Preempted

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&s=st62hkj6543da5cj3&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d4s]133|200[/hv]

 

Mp

[helene_t]

double, planing to remove anything to 5♥ but hoping partner will pass.

 

I'm ok with pass, though.

[PhilKing]

Pass. Double is OK on values, but the way I play double here, partner will pass way too often (he is only supposed to pull with good shape).

 

I will remove a double to 5♥, which I play as stronger than going via 4NT, since if partner can act again, slam is not that unlikely.

[broze]

I will remove a double to 5♥, which I play as stronger than going via 4NT

 

Presumably only at this vul? Or else I've misunderstood.

[PhilKing]

Presumably only at this vul? Or else I've misunderstood.

 

All vulnerabilities (so I guess that means you have misunderstood ;))

 

Just to clarify, 5♥ immediately would be a full-blooded slam try, 5♥ via 4NT is more competitive. Pass then 5♥ shows approximately this, and Pass then 5♥ via 4NT shows a weak hand.

[broze]

All vulnerabilities (so I guess that means you have misunderstood ;))

 

Just to clarify, 5♥ immediately would be a full-blooded slam try, 5♥ via 4NT is more competitive. Pass then 5♥ shows approximately this, and Pass then 5♥ via 4NT shows a weak hand.

 

Ha - yes I was being dense. Thought you meant 4N at your first turn to call was weaker and that it was save-oriented. I like your treatment.

[gszes]

4s x will end up as the final contract around 90% of the time.

Given this probability, is it reasonable to x here knowing that there

is a fairly decent chance opener will have opened a hand that is umm

err defensively challenged???? We still have a partner that may be able

to do something useful over 4s so it might be better overall to be

willing to accept a smaller penalty with questionable hands and save x

for hands where we are "happier" with the idea of playing 4s x.

 

We can still show a variety of strong hands by using x or 4n followed by

corrections and direct bids to show sound 1 suited hands with not all

that much extra by bidding at the 5 level. xx KQJTxxx xx xx might be a

good example (at these colors).

 

I suggest that x should not be done with less than 2 quick tricks

(way preferably in suits with 4 cards or less). The advantage of using

x this way is that p will know you have some top tricks incase their

hand warrants further bidding or will keep them from pulling needlessly

when they fear the x due to their generally wimpy defensive values.

 

Pass here seems reasonable. Change the hand to xxx xxxxxx AKJ Jx and x

seems a ton more reasonable.

[Lord Molyb]

I pass. I don't like my heart honors on defense and I don't like my spots and distribution on offense.

[whereagles]

Do we need to bid?

 

We cannot make game unless pard has extras. And with extras + short spades he will surely do something.

[jdgalt]

[hv=pc=n&s=st62hkj6543da5cj3&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d4s]133|200[/hv]

 

Mp

 

Is this even a problem? I pass and lead the AD and another.

[PhantomSac]

 

I will remove a double to 5♥, which I play as stronger than going via 4NT, since if partner can act again, slam is not that unlikely.

 

I'd be pretty damn tempted to bid a slam if partner reopened X lol. There is enough points that we are off 2 aces (AQ KQ KQ, Q KQJ AKQ), but even in those cases sometimes partner will have the spade void for us, and a lot of times we just won't be off 2 things.

 

I could see partner passing 5H with many hands that make slam cold (x AQxx KQxx Axxx being the perfecta). I guess it matters how light he is expected to reopen with short spades, the lighter that is the more hands he will have where slam won't make, and the more hands he will accept a slam try on where slam is good. I wouldn't want to hang partner for making a good choice to reopen X aggressively, so if that was his style I would just bid 5H.

[kchatz]

[hv=pc=n&s=st62hkj6543da5cj3&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d4s]133|200[/hv]

 

Mp

I know I'm in the minority, but I bid 5h, especially at imps. This is not a slam try, and partner should give me a lot of space for making a pressure bid. I don't like my defense against 4s. My 5h bid could cause them to go up another level, in which case my double is more to my liking.

[ArtK78]

[hv=pc=n&s=st62hkj6543da5cj3&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d4s]133|200[/hv]

 

Mp

It is very interesting that I faced a very similar problem in a regional open pairs event yesterday.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj972haj94d4c32&w=s83hkt87653da3ct7&n=sqt5hdqjt652cq864&e=s64hq2dk987cakj95&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c4s?]399|300[/hv]

 

I held the West hand. The auction proceeded as shown. After some thought, I passed, and 4♠ became the final contract.

 

I led the ♣10, which was covered and won by my partner, who continued with the A and 9 of clubs. Declarer pitched his diamond on the third club. As can be seen, if a trump is not played at trick 4, declarer will be able to cross ruff hearts and diamonds and eventually claim with high trump and the ♥A. I can't say that I saw exactly what was going on, but I didn't want my partner to attempt to uppercut declarer, since there is no uppercut. So I ruffed my partner's winning club at trick 3 and played a trump. Down 1.

 

Bidding 5♥ would have been spectacularly unsuccessful.

 

I can't imagine doubling on my cards, but it would have worked as long as you get the defense right.

 

I find it interesting that this hand is really only one card different from the hand in the OP. It is actually more offensively oriented than the hand in the OP, and yet it is still right to defend. By the way, in real life I played this hand against kchatz.

[PhantomSac]

 

Bidding 5♥ would have been spectacularly unsuccessful.

 

 

You are being too double dummy. A lot of the upside of bidding 5H on hands like that is that people misjudge, they don't know the full hand. Do you think north would pass 5H with 3 spades and a heart void and no defense? It would never happen. Even though 5H is a loser at double dummy, it is a winner at single dummy. I'm not saying that makes 5H the right bid, I'm just saying that is one upside when everyone is guessing, they definitely guess wrong sometimes and/or fail to double you when it's right etc etc.

[MrAce]

Art to me xx spade and xxx spade are very different. There are other things, at my table the guy bid 4♠ red vs white. Anyway with a pick up pd I thought passing would not generate a good score usually so i bid 5♥.

It was not good for us as pd raised to 6 with power house and trumps were 4-1. Spade lead and continuation could defeat us but hey, someone thought his pd did not see 4♠ bid and saved over 6♥ http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

 

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=st62hkj6543da5cj3&w=sj8ht987dqt97ct98&n=s4haqdkj8642cakq4&e=sakq9753h2d3c7652&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d4s5hp6h6sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

!400 was top, +980 was %90 +800 was %80, bidding game in hearts and making 6 was %50.....20 tables

 

But anyway, I posted this to see methods like Philking suggested which i liked. However it was not available with a pick up pd.

[Zelandakh]

But anyway, I posted this to see methods like Philking suggested which i liked. However it was not available with a pick up pd.

I think it is good to do what PK suggests as a general rule. Whenever you can bid 5♥ constructively over their 4♠ and also bid a forcing 4NT followed by 5♥, the former is a slam try and the latter merely competitive. It makes the sequence ... - (4♠) - 4NT - (P) - 5♦; (P) - 5♥ nebulous, possibly hearts, possibly both hearts and clubs, but that is not such a big deal when partner already rejected clubs.

 

The alternative is the 4 level version of Ken's idea, where 4NT shows one minor or competitive with hearts with an immediate 5m showing that minor + hearts. Then hands with both minor have to start with a double and a 4NT advance of that double shows hearts. It is an interesting trade-off but I think the standard approach with the 5♥ and 4NT->5♥ sequences reversed is probably better, since losing 4NT over double as a scramble seems to cause more problems than the second suit being unknown.

 

Ken, if you can adapt your 1♠-2♠ idea to the 4 level better than this I would love to read it. Do you have anything special here?

[helene_t]

It makes the sequence ... - (4♠) - 4NT - (P) - 5♦; (P) - 5♥ nebulous, possibly hearts, possibly both hearts and clubs, but that is not such a big deal when partner already rejected clubs.

What about this crazy idea: To avoid that ambigiouty, you can play 4NT as lebensohl and 5♣/♦ as the lower of two suits. This has the added advantage that you can make opener chose between the red suits - playing standard methods, you bid 4NT and then pass 5♦, guessing that opener prefers diamonds to hearts.

[Zelandakh]

Yes, that would be another way with a 5♣ overcall showing clubs and a red suit. That breaks with Ken's original idea, that the 2 suiters should be unambiguous, but is perhaps the better compromise at this level. It kind of reverses the problem from the other thread though. If we have a hand that want to play slam in diamonds opposite the minors but stop in 5♣ opposite a rounded 2-suiter we are completely stuffed.

[whereagles]

PhilKing's 4NT is a sort of "Lebensohl 2NT" at a higher level.

 

The novelty here is its application for slam invite purposes, not game invite.

[ArtK78]

You are being too double dummy. A lot of the upside of bidding 5H on hands like that is that people misjudge, they don't know the full hand. Do you think north would pass 5H with 3 spades and a heart void and no defense? It would never happen. Even though 5H is a loser at double dummy, it is a winner at single dummy. I'm not saying that makes 5H the right bid, I'm just saying that is one upside when everyone is guessing, they definitely guess wrong sometimes and/or fail to double you when it's right etc etc.

The 5♥ bid might have worked on this hand, as LHO would probably take the push to 5♠. The problem is that partner (opener) may rightly believe that the 5♥ bidder has a much better hand and either double when it is not appropriate or bid on when it is not appropriate.

 

So it is not just LHO who may guess wrong.

[gszes]

Highly relevant to this discussion what would cause opener to reopen

with 4n vs x? We all have ideas on how to proceed after x but the rather

large range of hands p might have for x could be significantly narrowed by

having a clear definition of what a 4n balance would look like.

 

IMHO 4n would be a highly distributional and mostly (useful) top trick

free hand that is primarily interested in a sac over 4s with long clubs

and a side 4 card red suit void Axxx xx AKxxxxx. x seems horribly wrong

with this type of hand and letting 4s go by also seems horrifically misplaced

at these colors when a sacrifice could easily be a huge winner. 5c could easily

be a winner no matter what partner has but does it really cause any harm to

show the existence of a 2nd side suit in case p hates clubs??

 

If the 4n reopen is used in this way by opener pretty much any x opener makes

will have a strong tendency to be "more balanced" in nature even if very short in

spades. Strain is very much more important when bidding to make than when

sacrificing so we should cater our responses to handle one and 2 suited hands

(that will not include clubs because we would simply bid clubs or probably

could have bid clubs earlier) that have a reasonable expectation of making at the

5+ level xx Kxxxx Kxxxxx void vs those that are strictly sacrificial in nature

xxx xxxxxxx xx x.

 

4n = one suited* weak sign off or 2 suited strong

opener bids

5c if they desire slam and responder bids 5d or 5h to show

the weak 1 suited type hand but with the strongish 2 suited hand responder

will bid

5s as a 1st round cue bid (in case opener looking for 7)

opener will then bid 5n or 6s to ask responder to bid their

longer suit at the appropriate level preferring hearts if even.

5n no cue bid both suits even length

6c no cue bid longer dia than hearts

6d no cue bid longer hearts than dia

 

5d = one suited decent dia hand

5h = one suited decent heart hand (like the problem hand)

 

* if one has a 2 suited weak hand xx xxxxx xxxxxx responder will have to pretend

to have a weak 1 suited hand and always try to signoff in 5d running to 5h only

if there is a huge sounding penalty x at the table:)

 

Using this system responder can pass (the original problem hand) and then bid 5h

to show a one suited "strongish" hand for a pass.

 

Note this :system is hugely different than one I propose if unfavorable since it is designed

to include sacrifice bidding as a viable alternative.