High level 3 way decision

[Fluffy]

Vulnerable N-S

 

N - W - S - E

1♠-2♦-2♠-3♦

4♣-5♦-??

 

 

You have

 

1097xx

J10x

K10

Kxx

[effervesce]

Pass. Even though you have 5 spades, your shape is the worst possible-also the spread out honours in different suits suggest defending. Since p has the A of clubs, you are sure to take 5D down - 5S may or may not make.

[mike777]

Vulnerable N-S

 

N - W - S - E

1♠-2♦-2♠-3♦

4♣-5♦-??

 

 

You have

 

1097xx

J10x

K10

Kxx

Object prefer 3s the first time and then I have said my piece, now I guess I am stuck with pass.

[inquiry]

Difficult hand. After 4♣ this is a forcing pass situation. I like my club king, I hate my diamond King. I have a few extra spades, but my hand rates to be an effect three hcp.

 

Here is the problem. If I pass now, and partner doubles, I can not pull to 5♠ as that would suggest a slam try. I DON;T want to make a slam try. So I have to decide now, will I pass a DBL by partner. If the answer is NO, then I will have to bid 5♠ now. If the answer is yes, pass now is fine. I think I would pass a double by partner, so I pass now. Note, I disagree with the timid 2♠ bid with five card support, I would have tried 3♠ or maybe 4♠ on the first round.

 

Although, last night I held five card support to the ACE for partner when he opened 1♥ and never bid, not once. The reason was the opponents had already found their spade fit (RHO overcalled a 1♠ and we were going to outbid anyway and I thought hiding our degree of fit would cause them more problem than showing it for some reason.

[whereagles]

tuff one, yes. but I think I'm gonna take the push to 5♠. After all, it's not unusual for pard to be, say..

 

AKxxx

Kx

x

AQxxx

 

though I agree he needn't be so strong.

[Guest Jlall]

I would pass I think, close to bidding 5S but not quite for me.

[mikeh]

It looks as if everyone is bidding out of turn, according to the bidding diagram: W bid after N, then S bid after W and so on... but at this stage in the auction, it's too late to have the bidding go counter-clockwise as it usually does, so I may as well keep the insanity going. The main worry is that the ♦K is devalued: if East had overcalled, I'd expect the ♦K to be working, but with West unexpectably bidding first, it isn't worth as much :)

 

Anyway, partner bid 4♣ so that I would be able to make an informed, if not intelligent, decision. I have unexpected ♠ length: my holding is at least as good as QJxx, and I have the Kxx in ♣s. AKxxx Kx x AQxxx is the kind of hand I'd expect over there, and it may be even better: maybe a ♦ void. So I have an easy 5♠, regardless of who bid when.

[skjaeran]

I guess we're talking IMP's here.

At MP this is a very hard decision. I'm not sure of what I'd have done at the table. Probably passed.

 

At IMP's it's still a tough decision, but not as tough as in MP, by far.

I'd bid 5♠. My guess is that we're one down here, and they one down in 5♦. But you can easily construct layouts where both contracts make. Bidding wins if at least one contract make, and is not a big loser if both fail by one trick. Cheap insurance.

[Apollo81]

I'd have bid 3♠ the first time.

 

I don't think 4♣ is necessarily a slam try; I just think it shows 5+ clubs. I'd bid 5♠ but it's real close.

[mikeh]

I'd have bid 3♠ the first time.

 

I don't think 4♣ is necessarily a slam try; I just think it shows 5+ clubs.  I'd bid 5♠ but it's real close.

I don't think 4♣ is a slam try either.

 

When we are in a competitive situation, especially one in which we can anticipate that the opps may be saving over our game, it is very useful to use non-jump 4-level bids as showing shape/location of values... to enable partner to make an informed decision over the anticipated save. The 4♣ bid is a transfer of captaincy. Contrast this to a 4♠ bid by opener: now, over 5♦, responder has NO right to bid 5♠ and should double only with great defence: 4♠ assumes captaincy.

 

This approach is based on the idea that making the correct 5-level decision over the expected save is a more frequent issue than is trying for slam: itself an unlikely scenario after a single raise.

 

 

BTW, I think that your thought about an initial 3♠ would be unpopular amongst most players. That bid is usually played as preemptive, and your hand is far too strong for that, especially if the ♦K is behind the 2♦ bidder (which it isn't, in the bidding diagram, but which it probably is at the table)

[han]

Tough call, not sure.

 

I would have bid 3♠ at these colors.

[Apollo81]

BTW, I think that your thought about an initial 3♠ would be unpopular amongst most players. That bid is usually played as preemptive, and your hand is far too strong for that, especially if the ♦K is behind the 2♦ bidder (which it isn't, in the bidding diagram, but which it probably is at the table)

 

Yeah I forget that other people will JR on complete trash vul against not (I dont) Maybe this is too strong anyway. My 2nd choice is 4♠ not 2.

[ulven]

I'm also an intial 3S bidder; I hate those 'preemptive' 3M-raises.

 

Now I bid 5S and I don't think it's that close.

 

Sure the DK is a minus but partner did bid 4C red vs white and I have 5 trumps and the K of C.

If this doesn't work out, we'll all have a look at partner's hand.

[gwnn]

We have a blazing double fit. I'll bid 5♠. And of course I can blame partner later anywho. :rolleyes:

[Gerben42]

5♠ for me. Partner bid 4♣ to prepare me for this decision. ♣K tells me I should bid on.

[Edmunte1]

5♠. Pass would have been forcing due to the explanatory 4♣ bid

[Apollo81]

Pass isn't forcing in this auction. The point of the 4♣ bid is to see if we should bid 5 over 5

[inquiry]

Pass isn't forcing in this auction. The point of the 4♣ bid is to see if we should bid 5 over 5

I disagree. We are Vul and they are not. 4♣ forces to game (well duh), so under this conditions, a pass would be forcing. If partner had jsut bid 4♠ instead of 4♣, THAT would not establish a forcing pass. But here, partner wanted to include you in the decision to defend or bid five.

 

The question is, do you have a choice between defend or bid on. What you can not do is pass now and bid 5♠ after partner doubles. You must decide now, bid 5♠, or pass and then pass partners double or his decision to bid 5♠.

[bid_em_up]

I would have bid 4♠ over 2♦ and been done with it.

 

If partner now doubles 5♦ knowing that I probably hold 5 spades, I'll respect his decision.

 

Having been forced to bid 2♠ the first time, I will bid 5♠ now, since my spade length is unexpected by partner.

[Fluffy]

Thanks for the replies, at first I though partner had missevaluated his hand, but reading your replies it seems it is mainly bad luck for the duplicated values in ♠, and ♦.

 

5♠ had no chance.

 

 

Partner held:

 

KQJxx

A9x

x

AQJx

[Trudy1959]

I choose to double because i have a bad hand for declaring and a good hand for defending.

- 5♠ seems wrong without any aces, or voids/singletons

- Pass seems wrong because I have defensive values that 2♠ did not show.

- 5♥ is a possible alternative, although only in my most regular partnerships.

 

Tru

[Apollo81]

Thanks for the replies, at first I though partner had missevaluated his hand, but reading your replies it seems it is mainly bad luck for the duplicated values in ♠, and ♦.

 

5♠ had no chance.

 

 

Partner held:

 

KQJxx

A9x

x

AQJx

partner doesnt have his 4♣ bid IMO

[ulven]

4C was a really bad bid vs a single raise with that hand.

[jdonn]

4C was a really bad bid vs a single raise with that hand.

This all seems like good old fashioned resulting to me. What if one of his hearts was a club? Then bidding on by us would still have been wrong most of the time (if clubs are 3-2, or the diamond king is a defensive trick, or if we get 2 heart tricks on defense). If we had a really good 5♠ bid (say king of diamonds in hearts) then 5♠ would be making easily opposite partner's hand. I think both the 4♣ and the 5♠ bid were somewhat reasonable (though I wouldn't have chosen either) and just didn't work, but if anything I blame our hand more since we made the final decisive decision which could have been right but we knew could also have been wrong.

[skjaeran]

4C was a really bad bid vs a single raise with that hand.

This all seems like good old fashioned resulting to me.

Josh, you don't know Ulf - he's no results merchant. :angry:

 

He might have explained better why he thinks 4♣ was a really bad bid, though.