A pesky preempt

[H_KARLUK]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sak52haqt3dckt964]133|100|Scoring: BAM[/hv]

 

1♣   PASS   1♠   3♦   

?

[mtvesuvius]

Pesky? LOL

 

WTP 4♦!

[andy_h]

yeap. Will respect partner's signoff.

[effervesce]

WTP 4♦, pass 4♠.

[H_KARLUK]

Allright.

Assuming WTP as "What's the problem" and now trying to reply. To me the problem is cue is an overbid (I cannot imagine primary suit is rich) and could not be a working effort from a tactical point of view (it could allow LHO doubling to suggest a reasonable save).

 

ps. Perhaps some players may try to use 3D if righty woudn't use it before they. Grr :) 2D reverse-so 3D short! in most CC i saw in live events here.

[Codo]

Hi Hamid,

 

4♦ is no overbid. You may make a slam opposite a hand with Qxxxx,xxx,xxx,Qx

(this is no perfect slam, but this in no clear 1 spade bid either).

So anything below 4 ♠ is a sure underbid.

4 ♦ shows a hand with at least the playing strength of a 4♠ raise and your distribution quite well, so this is a much better describtion of the hand.

[H_KARLUK]

Hi Hamid,

 

4♦ is no overbid. You may make a slam opposite a hand with Qxxxx,xxx,xxx,Qx

(this is no perfect slam, but this in no clear 1 spade bid either).

So anything below 4 ♠ is a sure underbid.

4 ♦ shows a hand with at least the playing strength of a 4♠ raise and your distribution quite well, so this is a much better describtion of the hand.

Hi Roland :)

 

I thought 4♠ seems just right. For sure I really have full respect to other technical ideas as usual.

 

All my best

Hamdi

[jdonn]

4♠ is an obvious underbid, even 4♦ is a bit of an underbid but of course it's the only reasonable choice. A true wtp if ever there was one.

[peachy]

4D is most obvious, no reasonable alternative. 4S would be a gross underbid and anything else just does not make any sense.

[Jlall]

I think any advanced or expert player would know that 4D is the right bid here.

[neilkaz]

Pesky? LOL

 

WTP 4♦!

Agreed with both the 4♦ and the WTP

[skjaeran]

I consider 4♦ to be automatic.

 

Not strong enough to act again over a sign off from partner.

[kfay]

I don't understand how this hand can be strong enough for 4♠ but not strong enough to bid 4♦. Why not bid my hand? Tactics? These are the explanations the Unlucky Expert uses for why he never wins. Although even the UE would bid 4♦ with this (or would it be 5♦ not recognized as exclusion?)

[Fluffy]

everyone sees this as a 4♦ wtp, but I think some think that it implies shortness, others that it is stronger.

 

IMO the main difference between 4♦ and 4♠ is that it sents a forcing pass at the 5 level.

[the hog]

4S is a real underbid. This is an obvious 4D, the bid I would make without interference, so WTP?

[bid_em_up]

Seriously, the only possible alternative to 4♦ would be 5♦ as Exclusion Keycard. Yes, that's a bit of an overbid on the given hand, but not by much.

[mikeh]

Another B/I problem presented in the A/E forum. Anyone who thinks that there is a real issue here, in terms of the appropriate bid, doesn't know the game at an advanced level... this is not to denigrate the question about whether 4♦ promises shortness (to me, it shows either shortness or, less frequently, control): hands with diamond length will usually just bid 4♠ since unless we hold the Ace, most hands with diamond values should be downgraded.... too much risk of a diamond to the Ace and a diamond ruff... so just show the gf and allow partner to move if he has a suitable hand, which will include a diamond control.

 

So, there may be an interesting technical point about the difference between 4♠ and 4♦, in a vacuum, but not with respect to this hand.

[WesleyC]

4D is certainly clear on this hand - but no-one has really discussed what it shows.

 

I think AKxx x xx AQJxxx would be 4S for everyone, what about:

 

a) AKxx xx x AQJxxx?

b) AKxx AQTx Qx KJx?

 

Personally i like 4D with a) (then 4S over 4H*) but would settle for 4S with b). Slam is a long way off and you've got an easy double of 5D.

 

So I guess 4D close to guarantees a diamond control?

 

Mike