What call do you make?

[louisg]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s52hkq96dq65ckj97]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Pass..1♠..2♠..Double

3♥..4♦..Pass..???

 

2♠ was Michaels (hearts and a minor).

Double showed an interest in defending a doubled contract.

[Fluffy]

forcing IMO, I'd bid 4♠ now.

[effervesce]

Looks like we're screwed already - the probable best game was 3NT (actually, probably the opps playing 3♥X).

 

Anyway, now I bid 4♠, as unfortunately 4NT won't be to play. One might decide 6♦ since you may be up for a bottom unless you can make 6♦.

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s52hkq96dq65ckj97]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Pass..1♠..2♠..Double

3♥..4♦..Pass..???

 

2♠ was Michaels (hearts and a minor).

Double showed an interest in defending a doubled contract.

wtp ...DOUBLE!!!.....Oh wait that is my blithering idiot partner who didn't want to give me chance to whack 3♥.....so 6♦....that should hurry the process of getting a new partner :(

[Winstonm]

Partner must hold a weak distributional hand, possibly 65 or 66 - I would guess along the lines of KQJxxx, x, KJ10xxx, Q so I would bid 4S.

[aguahombre]

two choices: 4s and the 6D tantrum suggested in gest by pooltuna. I prefer 4s. Partner was invited to participate in the bid/double decision. He chose to bid. I have what I said I had.

[peachy]

What was 4D and why did he bid 4D?

If the answer is something OTHER than "gameforcing, slammish, offensive hand" then he should not have bid 4D and we are already in the woods with no flashlight and no map.

[Codo]

I agree with the last poster that this is slammish, so I try 4 Heart and 5 Diamond over partners 4 ♠ bid.

[paulg]

With no first round controls and only the ♦Q for partner, I'm more inclined to pass than look for a slam ... although I think that 4♠ is the obvious call.

[rhm]

I would bid 4♥, not so much because I want to invite slam, but as a choice of games.

Playing 4♠ with a small doubleton opposite a 5 card suit and one opponent known to be short in ♠ is scary would be an understatement.

If partner bids 4♠ over 4♥ I will pass and otherwise I will bid 5♦ next and hope partner is on the same wavelength.

 

If this hand is enough for slam partner should need no further encouragement anyway.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

4♦ is slammish, probably 5053 or some such, but 4♠ is plenty, 9 of our 11 points are in the enemy suits. 4♥ is fine too if p understands it as choice of game.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Nonforcing, 4S.

 

The question to answer is, is pass over 3H forcing?

My guess is yes, so 4D was openers weakest bid, if he

has a 5-5 or ( more distributional) hand with min opening

strength.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gnasher]

I don't understand why people want to play 4♦ as a slam try. What is partner supposed to do with a normal-looking 5-5 or 6-5 where he knows he doesn't want to defend, and just wants to describe his hand so that we can reach the right contract?

[rhm]

Hi,

 

Nonforcing, 4S.

 

The question to answer is, is pass over 3H forcing?

My guess is yes, so 4D was openers weakest bid, if he

has a 5-5 or ( more distributional) hand with min opening

strength.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

So you want to play 4♠ with a small doubleton opposite a 5 card suit, when your partner shows weakness, in the face of opponents, who told you that the suit is not breaking well?

Sounds to me like a sort of hara-kiri at the Bridge table

Strange how many people want to play 4S when opener has not guaranteed more than 5 cards there.

4♠ could easily be down with 5♦ or even 6♦ on.

It is even imaginable that opener has opened a minimum hand 1♠ with 5 cards in ♠ and 6 cards in ♦

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Codo]

I don't understand why people want to play 4♦ as a slam try. What is partner supposed to do with a normal-looking 5-5 or 6-5 where he knows he doesn't want to defend, and just wants to describe his hand so that we can reach the right contract?

If 4 ♦ is weak and distributional, how do you show strong hands?

 

Bid 4 ♥ with all strong one suiters in spades and all strong two suiters with a minor?

 

The weaker hands may have a higher frequency, but at many hands we can show the latter and at some hands we can be glad not to show them at all.

 

 

But whatever is theoretical best, in my partnership I would like to hold on to the general rule that new suits at a high level are forcing- and in this case slammish.

[gnasher]

I didn't say 4♦ was weak, I said it might be a normal-looking 5-5 or 6-5. I wasn't suggesting that it was non-forcing.

 

With the same shape and a slam try you bid 4♦ and then you bid again, or perhaps you bid again if partner shows interest himself, but not if he doesn't. Or you agree that pass-and-pull is a slam try.

 

I don't see why you think this is any different from

  1♥ 3♦ 3♠ pass

  4♣

where 4♣ is natural, descriptive, forcing, and not specific as to strength.

[Hanoi5]

4♠, partner shouldn't be expecting 3 or a good supporting hand.

[rhm]

4♠, partner shouldn't be expecting 3 or a good supporting hand.

So what do you expect partner to do if 52 in ♠ turns out to be inadequate?

Is he supposed to correct to 5♦?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Codo]

I didn't say 4♦ was weak, I said it might be a normal-looking 5-5 or 6-5. I wasn't suggesting that it was non-forcing.

 

With the same shape and a slam try you bid 4♦ and then you bid again, or perhaps you bid again if partner shows interest himself, but not if he doesn't. Or you agree that pass-and-pull is a slam try.

 

I don't see why you think this is any different from

  1♥ 3♦ 3♠ pass

  4♣

where 4♣ is natural, descriptive, forcing, and not specific as to strength.

Os, so it was just a matter of semantics. I thought you would make this bid with weak distributional hands and non forcing. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And I never thought that "slammish" means that it is forcing to slam.

 

So 4 ♦ is forcing to "all of us" and shows an offensive hand. We simply need to judge whether we took the rosy view: (11HCPS!!) or the pessimsitic one: Just 2 HCPS in his suits, no aces, no great fit.)

 

I thought 4 Heart followd by 5 diamond showed something in between, but what do I know.

 

Maybe Akxxx,x,AKxxx,Ax is really too much to hope for... (And this is no good slam anyway...)

[cherdanno]

Hi,

 

Nonforcing, 4S.

 

The question to answer is, is pass over 3H forcing?

My guess is yes, so 4D was openers weakest bid, if he

has a 5-5 or ( more distributional) hand with min opening

strength.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

So you want to play 4♠ with a small doubleton opposite a 5 card suit, when your partner shows weakness, in the face of opponents, who told you that the suit is not breaking well?

Sounds to me like a sort of hara-kiri at the Bridge table

Strange how many people want to play 4S when opener has not guaranteed more than 5 cards there.

4♠ could easily be down with 5♦ or even 6♦ on.

It is even imaginable that opener has opened a minimum hand 1♠ with 5 cards in ♠ and 6 cards in ♦

 

Rainer Herrmann

So partner opens 1♠ with 5 spades and 6 diamonds because he isn't prepared to bid 4♠ over heart preempts after opening 1♦, but he is willing to bid 4♦ over heart preempts after he opens 1♠? No thanks.

In any case I would take 4♥ as slammish in support of diamonds, so I have to make a choice between 4♠ or 5♦. I would bid 4♠ as I think partner will be 65 more often than 55.

 

Btw, even cooperating with a slam try is absolute nuts.

[gnasher]

Os, so it was just a matter of semantics. I thought you would make this bid with weak distributional hands and non forcing. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And I never thought that "slammish" means that it is forcing to slam.

I don't think it was just semantics. I think 4♦ shows 6-5 or an offensive 5-5, with any strength consistent with opening the bidding (except that in some partnerships I would use pass-and-pull to show a non-minimum). If I'd opened the bidding with AQ9xxx x KJ10xx x, I think it would be normal to bid 4♦ (forcing).

 

Maybe Akxxx,x,AKxxx,Ax is really too much to hope for... (And this is no good slam anyway...)

If you cue bid and partner has that, only Blackwood will save you from a grand slam. Cue-bidding a king in a suit where partner is very likely to be short is really asking for trouble.

 

Edit: I don't usually bother with "me too" posts, but the last line of Cherdano's post seems an accurate assessment of a 4♥ cue-bid, even if you think 4♦ promises an 18-count.

Edited September 29, 2009 by gnasher

[rhm]

Hi,

 

Nonforcing, 4S.

 

The question to answer is, is pass over 3H forcing?

My guess is yes, so 4D was openers weakest bid, if he

has a 5-5 or ( more distributional) hand with min opening

strength.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

So you want to play 4♠ with a small doubleton opposite a 5 card suit, when your partner shows weakness, in the face of opponents, who told you that the suit is not breaking well?

Sounds to me like a sort of hara-kiri at the Bridge table

Strange how many people want to play 4S when opener has not guaranteed more than 5 cards there.

4♠ could easily be down with 5♦ or even 6♦ on.

It is even imaginable that opener has opened a minimum hand 1♠ with 5 cards in ♠ and 6 cards in ♦

 

Rainer Herrmann

So partner opens 1♠ with 5 spades and 6 diamonds because he isn't prepared to bid 4♠ over heart preempts after opening 1♦, but he is willing to bid 4♦ over heart preempts after he opens 1♠? No thanks.

In any case I would take 4♥ as slammish in support of diamonds, so I have to make a choice between 4♠ or 5♦. I would bid 4♠ as I think partner will be 65 more often than 55.

 

Btw, even cooperating with a slam try is absolute nuts.

I doubt that there are many Bridge players, who would be prepared to pass over 3♥ with an unbid 6 card ♦ suit and I also doubt that many would pass with 5-5 and a void in ♥ for example and many would do it with less.

Where we may differ is that I believe that choice of games bids are crucial in modern Bridge and have to take precedence before slam invites.

Choice of game bids are frequent and important (like here), while with slam invites there are usually many other options available.

Nowadays many experts agree on this.

For that reason I interpret 4♥ differently as a choice of games and n o t as a slam try, unless 4♥ is followed up by another bid. (e.g. If this hand bids on over 4 ♠ from partner)

If I wanted to invite slam directly (with a very different hand of course) I would either bid 5♣ or maybe 5♠ or I just bid the slam

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Hanoi5]

So what do you expect partner to do if 52 in ♠ turns out to be inadequate?

Is he supposed to correct to 5♦?

 

Rainer Herrmann

Partner should have known this before bidding 4♦.

[rhm]

So  what do you expect partner to do if 52 in ♠ turns out to be inadequate?

Is he supposed to correct to  5♦?

 

Rainer Herrmann

Partner should have known this before bidding 4♦.

If it turns out that 5♦ or 6♦ has play, but not 4♠ (you loose control), it can not have been such a stupid idea to suggest ♦ as trumps at some stage.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[louisg]

I think 4♦ shows 6-5 or an offensive 5-5, with any strength consistent with opening the bidding (except that in some partnerships I would use pass-and-pull to show a non-minimum).

I was hoping for more discussion of this specific issue. In those partnerships where pass-and-pull shows a non-minimum, would an immediate 4D still be forcing?

 

On a related note, is it too dangerous to plan a pass-and-pull auction here due to the risk of further preemption? In other words, no matter how strong your hand may be, is there reason to introduce the diamond suit now rather than risk hearing a raise to 4H on your left?