Simple Judgement Poll

[Guest Jlall]

white/red imps.

 

KQxx AQJTxxx x J. 1C to your right. Do you blast or use science?

 

If you overcall 1H here is what happens in hidden text (don't cheat!)

 

partner bids 2 forcing diamonds and the opps are silent. What now?

 

[mr1303]

1H. 4S could be better than hearts here, slam isn't impossible, and I hold the majors, so I'm not worried about them overcompeting here.

 

And after 1H when

partner bids 2 forcing diamonds, I bid 2 forcing spades

 

[mike777]

4H

 

7-1 fits often play better than 4-4 fits.

Give up on slam, again, after 1club opener.

[han]

I vote for 4H.

 

It is very unlikely that spades play better than hearts, so that's out. The main disadvantage of jumping to 4H is the possibility of missing a slam. Given that the opponents have opened this is quite unlikely, but possible.

 

Of course, the colors are perfect for a direct jump to 4H, and the advantages are huge.

[david_c]

Hey, this looks familiar. I think my partner held this hand, and doubled. I would probably have bid 4♥ instead.

[Guest Jlall]

Hey, this looks familiar.

Very possible. One of my regular partners was telling me about this hand, I thought it looked interesting.

[Blofeld]

Yes, we had a 4♥ bid at our table, which pulled in a few IMPs for our team.

 

Edit: my vote was for 1♥, but actually I suspect that's coloured by the table result, and I'd be liable to just put 4♥ down.

[Winstonm]

I don't see slam as being out of the question. If my agreements are that at this vulnerability I can bid 4H on xx, KJ9xxxxx, xx, x then I cannot stray this far from the agreements and expect partner in the future to ever have a clue as to what to do. I'm also not concerned too much about the opponents having a spade game yet I don't want to defend 1C doubled either - however, I believe I'm too good to simply overcall 1H. The only solution I can come up with is to Michaels the hand, forcing a response, then jumping in hearts. Partner should not be jumping around in spades without 4 trumps so there is little risk of a 4S bid.

 

Winston

[Guest Jlall]

curious, who voted for other? I'm guessing they want to bid 4C namyats, unfortunately that isn't available :)

[Guest Jlall]

oops winston posted at the same time as me. michaels is interesting.

[mikeh]

I voted for 1♥, because I am not ready to give up on ♠ yet: I am not that interested in a 4=4 fit, but certainly a 5=5 or better fit may well play better than a 7-1 or 7-0 ♥ fit. I have sufficent shape and few enough hcp that the auction rates not to go all pass when we have game somewhere.

 

4♥ was second choice: no 'other' fits. I would be very unhappy of my partner used Michaels on this hand type (so I wouldn't, myself): again, it is a needless distortion: almost nothing bad can happen over 1♥, compared to michaels, and for me michaels followed by ♥ may lengthen the ♥ suit but does not shorten the ♠ suit :) So Michaels here is one of those bids that, over time, weaken a partnership.

[pbleighton]

4H. I could live with 1H or double.

 

Peter

[whereagles]

My style is 4♥, followed by double.

[Winstonm]

I voted for 1♥, because I am not ready to give up on ♠ yet: I am not that interested in a 4=4 fit, but certainly a 5=5 or better fit may well play better than a 7-1 or 7-0 ♥ fit. I have sufficent shape and few enough hcp that the auction rates not to go all pass when we have game somewhere.

 

4♥ was second choice: no 'other' fits. I would be very unhappy of my partner used Michaels on this hand type (so I wouldn't, myself): again, it is a needless distortion: almost nothing bad can happen over 1♥, compared to michaels, and for me michaels followed by ♥ may lengthen the ♥ suit but does not shorten the ♠ suit :) So Michaels here is one of those bids that, over time, weaken a partnership.

Different views. My concept of Michaels and pull is that this bid should show a hand that never was a Michaels to begin with - basically a hand that fits into no other category other than a strong jump overcall which no one plays anymore.

 

Although it requires discussion, the concept seems valid. If I have a hand that is too good for a direct preempt, too weak defensively to risk a double or a simple overcall, how can I force my partner to bid and then describe this hand?

 

One solution is to Michael's and then jump in the real suit - with discussion, this bid says I have no Michael's at all but what is basically an old fashioned strong jump overcall.

 

Obviously, without discussion this would be wrong; however, with discussion partner doesn't have to guess what you hold when you do bid a NV verses Vul. 4H.

 

Winston

[cherdano]

I vote for 4H.

 

It is very unlikely that spades play better than hearts, so that's out. The main disadvantage of jumping to 4H is the possibility of missing a slam. Given that the opponents have opened this is quite unlikely, but possible.

 

Of course, the colors are perfect for a direct jump to 4H, and the advantages are huge.

Han, my first thoughts about the vulnerability were exactly the opposite! Being white vs read makes it a lot less likely that opponents will preempt you if you start slowly. Also, if the vulnerability were all vulnerable, I think 4♥ would about describe your playing strength, whereas at the given colours you have a lot of extras.

[han]

Arend, let's look at what the effects are when we bid 4H on hands like these:

 

1) It takes partner out of the picture. We might miss a superior spade fit or a heart slam. Also, partner will not know what to do when the opponents bid over 4H.

 

2) It makes life tough for the opponents.

 

(1) is less bad when NV, (2) is better when they are vulnerable.

 

Seems clear to me that 4H is more appealing at these colors than at the opposite colors. I do understand your argument, but I think that it is very unlikely that partner will be able to act over a vulnerable 4H. If they compete to 5m then partner should indeed be better placed when we are vulnerable then when we are not vulnerable.

[cherdano]

Arend, let's look at what the effects are when we bid 4H on hands like these:

 

1) It takes partner out of the picture. We might miss a superior spade fit or a heart slam. Also, partner will not know what to do when the opponents bid over 4H.

 

2) It makes life tough for the opponents.

 

(1) is less bad when NV, (2) is better when they are vulnerable.

I think my main argument is that going slowly is also more attractive not vulnerable vs vulnerable. I think there is a good chance that it is our hand, simply because we have the majors and they have the minors. If you would go slowly, say, vul vs not, they would definitely find their 5m save, and quickly take away any space for constructive bidding that you are hoping for.

 

Arend

[whereagles]

let's look at what the effects are when we bid 4H on hands like these:

 

1) It takes partner out of the picture. We might miss a superior spade fit or a heart slam. Also, partner will not know what to do when the opponents bid over 4H.

 

2) It makes life tough for the opponents.

I don't think it takes pard out of the picture because you can double later if they bid over 4♥. Sure, you CAN miss a heart slam, but odds for that are so small it just doesn't pay for the extra bidding room you leave opps.

 

The 4♥ pressure-bid gives opps tough decisions. That's got to be worth more than a miracle slam.

[joker_gib]

1♥ for me.

 

4♥ is not that hand in my partnership when partner did not pass !

 

Alain

[P_Marlowe]

Dbl.

 

4H, is ok, but I am pretty sure, I would have doubled.

 

Marlowe

[twcho]

1♥ for me

[Guest Jlall]

If you bid 1H and then over partner's 2D bid 2S, partner will bid 4S and presumably you'll bid keycard and get to the top spot (6S).

 

At the table, as Blofeld mentioned, the player bid 4H. Partner had ATxx x Qxxxxx AK. 6S is very good (given that the HK is marked from the bidding), and even 6H makes as Kx of hearts is onside.

 

I also like the 4H bid, but this time it obviously didn't work.

[Free]

I'd go for 1♥ or any bid which represents that bid (in my partnership this means a 1♦ overcall). According to the forcing 2♦ bid, my partner would bid 2♣ showing the ♦s. I'd ofcourse bid 2♠ since I don't have support, a clear second suit, and according to our agreements my ♥ suit must be longer and stronger than the ♠s.

[pclayton]

Always ask yourself - what and whom are you preempting?

 

We have the spades, so I'm not worried about the opps finding their fit there. Pard hasn't passed, lets here what he has to say.

 

1♥.

[Fluffy]

7-0 ♥ can play better than 4-5 ♠ on this deal.