[ArtK78]

In the last hand provided by FrancesHinden, partner would probably have opened the bidding 1C.

So lets try to stay within the realm of the possible.

Odds are that your passed partner does not have a hand which gives reasonable play for a game. So taking an action over 3S has very little upside and considerable risk.

Offhand, I would guess that by doubling 3S you will wind up going for a number about as often if not more often than you will bid and make a game.

[jdonn]

Theoretical question - lets say we were to pass and partner balance with 4♣. Should 4♥ show a hand like this (rather strong and flexible) or something weaker with better hearts where we simply expect partner to pass?

[the hog]

jdonn, on Jul 19 2007, 07:38 AM, said:

Theoretical question - lets say we were to pass and partner balance with 4♣. Should 4♥ show a hand like this (rather strong and flexible) or something weaker with better hearts where we simply expect partner to pass?

Fit non jump??????



Well, you did ask.

[helene_t]

I'd pass. Partner can balance a little lighter than otherwise now that he's a passed hand (not much lighter, he still needs a near-opening without spades length) and the fact that RHO preempted in 2nd seat suggests he has a 7-card so that there is a fair chance that p has sufficient shortness.

[dake50]

Will partner reopen with the 3-tricks to make 4H/5C? Or must I act direct?
5-4-22 is not inspiring me to direct action.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Jul 19 2007, 12:06 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 19 2007, 07:38 AM, said:

Theoretical question - lets say we were to pass and partner balance with 4♣. Should 4♥ show a hand like this (rather strong and flexible) or something weaker with better hearts where we simply expect partner to pass?

Fit non jump??????



Well, you did ask.

Yes I suppose I asked for that.

For the original problem, I haven't answered yet since this is right on the fence. I really understand double, 4♥, and pass. I think at the table my most likely action would have been double. I am not pessimistic about game at all, if partner can bid 3NT why shouldn't that be a good contract? But yeah it will lead to some numbers as well, good bid rho.

[Foxx]

I'm a little confused. You and partner couldn't have both held the ♦10, could you?

[skjaeran]

Foxx, on Jul 20 2007, 08:23 AM, said:

I'm a little confused. You and partner couldn't have both held the ♦10, could you?

Umm - he said so when he posted partner's hand.

QUOTE (Echognome @ Jul 18 2007, 10:04 AM)

Quote

I chose double and partner had:


♠Qx
♥J
♦Txxx
♣AKT8xx

He bid 5♣ and then it comes down to the play problem as he received the ♦Q lead. On the defense of cashing 2 spades first (opening leader had KJTxxxx) there is no chance.

NB: I messed up my hand slightly as had only AKxx of diamonds.  Sorry if that affected your choice of bids.

[Foxx]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the first time. Well, even more reason to pass I guess.

As far as the play problem, I suppose I'd start by pushing the ♣J through the preemptor's partner and then tossing a spade on the ♥A-K. I imagine it gets interesting when LHO turns out to have ♦QJxx, and/or the ♣J gets covered and we have to guess whether to finesse the ♣8 on the next round?