Disagree in bidding

[blackshoe]

Opener could do that if their agreement is to do that. Mine with my regular partners is not.

 

As opener I think I would bid 4♥ over 2♠. As responder, on that auction, I'd bid 5♣, showing the club control. Now it's up to opener. With four losers, I think he should go on. With more than 4 losers he should perhaps sign off in 5♠, although given the club control it's close.

[macb423]

I agree with 2s. Would your partner feel you were too conservative if the king of clubs were the king of hearts?

[coliecam]

I am south

 

Partner open 1♠ in 3rd position.

I respond 2♠ and partner jump to 4.

 

 

My hand : ♠109632 ♥Q754 ♦ 82 ♣ K7

 

Partner : ♠ AQJ74 ♥ --- ♦ AK53 ♣ AJ93

 

After the hand, partner said i was too conservative. Should bid 4 instead of 2.

I said that opps are 2 passed hands and p open in 3rd position. If he has a minimum opening hand

he will perhaps go down. The fact of bidding immediately 4 is like i was prempting partner.

 

What do u think of that ? ty

[helene_t]

It's difficult to construct a South hand that would bid 4♠ and not give any play for slam. It would have to be almost specifically Kxxxx-KJx-xxx-xx, but a balanced hand might not bid 4♠. And even that hand can make slam if ♣T is onside with ♣Q and/or ♣K. If ♣KQ are offside, a club lead is likely so you basically just need ♣T onside. Besides, with North being void in hearts he expects South to have some hearts length.

[pilowsky]

You now have more opinions than there are cards in the deck. That should answer your question

[FelicityR]

You now have more opinions than there are cards in the deck. That should answer your question

 

I couldn't agree more. An experienced partnership would have more understanding, more technique, probably a lot more bidding agreements and arrangements to cope with a hand like this. Especially when a bid is made third in hand with the opponents silent on the first round which suggests that your partner has a better than minimum hand when you have ♠109xxx ♥Qxxx ♦xx ♣Kx and 5 card support for his suit. (If you have a good fit in one suit, then the opponents should have a good fit elsewhere. And why haven't they come into the bidding? Lack of HCPs obviously. That's logical)

 

I think this hand is more awkward to deal with if partner is opening the bidding first in hand as one opponent hasn't entered the bidding yet. Third in hand lends itself to possibly the Drury and Bergen conventions, albeit in modified forms, and as miamijd indicates a strong club opening system may handle this type of hand better but as none of these technical bidding options are available to you then there's no point in discussing them further.

 

Irrespective of the losing trick count, my bridge grounding taught me to bid pre-emptively to a major suit game when you hold good trump support but little else outside. You are not pre-empting partner as the bid sequence 1♠ - 4♠ suggests the hand you have but I am not totally keen on the balanced(ish) 5422 shape as others have indicated. The raise is pre-emptive by its nature. I particularly like the 1♠ - 4♠ - 6♠ sequence miamijd suggested. It's a bit point blank, but it gives nothing away.

 

But I am not apportioning blame for missing the slam, because as others have indicated your partner was unimaginative just raising your 2♠ support bid to 4♠ without investigating the possibility of slam. And, also, the question that needs to be asked is what exactly does your 2♠ bid show? Three card support with up to a poor 10 HCPs - for many - or five card support with 5 HCPs and a balanced hand for you on this specific hand. You made a decision adjusting your values accordingly.