[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Aug 26 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

Who is in for jumps to 4M?
1. ♠xxxx ♥AJx ♦Axxxxx ♣-, all red
1♥ (X) ?

2. ♠Jxxx ♥Axxx ♦Axxxx ♣-, red vs white
(1♣) 1♥ (1♠*) ?
1♠ was <4 spades, takeout for minors or balanced without heart stopper

3. ♠KQxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣AQxxx, all white, 1♠ (2♥) ?

4. ♠KJ ♥ Axxxx ♦x ♣QJxxx, red vs white, (1♦) 1♥ (X*) where X = 4+ spades.

Do you bash or describe?

1: Bash is OK here, because I feel comfortable that partner's decisions, if any need to be made, will go right for him. I like defense with my shorter-than-expected trump holding and two Aces, and I like declaring with a void surprise and possible diamond tricks.

2. I like bash here also, because the opponents are playing something unwieldy (and for the same reasons as in no. 1, above). I'd hate to unwind with the opponents' methods if I were the opponents, after 4♥.

3. 6♥ is better than 4♥. Describe.

4. I hate 4♥ with this last hand. I have no idea where we need to be, and I have no idea whether partner's decision, or mine, will be right if I start with 4♥. This is the type of hand where I might make a screwing-around 1NT, and I'd make that call way before 4♥. If XX shows the heart Ace, that's my call, mostly because it saves space for bidding.

[helene_t]

kenrexford, on Aug 24 2007, 08:45 PM, said:

4♠ --> Classic preemptive

4♥ --> Cautious use of this call. I don't like Texas Transfers here.

But if you play Xango, you can use 4♠ as a transfer to 4♥ as well, can't you? In this case, 4♠ asks partner to accept an insufficient 4♥ bid by LHO.

[kenrexford]

helene_t, on Aug 27 2007, 06:42 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 24 2007, 08:45 PM, said:

4♠ --> Classic preemptive

4♥ --> Cautious use of this call.  I don't like Texas Transfers here.

But if you play Xango, you can use 4♠ as a transfer to 4♥ as well, can't you? In this case, 4♠ asks partner to accept an insufficient 4♥ bid by LHO.

You know, that's a damn good point that I had not considered!