too aggressive?

[goingoren]

opponents are vulnerable we are not

 

I hold

 

♠ A64

♥ q854

♦ K9632

♣7

 

 

partner opens one spade, RHO overcalls 2 clubs and I bid 4s.

[mike777]

prefer neg. double here.

 

 

granted you have a sort of in between hand...

 

HOpe I may be able to show inv hand next...but perhaps not.

---------

 

 

4s is not horrible if pard opens sound but..prefer neg x.

4s pretty bad if pard opens lite.

[P_Marlowe]

The hand is worth a inv. raise, a common agreement is to play,

that direct raises are weak / to play, to use the cue of the opponents

suit as a means to show a inv.+ raise.

 

Absend such an agreement, either 4S or a delayed raise (i.e. making

the suggested neg. X) will work reaonable often.

 

The hand is nice, the shortage is even nicer, unfortunately you have

a hand that is not strong enough to insist on game, but may be too

strong to allow the opponent of making anything.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Phil]

4♠ is an interesting bid on these cards, and I like it.

 

1. Your opponents will expect more spades and less defense and will come into the auction and get some nasty surprises.

2. Its unlikely you have a slam.

3. You might actually make 4♠!

 

Against this, you have a partner and partner might bid 5♠ over 5♣ expecting an entirely different type of hand. This is the risk you take.

 

I wouldn't suggest these tactics in a N/B forum, because the focus should be learning the rules, not breaking them. But since you asked...

[ahydra]

You could consider 3C which is commonly played as a good (INV+) raise in spades (we play that as specifically a 3-card INV+ raise). Otherwise a negX seems about the only option.

 

ahydra

[ArtK78]

If your sole concern is whether 4♠ is too aggressive, yes, it is a bit of an overbid.

 

I am more concerned with the fact that 4♠ is a misdescription of the hand. Partner will expect a weak hand with long spades. This may result in partner bidding on over the opponents 5♣ call when your side should be defending.

 

Furthermore, your hand has some slam potential should partner have a strong hand, and the 4♠ call may discourage him from looking for slam. And there is no guarantee that the hand belongs in spades. It is possible that the hand plays better in a red suit. Consider the potential of this hand opposite a nice hand with 5-5 in spades and diamonds, such as KQxxx x Axxxx Ax. 6♦ is likely to be a claim even if spades break 4-1. There is no chance of arriving in 6♦ after a 4♠ bid. You might get to 6♠, but it is not nearly as good a contract as 6♦.

 

For all of these reasons, I would make a negative double over 2♣. Depending on partner's next call, you can decide whether aggression is called for. At least you will have some additional information.

[billw55]

Agree with previous posters. My initial thought was to choose 3♣ here. Art's argument for the negative double is very persuasive though. A double followed by spade support gives an excellent picture of this hand. Armed with this information, partner will be able to make good decisions.

 

On another note: in general, and especially for a developing player - when faced with a close decision, you should prefer an overbid to an underbid. I have always found that I learn more from bidding that game/slam/dive/etc and taking my licking, than I do from going quietly. Not to mention that aggressive bids put more pressure on the opponents and usually give them more chances to do the wrong thing.

[mikeh]

As others have indicated, a major reason for not bidding 4♠ is that bridge is a partnership game, and partners are supposed to be able to act on the basis of the information we have provided.

 

While the odds are that bidding 4♠ will end the auction, it would not be surprising, given our club shortage, to see LHO bid 5♣.

 

Now your partner will very often do something sub-optimal.

 

He will think that you have a far different hand that you do. Your hand has some potentially useful defensive assets, and the essence of your 4♠ bid is to convey the opposite information....that your hand is all offence and not much defence.

 

If I had to name one difference between the bidding of good players and that of less-skilled players it would be that good players expect their partners to trust them and to act on the information provided, while less-skilled players tend to focus on their own decisions without paying much attention to partner. In fairness, less-skilled players usually play with partners who don't really know how to make decisions based on trusting partner, which tends to create a self-reinforcing loop.

 

Here, it is normal for a cuebid to be limit or better, and if we think that to be the best description of our hand, then that is what we do: 3♣.

 

The alternative is to double then bid spades, but there are downsides to this course. Partner might, for example, bid diamonds. Say LHO raises to 3♣, which will happen fairly often given our stiff and modest values. Now partner might bid 3♦ and our 3♠ call will seem like a preference, rather than primary support. That isn't the only problem that might arise.....rare tho it is, partners have been known to convert a negative double into a penalty double, and that decision is often influenced by the inference that responder denies real support by a negative double.

 

In short, it is rarely wrong to 'support with support', so my advice is to bid 3♣ and then leave the driving to partner, secure in the knowledge that you have given a good description of your values and fit.

[billw55]

The alternative is to double then bid spades, but there are downsides to this course. Partner might, for example, bid diamonds. Say LHO raises to 3♣, which will happen fairly often given our stiff and modest values. Now partner might bid 3♦ and our 3♠ call will seem like a preference, rather than primary support. That isn't the only problem that might arise.....rare tho it is, partners have been known to convert a negative double into a penalty double, and that decision is often influenced by the inference that responder denies real support by a negative double.

Interesting mikeh.

 

I was thinking that I would be satisfied if partner leaves the double in. And if 1♠-2♣-x-3♣-3♦-p, I like the double fit and would gladly bid 4♠. In fact 4♣ doesn't seem totally out of line, although admittedly continuing to hide spade support gets more critical at higher levels.

 

 

Still, 3♣ was my first instinct, maybe I should listen. I worry a little that partner may expect a fourth trump, but maybe I shouldn't.

 

Anyway, an interesting hand for discussing the choice between two good alternatives.

[Phil]

As others have indicated, a major reason for not bidding 4♠ is that bridge is a partnership game, and partners are supposed to be able to act on the basis of the information we have provided.

 

While the odds are that bidding 4♠ will end the auction, it would not be surprising, given our club shortage, to see LHO bid 5♣.

 

Now your partner will very often do something sub-optimal.

 

 

Again, I'm trying to keep this discussion couched for the N/B arena, and I have no doubt that double and 3♣ would definitely be the right bids for this forum, but I am just not convinced that partner will be bidding on with 5 over 5 here? Partner will probably have a doubleton club, and while its possible that he may have a redeeming feature like 6 or 7 spades, or a side five-bagger, it seems pretty doubtful.

[case_no_6]

I don't like 4S at all. The worst thing about it is that 4S promises at least 4 and usually 5 card spade support, so it positions partner badly if they bid 5C. Even if partner passes and you then Dbl, partner might pull the double when that is not the right decision. (And then it will be your fault since partner will expect longer spade support from you and, by inference, less defense and a bigger fit for the opponents.)

 

You have enough to invite and there is a standard bid that suggests 3 card support and invitational values - the cue bid of 3C. Why would you not want to do that? It is a very flexible bid that gives partner plenty of room to provide further input. For example, if partner happens to have hearts, partner can bid them (3H) without bypassing 3S and then you can raise!

[MrAce]

opponents are vulnerable we are not

 

I hold

 

♠ A64

♥ q854

♦ K9632

♣7

 

 

partner opens one spade, RHO overcalls 2 clubs and I bid 4s.

 

5-3 fits have a lot of weaknesses during the play. If you had 4th ♠ I would be with you on 4♠.

 

With this hand you should bid 3♠. But the popular usage of 3♠ is preemptive. If 3♠ is preemptive, cuebid in their suit shows a limit raise or better. (LROB is the abbreviation). Opener can accept the invitation by bidding game or making another cuebid. Or simply bids 3♠. Over 3♠ you pass if your initial intention was to invite. Otherwise you bid game, having lost your interest on slam.

This also applies when your pd overcalls.

With your hand I'd either bid 3♠ or 3♣ depending on agreement. This is something all N/B players should have a firm grasp of. I'd definitely make sure to discuss this with your pd.

[zillahandp]

Yes

[m1cha]

opponents are vulnerable we are not

 

I hold

 

♠ A64

♥ q854

♦ K9632

♣7

 

 

partner opens one spade, RHO overcalls 2 clubs and I bid 4s.

 

Replace ♥Q by ♥K (or ♥A), and you have a minimum hand for bidding 4♠ on the beginner level, that is, on the level where you bid game as soon as you found a fit and found out you are strong enough for game. But your hand is a sound invitation, so on this level you should bid 3♠.

 

More experienced players reserve the direct raises for preemptive bids. Imagine you hold

♠ Q8632

♥ 9854

♦ K64

♣7

and you bid 4♠ in order to make it as difficult as possible for opponents to explore if bidding 5♣ is good for them. For this reason people here refused to call your bid "aggressive" ;) . The message to partner with these preemptive bids is: "Don't try to explore slam!"

 

So if a direct raise is preemptive, there must be a different way to bid strong hands with a good fit, and that is an overcall in opponents' suit, here 3♣.

 

What you should consider with your hand (and this applies to many different situations also):

- You have the majority of points.

- You have a fit in the highest-ranking suit.

- You're in preferable vulnerability.

These are three good reasons to bid slowly. And while I guess you will finally end up in 4♠ with your hand 70 or 80 % of the time, the profit of bidding slowly is that you don't usually want to give up the chance of finding a better contract in the other 20 or 30 % of the time. If you jump to 4♠ in the first round, you will not get there.

 

With your particular distribution you can also double to show a 4-card heart suit instead of showing your fit. Is that a good idea? Well, with sufficient values for game you can pretty much do what you want: Double in the first round and jumping to 4♠ in the second round seems almost risk-free, would describe your hand pretty well, and in the meantime you hear if partner has anything helpful to tell you that might guide you towards a slam. But since your hand is weaker, your concern should be: Will you still be able to describe your main feature (a fit with invitational values) in the next round if you conceal it this round? Let's say the bidding goes

1♠ (2♣) X (pass) 2[any] (pass) _?_

1♠ (2♣) X (3♣) pass (pass) _?_

1♠ (2♣) X (3♣) 3[any] (pass) _?_

If you believe you will have descriptive bids partner will understand, double now. If you believe you would run into trouble, bid 3♣ now. If you are playing with beginners and you believe they will have trouble with your bid of 3♣, bid 3♠ now.

 

Experts will tell you (or they already did) that there are occasions when you want to bid 4♠ with hands like yours in order to deceive the opponents. While this is true, the problem with this approach is that you are also deceiving your partner, and most partners don't appreciate that. So you better make sure when you do this kind of thing and it fails, that you can explain why this was one of those occasions where it should have worked. :)

[BruceZhu]

If a splinter is on your convention card, I would definitely bid 4♣ and let partner handle the rest. Your partner probably holds at least 3 small clubs and he/she can ruff clubs with your singleton. If you do not play splinters, I suggest you cue-bid 3♣ because you can add some points for your singleton and five card diamond suit. Your 4♠ bid shows that you have less than 8 HCP and 5 card spade support. Hope this helps! :)

[wbartley]

With the opponents red and you white, I don't see the urgency in preempting. If they sacrifice in 5♣ you're probably beating it two unless your partner opens very poor hands. It makes more sense to me to make a negative double to uncover any double fit you might have. If there is a double fit, bidding game seems right. In the absence of a double fit, 3♠ is probably high enough. If LHO raises his partner and opener passes, you probably can't make game. The rest of the good news is that they probably can't make 4♣ in that case. If your partner has an extra trump and was reluctant to rebid his suit over the 3♣ raise, your delayed 3♠ might just entice him to bid 4.

[mikeh]

If a splinter is on your convention card, I would definitely bid 4♣ and let partner handle the rest. Your partner probably holds at least 3 small clubs and he/she can ruff clubs with your singleton. If you do not play splinters, I suggest you cue-bid 3♣ because you can add some points for your singleton and five card diamond suit. Your 4♠ bid shows that you have less than 8 HCP and 5 card spade support. Hope this helps! :)

a splinter should deliver 4+ trump unless partner has shown 6+.

 

Please note that competent opps are quite capable of leading trumps to cut down ruffs.

 

Also please note that a splinter is by definition a gf action, and an indifferent 9 count, albeit with a stiff, and only 3 trump so not a gf make.

 

3♣, which is the 'normal' bid imo shows 3+ spades and limit+ values. You hold an ideal, albeit minimum, hand for the action, so it is clearly correct, assuming that you play a normal method. Invite game and leave the driving to partner.