To support or not?

[matmat]

Not by trying to guess which times partner really has hid bid or not. B)

p always has their bid.

[Winstonm]

Sanity check - are there others that think we are in a forcing pass over 4♠? I don't.

 

This really is the crux - if 4H is a goodish hand, then the pass should be forcing. If the pass is not forcing, then 4H is a crapshoot bid.

 

The problem with making it either/or is that partner cannot know other than the looks of his own hand what is best - his hand may say bid while responder's may say defend and vice versa.

 

If pass is non-forcing, there is much more validity to bidding 4H.

[Winstonm]

No, you bid 4H with that as well. And when the opponents bid 4S you double.

Can I also double my partner's 5H bid? I don't like his chances much. B)

 

Here is my basic problem with this whole style/approach. One hand says, hey, my hand looks like it should bid on - partner's hand says, hey, my hand says we should defend. So we end up guessing whether to bid or defend. Each player is judging by only h-i-s hand.

 

The object of bridge should be to find out what is best for the c-o-m-b-i-n-e-d assets of both hands.

 

Discipline is doing what systemically is called for even when you strongly suspect it is the wrong action - it is the basis of partnership trust.

[han]

Good to have you back Winston.

[Winstonm]

Good to have you back Winston.

Thanks, Han. :P

 

You just needed a foil for your silly concepts, right? LOL. B)

[cherdano]

No, you bid 4H with that as well. And when the opponents bid 4S you double.

Can I also double my partner's 5H bid? I don't like his chances much. B)

I would love it if you doubled, because I would redouble, saving me the decision whether to bid 6. :P

 

Come on, give me xxx Qxxx AJxx Kx on this auction (1H (3S) 4H (4S) 5H) and I would certainly hope to make. In your given hand, even the ♠K opposite partner's void may be useful when they lead ♠A. What do you expect partner to have?

[han]

Good to have you back Winston.

Thanks, Han. :P

 

You just needed a foil for your silly concepts, right? LOL. B)

hehe. :)

[Winstonm]

No, you bid 4H with that as well. And when the opponents bid 4S you double.

Can I also double my partner's 5H bid? I don't like his chances much. B)

I would love it if you doubled, because I would redouble, saving me the decision whether to bid 6. :P

 

Come on, give me xxx Qxxx AJxx Kx on this auction (1H (3S) 4H (4S) 5H) and I would certainly hope to make. In your given hand, even the ♠K opposite partner's void may be useful when they lead ♠A. What do you expect partner to have?

IMO, it is not about what I expect partner to have but about what partner expects me to have.

 

This is a matter of style, and I do not quibble with either. If you believe the 4H bid should be approximately the same as a solid limit raise, i.e., an expectation of making 4H a reasonable amount of the time, then partner should be able to double 4S without extras.

 

If you believe that 4H should be bid on playing strength, that, too, is O.K., and partner will have to have extras to double.

 

But to combine these two into the same bid turns what could be an informed decision into a guessing game based on one's own hand and not the combined efforts of both hands.

 

Just so you know, I'm not much into captaincy, either.

 

One the the big sins of the Aces was: unilateral decisions. I believe that still to be the case and a killer of partnership and team moral.

[han]

I'm all for discipline but this has nothing to do with it. With this hand you expect to make 4H most of the time. In fact 5H often has a decent chance. And if partner drives to slam you expect to make that as well.

 

Without the 3S bid you would never play below game, it doesn't make sense not to bid game now. If your partnerships don't allow you to bid with this hand because it doesn't have enough defense then you are missing the boat too often. 4H can be bid on a wide variety of hands. If there is further bidding then you can clarify. By pulling partner's double of 4S you show that you have a light and highly distributional raise. If you have the balanced GF that you gave earlier then you would be the one doubling 4S and partner would know that you don't have a hand like this one.

 

It is certainly possible that you get a bad score by bidding 4H, although your constructions haven't been very convincing. It isn't good advice to only consider somewhat farfetched worst-case scenarios. To get a fair assessment you should consider all possible scenarios, and those include being allowed to make 4H or 5H when their spade contract was making, playing in a good slam, finding a good sac over their spade game, etc.

 

While I can't compute all possible layouts I'd say that bidding is so clearly right that I didn't think anybody would suggest passing.

[jdonn]

First the 2-2 break thing, then this. The Foo memorial all-star club is growing...

[Guest Jlall]

4H, this problem is a little too easy for the beginner forum.

[whereagles]

4♥ for now, 5♦ over 4♠.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

show the support.

 

If you play that 4D shows diamonds and

the support it is obviously best, but you need

to play it, else simply bid 4H.

 

with kind regards

Marlowe

[Winstonm]

To get a fair assessment you should consider all possible scenarios, and those include being allowed to make 4H or 5H when their spade contract was making, playing in a good slam, finding a good sac over their spade game, etc.

 

I agree with this. Here is the opposing viewpoint. Under the suggestions for this hand, partner is barred from action over lurker's 4S bid unless he holds some extraordinary hand.

 

Yet everyone also says they would never sit for a double and would always bid again over 4S - and with this I agree. If I bid 4H, I would never sit either and I would bid 5D over 4S.

 

But here is the deal - as I have shown, the times we can make a subminimal 4H the opponents can also make 4S.

 

Here are some observations:

Bidding 4H does not allow the hand to be played in 3S when both 4H and 4S are making.

Bidding 4H is clearly superior when: a) it buys the contract and makes or b) it buys the contract as a good sacrifice or c) when 4H makes and 3S is the limit of the opposing hands and the opponents sell out to 4H.

 

If we contrast pass we get this:

It allows the contract to be played in 3S if 4S is making.

It is possible that we allow a making 3S when we can make 4H

It does not bar partner from acting or any subsequent action we may elect to take over 4S - (so if we were going to bid 4H and then bid again over 4S, we can do very nearly the same thing by passing first and bidding over 4S, only we can't then bid both suits like that is a big deal.)

 

So the decision to bid 4H or pass really gets down to this: how often will we get to profitably buy the contract at precisely 4H verses how often will this action prod the opponents into a making 4S.

 

All other arguments are essentially a mirage.

[jtfanclub]

Partner is still there, allowed to bid 5♥.

 

A little question, here. If the auction continues: 1H-3S-4H-4S-X, do you pull the double or sit?

.

.

.

Of course, this presupposes that a 4H bid expresses some values - if the 4H bid does not express values, you can do whatever you wish.

Suppose you were opener. The auction goes:

 

1♥ (3♠) X (P)

4♣ (-P-) 4♥ (P)

 

What do you think is going on here?

 

In your example, heck yes I pass. We look to only have a 9 card fit. I don't think the opponents are even 50% to have a 9 card fit. If they don't have a majority of the points (and I don't think they do), we can probably crush them.

[jdeegan]

B) Dear Quantumcat,

 

This is really quite a hand you have presented us. You have only five HCP, yet opposite partner's AKxxxx of hearts and any two aces (15 HCP) you are a 78% favorite to make a 6♥ slam. Of course, if partner has a bunch of kings, queens and jacks, 4♥ may be too high. You have no way of knowing as yet, and maybe never.

 

My advice is to first bid 4♥. If the opponents bid 4♠, then bid 5♦ on your next turn even if partner doubles 4♠. Partner will play you for 10 red cards and not much defense, which is almost what you have. On hands like this with so much offensive potential and so little defense, you almost never want to defend.

If they now bid 5♠, and partner doubles again, you have to pass. Enough is enough.

[Quantumcat]

Okay, some interesting responses, I chose to do as you said, bid 4♥ then 5♦. My partner corrected to 5♥ and went one down.

 

What happened was, the defence led a spade then switched to the ace and another diamond and because the hearts didn't split nicely (4-0) my partner couldn't run the diamond suit (he had xx) without letting someone ruff, and he couldn't draw trump because then he couldn't get back to the diamonds. He ended up losing 1 spade, 1 diamond and one diamond ruff. Even if they continue spades, he can't ruff and draw trumps because when he knocks out the ace of diamonds they can cash a spade at him.

 

However, 5♦ makes easily, losing a spade and the ace of diamonds.

 

Do you think those who chose 4♦ were just lucky on this hand and that 4♥ is truly correct? or that those who decided to forget hearts and insist on diamonds as trump thought the various play scenarios out carefully?

[han]

Could you post the whole hand?

[jdonn]

However, 5♦ makes easily, losing a spade and the ace of diamonds.

And a heart ruff or two?

[Quantumcat]

Hey, that's a good point. I might have remembered the hands wrongly ... how dramatically does the right bid change if you have 3 hearts and 8 diamonds? I didn't keep the hand record the hand was in so I'm not sure exactly ...

[han]

With 3 hearts and 8 diamonds that are this good I would just bid 5D. The fourth heart is a dramatic difference (and the 8th diamond also strongly suggests playing in diamonds).

[Quantumcat]

Do you mean 5♦ right away, or after 4♥-4♠? If right away, partner could think it is a splinter or something (or does this not make sense)?

[han]

I meant right away. If you think that partner might take that as a splinter then you could bid 4D (forcing) and then 5D.

[jdeegan]

Do you mean 5♦ right away, or after 4♥-4♠? If right away, partner could think it is a splinter or something (or does this not make sense)?

:) Oh dear. the 'recent' (last 10-20 yrs) introduction of splinters (and 'doubles showing cards') is creating some real ambiguities for the next generation of players. Let me try to illuminate with regard to splinters.

 

1. splinters were also known by their inventors as 'picture' bids', rather narrowly defined - e.g. singleton in the bid suit, four trumps and 10-14 HCP.

 

2. they were used because they came up much more frequently than their natural alternative.

 

3. they kept the bidding lower than a simple jump to game in partner's suit

 

4. they were not used in competition - a restriction that could be relaxed if #1-3 above were fulfilled

 

Otherwise, the default is that the bid is 'natural' - i.e. has its logical natural meaning. By these standards, an immediate 5♦ over 3♠ would be natural.

[helene_t]

I'm surprised so many say that we're in an FP situation after 4♥-(4♠). I thought this was a crystal clear non-force.

 

Quantumcat: 5♦ is not a splinter. You don't usually play jumps beyond game as splinters, and you don't usually play splinters in competition (other than maybe a jump in opps' suit). In competition, jumps in unbids suits are usually fit-showing, e.g. showing longish and above all strong diamonds (lead-directing) plus 4-card hearts supprt. But again, you don't usually play it beyond game. So 5♦ is natural. Since 4♦ would already be forcing, 5♦ is a strong statement about diamonds (7+), while 4♦ would typically be based on 6 diamonds and some hearts tollerance and/or clubs length.

 

In modern methods, 5♦ is weaker than 4♦ followed by 5♦, so 4♦ could also be a 7-card diamonds and too strong for 5♦. I think 5♦ sets up a forcing pass, though, although I'm not 100% sure about that.