[Fluffy]

I think we will miss some slams by bidding 4♦ then passing, but such is life.

This somehow depends as always on what is the minimum partner expects for our double, playing fairly solid doubles helps finding slams.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Feb 5 2009, 03:43 PM, said:

whereagles, on Feb 4 2009, 11:00 PM, said:

4♥ for me, willing to give up on slam.

how can it possibly hurt to bid 4♦? Assuming that you are allowed to make a cue bid, if not now, when?

I would bid 4♦ if I were sure pard would take it as heart fit + extras. Since I'm not 100% sure he will, I won't muddy the waters. This should not be a problem in a seasoned partnership, of course.

Other reasons to be pessimistic about slam are 1. it's not easy for pard to evaluate the diamond wastage (he doesn't know I'm void) and 2. my trump isn't that hot and bad breaks may be lurking. Sure, pard may have 5, but who knows?

[mikeh]

JLOL, on Feb 5 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 5 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

I think that justin is a little optimistic in his assessment of when partner will co-operate (not when partner 'should' cooperate)... probably because he is used to discussing these auctions with experts as opposed to the average player... too many players bid 3♥, limiting their hand, then fail to appreciate how good their weak hand becomes after a 4♦ cue... but the hand isn't good enough to take control... so the cooperative 4♦ it is.

Umm, I play way more boards with clients than experts, I just think that unless specified that partner is not trustworthy you are supposed to assume partner will make the "right" bids. I totally agree that with a weak partner they are far less likely to cooperate, in fact they probably will never cooperate.

That's why I wrote 'discussing', rather than 'playing'

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Feb 5 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

I would bid 4♦ if I were sure pard would take it as heart fit + extras. Since I'm not 100% sure he will, I won't muddy the waters. This should not be a problem in a seasoned partnership, of course.

I don't think it should be a problem with anyone. Or let's say, with an even remotely seasoned bridge player.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Feb 6 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

whereagles, on Feb 5 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

I would bid 4♦ if I were sure pard would take it as heart fit + extras. Since I'm not 100% sure he will, I won't muddy the waters. This should not be a problem in a seasoned partnership, of course.

I don't think it should be a problem with anyone. Or let's say, with an even remotely seasoned bridge player.

Ok, I'll leave you to win the post-mortem while I win at table

[JLOL]

whereagles, on Feb 6 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 6 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

whereagles, on Feb 5 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

I would bid 4♦ if I were sure pard would take it as heart fit + extras. Since I'm not 100% sure he will, I won't muddy the waters. This should not be a problem in a seasoned partnership, of course.

I don't think it should be a problem with anyone. Or let's say, with an even remotely seasoned bridge player.

Ok, I'll leave you to win the post-mortem while I win at table

LOL

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Feb 6 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 6 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

whereagles, on Feb 5 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

I would bid 4♦ if I were sure pard would take it as heart fit + extras. Since I'm not 100% sure he will, I won't muddy the waters. This should not be a problem in a seasoned partnership, of course.

I don't think it should be a problem with anyone. Or let's say, with an even remotely seasoned bridge player.

Ok, I'll leave you to win the post-mortem while I win at table

Wow, did I get a bad break in 6 or something??