lenght on all suits

[Fluffy]

♠Q9x

♥J109xx

♦x

♣J108x

 

 

our side vul, rho opens

 

2♥-pass-pass-4♠

pass-pass-5♣-pass!

pass-??

[S2000magic]

As everything else has been bid, I guess you have to bid diamonds or notrump.

 

;)

 

Partner seems to have some idea that he can make 4♠ just looking at his hand, and you fill in his trump suit, so that might justify bidding 5♠.

 

A principle that one hears frequently is that when freak hands abound, your side should be declaring; that, too, would argue in favor of 5♠.

 

Anyway, that's what I'd bid.

 

(Ultimately, you'll show us the other three hands, no?)

[mikeh]

Seems clear to me to bid 5♠.

 

Guessing shape with precision here is impossible, but partner should be very short in the rounded suits, and have good trump. This means that we can probably score some diamond ruffs.

 

While they are not making 5♣, my expectation would be that we'd collect 500 (or less) more often than not, and that we're making 650 more often than not.

 

I don't generally enjoy being pushed around, but doubling seems to be settling for what will uusually be a poor score.

[jdeegan]

:P 5♠. I have never heard this auction before, but I have two or three potential tricks. Not enuf to bid six tho.

[mike777]

interesting problem I wonder how many tricks pard plays us for when she bids 4s which begs the question how many "extra" tricks do we have above that amount?

 

I just dont want us both to end up bidding the same values twice.

[bigbenvic]

interesting problem I wonder how many tricks pard plays us for when she bids 4s which begs the question how many "extra" tricks do we have above that amount?

 

I just dont want us both to end up bidding the same values twice.

 

This is a tough decision, with 1 partner he would double 5♣ to show that he bid 4♠ with the expectation that he was making, the pass would signify that he was playing me for tricks or sacking (though given he could have passed out 2♥! we'd be discussing this after the set!)

 

I'm bidding 5, only 1 defensive trick and Qxx trump plus stiff D (opposite partners likely length) at other vulnerabilities I'd agonise more (but probably still bid)

[Hanoi5]

I'd go with 5♠, too. My singleton diamond will hopefully be useful.

[mikeh]

How many here think this is a forcing pass?

 

I do.

 

We are red v white and had a power auction to 4♠.....partner could easily be 7=0=4=2 or such and be unwilling to double 2♥ lest we leave it in. They were playing 2♥ until he balanced.....we have to be willing to pay to this hand belonging to them in order to have flexibility here, imo. If he has AKJxxxxxx and out, too bad.

[quiddity]

How many here think this is a forcing pass?

 

I do.

 

We are red v white and had a power auction to 4♠.....partner could easily be 7=0=4=2 or such and be unwilling to double 2♥ lest we leave it in. They were playing 2♥ until he balanced.....we have to be willing to pay to this hand belonging to them in order to have flexibility here, imo. If he has AKJxxxxxx and out, too bad.

 

Partner has lots of options with a strong hand. He can double, he can jump to 3♠, he can cuebid 3♥ and correct to spades. He has only one option with a weaker hand and long spades, so I think we should cater for that.

[mikeh]

Partner has lots of options with a strong hand. He can double, he can jump to 3♠, he can cuebid 3♥ and correct to spades. He has only one option with a weaker hand and long spades, so I think we should cater for that.

while I don't like the idea of allowing our hand to determine what partner meant by his pass, did you see our hand? And listen to the auction? Do you really think LHO has a 20 count?

 

While I agree with one of your points (3♥ then spades, that requires an agreement. Your other two points, double and 3♠, make no sense....neither is forcing. I infer, from the auction and our hand, that partner doesn't think we have the 3♥ tehn spades agreement.

[Statto]

X. We may be fixed here. My only real values are the stiff ♦ and surprisingly good ♠ support. But that is still probably less than P was hoping for when bidding 4♠, so trying 5♠ to make looks decidedly risky. That I have all those good ♠s suggests P has lots of values elsewhere for the bid. I have a trump trick in defence, and the ♥ distribution is mess for whoever declares. Not sure if it's a forcing pass situation - it feels like it should be. Anyway, I double. What could possibly go wrong...? :unsure:

[Bbradley62]

No one thinks form of scoring is relevant? :unsure:

[quiddity]

while I don't like the idea of allowing our hand to determine what partner meant by his pass, did you see our hand? And listen to the auction? Do you really think LHO has a 20 count?

 

While I agree with one of your points (3♥ then spades, that requires an agreement. Your other two points, double and 3♠, make no sense....neither is forcing. I infer, from the auction and our hand, that partner doesn't think we have the 3♥ tehn spades agreement.

 

I misunderstood your initial post. I thought you were arguing that pass should be forcing, not that this particular partner thought that pass was forcing.

[Fluffy]

Its IMPs scoring if it matters t you.

[gnasher]

We have fewer useful high cards than partner was expecting when he bid 4♠. We have a singleton opposite partner's second suit. In spades, they will be able to lead clubs through partner, and possibly also uppercut him in hearts. Our club holding is worth a trick against 5♣ but nothing in 5♠. Our heart holding means that they can't run the suit in 5♣, but has no value in a spade contract. In clubs, we will probably be able to overruff dummy, then wait for partner to score his diamond tricks. All of that suggests defending, especially at IMPs.

 

One risk in defending is that declarer might be able to cash several heart winners, with partner unable to ruff. However, even if he makes three hearts and six clubs, that's still two down, and we still might not make 5♠.

 

I'd double.

[JLOGIC]

Until I see people pass 2H there with like 11 clubs, I think we are in a forcing pass. Perhaps exploitable to allow their sandbagging to force us, but in real life they are just saving, they passed 2H afterall.

 

I would double.

[Fluffy]

Now time to rate partner´s bidding, he had:

 

♠AK8xxx

♥Ax

♦AQxx

♣x

[phil_20686]

Now time to rate partner´s bidding, he had:

 

♠AK8xxx

♥Ax

♦AQxx

♣x

 

he probably things this is our fault as well......

[S2000magic]

he probably things this is our fault as well......

I've played with that partner . . . but never twice.

[mikeh]

Now time to rate partner´s bidding, he had:

 

♠AK8xxx

♥Ax

♦AQxx

♣x

Easy to rate: 0 on any scale.

[cherdano]

I also think pass should be forcing, but what about the auction (2♥) 4♠ (5♣) ?

 

I would also double 5♣. I think partner is likely to have a heart void, and thus not likely to have a club void, too.

[mikeh]

I also think pass should be forcing, but what about the auction (2♥) 4♠ (5♣) ?

 

I would also double 5♣. I think partner is likely to have a heart void, and thus not likely to have a club void, too.

Interesting situation. The parallels are not exact, but very close.

 

For one thing, the meaning of the 4♠ call is slightly different in the two auctions.

 

In the OP, a balancing double would have a lower minimum than in this situation, had partner doubled 2♥. And partner would have less reason to fear a penalty pass of his takeout double when we sit in front of the 2♥ bidder rather than behind. So I think a direct 4♠ shows a slightly different but overlapping range of hands than does a balancing 4♠. I think the direct would be slightly more powerful than a balancing 4♠ on average...with many hands being 4♠ bids in either seat.

 

I think it remains close. I think I'd still make my 5♠ call and hope that partner realizes that with slam interest, I would have passed and pulled.

[gnasher]

I also think pass should be forcing, but what about the auction (2♥) 4♠ (5♣) ?

 

I would also double 5♣. I think partner is likely to have a heart void, and thus not likely to have a club void, too.

In that auction I wouldn't play a forcing pass. There's no longer the "sound of the auction" inference that they're saving, and the 4♠ bidder doesn't promise great defensive strength.

[gnasher]

Now time to rate partner´s bidding, he had:

 

♠AK8xxx

♥Ax

♦AQxx

♣x

 

4♠ doesn't look quite right, because the spades aren't good enough to insist on the suit. However, it's not obvious what is the right approach. Dbl-2NT;3♠ might provoke partner into bidding 5♣ - he will expect more than a small singleton club for this sequence. Dbl-2NT;4♠ just shows a stronger one-suiter than we actually have. Hence I don't mind the direct 4♠.

 

The complaints about partner's bidding are probably because the complainers lost 100 when they should have been taking 500. :)

[Phil]

Double seems clear to me. I don't relish partner trying to take 11 tricks on the (obvious?) trump lead when he is 7=1=4=1. I'd give thought to 5♠ at MPs but in some layouts we are getting 800 when we make 5♠.

 

Please explain to your partner that a 4♠ overcall shows a different hand than a control rich 6=2=4=1. (edit - and if he did bid 4♠, this is the easiest double of 5♣...ever).

 

On Cherdano's auction I would not take pass as forcing.