BPO-004A

[Double !]

Presumably Richard would expect his partner to pass 3♦ with the weakest hands with 4 card support?

yes

i would unless i have GB2NT available (not at the 3-level, unfortunately) or have agreed on some kind of equivalent over opps 3D. Remember, all responder has shown so far was 6+ pts and 4 unknown hearts. If playing dbl of 3D is heart game try, then I would not bid 4C. But, at this point, without the meaning of dbl clearly defined in BBO Adv., I'll bid.

[luke warm]

i voted 4♥ also

[HeartA]

4♥ as well.

[whereagles]

4H, we play IMP's, wtp ? :rolleyes:

Ditto. I have no clue whether game makes it or not. So I just bid it :)

[mike777]

4H, we play IMP's, wtp ?  :rolleyes:

Ditto. I have no clue whether game makes it or not. So I just bid it :)

So far partner cannot have any of these example hands in my style. The problem is Partner has bid 3h thinking we have:

XXXX=ATXXX=X=KXX and we have more.

[Winstonm]

4H, we play IMP's, wtp ?  B)

Ditto. I have no clue whether game makes it or not. So I just bid it :)

So far partner cannot have any of these example hands in my style. The problem is Partner has bid 3h thinking we have:

XXXX=ATXXX=X=KXX and we have more.

Not much more - on the bidding this hand is about the same as:

J9xx

K10xxx

x

Axx.

 

Sorry, but I can't get slammish on this hand or the one with the wastepaper diamond King. 4H and hope we make it.

 

WinstonM

[pclayton]

Pass.

 

First of all, I object to 1H. What's wrong with a negative double? And 1H only promises 4 - I think we've gone round the horn on this one.

 

This is a matter of style, but I will support pard with a minimum hand and 4 hearts. Double is maximal (why shouldn't it be?) showing a hand that would have bid 3H had their been no interference. 3H should a hand like: xx, AKxx, xx, KJxxx, to Kxx, Axxx, xx, KQxx on the low end to: Axx, AKxx, xx, Kxxx on the high end. Double shows a hand like: x, AKxx, Qxx, KQxxx or xx, AKxx, Ax, KQxxx.

 

Opposite the minimum hand with 4 trump, how are we going to manufacture 10 tricks on any of these hands?

 

If we have the explicit understanding that 3H promises extras then I'll try 4H. Trying for slam on this hand is imcomprehensible. Put me down for my usual 30 B)

[pclayton]

Well ok move that KH in pards hand to a black Q where I used it in the example hands.

[P_Marlowe]

4H, we play IMP's, wtp ?  B)

Ditto. I have no clue whether game makes it or not. So I just bid it :)

So far partner cannot have any of these example hands in my style. The problem is Partner has bid 3h thinking we have:

XXXX=ATXXX=X=KXX and we have more.

Hi Mike,

 

we have more, but 3H may be a bid under pressure,

i.e. opener may hold only a 2 1/2 raise, or just a single

raise.

 

In contrast to hrothgar and Double I would expect my

partner to raise with the slightest excues, not with dead

minimum, but the difference is sometimes hard to tell.

in other words 4H may be a contract with no play, but we

play IMP's.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

Pass.

 

First of all, I object to 1H. What's wrong with a negative double? And 1H only promises 4 - I think we've gone round the horn on this one.

 

This is a matter of style, but I will support pard with a minimum hand and 4 hearts. Double is maximal (why shouldn't it be?) showing a hand that would have bid 3H had their been no interference.

Pass is reasonable. I voted 4♥ though. I agree that this hand should start with dbl.

 

I'm not sure if a dbl of 3♦ would have showed 4-card heart support. I think not. What are you supposed to do with a ballanced 18-19, 3-card support and no diamond stopper?

[ochinko]

I voted for pass too, although my first impulse was to bid 4H. I just hate that wasted DK. If I had Dx instead, and those 3 points were elsewhere, then 4H would be a no brainer.

 

Had I been vulnerable, I'd push to a game.

 

Petko

[Walddk]

Interesting. Some envisage slam, others pass. Is it a 3 or 6 hand then? I don't think so, but you will see in due time.

 

Roland

[bearmum]

I voted for 4♥ too many things could go wrong if I bid anything else :rolleyes:

[ochinko]

I voted for 4♥ too many things could go wrong if I bid anything else :rolleyes:

Not that bidding 4H is wrong, but just some points against it, because it seems that there's an overwhelming majority in favor of a heart game:

 

1. If we don't count the DK, we have a mere 8 points, and we already bid them.

 

2. Opps' stronger hand is behind the stronger hand in our line.

 

3. The lead is from their weaker hand.

 

4. Ruffing their diamonds occurs in the master hand.

 

Since we are not vulnerable 4H made, not bid, loses 6 IMPs, 3H made, 4 bid, gains 5. Pretty close if you don't consider a slam. In a tourney it would matter very much what we need to score in order to pick a choice.

 

Petko

[helene_t]

Is it thinkable that partner could be 4315? Maybe 3♠ is an option, too.

[Walddk]

Is it thinkable that partner could be 4315? Maybe 3♠ is an option, too.

No it's not. Why would he make a free 3♥ bid with only 3? With the hand you suggest, and extras, he has double available to show four spades.

 

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

I voted for 4♥  too many things could go wrong if I bid anything else  :rolleyes:

Not that bidding 4H is wrong, but just some points against it, because it seems that there's an overwhelming majority in favor of a heart game:

 

1. If we don't count the DK, we have a mere 8 points, and we already bid them.

 

2. Opps' stronger hand is behind the stronger hand in our line.

 

3. The lead is from their weaker hand.

 

4. Ruffing their diamonds occurs in the master hand.

 

Since we are not vulnerable 4H made, not bid, loses 6 IMPs, 3H made, 4 bid, gains 5. Pretty close if you don't consider a slam. In a tourney it would matter very much what we need to score in order to pick a choice.

 

Petko

Hi,

 

counter arguments:

- you have a 9 card fit

- you have around 10 Points if you count distribution, i.e.

you hold invitattional values

- because of the 5-4 fit, ruffing in the master hand is not

a big deal

 

Marlowe

[Double !]

an awful lot of the decision of what to bid over 3H seems to depend on what P shows by bidding 3H: is it mini or near mini with 4-card support, does it show extra values? If yes, how much extra. Is there a fair amount of shape in P's hand? If yes, how do your cards and shape match up with partner's?

 

Therefore, IMO, this hand is really about what P shows by bidding 3 hearts......and there might be regional and systematic differences about this matter.

[Rebound]

an awful lot of the decision of what to bid over 3H seems to depend on what P shows by bidding 3H: is it mini or near mini with 4-card support, does it show extra values? If yes, how much extra. Is there a fair amount of shape in P's hand? If yes, how do your cards and shape match up with partner's?

 

Therefore, IMO, this hand is really about what P shows by bidding 3 hearts......and there might be regional and systematic differences about this matter.

I submit that while partner may not be showing a great deal in extra values, 3♥ does indicate ability to compete to the 3 level opposite a minimum 1♥ response. I believe this hand to be better than that and therefore bid 4♥. I prefer to play that free bids show extras but I have found this is not the norm among most players these days, hence, I feel I must admit my judgement has been so lousey lately the above may belong in the bit bucket.

[flytoox]

I think it is just daydream to think of slam with this hand.

 

What can pd have for his 3H bid?

 

 

Contested auction is entirely different from uncontested auction. Without interference, 3H should show 16-18 dummy playing strength and 4 card trump support.

 

Can pd still have this kind hand after opp's intervention? NO!! With this kind hand he should bid 4H rather than 3H.

 

3H shows only upper min, sth like 13-15 dummy playing strength and 4 card support.

[Finch]

Interesting. Some envisage slam, others pass. Is it a 3 or 6 hand then? I don't think so, but you will see in due time.

 

Roland

When I first saw this hand I thought it was a pass or bid 4H problem.

After all, if partner has xxx AQxx Qx KQJx we can't make four.

 

Then I thought of some suitable minimums where slam was making (I am not the first to quote x AQxx xxx KQxxx).

 

So I would probably just go down the middle and bid game. 4C isn't "free", because partner is entitled to go beyond the 4 level with a suitable hand (Ax Axxx xx KQJxx is easily worth 4S after a cue bid and 5 is definitely too high).

 

As for what 3H shows, my style is that you are allowed to "borrow" half a level in competition: so 3H shows a hand that was worth about 2.5 H in an uncontested auction (or, if you like, from a 2H bid that would have accepted a game try to a minimum 3H bid). My sample hand above, Ax Axxx xx KQJxx is close to being too good, as is the singleton spade version above in spite of its lack of high cards, although I would still bid 3H on them. But I would also bid 3H on a minimum weak NT with nothing in diamonds, in the pious hope that partner also has nothing in diamonds and our cards will fit well.

 

In this particular auction you can cue bid 4D to show a good raise to 4H, and reserve 4H was distributional hands that just fancy bidding game but don't want partner to get too excited (x AQxx xx KQJxxx would like to bid 4H, for example).

[cherdano]

I think if opener has A AJxx xxx KQxxx, he should bid game directly. 17 support points; yes singleton A is usually not so nice but this is more than compensated by the magic holding of xxx in opponents' likely 9-card fit. Whatever your minimum for 3♥, it is clearly a wide-ranging bid; no need to stretch the top end, too, with a hand that makes game reasonable opposite xxxx Kxxxx x xxx or xxx Kxxx xx Jxxx.

And since we don't want to be in slam opposite this hand...

 

Arend

[42]

4♥. But pass was close for me (on a pessimistic day I would pass).

 

Caren

[inquiry]

Some of the regulars didn't send in votes this time, I hope this is only a temporary absences. But this week we welcome our Russian expert and friend Sergey Kustarov (dinos1) to the panel, and the next contest we will add Frances Hinden too!!

 

I thought this was an interesting hand, albeit with only two possible bids, 4♥ and pass. If NS were vul, I was certain the entire panel would bid 4♥, but being not vul, I thought we would get some who would choose a pass, discounting the diamond King. But then, even if the diamond King was a small singleton, isn’t this enough for game? That in the final analysis was the question, would you bid game with Jxxx KTxxx x ATx. The panel found it this a lot less interesting than I, as I thought the choice might be close, it was not. The panel was nearly unanimous with the 4♥ bid. And in fact, only Luis seemed to appreciate the problem I perceived and gave pass any real consideration.

 

Luis Pass, “3♥ is just competitive, with an inviting hand pd could have doubled 3♦. The diamond king is not a real value and Jxxx in spades isn't great. Being NV I think pass is the best option, vulnerable I think I would have tried 4♥ without much expectations.

 

 

The remainder of the panel, blast away to 4♥, all with sound reasoning. We will start with the boss. Fred 4♥ ”Partner is allowed to pass if he has a balanced minimum with 4-card support. If he has such a hands and raises, it means he likes his hand. In that 4♥ rates to be reasonable. If partner is unbalanced, he is probably short is spades and 4♥ rates to be cold.” Agreeing with Fred’s view is our two yellow gold stars: Ritong 4♥ “the bid I'd choose with a small ♦ as well. ♣A10x is seductive, and also my part is not supposed to hold 4♥s in a crappy hand. Walddk 4♥. I have the right singleton, the 5th heart and an adequate club fit. An 8 count yes (disregard DK), but 4H must have some play opposite what rates to be more than a bare minimum. Opener could have passed if he is 3433 and weak. If I can't reopen, we haven't missed anything. and reisig 4♥ (Game try..bid it and "try" to make it)”

 

It is not like the other panelist were not on the same page. FLUFFY 4♥, partner's most likely distribution is 2434, that means ruffing 2 spades in dummy will surely be possible which sounds great. Poky 4H Really don't see another option. The fifth trump, singleton diamond and A10x in partner's potential suit are very good but I really need too much for 6H to be playable. cherdano 004A: 4♥. If 1♥ promised 4 cards, then 4♥ is obvious. If it promised 5, I still have too many extras to pass. Slam is possible but too unlikely. Dinos1 4H. 9-card heart fit and club fit is enough even if partner has such a super-minimum as xx - AQxx - xxx - KQxx.

 

Ng had the strongest view on the issue of this hand, stating: “4♥. Who does not bid 4H, s(h)e does not play bridge but wants to solve bidding quiz or wants to look too smart.” . Gabor, meet Luis.

 

So the theme here seems to best described by the differences in Luis and Fred’s answer. To Luis, 3♥ bid was “competitive” non-game try, with fit and game try use a Maximum type double. This means Luis expects his expert partner to BID 4♥ with minimum hand and four hearts, and double with better hand. To Fred, and the remainder of the panel, 3♥ will not be bid by opener with four hearts and a mimumum. So the difference here is how you play 3♦x, and thus the values promised for 3♥. I happen to follow Luis Rule about double and 3♥ when not vul versus vul, with 3♥ being “competitive”, but it looks like the panel plays it shows more than minimum.

 

Scores are obvious, 4♥ gets a 100, pass gets 50

 

Fred       4♥   

Luis        Pass   

Walddk    4♥   

Fluffy      4♥   

cherdano 4♥   

reisig       4♥   

ritong      4♥   

ng           4♥   

Dinos1       4♥   

Poky           4♥   

[luis]

Why do I feel so lonely? :-)