[bd71]

---

IMPs

Regardless of what your first bid is, what is your plan for most likely responses?

EDIT

Sorry, this was a poor setup as double is almost obviously the first bid. I really wanted more discussion on follow-ups. In particular, what is your plan if/when partner bids different numbers of spades?

[whereagles]

Playing dbl + new suit as "flexible hand", this is an easy double. Else I guess you have to stick to 3D and hope pard can find a bid over it.

[Codo]

I would double and bid 3 NT or 4 ♦ over 3 ♠. Whether I bid 4 Diamonds or 3 NT after this depends on opps and mood. I will choose 4 Diamond most of the time, but I guess that 3 NT will make very often...
If partner bids 4 Spade, he has 5 spades and I will pass. Will not be the end of the world to play a 5-2 fit.

[Fluffy]

I would bid 3♦ and don´t find it close. We have no bid over 4♠ from partner

[mikeh]

Codo, on 2012-January-31, 08:24, said:

If partner bids 4 Spade, he has 5 spades and I will pass. Will not be the end of the world to play a 5-2 fit.

KQxx Jxx Qxx Axx

Partner doubles 3♣ at imps and your call is?

Anyone who claims that the jump to 4♠ shows 5 cards in the suit has lived a charmed life.

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that partner will often have a 5 card suit.

I am a 'strong' overcaller, but there are limits...this hand (just) exceeds them. I double and bid 4♦ over 3♠ or 3♦, and 4♥ over 3♥. I will bid 5♥ over an unlikely 4♣ by partner.

I will raise 3N to 4N

If he does bid 4♠, well.....what can I do? I have to pass and hope.

The idea of bidding 3N over a 3♠ advance makes me ill.....where does one find games in which that makes any sense at all? Won't partner be thrilled to lay down Kx or Qxx in clubs....until trick 2, of course.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2012-January-31, 10:19, said:

KQxx Jxx Qxx Axx

Partner doubles 3♣ at imps and your call is?

3NT.

Maybe you should have given us KQxx Jxx AQx xxx?

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2012-January-31, 11:44, said:

3NT.

Maybe you should have given us KQxx Jxx AQx xxx?

Ok....but I don't like 3N with the hand I posited either Anyway, as with an earlier thread, my examples may be too hastily concocted, but it is the point I am making that is the message, not the precise 13 card layout I jot down.

[Codo]

Hi Mike,

I would bid 3 NT with your hand, yes this is not perfect, but I am balanced and partner "promisses" just 3 spades for his bid...

Hi Andy, your construction does not fit to our hand.

He may hold 43xy with no stopper and a maximum pass. But if you try to construct a hand, which fits to our hand, it is quite difficult... Maybe KQJxQJx,Qxx,xxx.
He may have a little more distribution but he cannot have more values outside clubs- we have them all. And opposite that hand we will quiet often make 4 Spades on a 4-2 Fit. So the worst scenario is, where partner has some club values, lacking values elsewhere. I can live with that risk...
So, if our hand had been weaker, a double would more often get a raise to 4 ♠ on 4 Spades. But in that case, I would not double, would you?

[whereagles]

Fluffy, on 2012-January-31, 10:00, said:

I would bid 3♦ and don´t find it close. We have no bid over 4♠ from partner

Well, it's not that we have no bid over 4S; we have: 5D. The problem is when pard has 6 spades and pulling back to diamonds is wrong. This is a pure guess, though I believe a simulation would tilt the odds towards a pull.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

bd71, on 2012-January-31, 07:29, said:

---

IMPs?

You decide not to wait for another year and a half for the perfect shape for a Leaping Michaels over a 3-minor preempt.
The structure you have in your tool kit is:

Over 3-minor preempt:
4C = other minor and a major (4D asks major)
4D = both majors
4M = to play

so the auction continues over ( 3C ) :
4C! - 4D!
4H - pass

[wank]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-February-01, 11:57, said:

You decide not to wait for another year and a half for the perfect shape for a Leaping Michaels over a 3-minor preempt.
The structure you have in your tool kit is:

Over 3-minor preempt:
4C = other minor and a major (4D asks major)
4D = both majors
4M = to play

so the auction continues over ( 3C ) :
4C! - 4D!
4H - pass

lovely convention. just a shame it would be so poor to use it on this hand.

[MrAce]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-February-01, 11:57, said:

You decide not to wait for another year and a half for the perfect shape for a Leaping Michaels over a 3-minor preempt.
The structure you have in your tool kit is:

Over 3-minor preempt:
4C = other minor and a major (4D asks major)
4D = both majors
4M = to play

so the auction continues over ( 3C ) :
4C! - 4D!
4H - pass

Interesting idea to make a leaping michaels with a NT shape hand.