[gnasher]

Codo, on Sep 28 2009, 03:34 PM, said:

Os, so it was just a matter of semantics. I thought you would make this bid with weak distributional hands and non forcing. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
And I never thought that "slammish" means that it is forcing to slam.

I don't think it was just semantics. I think 4♦ shows 6-5 or an offensive 5-5, with any strength consistent with opening the bidding (except that in some partnerships I would use pass-and-pull to show a non-minimum). If I'd opened the bidding with AQ9xxx x KJ10xx x, I think it would be normal to bid 4♦ (forcing).

Quote

Maybe Akxxx,x,AKxxx,Ax is really too much to hope for... (And this is no good slam anyway...)

If you cue bid and partner has that, only Blackwood will save you from a grand slam. Cue-bidding a king in a suit where partner is very likely to be short is really asking for trouble.

Edit: I don't usually bother with "me too" posts, but the last line of Cherdano's post seems an accurate assessment of a 4♥ cue-bid, even if you think 4♦ promises an 18-count.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-September-29, 02:09

[rhm]

cherdanno, on Sep 28 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

rhm, on Sep 28 2009, 06:47 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Sep 28 2009, 06:08 AM, said:

Hi,

Nonforcing, 4S.

The question to answer is, is pass over 3H forcing?
My guess is yes, so 4D was openers weakest bid, if he
has a 5-5 or ( more distributional) hand with min opening
strength.

With kind regards
Marlowe

So you want to play 4♠ with a small doubleton opposite a 5 card suit, when your partner shows weakness, in the face of opponents, who told you that the suit is not breaking well?
Sounds to me like a sort of hara-kiri at the Bridge table
Strange how many people want to play 4S when opener has not guaranteed more than 5 cards there.
4♠ could easily be down with 5♦ or even 6♦ on.
It is even imaginable that opener has opened a minimum hand 1♠ with 5 cards in ♠ and 6 cards in ♦

Rainer Herrmann

So partner opens 1♠ with 5 spades and 6 diamonds because he isn't prepared to bid 4♠ over heart preempts after opening 1♦, but he is willing to bid 4♦ over heart preempts after he opens 1♠? No thanks.
In any case I would take 4♥ as slammish in support of diamonds, so I have to make a choice between 4♠ or 5♦. I would bid 4♠ as I think partner will be 65 more often than 55.

Btw, even cooperating with a slam try is absolute nuts.

I doubt that there are many Bridge players, who would be prepared to pass over 3♥ with an unbid 6 card ♦ suit and I also doubt that many would pass with 5-5 and a void in ♥ for example and many would do it with less.
Where we may differ is that I believe that choice of games bids are crucial in modern Bridge and have to take precedence before slam invites.
Choice of game bids are frequent and important (like here), while with slam invites there are usually many other options available.
Nowadays many experts agree on this.
For that reason I interpret 4♥ differently as a choice of games and n o t as a slam try, unless 4♥ is followed up by another bid. (e.g. If this hand bids on over 4 ♠ from partner)
If I wanted to invite slam directly (with a very different hand of course) I would either bid 5♣ or maybe 5♠ or I just bid the slam

Rainer Herrmann

[Hanoi5]

rhm, on Sep 28 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

So what do you expect partner to do if 52 in ♠ turns out to be inadequate?
Is he supposed to correct to 5♦?

Rainer Herrmann

Partner should have known this before bidding 4♦.

[rhm]

Hanoi5, on Sep 29 2009, 05:31 AM, said:

rhm, on Sep 28 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

So  what do you expect partner to do if 52 in ♠ turns out to be inadequate?
Is he supposed to correct to  5♦?

Rainer Herrmann

Partner should have known this before bidding 4♦.

If it turns out that 5♦ or 6♦ has play, but not 4♠ (you loose control), it can not have been such a stupid idea to suggest ♦ as trumps at some stage.

Rainer Herrmann

[louisg]

gnasher, on Sep 29 2009, 03:05 AM, said:

I think 4♦ shows 6-5 or an offensive 5-5, with any strength consistent with opening the bidding (except that in some partnerships I would use pass-and-pull to show a non-minimum).

I was hoping for more discussion of this specific issue. In those partnerships where pass-and-pull shows a non-minimum, would an immediate 4D still be forcing?

On a related note, is it too dangerous to plan a pass-and-pull auction here due to the risk of further preemption? In other words, no matter how strong your hand may be, is there reason to introduce the diamond suit now rather than risk hearing a raise to 4H on your left?

[gnasher]

louisg, on Sep 29 2009, 02:32 PM, said:

In those partnerships where pass-and-pull shows a non-minimum, would an immediate 4D still be forcing?

On a related note, is it too dangerous to plan a pass-and-pull auction here due to the risk of further preemption? In other words, no matter how strong your hand may be, is there reason to introduce the diamond suit now rather than risk hearing a raise to 4H on your left?

If the pass-then-pull agreement means that 4♦ has an upper limit, I suppose that makes it non-forcing in theory, though responder would only be passing it with a fairly revolting hand - something like the one in the original post, but a bit worse. The upper limit for 4♦ ought to be quite high, because of the risk of preemption.

I'd expect that 3♠ would be passed rather more often.

[quiddity]

4S. Agree that a cuebid here is crazy with no aces and 2 little spades; I can't understand why anyone would think this hand is "slammish". I would bid 4S rather than trying for 5D because we could easily be off 3 top tricks in either contract, and because I hope my slow round-suit holdings provide some insurance against a forcing defense.

[nige1]

louisg, on Sep 27 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

Pass..1♠..2♠..Double
3♥..4♦..Pass..???
2♠ was Michaels (hearts and a minor).
Double showed an interest in defending a doubled contract.

---

IMO _P = 10, 4♠ = 7, 5♦ = 5, 4♥ = 1.
I agree with gnasher and Louisg that partner has a weak hand because ...

• The normal understanding is that, if partner has a strong shapely hand, he would pass and pull.
  
• Lacking any relevant understanding, however, partner wouldn't risk 4♦ with a hand that would expect to make a slam opposite an effective 2 count. He would cue bid 4♥ or something.

[gnasher]

nige1, on Sep 29 2009, 09:55 PM, said:

I agree with gnasher and Louisg that partner has a weak hand

Can't you find someone else to wrongly claim to agree with? I didn't say that partner has a weak hand. I said that he might have, and also that

me said:

If the pass-then-pull agreement means that 4♦ has an upper limit, I suppose that makes it non-forcing in theory, though responder would only be passing it with a fairly revolting hand - something like the one in the original post, but a bit worse. The upper limit for 4♦ ought to be quite high, because of the risk of preemption.

I don't see how you got from that to "partner has a weak hand".

I expect LouisG can look after himself, but I don't think he said it showed a weak hand either. All he has done is to ask some good questions.

[louisg]

gnasher, on Sep 30 2009, 07:44 AM, said:

nige1, on Sep 29 2009, 09:55 PM, said:

I agree with gnasher and Louisg that partner has a weak hand

Can't you find someone else to wrongly claim to agree with? I didn't say that partner has a weak hand. I said that he might have, and also that

me said:

If the pass-then-pull agreement means that 4♦ has an upper limit, I suppose that makes it non-forcing in theory, though responder would only be passing it with a fairly revolting hand - something like the one in the original post, but a bit worse. The upper limit for 4♦ ought to be quite high, because of the risk of preemption.

I don't see how you got from that to "partner has a weak hand".

I expect LouisG can look after himself, but I don't think he said it showed a weak hand either. All he has done is to ask some good questions.

Thanks gnasher I don't believe I said this either, although I confess that when I held the hand in question I passed 4♦ based on the pass-then-pull logic. I was having second (and third) thoughts about this reasoning after the fact, which is why I posted.

Partner's actual hand was something like ♠AKQTxx ♥-- ♦KJxxxx ♣Q. At MPs it might have been reasonable for him just to bid 4♠, but I certainly understand 4♦. Once you decide to explore further with this hand type, it seems very risky to do anything except bid a direct 4♦ due to the risk of further preemption mentioned above. That suggests that 4♦ must be forcing however, and that "pass-then-pull" is not playable in an auction like this where the chance of further preemption seems real.

[nige1]

louisg, on Sep 29 2009, 08:32 AM, said:

I was hoping for more discussion of this specific issue.  In those partnerships where pass-and-pull shows a non-minimum, would an immediate 4D still be forcing?

gnasher, on Sep 29 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

If the pass-then-pull agreement means that 4♦ has an upper limit, I suppose that makes it non-forcing in theory, though responder would only be passing it with a fairly revolting hand - something like the one in the original post, but a bit worse.  The upper limit for 4♦ ought to be quite high, because of the risk of preemption.

nige1, on Sep 29 2009, 09:55 PM, said:

I agree with gnasher and Louisg that partner has a weak hand because ...

• The normal understanding is that, if partner has a strong shapely hand, he would pass and pull.
  
  
  
• Lacking any relevant understanding, however, partner wouldn't risk 4♦ with a hand that would expect to make a slam opposite an effective 2 count. He would cue bid 4♥ or something.

gnasher, on Sep 30 2009, 07:44 AM, said:

Can't you find someone else to wrongly claim to agree with?  I didn't say that partner has a weak hand. [SNIP] I don't see how you got from that to "partner has a weak hand". I expect LouisG can look after himself, but I don't think he said it showed a weak hand either.  All he has done is to ask some good questions.

louisg, on Sep 30 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

Thanks gnasher    I don't believe I said this either, although I confess that when I held the hand in question I passed 4♦ based on the pass-then-pull logic.  I was having second (and third) thoughts about this reasoning after the fact, which is why I posted.

Oh dear. I apologise to louisg and gnasher for misrepresentation. Explanation: After replying to the original post, I read other replies. Imagining that louisg and gnasher were making the same point, I edited my reply to acknowledge that "fact". I accept that I was mistaken. Sorry.

[mike777]

louisg, on Sep 27 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> West </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> 52 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> KQ96 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> Q65 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> KJ97 </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

Pass..1♠..2♠..Double
3♥..4♦..Pass..???

2♠ was Michaels (hearts and a minor).
Double showed an interest in defending a doubled contract.

4s

wtp?

Am i suppose to bid 6d now?

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on Sep 28 2009, 06:36 AM, said:

I don't understand why people want to play 4♦ as a slam try.  What is partner supposed to do with a normal-looking 5-5 or 6-5 where he knows he doesn't want to defend, and just wants to describe his hand so that we can reach the right contract?

Partner has no reason to suppose you don't have 5 hearts and 5 clubs here with all the points in those suits, so he won't "know" he doesn't want to defend with 5-5 or even 6-5 necessarily.

So what can he have ?

AQJxxx, void, AKxxxx, x or something similar ? maybe 7-5

4♦ is certainly forcing, I probably only have 2 working points for him (how different if my KJ and KQ were aces), although he might have a void heart and Ax of clubs.

At pairs, 4♠ would probably be best, particularly if I can do it in tempo. I don't object to 4♥ choice of games if that's what it means, but it certainly wouldn't mean that for me.

[rhm]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 1 2009, 05:43 AM, said:

At pairs, 4♠ would probably be best, particularly if I can do it in tempo. I don't object to 4♥ choice of games if that's what it means, but it certainly wouldn't mean that for me.

This seems to be the majority view here and while most seem to have no problem using at least half a dozen different sophisticated meanings for double (penalty, take-out, negative, support, action, Lightner to name just a few) depending on circumstances, few seem to have grasped the need for choice of game bids.

Choice of game bids apply when no trump suit has been agreed yet, but more than one strain is on offer:

Just ask yourself what strategy is more likely to be required and more likely to come up when no trump suit has been agreed yet:

Play the cheapest available bid, which can not be interpreted as a trump suit, as choice of games and only higher bids in this category as slam tries

or

Play everything including the cheapest available bid, which does not suggest a trump suit, as a slam try.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

I also think that a bid like 4♥ in this sequence should be choice-of-games, though I'm aware that it's a minority view.

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on Oct 1 2009, 07:32 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 1 2009, 05:43 AM, said:

At pairs, 4♠ would probably be best, particularly if I can do it in tempo. I don't object to 4♥ choice of games if that's what it means, but it certainly wouldn't mean that for me.

This seems to be the majority view here and while most seem to have no problem using at least half a dozen different sophisticated meanings for double (penalty, take-out, negative, support, action, Lightner to name just a few) depending on circumstances, few seem to have grasped the need for choice of game bids.

Choice of game bids apply when no trump suit has been agreed yet, but more than one strain is on offer:

Just ask yourself what strategy is more likely to be required and more likely to come up when no trump suit has been agreed yet:

Play the cheapest available bid, which can not be interpreted as a trump suit, as choice of games and only higher bids in this category as slam tries

or

Play everything including the cheapest available bid, which does not suggest a trump suit, as a slam try.

Rainer Herrmann

For my usual partner and I it is in a sense neither of the above, and the reasons are nothing to do with this type of auction, but to simplify our agreements in other auctions.

If a bid cannot be natural, the suit above a hypothetical trump suit at the 4 level is keycard for us, so 4♥ would be keycard in diamonds, hence not available for choice of game.