Problem after aggr. 4D

[MFA]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s65h7dakt876ct962]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Pass - (1♥) - 4♦

 

You have agreed to play a ghestem variation, so 3♦ was not an option (would be ♠+♦). Therefore you decide to push it to 4♦. Ok? Ok!

 

The bidding continues:

 

Pass - (1♥) - 4♦ - (5♥),

5♠ - (pass) - pass

 

You are a moderately experienced partnership, and 5♠ might be some 'modern' bid. But why bid now? Pass and see what west does. They are slamgoing and in a force. Ok? Ok!

 

Pass - (1♥) - 4♦ - (5♥),

5♠ - (pass) - pass - (X),

pass - (pass) - ???

 

Pass or pull?

 

When you have made up your mind, please read the hidden text below:

 

 

Unfortunately, partner, the big bonehead, alerts 4D and explains along these lines: "Well, I'm not absolutely sure, but that might very well be S+D".

Does that change anything for you? Is it legal to run to 6D after hearing this from partner?

 

[helene_t]

Pass stands out by 1.7 kilometers IMHO. I have a great hand for spades, if p doesn't want to play in spades he would have corrected himself. Hidden:

Partner's explanation sucks. If he really wanted to tell the opps that he didn't know at least he should have made sure you didn't hear it.

[hotShot]

What is 2♦ in your ghestem variation?

 

Partner promises a long ♠ suit. As a passed hand he won't be very strong.

But this is almost impossible if we play weak 2's. Coming from a passed hand it can't be a slam try either. So partner is desperate with a ♦ void and some ♠/♣ 2-suited hand or he forgot our ghestem agreement.

So I bid 6♣.

After reading the hidden text:

 

I expect the TD to turn the result back to 5♠X down a lot (as he should do) and if I think it's worth I'll try to convince the AC that I had the legal information that partner could not have a hand that justified a pass. But I would not be optimistic.

 

[MFA]

What is 2♦ in your ghestem variation?

2♦ would be natural.

 

2♥: Michaels, 2NT: minors, 3♣: ♣+♠, 3♦: ♦+♠. Everything else natural.

[paulg]

Looks obvious to pull to me. I'd expect partner to have ♠KQxxx and 4+ diamonds and it would never occur to me to pass. Essentially partner is aiding the decision on whether to sacrifice against the small and grand slam.

 

 

Hidden:

I would have said that pass is not a logical alternative, however Helene's response almost certainly ensures that it is under the 2007 Laws. So if you get ruled against and wished to appeal, you better hope that Helene (or anyone with the same views) is not in the vicinity to be polled!

 

[rogerclee]

Wow I thought this was an extremely easy 6♦ bid.

 

5♠ was fitted, and partner passed just in case we had an awesome hand for spades and could sacrifice at a level lower. I don't see any reason to punish partner for bidding very intelligently.

 

Hidden:

I don't think passing is a logical alternative at all, and I have found that I generally think these things (LA vs not LA decisions) are closer than others do.

 

[Codo]

When partner had not passed as dealer, I would share Helenes view.

This is obvious.

 

But there is no hand where partner has not enough for a spade opening but enough for a 5 spade bid facing a misfit. So 5 Spade was lead directing against their slam including a diamond fit.

 

It is 100 % to bid 6 Diamonds now and lead a spade when they bid slam.

 

I hope to meet Paul and Roger in the AC- and Helene elsewhere.

 

:)

[helene_t]

Of course I agree that p has diamonds support. Suppose he had something like

Qxxxxxx

(void)

xxx

Axx

 

Since everyone disagree with me I am probably wrong, but I don't think p's pass after the double can show something less spade-oriented than this, unless we have the agreement that pass is not a suggestion to play 5♠x but rather a hint to save against 6♥, or some such. If we know that p would preempt with this hand then ok.

[andy_h]

I agree with the crowd that I am pulling this to 6♦. 5♠ is almost always going to be a fit-bid and not natural because partner didn't pre-empt as dealer (unless he's walking the dog in which he can still bid however more spades he wants after 6♦).

[TimG]

I'm with the pullers. I don't think partner's pass of 5SX shows extra spade length -- partner could easily have 5 spades and 4 diamonds and be perfectly willing to play 5SX opposite 3 spades in our hand (or 4 spades if ghestem 3♦ couldn't be bid with 4♠ and longer ♦).

 

I think partner's most likely reason for passing originally with spade length is that they have four hearts. The auction here suggests that is very unlikely. Which, I think, argues that partner is less likely to have 6 spades. And, if he does have six spades, they will be not to good. More points in favor of pulling.

[mtvesuvius]

I pull, this was originally a fit bid, so I would rather play 6♦ then 5♠ obviously. I lead a ♦ against 6♥, just in case they are 3-1 in ♦...

 

I expect something like QJxxxxx - Qxx Axx or so... The other possibility is Jxxxxx - Qxxxx Ax.

[skjaeran]

I've never encountered a partner who have long spades after passing, unless he's got a heart side suit. Which opps bidding clearly tells me he hasn't.

 

So to me it's obvious that partner has spades and great diamond support. Pass is no LA to me, and I'm pulling to 6♦.

 

I don't know any high level TDs (myself included) who would disallow 6♦.

[jdonn]

Therefore you decide to push it to 4♦. Ok?

No. 2♦ >>>>> 4♦.

[orlam]

Of course I agree that p has diamonds support. Suppose he had something like

Qxxxxxx

(void)

xxx

Axx

 

Since everyone disagree with me I am probably wrong, but I don't think p's pass after the double can show something less spade-oriented than this, unless we have the agreement that pass is not a suggestion to play 5♠x but rather a hint to save against 6♥, or some such. If we know that p would preempt with this hand then ok.

Your partner would not preempt in 1st seat with that?

[helene_t]

Qxxxxxx

(void)

xxx

Axx

Your partner would not preempt in 1st seat with that?

I hope he would (at W vs R at IMPs, that is) but I would not assume it unless we have elaborately discussed preempt style. After all, the hand has three flaws (lousy suit, side ace, void).

[uqx]

I'd be pulling to 6♦, 5♠ was no doubt fit showing in some way, or partner misunderstood Ghestem (which happens 105% of the time in my experience). If the director gets called I'll leave it up to him to decide if my 6♦ was allowed.

[JanM]

I agree that it is automatic to pull - Pass just isn't a logical alternative after partner didn't open some number of spades in first seat. I thought the question was whether to bid 5NT or 6♦. After all, partner could be something like 4135 or 4225 for the 5♠ bid and then clubs might play better than diamonds.

[Phil]

This would be a much more interesting problem if pard weren't a passed hand.

 

As it is, he is relying on me for spade support if I pass, which I don't have.

 

The explanation makes things a little rocky, but passing 5♠ is ridiculous and there is no LA to 6♦.

[jdonn]

I think passing is a logical alternative. There are two reasons.

 

1. If partner thinks 5♠X is a possible contract, and I have only 6!!! diamonds, then it's a possible contract. He expects 7 or 8 diamonds from me, he has offered me spades, I have 6 diamonds, and I would have to increase the level. I am not saying I wouldn't pull if stuck in this spot, just that I think passing qualifies as LA.

 

2. I think so little of a 4♦ bid that I feel a player who does that is capable of things another player might not be.

 

I always giggle a little at the people who say partner can't have the spades we need for this to be right, because they are often the same people who tell stories of sneaky players that pass to begin with holding 9 card suits and such.

 

To all the auto-6♦ bidders, if these were your opponents hands, and the 5♠ bidder insta-passed over the double and his partner pulled, would you call the director then after seeing the 2164 hand?

[helene_t]

2. I think so little of a 4♦ bid that I feel a player who does that is capable of things another player might not be.

Thanks Josh, such a stupid player might even be capable of making the same mistake as I did :D

 

Besides, his partner was capable of thinking that 4♦ was the Copenhagen convention, so who know if he is capable of passing with a 9-card spades?

[655321]

You have agreed to play a ghestem variation, so 3♦ was not an option (would be ♠+♦). Therefore you decide to push it to 4♦. Ok? Ok!

OK, I like 4♦!

 

I don't know whether or not I should be allowed to rip 5♠ to 6♦.

Anyway, the good news is that if we play 5♠X in our 4-2 break and go for 1400 or so, we might be able to talk partner out of playing Ghestem in future. :)

[MFA]

I didn't play this hand, it was an appeal case.

 

The crucial point is that when partner bids 5♠ and passes the double, he is willing to play in spades. He has the responsibility to remove himself if not.

So partner can't any longer have some 4-card spade suit that just wants a lead.

 

If we pull to 6♦, there could be 2 reasons:

 

1) We don't trust partner

2) We think that partner's suggestion to play in spades is such a weak one that we don't have the right hand to accept.

 

It has merit for sure that partner's pass is only a mild suggestion that requires a big spade fit to be left in. But it is a rather subtle agreement. For all we know partner might have a flawed hand for a preempt. Aces, voids etc. For some people there could even be a gap between a preempt and a 1-bid, if they preempt so aggressively NV vs V that they can't stand to do it also on a 10-count or some such.

 

Surely partner won't be suggesting 5♠ that often, so it's fair to assume he don't have an everyday hand.

If this came up with my regular partner, I would pass 5♠X. Playing with an unfamiliar partner, I would probably pull to 6♦. ;)

 

As you have guessed by now the actual north was all-in on finding partner with spades+diamonds and south chose to pull.

 

When deciding if pass is a logical alternative, it must be so to trust partner. Here we have an ok hand for spades. I think the "very weak suggestion to play 5♠X" is relatively far-fetched and it can't overturn that judgement. If a strong partnership can handle this expert interpretation at the table, fine, but please no silly UI jibberish-explanation underway :).

[hotShot]

I didn't play this hand, it was an appeal case.

 

The crucial point is that when partner bids 5♠ and passes the double, he is willing to play in spades. He has the responsibility to remove himself if not.

So partner can't any longer have some 4-card spade suit that just wants a lead.

I think that logic is flawed. The 4♦ bidder accepted to play 5♠, why should the player who suggested to play ♠ in the first place now remove himself? Only his partner can judge if he prefers to play ♦ or ♠.

If we pull to 6♦, there could be 2 reasons:

 

1) We don't trust partner

2) We think that partner's suggestion to play in spades is such a weak one that we don't have the right hand to accept.

After the double there is reason to assume that the estimated missing ♠ don't split 3-3 or 2-3 this makes a ♠ contract a lot less attractive. Since everybody except me thinks that 5♠ includes ♦ support, playing 6♦ is a lot more attractive.

[MFA]

I didn't play this hand, it was an appeal case.

 

The crucial point is that when partner bids 5♠ and passes the double, he is willing to play in spades. He has the responsibility to remove himself if not.

So partner can't any longer have some 4-card spade suit that just wants a lead.

I think that logic is flawed. The 4♦ bidder accepted to play 5♠, why should the player who suggested to play ♠ in the first place now remove himself? Only his partner can judge if he prefers to play ♦ or ♠.

If we pull to 6♦, there could be 2 reasons:

 

1) We don't trust partner

2) We think that partner's suggestion to play in spades is such a weak one that we don't have the right hand to accept.

After the double there is reason to assume that the estimated missing ♠ don't split 3-3 or 2-3 this makes a ♠ contract a lot less attractive. Since everybody except me thinks that 5♠ includes ♦ support, playing 6♦ is a lot more attractive.

The 4♦-bidder accepted to play 5♠ undoubled. No surprise, since he is NV vs V and the opponents are in a forcing, slamgoing sequence (5♥ was a slam try). We can deduce little about the 4♦-bidder's degree of spade fit, when he passes 5♠ undoubled. This could have been done on a void if he thought it would be clever for tactical reasons.

 

After the double, business are serious. The 5♠ bidder must tell his partner, if 5♠X is a possible final contract or not facing a 4♦ preempt. Passing shows that 5♠X is in the picture, which means that he has some kind of a real spade suit, not just a lead director.

 

I don't think that there is a particular reason to think that spades breaks badly because 5♠ got doubled. The opponents' primary concern is to judge whether or not they should bid the slam. When they stop to double they will usually just be short of values for bidding on.