[cherdano]

I also think pass should be forcing, but what about the auction (2♥) 4♠ (5♣) ?

I would also double 5♣. I think partner is likely to have a heart void, and thus not likely to have a club void, too.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2011-December-07, 10:55, said:

I also think pass should be forcing, but what about the auction (2♥) 4♠ (5♣) ?

I would also double 5♣. I think partner is likely to have a heart void, and thus not likely to have a club void, too.

Interesting situation. The parallels are not exact, but very close.

For one thing, the meaning of the 4♠ call is slightly different in the two auctions.

In the OP, a balancing double would have a lower minimum than in this situation, had partner doubled 2♥. And partner would have less reason to fear a penalty pass of his takeout double when we sit in front of the 2♥ bidder rather than behind. So I think a direct 4♠ shows a slightly different but overlapping range of hands than does a balancing 4♠. I think the direct would be slightly more powerful than a balancing 4♠ on average...with many hands being 4♠ bids in either seat.

I think it remains close. I think I'd still make my 5♠ call and hope that partner realizes that with slam interest, I would have passed and pulled.

[gnasher]

cherdano, on 2011-December-07, 10:55, said:

I also think pass should be forcing, but what about the auction (2♥) 4♠ (5♣) ?

I would also double 5♣. I think partner is likely to have a heart void, and thus not likely to have a club void, too.

In that auction I wouldn't play a forcing pass. There's no longer the "sound of the auction" inference that they're saving, and the 4♠ bidder doesn't promise great defensive strength.

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on 2011-December-07, 08:15, said:

Now time to rate partner´s bidding, he had:

♠AK8xxx
♥Ax
♦AQxx
♣x

4♠ doesn't look quite right, because the spades aren't good enough to insist on the suit. However, it's not obvious what is the right approach. Dbl-2NT;3♠ might provoke partner into bidding 5♣ - he will expect more than a small singleton club for this sequence. Dbl-2NT;4♠ just shows a stronger one-suiter than we actually have. Hence I don't mind the direct 4♠.

The complaints about partner's bidding are probably because the complainers lost 100 when they should have been taking 500.

[Phil]

Double seems clear to me. I don't relish partner trying to take 11 tricks on the (obvious?) trump lead when he is 7=1=4=1. I'd give thought to 5♠ at MPs but in some layouts we are getting 800 when we make 5♠.

Please explain to your partner that a 4♠ overcall shows a different hand than a control rich 6=2=4=1. (edit - and if he did bid 4♠, this is the easiest double of 5♣...ever).

On Cherdano's auction I would not take pass as forcing.

[S2000magic]

cherdano, on 2011-December-07, 10:55, said:

I also think pass should be forcing, but what about the auction (2♥) 4♠ (5♣) ?

I would also double 5♣. I think partner is likely to have a heart void, and thus not likely to have a club void, too.

Is 5♣ to play here, or is it forcing? I think we cannot decide what to do on this auction until we know how the opponents play 5♣.

On the original auction, 5♣ was clearly to play; here, it could be, for example,

♠ -
♥ A J 10 8 2
♦ 7 6
♣ A K Q 7 4 2

If opener has a first- or second-round diamond control, they have a heart slam.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher killin it in this thread, agree with basically everything he has said word for word.

[mikeh]

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-07, 12:54, said:

gnasher killin it in this thread, agree with basically everything he has said word for word.

Odd, because I disagree with a lot of what he said, and I normally agree with you

One point neither Andy nor you have commented upon is partner's pass of 5♣.

While I remain of the view that 4♠ was horrible.....I think double is the best call and 3♠ has merit......the real misbid was the pass of 5♣ with the actual hand.

I wonder how you and Andy think the auction whould go if N held AKJ10xxx Ax AJxx void?

When partner forces to game unilaterally at unfavourable and then invites me to bid one more and I hold two offensive tricks more than I have shown, doubling for what rates to be 500 against 650 isn't my choice.

Put another way: I suspect that most of us who bid 5♠ in the actual auction would pass smoothly had partner doubled 5♣. I know I would, and I am not 'resulting' no matter how much Andy thinks those who disagree with him must be doing so

(see: I added a smiley so that Andy wouldn't get upset )

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2011-December-07, 13:44, said:

I wonder how you and Andy think the auction whould go if N held AKJ10xxx Ax AJxx void?

I think that's too strong for a direct 4♠. I'd double and then bid 4♠.

[phil_20686]

gnasher, on 2011-December-07, 12:05, said:

4♠ doesn't look quite right, because the spades aren't good enough to insist on the suit. However, it's not obvious what is the right approach. Dbl-2NT;3♠ might provoke partner into bidding 5♣ - he will expect more than a small singleton club for this sequence. Dbl-2NT;4♠ just shows a stronger one-suiter than we actually have. Hence I don't mind the direct 4♠.

The complaints about partner's bidding are probably because the complainers lost 100 when they should have been taking 500.

I think passing over 5C with this genuinely into Give Up The Game Territory. Making a FP with this hand when you have a ton more defense and less offense than partner is expecting shows terrifyingly poor judgement. Making a non-forcing pass is even worse.

I dont like the 4S bid either. Just feels like a distortion for no reason. If partner passes 2hx you are collecting enough to compensate a slam. Double and bid spades in whatever way is forcing with a flexible hand is clear.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2011-December-07, 18:21, said:

I think that's too strong for a direct 4♠. I'd double and then bid 4♠.

and over 5♣?

Not that I necessarily disagree with your valuation of the hand, but your approach seems inconsistent with your earlier fear of 2N then 5♣

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on 2011-December-07, 19:20, said:

I dont like the 4S bid either. Just feels like a distortion for no reason. If partner passes 2hx you are collecting enough to compensate a slam. Double and bid spades in whatever way is forcing with a flexible hand is clear.

You make it sound very easy. Perhaps you can tell us how to bid spades in a forcing way?

[mich-b]

phil_20686, on 2011-December-07, 19:20, said:

Double and bid spades in whatever way is forcing with a flexible hand is clear.

Is this hand really worth a GF? I think a "strong" but non forcing Double+3♠ is enough.

[phil_20686]

gnasher, on 2011-December-08, 01:58, said:

You make it sound very easy. Perhaps you can tell us how to bid spades in a forcing way?

If you double and bid 3S, that should be forcing except for the case when partner has a (very) weak hand with 0-1 spade, when he can pass.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2011-December-07, 22:19, said:

and over 5♣?

Not that I necessarily disagree with your valuation of the hand, but your approach seems inconsistent with your earlier fear of 2N then 5♣

Dbl-2NT;3♠ shows a strong flexible hand. Dbl-2NT;4♠ shows a strong one-suiter. In the latter sequence I wouldn't expect him to try to play in 5♣; in fact, I think 5♣ would be a cue-bid.

[gnasher]

mich-b, on 2011-December-08, 03:41, said:

Is this hand really worth a GF? I think a "strong" but non forcing Double+3♠ is enough.

I agree with that evaluation.