[paulg]

IMPs

---

Two questions:

(1) Do you agree with the double?
(2) What do you do now?

[kayin801]

X doesn't seem terrible (I assume you were planning on bidding 3♠ over 3 of a red suit) though I think 3NT and 4♠ would also have been reasonable bids. If I switched my minors I would like X better.

Now I bid 4♠, should show a flexible-ish hand with a good spade suit. I wish I had an extra heart but oh well.

[twoshy]

I'd have just bid 5♠ over 3♣, just keeping it simple and reasonably descriptive. Would normally want a better suit but whatever. I think 4♠ at either turn to bid is insipid.

[Phil]

Double seems obvious. What else, 6♠??

Now, 4♠. This has to show a good hand, but I wouldn't characterize it as forcing.

We need a maximum one loser trump fit for slam to be playable. A hand like Qxx, KQxxxx Kxx x is nice or maybe something like x KJTxxx, KJxxx x.

Opposite something like xx KQxxxx Kxx, xx, slam is lousy.

[ahydra]

I think you have to X - 3NT is horrible with the spades, but the hand "looks wrong" (poor spades vs huge hand) for 4S direct. But now we're endplayed and we have to punt 6NT, I think. I'd rather bid 4S but only if partner understands we might have such a good hand.

ahydra

[Fluffy]

I don't know if I would double, but if I did next round is not a problem.

[JLOGIC]

I think technically you are supposed to overcall 4S with this hand. Having a strong 2 suiter with one of their suits being theirs is impossible to bid imo, because your options are to jump some number with a 1 suiter, and double with a flexible hand (2+ places to play). Here you have neither, but I think showing it as a 1 suiter in spades is right, at least you have 6 of them. If you X and then bid 4S partner might, for example, bid 5D with 1552 since you showed flexibility.

[JLOGIC]

I guess another way to say that is we do not want to play any suit but spades since we are 1-2 in the reds. We are not interested in playing either of those 2 suits. So effectively, we have a 1 suiter. This feels weird because this is basically never the case with a strong hand but only AJ9xxx, we are usually fine playing a different strain if partner doesn't fit spades. Since we want to insist on spades, there is no need to double and we can just overcall 4S.

I dunno, maybe that's not true and we are happy if we double and partner bids diamonds and then goes back to diamonds or something. But I def worry about partner having a red 2 suiter and now getting us to the 5 level in a non fit. Weird hand, but having Xed obv bid 4S now.

[the hog]

Until I read Justin's post, I would have been a definite doubler. However I agree that to bid 4S now would strongly suggest Ds as well. I guess an immediate 4S bid is better.
Now I bid 4S and hold my breath.

[Codo]

Justin is really so convincing that I switched to a direct 4 ♠ instead of the "obvious" double too.

[paulg]

Partner did not actually respond four hearts at the table, it was really a poll just to see whether double of the pre-empt was automatic or there was some consensus that you should bid four spades immediately.

At the table partner held

♠10x
♥J10x
♦J10xxxxx
♣x

and responded three diamonds if you doubled. This created other problems, like continuations and rebids by responder over three spades, but we could not ask these questions simultaneously.

As it happened five diamonds was the best spot, but you would make four spades if you finessed pre-emptor for a spade honour rather than the king of diamonds.

[MrAce]

I agree that starting DBL may lead us to somewhere eeky. Otoh i am not really thrilled about bidding 4♠ with AJ9xxx, when my RHO opened 3♣ while i hold AQJx of his suit, it may be pretty brutal if the spades are behind. Which makes 3 nt tempting but without spades i am not sure how are we going to manage to make 3 NT ? After all pd may have Qx or Q spade or xx spade and we maybe cold for 4♠ while we may be killed in 3 NT on a heart lead.

4♠ looks the best of all flawed bids at the end imo.

I also admit i would have started DBL, if i didnt read Justins post. Well explained Justin.