Your bid?

[xbabarx]

IMPs- favourable vulnerability

You hold

Q10x- KJ9864-Q10xx- clubs void

 

Partner open 1 Hearts, next 1 Spades. 1H-(1S)-?

 

Your bid and why?

[Cyberyeti]

If I have 4♣ available for this I'll use it means partner will recognise something like void, A10xxxx, AKJx, xxx as absolute gold dust.

[steve2005]

del didn't realize 1S an overcall

[ggwhiz]

A simple 2♠ cue leaves lots of room to get clues as to how high to go and I'm not worried about higher level spade bidding by red opps.

 

That would just prove spade shortness with partner, give them a chance to cue or show strength (or not) etc. A new suit by partner after 2♠, should it go pass is a help suit game try on my card (or whatever you play) which could help identify where their side cards are.

[ggwhiz]

A simple 2♠ cue leaves lots of room to get clues as to how high to go and I'm not worried about higher level spade bidding by red opps.

 

That would just prove spade shortness with partner, give them a chance to cue or show strength (or not) etc. A new suit by partner after 2♠, should it go pass is a help suit game try on my card (or whatever you play) which could help identify where their side cards are.

[Cyberyeti]

4♣? Partner is going to think you have a big hand with 4 spades like AQTx AKJ986 KTxx void. or many others

You have 1 King and no Aces and only 3♠ , no reason to get excited yet.

Your going to often be in 6 with no play or 5 -1.

 

I think you misunderstand the auction or I do, partner has the hearts not the spades.

 

From the OP PARTNER OPENS 1♥ - NEXT HAND BIDS 1♠

[ahydra]

If only there was a hand diagram tool one could use to avoid the ambiguity...

 

Assuming it is 1H-(1S), I think both 4H and 4C are viable options. 2S/2NT feel like a misdescription with this ODR - so many hearts but no A/K elsewhere. One point in favour of 4C is that as 3451 or similar is a common shape for the SPL, partner will consider it's likely you hold a few spades and stay low if he doesn't have a shortage (or big extras).

 

ahydra

[Winstonm]

4H

[Tramticket]

4H

Me too. And I go to 5H if they bid 4S.

[xbabarx]

Some play 2NT as limit raise in competition (only in majors, in minors 2NT natural)

[FelicityR]

There are so many different hands where either 2♠ or 4♣ or 4♥ could be the right bid I am unsure you could choose between them. It all depends on what happens next.

 

I do like 2♠ as it possibly provides time to explore, but I don't like it as it also gives the opponents time to discover their possible fits.

 

I do like 4♣ as it is a splinter, but I don't like it as the hand leans towards pre-emptive values than control-based values.

 

I do like 4♥ as the bid is pre-emptive, but I don't like it as the hand is too strong for a pre-empt.

 

At this vulnerability I prefer 4♥ and be prepared to bid 5♣ over their presumed 4♠ bid. But which way the bidding goes after a 4♥ bid is anyone's guess.

[GrahamJson]

You could try “walking the dog” - starting with 3H and then advancing one bid at a time hoping to buy the contract in 4H or 5H, maybe even doubled. Or perhaps start with 3NT, rescuing later into 4H. However I must admit that on these sorts of hands I always end up taking the simple route, in this case 4H. It usually works as well as anything and it at least puts partner in the picture. Of course 4C could lead to a great 6H contract, but I think your goal should be to make game in hearts, which will probably score better than defending a high level spade sacrifice.

[Joe_Old]

4♥.

 

At this point your only proven assets are the ♥K and ♣void. By pre-empting ♥ you use up more room and you may not be giving up the ♣ void if your methods allow a 6♣ response to RKCB to show a ♣ void and one keycard (odd number of keycards that must be one after a pre-empt).

 

While bidding the ♣ splinter is tempting, 4th seat (advancer) now has the option of showing a ♣ suit cheaply by doubling. A splinter will map out the distribution while the opponents are bidding and if the opponents declare. (Meaning, advancer has a tougher bid over 4♥ than 4♣, and your distribution is more ambiguous with a 4♥ bid). Keep in mind that it is not clear whose hand it is, or what level or strain is best for either side. Picture the opponents making six, or (unlikely) seven in either black suit.

 

The downside is that 4♥ on this hand makes it harder for partner to judge whether to sacrifice because s/he won't expect your possible ♠ trick on defense

[lmhaze]

Given that you wish to reach at least 4 h why not bid 2 diamonds first giving p an indication of card strength

[Winstonm]

IMO, you hold a weak hand that is strong in playing strength - not a splinter and not a limit raise but a 4H bid. If opps compete with 4S and partner bids 5D, I would then try for 7H with a 6C cue bid.

[xbabarx]

Ok as opener you hold

Ax-AT9xx-AKJxx-8

Imps favourable vulnerability

You open 1H-(1s)-4h-(4s);

Now what and why?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&n=sqt6hkj9864dqt62c&s=sa5hat753dakj75c8&d=S&v=e&b=9&a=1h1s4h4s?]266|200| Imps (Assuming one of the ♥9s is ♥7)

Partner's 4♥ is fine although I slightly prefer a 4♣ splinter. Now, over RHO's 4♠, it's hard to be objective with sight of both hands :( I guess

1. 5♦ = CUE. Suggests lead.

2. X = PEN. Opps are vul.

3. 5♣ = CUE.

4. 5♥ = NAT

5. 6♥ = NAT. Optimistic.

[/hv]

[FelicityR]

Ok as opener you hold

Ax-AT9xx-AKJxx-8

Imps favourable vulnerability

You open 1H-(1s)-4h-(4s);

Now what and why?

 

Opponents have bid a confident 4♠ vulnerable so expect to make it. At this vulnerability. as an opponent, I would be scared to sacrifice. You know partner will have a minimum of four card ♥ support, more likely five, so chances are one opponent will be void. You know partner won't have much in the way of defensive tricks as he bid 4♥ direct. I agree with nige1 suggestion of 5♦, a cue/lead directional bid. You expect to make 5♥ but there is not any guarantee 4♠ is down. [You have no clue of knowing that partner has QTx in spades]

[xbabarx]

[hv=pc=n&n=sqt6hkj9864dcqt62c&s=sa5hat753dakj75c8&d=S&v=e&b=9&a=1h1s4h4s?]266|200| Imps (Assuming one of the ♥9s is ♥7)

Partner's 4♥ is fine although I slightly prefer a 4♦ splinter. Now, over RHO's 4♠, it's hard to be objective with sight of both hands :( I guess

1. 5♦ = CUE. Suggests lead.

2. X = PEN. Opps are vul.

3. 5♣ = CUE.

4. 5♥ = NAT

5. 6♥ = NAT. Optimistic.

[/hv]

 

N voids in club ...

Q10xx in Diamonds

[Joe_Old]

Ok as opener you hold

Ax-AT9xx-AKJxx-8

Imps favourable vulnerability

You open 1H-(1s)-4h-(4s);

Now what and why?

 

Consider what you "know". Responder has 5+ ♥ and usually a stiff or void. Given the bidding, you expect responder's shape to be something like 1-5-(3-4). Advancer has bid a vulnerable game, meaning you expect his distribution to be something like 5-1-1-6, because you expect advancer to have an outside source of tricks. It doesn't matter that a lot of this is wrong, it's the information that you have and you have to act on it because passing is not an option.

 

If responder has the shape suggested, then 6♥ is on a finesse, at worst. A 5♦ bid from opener, on this layout, will tell responder that opener has a strong 2 suiter, and responder should cuebid 6♣. Now the problem will be to stay out of the unmakeable 7 (opener will have to re-evaluate responder's probable distribution, decide whether responder has a ♣ void or ♣A, and how many ♠ responder holds).

 

A RKCB 4NT from opener, if methods permit, can allow responder to show 1 keycard and the ♣ void, which should tip off opener that responder has 2+ ♠ and 4+ ♦. Assuming that overcaller passes, opener will then know to stop in 6♥. Opener will also know that the deal is extremely distributional (after re-evaluating responders probable distribution), and that s/he can't count on any tricks on defense other than the ♠A.

 

Of course, the opponents will know all this, too.

 

 

 

Hold on - I just read the new post - DIAMOND VOID? Originally wasn't it a Club Void?

 

Forget everything I've posted, I'm confused.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Joe_Old

[xbabarx]

Clubs void

[nige1]

I transposed responder's minors. Corrected above. Sorry to confuse.

[Joe_Old]

I transposed responder's minors. Corrected above. Sorry to confuse.

 

np. In that case my idiot analysis stands.

[P0STM0RTEM]

Better than 4♥ I feel is the Fitted reply of 4♦ showing ♥ support enough for game with 4+ Good ♦s. There's hardly any room not taken up with this call and it allows opener to participate further over interference. This IMHO 'expert standard' treatment would of course require partnership agreement.

[xbabarx]

np. In that case my idiot analysis stands.

Haha I like your comments