. After all, the 3D bid took east off f the hook…he wasn’t under pressure. The double of 2S is utterly bizarre, but when followed by the equally bizarre 4C bid was presumably based on a very good hand with very good clubs, maybe something like 1=3=3=6. Of course the bidding tends to suggest that west can’t have that hand!

Imo, when a player does something utterly weird…all the more so when that player does two utterly weird things…his partner gets no blame for not guessing which mistake or mistakes partner made. You double 2S as west then voluntarily bid 4C? Wtf is east supposed to do? If west has 4 hearts, he’s made a bad bid…with 4=6 and a huge hand, double 3S.

Now, east did make his own weird call…passing 3D. So east isn’t entirely free of blame but wests actions are so egregious that e or she wears most of the blame.

[DavidKok]

I am slightly more sympathetic towards the double of 2♠. Personally I would consider it a mistake, rather than 'utterly bizarre'.

However, I strongly dislike the 4♣ bid, and would rate it worse than 'equally bizarre'. We've already told partner about our hand with hearts, short spades (oops) and primary clubs. If it was right to do more partner would have acted (oops again).

As a little bonus, North's 3♦ is lousy.

I think several players failed to judge their hand in context. The result is guessing. It will happen again, don't dwell on it too much.

[jillybean]

I'm East, I don't have full trust in the partnership, and when in doubt, I default to pass.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2026-September-16, 16:07, said:

I'm East, I don't have full trust in the partnership, and when in doubt, I default to pass.

Tyat is the best way to ensure that partner learns not to trust you. Make the ‘correct’ call and, if you crash and burn because partner screwed up…then you have a teaching moment. But when you also screw up, why would any partner listen to you?

Doubling 1S would have been aggressive but not irrational. Were I 1=5=5=2 I might have doubled, since I can handle partner having just long clubs and I’m pretty sure that LHO will bid. But passing over 3D, when you know beyond any reasonable doubt that LHO is bidding spades rather than passing is very poor.

[jillybean]

yes, hence the post

[akwoo]

WasWinM, on 2026-September-15, 16:45, said:

I had the same urge but resisted as I believe my job is to describe my hand not to bid partner's hand for him. I, and usually, standardly as far as I know, a negative double that causes a 2-level bid takes more hand than one at that can be responded to at the one level. I generally think it's the 8-10-ish range. This hand falls short. I it held Q109xx of diamonds or Kxxxx, I would agree the negative double is right.

I tell everyone I like weak NT, but I won't play it with someone who hasn't played it a fair amount before unless they're committed to learning it.

Bidding agreements, especially in competition, change when you play weak NT. When opener opens 1m, there are many sequences where responder needs less to act and opener correspondingly needs more. This is one of them.