[jocdelevat]

[FONT=Courier]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  Pass  3♣    ?

Hi all

I pass after 3c. should have bid?
Partner reopen with 3s now what you bid?

[kenrexford]

Pass the first time. Most of the time when we should be in the auction, partner will be short in clubs and will, because of that shortness, balance. When he does not balance, we probably do not belong in the auction. If it passes out, and we could have made something, even game, we will pay off for that but win back a lot more when we are not jumping in for a heavy set when they double us.

3NT the second time. This may well go set, but then again LHO might not even be able to lead a club, and what else is there to do?

[PedroG]

Hi,

I read recently a article by Mike Lawrance, refering to the rule of 7, in that we should expect partner to have 7 pts when overcalling (t/o dbl included) a preempt.

Would like to ear the advance player of the forum regarding this rule of 7.

TY
Pedro

[hrothgar]

This one is rough:

I think that the initial pass is clear.

To some extent, you're next bid depends on the partnership agreements regarding a second seat vulnerable 2♠ / 3♠ opening. Partner's couldn't find a bid originally, but now he balanced with 3♠? We can be pretty sure that he has short Spades, but what else does he have and why didn't he double?

Normally, I'd recommend a 4♠ bid. Here, I have some worry that the Spade raise might cause us to miss a good 4♥ contract. (Partner could have a 6=4=3=0 or some such)

3N might be more flexible bid and it allows partner to pattern out ...

[Codo]

hrothgar, on Sep 17 2007, 11:04 PM, said:

Partner's couldn't find a bid originally, but now he is balanced with 3♠? We can be pretty sure that he has short Spades,

maybe this is not what you really meant to say, Else I would be quite surprised.

[hrothgar]

Codo, on Sep 17 2007, 05:15 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Sep 17 2007, 11:04 PM, said:

Partner's couldn't find a bid originally, but now he is balanced with 3♠?  We can be pretty sure that he has short Spades,

maybe this is not what you really meant to say, Else I would be quite surprised.

corrected

[han]

The raise to 4S must be a joke, what kind of passed hand do you expect?

I'd bid 3NT but I do not have high hopes. Maybe 3NT will cut down our losses.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

pass, due to a lack of alternatives.

After 3S from partner I pass, what
else?

3 NT is ok, but Pass has a better
chance that we will play the contract
without getting Xed.
But maybe this is only wishful thinking.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

jocdelevat, on Sep 17 2007, 08:12 AM, said:

Partner reopen with 3s now what you bid?

Four hearts.

You only think I'm kidding.

It's a Ken Rexford bid, as I like to think of it, though I'm sure he'd disavow it...

A 3♠ bid, vulnerable, in the pass out seat, should have at least 6 spades. But partner didn't open 2 spades. As my partners tend to be somewhat...aggressive about opening 2♠ second seat, there are two possibilities for why partner would pass a 6 card spades suit:

1. He has poor honors in the suit. But then, would he really bid it at the 3 level? I wouldn't.

2. He has 6 spades and 4 hearts, since we wouldn't open a weak 2 with 4 cards in the other major.

So...I bid 4 hearts.

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Sep 17 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

jocdelevat, on Sep 17 2007, 08:12 AM, said:

Partner reopen with 3s now what you bid?

Four hearts.

You only think I'm kidding.

It's a Ken Rexford bid, as I like to think of it, though I'm sure he'd disavow it...

A 3♠ bid, vulnerable, in the pass out seat, should have at least 6 spades. But partner didn't open 2 spades. As my partners tend to be somewhat...aggressive about opening 2♠ second seat, there are two possibilities for why partner would pass a 6 card spades suit:

1. He has poor honors in the suit. But then, would he really bid it at the 3 level? I wouldn't.

2. He has 6 spades and 4 hearts, since we wouldn't open a weak 2 with 4 cards in the other major.

So...I bid 4 hearts.

Actually, I like the thinking.

[skjaeran]

kenrexford, on Sep 17 2007, 05:52 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 17 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

jocdelevat, on Sep 17 2007, 08:12 AM, said:

Partner reopen with 3s now what you bid?

Four hearts.

You only think I'm kidding.

It's a Ken Rexford bid, as I like to think of it, though I'm sure he'd disavow it...

A 3♠ bid, vulnerable, in the pass out seat, should have at least 6 spades. But partner didn't open 2 spades. As my partners tend to be somewhat...aggressive about opening 2♠ second seat, there are two possibilities for why partner would pass a 6 card spades suit:

1. He has poor honors in the suit. But then, would he really bid it at the 3 level? I wouldn't.

2. He has 6 spades and 4 hearts, since we wouldn't open a weak 2 with 4 cards in the other major.

So...I bid 4 hearts.

Actually, I like the thinking.

Me too, I vote for 4♥.

[cherdano]

You can only bid 4♥ if you know your partner very well. Some partners pass a 6-card spade in second seat because their hand looks too defensive. AQxxxx QJ Qxx xx.

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Sep 18 2007, 09:21 AM, said:

You can only bid 4♥ if you know your partner very well. Some partners pass a 6-card spade in second seat because their hand looks too defensive. AQxxxx QJ Qxx xx.

Or because the suit isn't good enough and the outside defense is too good:

T9xxxxx, xx, AKQx, x

[mikeh]

How can anyone bid 4♥?????

If partner is 6-4 in the majors, with enough to bid at the 3 level, even allowing for bidding your values for you, he would either have opened a weak two (unless he is old-fashioned enough to think that one cannot weak 2 in a major with a side 4 card major) or he has strong hearts (I wouldn't open 2♠ with Qxxxxx KQJx xx x for example). If he has the latter hand, he should double, not bid 3♠. He can always correct 3♦ to 3♠, and it would be a rare hand on which you'd ever bid 4♦.

So I think he has a weak 2 that sucks on suit quality, not because he has a side 4 card major.

If he has a 2-suiter, it is spades and diamonds... heck, if I knew that he had an unspecified 2-suiter, I'd rather bid 5♦ than 4♥

As it is, I'm not jumping out of this particular frying pan into the fire of a 4-level contract, nor am I bidding 3N.

Just where the heck do the 3N bidders think their 9 tricks are coming from? And remember that the 3♣ bid was in third seat, where he could well have entries.

I pass and expect to go -100.

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on Sep 18 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

Or because the suit isn't good enough and the outside defense is too good:

T9xxxxx, xx, AKQx, x

You'd bid 3♠ with that? Vulnerable?

How about you, MikeH? Balance in with 3♠ on that hand?

cherdano, on Sep 18 2007, 09:21 AM, said:

You can only bid 4♥ if you know your partner very well. Some partners pass a 6-card spade in second seat because their hand looks too defensive. AQxxxx QJ Qxx xx.

Yes, well, my partners tend to think AQxxxx xx xxx xx is good enough, and adding a few quacks won't slow them down.

But yes, this is just because I know how my partners like to bid. Since we specifically allow 5-5 in a major & a minor for a weak 2, I'm not worried about that hand.

[han]

jtfanclub, on Sep 18 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 18 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

Or because the suit isn't good enough and the outside defense is too good:

T9xxxxx, xx, AKQx, x

You'd bid 3♠ with that? Vulnerable?

How about you, MikeH? Balance in with 3♠ on that hand?

You didn't ask me but I think that is a clear balance with 3♠.

Having thought about the problem some more I now agree with pass.

[pclayton]

jtfanclub, on Sep 18 2007, 10:56 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 18 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

Or because the suit isn't good enough and the outside defense is too good:

T9xxxxx, xx, AKQx, x

You'd bid 3♠ with that? Vulnerable?

How about you, MikeH? Balance in with 3♠ on that hand?

cherdano, on Sep 18 2007, 09:21 AM, said:

You can only bid 4♥ if you know your partner very well. Some partners pass a 6-card spade in second seat because their hand looks too defensive. AQxxxx QJ Qxx xx.

Yes, well, my partners tend to think AQxxxx xx xxx xx is good enough, and adding a few quacks won't slow them down.

But yes, this is just because I know how my partners like to bid. Since we specifically allow 5-5 in a major & a minor for a weak 2, I'm not worried about that hand.

Youre kidding, right? This is an absolute auto-balance. I'll be shocked if Mike doesn't agree.

If I balance with a hand like this, I'd be more worried we are missing game than converting a plus into a minus.

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Sep 18 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 18 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

Or because the suit isn't good enough and the outside defense is too good:

T9xxxxx, xx, AKQx, x

You'd bid 3♠ with that? Vulnerable?

How about you, MikeH? Balance in with 3♠ on that hand?

Well, I wouldn't expect partner to have Phil's hand. Too much duplication of values in the diamond suit (opposite my own AKQx), for my liking. Altho having 14 cards does make bidding more attractive

If the hand were 109xxxx AKQx xx x, I'd vote for a reopening double, not 3♠. If it were 109xxxxx AKQ xx x, it is close... and I'd probably go with 3♠.

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Sep 18 2007, 11:17 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 18 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 18 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

Or because the suit isn't good enough and the outside defense is too good:

T9xxxxx, xx, AKQx, x

You'd bid 3♠ with that? Vulnerable?

How about you, MikeH? Balance in with 3♠ on that hand?

Well, I wouldn't expect partner to have Phil's hand. Too much duplication of values in the diamond suit (opposite my own AKQx), for my liking. Altho having 14 cards does make bidding more attractive

If the hand were 109xxxx AKQx xx x, I'd vote for a reopening double, not 3♠. If it were 109xxxxx AKQ xx x, it is close... and I'd probably go with 3♠.

Right; since we were discussing the lack of a weak 2, I meant 10-9 6th. Obviously an AKQx can't be in diamonds on this layout, but I made up the hand just to show what an example looks like.

I would imagine if we did have a 6=2=4=1, Mike would reopen with 3S, not x, but I can't speak for him.