Your judgement

[mikeh]

I bid 5♣. While I usually agree with Josh's comments, on this one I have to disagree. The lack of a raise by the favourable vul. opps means little here, since I expect that LHO holds a moderate high card hand with majors and so had little reason to further the preempt. Give LHO KJxx K109x Kxx xx and should he really be advancing the preempt after my pass?

 

If 4♣ carried any invitational connotations at all, then it would have more attraction, but it is what I would bid with xx xx xxx Qxxxxx, and my hand is several tricks better than that. In fact, if partner raised 4♣ to game, I'd suspect I was about to miss a slam (and, please, let no-one suggest that we bid 4♣ and then raise 5♣ to slam).

 

5♣ comes with no guarantees but I'd rather bring back the occasional -100 (or even 200) than the occasional +150.

[mhais]

i will bid 5c

[Edmunte1]

My 7 examples were average hands (14-15 with singleton ♦, 16-17 with doubleton), and 5♣ is below average for them. For weaker hands the probability of making is lower. I think 25% is not a bad estimation

[jdonn]

This problem reminds me a little of a hand I had a few years ago, in the finals of a large knockout.

 

AQx - Txx KT98xxx, both vul, LHO deals.

 

3♥ DBL 4♥ ?

 

Of course I was an optimistic youngster, and I just couldn't get example hands for partner like KJxx xx Axxx Axx (not even worth a double) out of my head. I convinced myself to bid 6♣. They led a heart and partner came down with

 

KJxx Qxx KJxx AQ

 

Maybe some people would bid 3NT or pass instead of doubling, but it's not the worst bid ever made. Anyway I toiled for a bit and when both diamonds were off I went down 1. This lost us the match, whereas bidding and making 5♣ would have won it. But the real reason I learned a lesson was the bidding at the other table.

 

3♥ P P P

 

I learned several lessons from that which I have never forgotten.

 

Partner does not always have a singleton in the opponent's suit or 3 aces (or even 2) when he doubles their preempt. Sometimes hands with strength just have to act.

Sometimes partner has already won you the board just by acting, so there is no reason to get greedy.

Timeless advice - stay fixed!

 

People on both sides of this debate are generally making good points. I will stick with 4♣. But I admit I'm curious to see what partner actually held in this case.

[Joe de Balliol]

I bid 5♣ without much thought, on the grounds of "look how much worse my hand might be".

 

And yes, I want partner to be protecting with hands where 5♣ has no play - but those are worst-case scenarios. There are plenty of minimum hands he could have where slam is pretty decent. [xxxx AJxx x Axxx is one such]

[cnszsun]

But I admit I'm curious to see what partner actually held in this case.

This is what my partner held:

[hv=s=saqxxxhj9xxxdqcaj]133|100|[/hv]

 

Did it make this problem more intersting?

At table, i bid 5♣, my lho doubled.

 

♥K lead and ♣ shift, ♣s 2-2, ♠K offside, maybe i could play better, but i lost 800 at last.

 

What do you think now looking at the whole hand?

[mike777]

Well I asked the question before, in balance seat at the three level how many "working" hcp do we expect partner to have along with shortness?

[jdonn]

I definitely think partner's double was the right bid. Bidding a major risks you being short there but long in the other one, and bidding 4♦ removes 3 of the possibilities that could have worked out well: you passing the double, you bidding 3NT, or you stopping in 3 of a major. Meanwhile the chance you will bid clubs in response is very slim, and when you do you tend to have very long clubs, as here.

[Guest Jlall]

late, I would have bid 4C for sure. I have clubs and partner didn't show clubs with his X. It's likely he is going to X and bid like 4M or something. He could easily be 5422 or whatever. A classic 4414 is much less likely than usual when taken in context of my hand.

[Joe de Balliol]

Bidding 4♦ removes 3 of the possibilities that could have worked out well: you passing the double, you bidding 3NT, or you stopping in 3 of a major.

Thing is, all of these are far more likely to be successful at matchpoints, when I'd agree with double. At IMPs I prefer 4♦ on the grounds that it doesn't misrepresent your hand.

[mike777]

But I admit I'm curious to see what partner actually held in this case.

This is what my partner held:

[hv=s=saqxxxhj9xxxdqcaj]133|100|[/hv]

 

Did it make this problem more intersting?

At table, i bid 5♣, my lho doubled.

 

♥K lead and ♣ shift, ♣s 2-2, ♠K offside, maybe i could play better, but i lost 800 at last.

 

What do you think now looking at the whole hand?

I am not saying this hand is easy ....but is pass really not an option?

[000002]

i study this quetion half month about 2years ago,and conclude the conclusion 5winner tricks is the basic frame of referrence in T/O-DBL's hand.

then ,assume decider has n winner tricks ,(n-1) is bidding level to decide.

 

in this case,we hold 6♣ winner and ♥ q,(6-1)=5 is synoptical eduction.

 

 

regards 000002

Don't quite get you...

what is "don't quite get you ..." meaning in english?

 

 

 

 

regards 000002

[000002]

i ever make 7♠ and opps down 5 meanwhile they bid 6♠ only.

it's wrong when anyone decide a rule based on a special hand.

 

 

i am surprised who bid T/O with 2Aces only.

i think we all consider this T/O is correct and criterion.

it's fallacy of course when T/O is original skew and intentionally distort.

 

 

regards

000002

[jdonn]

I am not saying this hand is easy ....but is pass really not an option?

Yes, pass is really really really not an option.

[mikeh]

The actual hand is largely irrelevant to the discussion of the best call as advancer.

 

We all know that the balancing double can be flawed: both in terms of high card strength and, to a lesser degree, shape. We have seen an example of a highly flawed takeout double that resulted in a terrible result for the 5♣ bidders. Yet the double could equally well (some would say 'would be more normally") be based on Axxx AJxx x QJxx: and we would hear that 4♣ got us to +150 while 5♣ got us to game... not to mention the occasional slam we would reach via 5♣ and not 4♣.

 

We tend to focus on the problem situations: the bids that work out particuarly well or particularly poorly, and there is a powerful temptation to use these abnormal outcomes as guides to the proper approach. This is a terrible way to try to learn the game. On this hand, both the balancing double and the aggressive 5♣ call contributed to a disaster... so what? On another day, each action would have found a different advancing hand and we might have found a great contract... and never seen the hand posted, because the result would be seen as 'normal'.

 

Preempts work... and this one is an example of why. Shrug, get on with the game, and DON'T try to learn any other great lessons from the hand.