[maggieb]

All vulnerable at IMP Scoring

♠9754 ♥Axx ♦xxx ♣AKx

(2♠) - P - (P) - X
(P) - ?

[mike777]

one nonexpert 3H. take out of takeout.

[karlson]

I pass. A lot more comfortable with this one than with the 2♥X in the other recent thread.

[aguahombre]

this feels like one of those cases where taking it out might work out ok, but it would be hard to find the right place to take it out to. I have three tricks and we might have three 4-3 fits. I am willing to bet that the tricks are 9-6 (offense vs defense) or 10-5 (good for us) or 11-4 (even better). 8-7 would be super, too as long as it is we who have the 8 tricks. So, pass.

[zheddh]

agree with aqua's analysis

[dake50]

What reopening garbage could partner have that converting AK +A in 4333 won't be reasonable maybe best? Try that.

[the hog]

I am inclined to pass this one as well.

[gnasher]

Abstain - this question is too horrible to answer.

[Fluffy]

karlson, on Nov 4 2009, 04:26 AM, said:

I pass. A lot more comfortable with this one than with the 2♥X in the other recent thread.

I think there are some differences here, partner doesn't have a forcing free bid avaible with his 5(6) card suit, and also we will never score a trump trick with the 9, but in the other the Jack was often worth one.

I like to try a possitive 3♣ over this. If partner cues I can bid 4♥ and play in the 3-4 fit. Even if dummy is tapped with some luck we can keep the 2♠ opener off lead for the rest of the hand.

[Codo]

gnasher, on Nov 4 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

Abstain - this question is too horrible to answer.

I like this.

But I have to bid, so I chocse pass.

[gwnn]

I think I'd pass this and have a laugh if they make +1. If I don't pass I have no idea how the auction will get any better for me. Suppose I bid 3m, then pd persists with 3♠? A dream come true? The only continuation I'd be happy about is if partner has 5 hearts and can introduce them over 3♣. Honestly I'd bid 3NT if I were to pull it but that feels wrong, RHO could have Qx and CHO x, so no, I won't pull, I'll pass.

overused language joke hidden:

Spoiler

Codo if you have to bid, why do you pass?

[effervesce]

I'm not comfortable passing this one. They may have 6 trump tricks and 2 side suit tricks. I'm bidding 3♣. 3♥ is inferior as partner is more likely to assume you have 4, while 3♣ lets partner bid 3♥ over it.

That said, passing may work out quite often, but personally I'm not risking it (unless I know the opps to be aggressive preempters).

[Hanoi5]

I don't like Pass so much; what if partner is counting on a somehow good hand on my end? He wouldn't have many spades and could be expecting us to have a penalty pass.

[655321]

Pass.

Like karlson, I actually feel much happier about passing here than in the other thread. (This one, for the record).
Probably because in the other thread 2NT was a sensible looking alternative to pass. But here, the non-pass choices look pretty sick.

[ArtK78]

The last time I passed on a hand like this at IMPs, I lost the board 870 to 730 (3♠x at the other table). The 2♠ bidder had 7 spades.

I will never do that again.

If my spades were JTxx I would pass, but not 9xxx. It is clear the opps start with 6 tricks, and if they have only 6 tricks, we could have a slam.

I bid 2NT Lebensohl, intending to bid 3♠ if partner rebids 3♣. I don't know where we are going, but 2♠x is not it.

[pooltuna]

a non-lebensohl 2NT

[andy_h]

Yuck. Hmm I don't quite like pass because I expect partner to make a balancing takeout double with say 1444 and a 10 count. But I guess that's the minimum and partner won't always have that. I'm afraid however that the values in the outside suits (especially diamonds here), partner's diamond values would be sitting before dummy's. Pretty lame that it's imps. But how about 3♠ now? Although I'm not sure how forcing this is but surely there should be a balanced range which passes 2♠ then now bids 3♠? What about those 12-14(or bad 15) balanced ranges which had no spade stopper? In fact I think that's a bit reasonable and most of the time partner will have a singleton spade, so with my AAK this should be ok when partner has a 5 card suit rather than us trying to guess our fit.

Having said that, I wouldn't know what 2NT(leb) then 3♠ over 3♣ is either, maybe just your ordinary leb sequence. But yeah, I think I'll bid 3♠ with pass as a 2nd choice (I hate 3♣ even more).

[aguahombre]

If --and I already said I wouldn't --you are taking out the double, Lebensohl is helpful here. but, since we are subtracting a King, anything less than a good 12 or 13 should go low.

It is repugnant to go low with A-K-A, and the hand is directionless to boot -- more reasons to just pass.

[effervesce]

andy_h, on Nov 4 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

Yuck. Hmm I don't quite like pass because I expect partner to make a balancing takeout double with say 1444 and a 10 count. But I guess that's the minimum and partner won't always have that. I'm afraid however that the values in the outside suits (especially diamonds here), partner's diamond values would be sitting before dummy's. Pretty lame that it's imps. But how about 3♠ now? Although I'm not sure how forcing this is but surely there should be a balanced range which passes 2♠ then now bids 3♠? What about those 12-14(or bad 15) balanced ranges which had no spade stopper? In fact I think that's a bit reasonable and most of the time partner will have a singleton spade, so with my AAK this should be ok when partner has a 5 card suit rather than us trying to guess our fit.

Having said that, I wouldn't know what 2NT(leb) then 3♠ over 3♣ is either, maybe just your ordinary leb sequence. But yeah, I think I'll bid 3♠ with pass as a 2nd choice (I hate 3♣ even more).

Assuming you play lebensohl doesn't 3♠ show 4♥, no stopper, while 2NT-> 3♠ shows stopper with 4♥ (or vice versa if you play the reverse)?
I know you mean it to be a stopper ask, but unless we have two spade stops I'm not confident about 3NT making-partner could have bid 2NT with two stoppers.

[andy_h]

effervesce, on Nov 7 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

andy_h, on Nov 4 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

Yuck. Hmm I don't quite like pass because I expect partner to make a balancing takeout double with say 1444 and a 10 count. But I guess that's the minimum and partner won't always have that. I'm afraid however that the values in the outside suits (especially diamonds here), partner's diamond values would be sitting before dummy's. Pretty lame that it's imps. But how about 3♠ now? Although I'm not sure how forcing this is but surely there should be a balanced range which passes 2♠ then now bids 3♠? What about those 12-14(or bad 15) balanced ranges which had no spade stopper? In fact I think that's a bit reasonable and most of the time partner will have a singleton spade, so with my AAK this should be ok when partner has a 5 card suit rather than us trying to guess our fit.

Having said that, I wouldn't know what 2NT(leb) then 3♠ over 3♣ is either, maybe just your ordinary leb sequence. But yeah, I think I'll bid 3♠ with pass as a 2nd choice (I hate 3♣ even more).

Assuming you play lebensohl doesn't 3♠ show 4♥, no stopper, while 2NT-> 3♠ shows stopper with 4♥ (or vice versa if you play the reverse)?
I know you mean it to be a stopper ask, but unless we have two spade stops I'm not confident about 3NT making-partner could have bid 2NT with two stoppers.

No, I meant it as a "directionless bid" with the values of 12-14ish and I'm not expecting partner to be bidding 3NT over that because he rates to have a singleton so I'm wanting to find our 5-3 fit.

But speaking about lebensohl, you are forgetting a few sequences. There are 1) direct 3♠, 2) 2NT then 3♠, 3) direct 3NT and 4) 2NT then 3NT.