[jdonn]

KQx x KQxxx QJ9x, vul vs. not vul, imp scoring, you deal.

1♦ (1♥) 1♠ (4♥) ?

1♠ promises at least five.

Your bid.

(I didn't set this up as a poll since I wasn't sure I was doing it right. Whatever)

[P_Marlowe]

4S, it may or it may not make, ... whatever .-).
I just cite Cohen, over 4H always 4S.

Marlowe

PS: You forgot the option Dbl, aöthough at those
colours you wont get rich.

[JohnnyH7]

Pass. I would have raised to 2S if they had not bid 2H, and am willing to bid 3S in a pinch over 3H. However I'm not willing to be pushed 2 levels higher than I would normally bid. If partner has a hand he can X 4H (cards, over which I'll bid 4S). It's possible he will pass it out with a perfect hand for game, but it's also possible to go for a big number bidding.

[JohnnyH7]

P_Marlowe, on Mar 28 2006, 01:00 PM, said:

PS: You forgot the option Dbl, aöthough at those
colours you wont get rich.

Xing with about 1 trick opposite and 1 trump a partner who responded at the 1 level probably didn't occur to josh as an option.

[pbleighton]

Pass is reasonable, but I would bid 4S. There are probably 18 total tricks, so this is wrong only if both sides can make 9 tricks, assuming we aren't doubled (reasonable, not certain). It's also vul at IMPs.

Peter

[han]

I had this hand yesterday and bid 4S without giving it enough thought. I think 4S is bad and I felt bad about it too. I was surprised to see the auction being duplicated at your table.

[mikeh]

I pass.

Partner is still there. If he doubles, to show cards, I pull to 4♠ quite happily (altho it is easy to see that we may fail).

[pclayton]

I have a 5 loser hand and we have at least an 8 card fit with a probable 30 point deck.

Will pard move over 4♠ with the likes of: Axxxx, xxx, Ax, xxx or is this too specific of a hand? Sure pard may have a non-fitting hand with 2 big cards, and 4♠ has no play, but I'm likely throwing away 4 IMPs to potentially gain 10 or 11. Even then, our green opponents will very possibly take the push to 5♥ anyway.

Pard could also have A-6th of spades and out whereby 4♥ is a probable make.

While pard is still in the game, will he be able to make the right decision? I am real concerned that pard will want to steer the hand to spades when I am looking at the spade 'marraige'. I am also worried about a 5♦ call with hands like of: JTxxx, xxx, Axxx, x. Sure, pard might double with hands of this strength and type, but why should be holding diamond support?

I am a notorious underbidder. If I can find a 4♠ call, its definitely NOT an overbid.

[mike777]

pass I do not think this is a 5 LTC hand after adjustments, much worse.
Rate this hand as more defense than offense but willing to listen and learn.

[pclayton]

JohnnyH7, on Mar 28 2006, 10:01 AM, said:

Pass. I would have raised to 2S if they had not bid 2H, and am willing to bid 3S in a pinch over 3H. However I'm not willing to be pushed 2 levels higher than I would normally bid. If partner has a hand he can X 4H (cards, over which I'll bid 4S). It's possible he will pass it out with a perfect hand for game, but it's also possible to go for a big number bidding.

This logic should hold, but it doesn't.

A corollary: You hold: AQx, xxx, AQJx, KJx. RHO opens 1♠, 2♠ or even 3♠.

I think most expert players would advocate a 1N, 2N or 3N overcall in all 3 of these situations.

Perhaps with the example hand its right to raise to 2♠ (not playing supp x's) over 2 and 4♥'s, but not 3♥. Curious.

[luis]

Very difficult.
My hand is offensive, but I don't have enough power or enough trumps to bid 4♠. Being vulnerable vs not I think I would bid 4♠ because with values in hearts pd is not forced to bid 1♠, this may be a very thin inference but I suspect pd doesn't have values in hearts and then all he has can work well for 4♠ and I ruff in the short trumps so I'm not going to be in a trump control problem soon. Can they double this after a non vulnerable 1♥ overcall and a non vulnerable 4♥ bid? Maybe not because both might suspect pd can be weakish for his white vs red bid. So I bid 4♠ and I don't really like it a lot but...