[MrAce]

---

Worldclass partner and worldclass opponents. Playing 2/1.

3♠ was preemptive.

-Do you agree with bidding so far ?

- What would you bid now ?

Thanks

[aguahombre]

South has brought partner into the decision, and partner accepted the task. Even if it doesn't work out well on this hand, it will probably be a good thing for future hands if South decides to let it go. I don't want to hear in the bar, later, "Why do you ask for my input with 4C, and then ignore it?"

Yes, 4C was mandatory if we care about the guy across the table. Yes, he might not expect distribution quite this extreme. Oh, well.

[dake50]

South has brought partner into the decision, and partner accepted the task. Even if it doesn't work out well on this hand, it will probably be a good thing for future hands if South decides to let it go. I don't want to hear in the bar, later, "Why do you ask for my input with 4C, and then ignore it?"

Yes, 4C was mandatory if we care about the guy across the table. Yes, he might not expect distribution quite this extreme. Oh, well.

***
Agree.
Partner won't double in front of me in a forcing pass
situation with fitting cards.
I don't like this one as I am SO-O-O offense oriented: 1=6=0=6 with A+A.

[S2000magic]

Partner knows a lot more about my hand than I know about his, and he's said that he doesn't want to compete at the 5-level. I have to trust his judgment. Pass.

[mikeh]

I think this has double game swing written all over it.

it's close, as far as I am concerned, but I don't like the 4♣ bid. I might have chosen it at the table, but I don't like it precisely because of this very forseeable problem.

I disagree with agua in that I think he sees partner's double as penalty, while I see it as merely denying 5-level interest. To me, 4♣ created a fp situation, so he had to double unless he had 5-level interest. Most hands without 5 level interest may afford no real defence to 4♠, especially since declarer is going to place any missing diamond cards with partner.

Had we bid, instead, 4♥, a double by him would express a strong desire to defend....we're not necessarily going to like passing, but it would surely be more comfortable to do so than here. And if he passed 4♠, we have an easy 5♣.

i'm bidding....if it goes down, it may be a good save.

Btw, I think partner will surely expect that we bid 4♣ on a stronger hand than this, and less shapely....6-6 we don't usually want to defend absent a strong message from partner, and his double wasn't.

I just read s20000's comment...and I couldn't disagree more...partner has zero idea that we are 6-6 with an 11 count!

[JLOGIC]

I would pass, probably a big view with 6-6 but we have 2 aces and even our CQ could be worth something on defense, we have a spade rather than a diamond, and our partner has expressed a strong opinion (he could have passed). It is extremely likely partner has good diamonds here for his double, in which case I like our chances on offense and dislike it on defense.

Good problem.

[Phil]

I'm a bidder. It's nice to let partner know about our clubs but for all he knows he is basing his decision on us having a 5-5, not a 6-6.

[aguahombre]

Where I disagree with the bidders is this: I don't believe my 4C bid created a FP in the traditional sense of FP auctions. If partner had passed 4S, it would have been neutral based on the 4C bid. If he has an opinion, and since I have asked his opinion, he will double or bid on. We don't need Pass to show desire to bid on, he just bids on.

Slam is not in the mix after a simple raise by pard on the first round, so the pass-and-pull stuff doesn't apply.

[nigel_k]

---

I agree with mikeh and the above (example) layout seems fairly normal. We are 6-6 and partner raised.

[mikeh]

 nigel_k, on 2012-April-27, 01:10, said:

---

I agree with mikeh and the above (example) layout seems fairly normal. We are 6-6 and partner raised.

I'd swap the diamond A and Q...E made a preemptive raise

[gnasher]

I agree with 4♣ as the first move in describing my hand, but that doesn't mean partner knows what I've got. He'll be expecting a 5-5 but I'm actually 6-6.

I don't think 4♣ created a forcing pass, either. It said that we have shape and it might be right to compete to the five-level, but that might be either in the hope of making or as a save. Often the 4♣ bidder himself doesn't know what the objective is.

Hence partner's double is for penalties rather than just being discouraging, but I'd still bid 5♣.

[aguahombre]

 nigel_k, on 2012-April-27, 01:10, said:

---

I agree with mikeh and the above (example) layout seems fairly normal. We are 6-6 and partner raised.

IMO, that North hand would be neutral and pass 4S. JXX KXX QJXXXX X would not be neutral after the 4C bid.

[han]

I thought I would pass, but in the example hand given by nigel_k to justify passing 4S makes on a low heart lead while 5H makes a on a heart guess. Maybe a double game swing is closer than I thought.

[ArtK78]

Assuming that this is IMPs, I think that bidding is clear. Have I brought partner in on the decision making process? Only partially. He knows that I have at least 10 rounded-suit cards. But he does not expect 12.

Bidding again is likely to be either cheap insurance or a double game swing. For all we know, West's hand looks alot like ours, except with the pointed suits.

Quite frankly, I think that bidding again is clear. The real problem is if the opps bid 5♠ and partner does not double (having been warned by my 5♣ call).

If this is matchpoints, you just have to get it right. Bidding 5♣ at matchpoints is not as clear, but I still think it is right.

[lalldonn]

 aguahombre, on 2012-April-26, 20:01, said:

I don't want to hear in the bar, later, "Why do you ask for my input with 4C, and then ignore it?"

Yes, 4C was mandatory if we care about the guy across the table. Yes, he might not expect distribution quite this extreme. Oh, well.

Didn't you just answer your own concern? "I bid 4C because it was mandatory, and then I pulled your double because you might not expect distribution this extreme." Of course your partner's imaginary question was framed incorrectly. We didn't ask for his input, we described our hand, but didn't have a chance to finish the description.

Personally I bid here. At first I considered pass and I thought it was pretty reasonable, but that example hand seems pretty convincing that bidding is right. It seems like it would be pretty unlucky to lose a trick in all 3 possible suits with a loser. (Then again we might lose two tricks in one of them also. Maybe pass is still pretty reasonable...)

[JLOGIC]

 lalldonn, on 2012-April-27, 08:34, said:

Personally I bid here. At first I considered pass and I thought it was pretty reasonable, but that example hand seems pretty convincing that bidding is right. It seems like it would be pretty unlucky to lose a trick in all 3 possible suits with a loser. (Then again we might lose two tricks in one of them also. Maybe pass is still pretty reasonable...)

How is the example hand convincing? A, it's one hand. B, it is not really consistent with the bidding. C, we gave partner a 10 count with only a doubleton spade and no trump trick, and an honor in both clubs or hearts. It is quite rare for partner to not just pass with no trump trick and only 2 spades and a fitting honor in both of our suits.

How is this for an example hand, partner can just have Qxx xxx KQTxx xx. LHO is 5-5 in spades and diamonds, and RHO has 4 spades. They are w/r after all. IMO it is very likely that LHO has bid on a spade-diamond 2 suiter and that partner has diamonds behind him and hes going to get crushed. Because if LHO only has FIVE spades that is likely to be why he is bidding. And if partner has doubled with a doubleton spade, I expect his diamonds to be quite good and his round suits to be not very good. In either case it is very easy to see crushing them and having lots of losers ourself.

[lalldonn]

I decided not to look at your example because your point A was so convincing! Points B and C weren't very good though. Good luck for the next 10 days!

[JLOGIC]

 lalldonn, on 2012-April-27, 10:48, said:

I decided not to look at your example because your point A was so convincing! Points B and C weren't very good though.

Thanks, do you have any arguments against them or are you just going to say theyre not very good with no explanation since you are horrible at discussing bridge?

[phil_20686]

I will bid 5c here. It could still be a double game swing hand, and the opposition might be just as unsure about it as I am, they know that I am showing big distribution and they are green vs red. Doesnt seem likely they will fail to bid 4S when 5 of something might be making.

Then again, I could just be running into 500 when 4S was -1.

Its a horrible game. If i choose badly I will tell partner to be more lucky next time.

[lalldonn]

Crabby today! I thought my post was kinda funny, and I'm also sad you didn't get my good luck wish into your quote before I stuck it in, but I'll try harder.

A - Who cares? One example can be convincing. No one said it proved anything.
B - Which part doesn't match the hands? I guess east is too strong for 3S but you could easily reverse their diamond honors and then everyone's bidding seems impeccable to me. Or do you not agree with the double?
C - I don't think "10 count" is any more an argument to bid than to defend. It's true overall this is a pretty offensive hand for the double, but you can always word things like you did to make them seem more extreme than they are. "We make 5H despite partner having a wasted spade honor, lots of diamond strength, hearts not breaking" etc.

So your example hand. 5H looks like -2 or -3 but 4S will be making some of the time (significant minority, maybe 1/5?), especially if partner's Qxx of trumps doesn't score. Diamond losers from one hand might be thrown on heart(s) and maybe a club from the other hand. I'm not saying I want to bid if that is partner's hand, obviously I don't since they are usually down and often more than one trick, but if it might still be right opposite 0 in my suits then that could be a good reason for us to be bidding.