[gwnn]

-
K9xx
Txx
AJTxxx

1♦-1♠-x-3♠(~mixed)
p-4♠-?

1♦ promised HHxx(2 out of top 3) or 5 cards. What do you do? Partner's hand:

Spoiler

Txx
Axx
AKxxxx
x

what should he do over what you did?
what if somehow you get to 6♦ and the opening lead is a spade?

edit: favourable, matchpoints.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2013-April-04, 02:33

[helene_t]

Vulnerability and scoring? But I probably bid 4NT regardless.

[the_clown]

I would try 5♣, 4N is second choice. Partner knows that I have 4♥s and with a stiff diamond I might have bid differently.

[Codo]

I had passed, to give partner a chance to double. He had not this time...

[billw55]

I want to pass but I can't because the thread title

[gszes]

Setting 4s sounds iffy at best I don't like our chances

I do like our chances of going down less than 4 in 5c
(or 5d). I do not often expect to make this but who knows
maybe the opps will push to 5s and we like our chances
of setting 5s a lot more than we do 4s.

Opps have at least 9 spades and even if they split badly
p spades are in front of declarer.



bid 5c (too risky to bid 4n which should promise at least
4 diamonds). If the opps seem too happy to x 5c maybe
then we can consider 5d if p doesn't bid them before we
get the chance.

[billw55]

gszes, on 2013-April-04, 14:00, said:

Setting 4s sounds iffy at best I don't like our chances

Why not? Partner opened, I have an ace and a king, and trumps aren't breaking.

[gszes]

billw55, on 2013-April-04, 14:06, said:

Why not? Partner opened, I have an ace and a king, and trumps aren't breaking.

When you are worried about trumps breaking you are an optimist feeling the opps
surely cant have 10/11 spades right? Also any spade honors p has will probably
take 1 trick less than normal. Add all this up and the odds of setting 4s start to
shrink considerably. Think of 5c as a form of insurance where you hate the idea of
the opps scoring up 620 so much you are willing to pay off up to 500 and risk missing
out on an occasional +100. Once you do that 5c will look like a better idea.

Always listen carefully to the bidding and the positional advantages/disadvantages
before deciding how to proceed. Also think about this---the opps are not making a
push to give you the last guess they have no reason to believe our side will even have
a guess about competing further (unless they have a massive trump fit) so they are
bidding to make not blocking.

[gwnn]

billw55, on 2013-April-04, 06:41, said:

I want to pass but I can't because the thread title

Sorry about that, I almost put a question mark but then I went for this maybe more optimistic title.

[MrAce]

I would also bid 4NT. Probably ending up in 5♦.

[billw55]

gszes, on 2013-April-04, 14:51, said:

When you are worried about trumps breaking you are an optimist feeling the opps
surely cant have 10/11 spades right? Also any spade honors p has will probably
take 1 trick less than normal. Add all this up and the odds of setting 4s start to
shrink considerably. Think of 5c as a form of insurance where you hate the idea of
the opps scoring up 620 so much you are willing to pay off up to 500 and risk missing
out on an occasional +100. Once you do that 5c will look like a better idea.

Always listen carefully to the bidding and the positional advantages/disadvantages
before deciding how to proceed. Also think about this---the opps are not making a
push to give you the last guess they have no reason to believe our side will even have
a guess about competing further (unless they have a massive trump fit) so they are
bidding to make not blocking.

Yes, they might have 10 or 11 trumps. Then again they might not. Even if they have 10, they may still lose one; partner could have QJx, or QTx over the jack, or Qxx and declarer plays the wrong honor first. And even xxx may be a nuisance to declarer; perhaps he cannot draw trumps and then ruff twice in dummy, or ruff once and still execute a strip and endplay ... etc.

Yes, I know the scores, and yes, it seems that ops think they are making. Well, so? I have set lots of contracts that ops bid to make. I am just not all that sure they are making it here.

[PhilKing]

4NT. It's a guess. I guess to bid.

[billw55]

I am curious, why 4NT instead of 5♣? Assuming I already showed exactly four hearts. Even if partner is 4351, he might be able to deduce that I have three diamonds.

[helene_t]

billw55, on 2013-April-05, 07:44, said:

I am curious, why 4NT instead of 5♣? Assuming I already showed exactly four hearts. Even if partner is 4351, he might be able to deduce that I have three diamonds.

I was about to object to this but on reflection I think you are right. Maybe it is better to play Lebensohl here so 5♣ would show some slam interest.

[gwnn]

billw55, on 2013-April-05, 07:44, said:

I am curious, why 4NT instead of 5♣? Assuming I already showed exactly four hearts. Even if partner is 4351, he might be able to deduce that I have three diamonds.

Partner doesn't know what kind of fit opps have. In this hand they had 10 cards but 8 is also possible (although they ought to have 9). He also doesn't know how good/long your clubs are.

[mikeh]

helene_t, on 2013-April-05, 07:48, said:

I was about to object to this but on reflection I think you are right. Maybe it is better to play Lebensohl here so 5♣ would show some slam interest.

If you had long clubs with slam interest, I think you ought to respond 2♣ rather than double.

It is true that preemption can cause problems finding the 4-4 heart fit but, as we see here, preemption can cause problems after a double as well, so that's a two-way street.

The opps don't always preempt and we are infinitely better off having bid 2♣ with a good hand since we can later, if need be, introduce hearts and by doing so descrbe (much of) our shape while announcing gf values. By doubling first we may end up in the embarrassing position of never being able to show our shape in a plausible fashion.

Imagine 1♦ (1♠) x (2♠) P (P) and we have a gf 4=6 roundeds. No club bid does justice to our hand. We have to cue to show the gf, and now what?

Accordingly, I think that 4N here has to show 2 places to play.

Not necessarily clubs and diamonds. How would one bid with a weak 0=5=2=6? Not a bust....enough to make the negative double (I am assuming we don't play negative free bids).....and we don't want to sell to 4♠. Heck, maybe we are 6-6!

5♣, otoh, shows 6+ clubs and 4 hearts, especially if he would work out what 4N would mean.

I'm not worried that he may have, for example, a 3=3=5=2 and pass, missing our 5-3 fit in diamonds. The 6-2, taking the tap in the long trump suit, will often play better than the 5-3, especially if we are missing the diamond A....we may not be able to take our ruffs.

[PhilKing]

I play Five Clubs as a hand that wants to play in, of all things, 5♣ - partner will not remove since I could have ♠xxx ♥KJxx ♦- ♣KQJTxx. In my trademarked version of good/bad 4NT I can't lebensohl for clubs - only for diamonds, via 4N pick a minor. But that's OK since I can't have a slam try in clubs.

Edit: overlapped with MikeH saying much the same.

[FrancesHinden]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-05, 11:48, said:

I play Five Clubs as a hand that wants to play in, of all things, 5♣ - partner will not remove since I could have ♠xxx ♥KJxx ♦- ♣KQJTxx. In my trademarked version of good/bad 4NT I can't lebensohl for clubs - only for diamonds, via 4N pick a minor. But that's OK since I can't have a slam try in clubs.

Edit: overlapped with MikeH saying much the same.

I couldn't have that hand, I would have bid 2C last round (in fact on the actual hand it's very tempting to bid 2C - it's only right to double if the next hand bids exactly 3S and partner bids 4H and that's the right contract)

But I agree that 5C suggests playing there - I just think it's got more but weaker clubs.

[lesh]

I would have bid 2♣ the 1st round and then DBL 4♠.

[gszes]

gwnn, on 2013-April-05, 09:07, said:

Partner doesn't know what kind of fit opps have. In this hand they had 10 cards but 8 is also possible (although they ought to have 9). He also doesn't know how good/long your clubs are.

P opened 1d so while it may be theoretically possible for p to have 5s
the overwhelming majority 99+% p will have 4 or less spades.