Pushed them up

[Winstonm]

A lot of people would double the first time, and there is some merit in my mind about the hand with shortness attempting to act, and I understand that the modern style is to act with less hand - still, I think it is losing bridge to do so - and not simply because I am old fashioned.

 

By acting with such weak hands, you increase the element of uncertainty that surrounds such auctions in the first place - partner really has no way to judge the auction without some idea of a range of hands doubler might hold. It would be similar to an initial T.O. double double of 1H with Jxxx, x, Axxx, Qxxx. There is no way partner can successfully judge the auction with such a huge range of possible hands.

 

The 4S bid was not justified in my opinion because there was no reason to believe 4H was anything but strong - bidding 4S over 4H is a good idea when there is a preemptive opening of 4H, but loses its attractiveness in other situations.

[PFormaini]

jon:

 

I admire your logic - but that damn 10 of clubs is SO alluring!

Indeed it is:

 

Without 10

 

With 10

Phil:

 

Thanks for those links! I did not know that the Kaplan/Rubens Hand Evaluator was available online! I always admired Edgar Kaplan and his hand evaluation theories so very much - and I obviously recall his position on suits bolstered by lower 'fillers'.

 

Good to see his lesson took.

 

From the continued posts, I think we can conclude that the eventual 4♠ bid was an overbid, since even it would have been a 'sacrifice'. :rolleyes:

[mikeh]

Am I the only one who read the post as having LHO as dealer, and hence, unless the rules of bidding progression have changed, we are in 4th seat and thus, according to the original post, I was the 4♠ bidder? Which I thought a bit odd, but I chalked it up to the line that 4♥ is a transfer to 4♠. Then the auction went pass, pass, 5♥ and I was to bid again?

 

I was relieved to find that it was partner who bid 4♠.

[Quantumcat]

What about the rule about not bidding 5/5? Do you have a slam try? The result would suggest not... ?

[hanp]

Am I the only one who read the post as having LHO as dealer, and hence, unless the rules of bidding progression have changed, we are in 4th seat and thus, according to the original post, I was the 4♠ bidder?

Obviously, my initial post contains a contradiction. So as so often in bridge you have to guess what is going on. Either Han wrote LHO when he meant RHO, or he posted the auction incorrectly and bid idiotically. Your guess, having read some of Han's posting history might help.

[hanp]

What about the rule about not bidding 5/5? Do you have a slam try? The result would suggest not... ?

It seems that most here do not always follow this rule. I think a big factor here is that we really good support for partner and we haven't shown it yet.