[pclayton]

w/r, good opps

♠Kxxxx ♥AQx ♦QTxxx ♣ void

1♠ (3♣) 4♣ (4♦)
4♠ (pass) ?

4♦ shows a fit, shows diamond values and asks for a lead.

Would you still take a call?

[mikeh]

Pass

Another situation in which it is useful to have some discussion about partner's decision to bid rather than to pass.

The approach I learned and use is that, when a fp is available, a return to our suit at a minimum level is the weakest call.

Hence 4♠ is a sign of weakness.. I'd play him for a 'working-card-minimum'.. and many of those hand types not only offer no play for slam but may not have 5-level safety... ex. AQxxx Kxx Jxx Kx

I am not so pessimistic to think that he is favourite to hold this crap, but I am sure he more likely to hold this than he is to hold a hand that makes slam good.

[655321]

Pass.

Partner's 4♠ - his most discouraging bid - warned me off. Even though we have not shown club shortage - our 4♣ just showed a good raise - partner heard them raise and probably knows we are short.

Bidding isn't crazy - you could construct hands where slam is cold, partner having a singleton diamond in a minimum hand with perhaps the ♣K wasted, - but I think it is odds against.

[Echognome]

Green card for me as well.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Apr 2 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

I don't agree with the interpretation of 4S as the most discouraging bid. The opps are effectively forced to 5C if you pass but can now pass out 4S when you bid 4S. I would never want to let them off the hook with a 5332 hand like people are suggesting. 4S in this auction should really show a desire to compete over 5C (an offensive minimum), but I'm sure no one is on the same wavelength as me heh. I really don't think that "4S=bad" is a good way to play in this particular situation though.

I understand the point, Justin, but the fact is that the opps have already committed themselves to 5♣ unless LHO thinks he can beat 4♠! Of course, he may be thinking incorrectly in that maybe he thinks xxx xx x AKxxxx is a good defensive hand, not knowing of our club void. But I don't think that LHO is much less likely to bid 5♣ over 4♠ than over pass, and I do think that this is a situation in which opener should be able, by the bid/pass choice (leaving aside double and 4♥) to show good-in-context and bad-in-context hands.

maybe the distinction should relate more to 5-level comfort than to defensive/offensive or pure hcp issues, altho I suspect a large overlap amongst these anyway(s).


It is a matter of agreement whether one uses 4♠ or pass to show 5 level comfort.

[benlessard]

Agree with Justin bidding 4S is clearly showing competitive intent for me.

Fast arrival is when you are forced not when oponent are forced or are forcing themselve.

1S----(P)----3C (limit)----X
???

here you are forced since 3C X isnt your favorite contract. A pass by you is forcing


1S----(2Nt)----X------(P)
???

Here bidding sugest competing because 2Nt X is an unplayable contract for them not for you. A pass by you isnt forcing.

1S----(X)-----2Nt ----(P)

You are forced so 3S is the weakest call and doesnt suggest further competition.

1S----(X)-----2Nt(limit+)----(X) responsive showing both m (or long m+4H) doesnt guarantee many points

you are not forced (its them who are forced) 3S show competitive intent.

[whereagles]

I'll bid 5♣. All I need is pard to have ♠AQ and ♥K. If he controls diamonds, 6 should be cold.

AQxxx
Kxx
x
KQxx

This kinda looks like a 4♠ bid to me and slam is close to a lock.

[pclayton]

I usually post hands like this because something I tried didn't work out.

Pard held: ♠AQxxxx ♥K ♦xxx ♣Qxx. Pretty ugly and 5 was too high.

Agree with the interpretation of 4♠ that its the weakest possible action. Pass would deny a heart control for me. I think I prefer double as a hand interested in doubling 5♣, not as a diamond control.

[ArtK78]

I have an agreement with my regular partner that a bid directly over an opponent's bid in a forcing situation shows at least second round control of the suit bid the opponents.

So, on the hand shown, pass would be the correct action, and we would stop in 4♠.

This doesn't solve all problems. For example, if partner held Kx of diamonds, he would bid (4♥ with a heart control, 4♠ otherwise). And diamonds could easily be 5-1 and the ruff would beat a slam. But an agreement is better than no agreement, and it would make this hand very easy.

[bid_em_up]

pclayton, on Apr 3 2008, 09:13 AM, said:

I usually post hands like this because something I tried didn't work out.

Pard held: ♠AQxxxx ♥K ♦xxx ♣Qxx. Pretty ugly and 5 was too high.

Agree with the interpretation of 4♠ that its the weakest possible action. Pass would deny a heart control for me. I think I prefer double as a hand interested in doubling 5♣, not as a diamond control.

I think this hand is terrible for a 4C bid.

jmoo.

[mikeh]

bid_em_up, on Apr 3 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 3 2008, 09:13 AM, said:

I usually post hands like this because something I tried didn't work out.

Pard held: ♠AQxxxx ♥K ♦xxx ♣Qxx. Pretty ugly and 5 was too high.

Agree with the interpretation of 4♠ that its the weakest possible action. Pass would deny a heart control for me. I think I prefer double as a hand interested in doubling 5♣, not as a diamond control.

I think this hand is terrible for a 4C bid.

jmoo.

This was opener: it was the other hand that bid 4♣, if I read the post correctly... but I wouldn't have opened this hand... a rare duck, but this hand is too good for a weak two and wrong for a one-bid. However, if partner believed that this cannot exist, so I HAD to do one or the other or never show my hand at all, I'd open 1♠.

[bid_em_up]

deleted

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Apr 3 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Apr 3 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 3 2008, 09:13 AM, said:

I usually post hands like this because something I tried didn't work out.

Pard held: ♠AQxxxx ♥K ♦xxx ♣Qxx. Pretty ugly and 5 was too high.

Agree with the interpretation of 4♠ that its the weakest possible action. Pass would deny a heart control for me. I think I prefer double as a hand interested in doubling 5♣, not as a diamond control.

I think this hand is terrible for a 4C bid.

jmoo.

This was opener: it was the other hand that bid 4♣, if I read the post correctly... but I wouldn't have opened this hand... a rare duck, but this hand is too good for a weak two and wrong for a one-bid. However, if partner believed that this cannot exist, so I HAD to do one or the other or never show my hand at all, I'd open 1♠.

Ok, fine. I stand corrected (I misread the problem).

I will reword my previous posting.

This hand is terrible for a 1♠ opening, imo.