[Hanoi5]

---

MP's

Your agreement is that doubles after a strong NT are mainly for penalty, so 3♦ is partner bailing out somehow, what do you do at this point?

[CSGibson]

4♦. I definitely wouldn't double, partner heard my first double, pulled, and elected not to double the follow-up. I have a great diamond fit that partner had no reason to suspect, and my hand is even worse for defense than anything partner could imagine after my penalty double.

Pass is my 2nd choice, 3N my third.

[the hog]

Partner's bidding is weird and I suspect he may have psyched. I am passing.

[bigbenvic]

the hog, on 2013-December-17, 23:34, said:

Partner's bidding is weird and I suspect he may have psyched. I am passing.

Isn't that a very dangerous action to take? If you do it often you risk being got for an unethical action (fielding a psych) and if partner has his bid you'll create pressures in your partnership that aren't needed.

I'd bid 4d see CSGibson's post above.

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on 2013-December-17, 21:52, said:

MP's

Your agreement is that doubles after a strong NT are mainly for penalty, so 3♦ is partner bailing out somehow, what do you do at this point?

---

IMO 3N = 10, 4♦ = 9, Double = 6, Pass = 5.
Agree with Bigbenvic about pass. Hope partner has
♠ x x ♥ Q x x ♦ A K x x x ♣ A Q J or (probably) more ♦ and fewer ♠.

[aguahombre]

Responding to the Hog's suggestion that Partner's NT overcall was not one and his recommended pass ---

bigbenvic, on 2013-December-18, 00:06, said:

Isn't that a very dangerous action to take? If you do it often you risk being got for an unethical action (fielding a psych) and if partner has his bid you'll create pressures in your partnership that aren't needed.

First of all, judging from an impossible action that partner has psyched is not unethical. Partner has his bid???? He has either a 1NT overcall or a 3D bid after your double; he doesn't have both. However, a pass rather than 4♦ would be because I fear they have a game in Spades.

It is also possible that, despite the stated agreements, Pard was not on the same page. Absent any UI, this would be another reason to pass. Could she be 2-3-4-4 with a 15-count? If so, we should probably just let it go at 3S and hope for a +50 rather than a minus at the 4-level.

XX QXX AKXXX AQJ is a 1D overcall, IMO.

[mikeh]

Partner didn't psyche, but he did distort. The auction makes it clear that he has at most one spade, and I think it foolish to infer only 5 diamonds. He has at least 6 diamonds, and N, for his 3♠ call, has at most one. I'd take partner to have AKJxxx(x) in diamonds, and some club and heart cards.

We have a spade trick and at least 6 diamonds, so he needs very little to score 2 more tricks. Admittedly if he has x Kxx AKJxxx Axx, we're a trick short in 3N, but we have to bid it imo.

Btw, I would never have doubled 2♠. My hearts are too long (declarer will often have a stiff, making partner's heart values worthless) and my trump are too short.

[ArtK78]

Very close between 3NT and 4♦, but I will try 3NT. I am hoping for 6 diamonds, 1 spade and 2 rounded suit tricks.

Partner must have 6 diamonds and one spade, or else he would not pull. The idea that he would bid 3♦ on xx Qxx AKxxx AQJ is insulting my judgment on the penalty double. Of course, seeing what I doubled on, maybe he is right to insult me.

[ggwhiz]

ArtK78, on 2013-December-18, 11:40, said:

Very close between 3NT and 4♦,

I don't consider it close at all. 3nt and it might be a better dive than 4♦ if partner was up to no good and they can pull if they want as this bid shows some kind diamond fit.

I don't like the methods and prefer that the double shows "cards", usually looks like a negative double and this hand would qualify.

xx, Qx, AKJxxx, AQx is what I hope partner owns and it's not inconsistent with a mp 1nt bid in an aggressive partnership.

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2013-December-18, 11:51, said:

xx, Qx, AKJxxx, AQx is what I hope partner owns and it's not inconsistent with a mp 1nt bid in an aggressive partnership.

1NT on that holding is not partnership at all, IMO. Nor are any of the hands with a singleton spade and 5 or six Diamonds.

[the_clown]

4♦ for me, at MPs no need to stretch for a tight game. Expect something like Qx Ax AKxxxx Jxx.

[the_clown]

aguahombre, on 2013-December-18, 15:00, said:

1NT on that holding is not partnership at all, IMO. Nor are any of the hands with a singleton spade and 5 or six Diamonds.

1N seems perfectly normal to me and I would bid it at any vulnerability and form of scoring.