[bigbenvic]

I dislike intensely the suggestion that you change your bid because partner hesitated over 4♠

If your plan is to bid 3♥ or 4♥ and bid ♣ over any competition then by acknowledging the hesitation and changing your action to pass aren't you guilty of breaking the rule you are afraid you will be accused of if you bid now?

So If I wanted to cheat as your partner, I could hesitate before passing to "tell" or "stop" you from bidding on, which is what the rules are in place to stop.

[rhm]

bigbenvic, on 2017-March-28, 19:14, said:

I dislike intensely the suggestion that you change your bid because partner hesitated over 4♠

If your plan is to bid 3♥ or 4♥ and bid ♣ over any competition then by acknowledging the hesitation and changing your action to pass aren't you guilty of breaking the rule you are afraid you will be accused of if you bid now?

So If I wanted to cheat as your partner, I could hesitate before passing to "tell" or "stop" you from bidding on, which is what the rules are in place to stop.

I agree with everything you say.
Unfortunately it is the way the rules are applied. The rules are not wrong the application of them is.
I have never seen anyone getting a corrected score, because he passed after hesitation.
I have never seen anybody accused of unethical behavior because he hesitated with a weak hand in context before passing.
For stupid reasons passing after hesitation is considered the height of ethics.
If you pass after hesitation and you receive a good score you keep it. If you bid after hesitation and you would get a good score you tend to loose it.
That#s why people pass.
Passing after hesitation should be treated as one of logical alternatives just like any other bid and be subject to score correction.

Rainer Herrmann

[msjennifer]

3Club.Nothing wrong in telling partner what to lead.A heart lead may prove dangerous and may very well happen if we bid hearts just now.We can wait and watch.

[WellSpyder]

rhm, on 2017-March-29, 03:11, said:

Passing after hesitation should be treated as one of logical alternatives just like any other bid and be subject to score correction.

I agree (and so does the law). That is why it is so important to consider what is suggested by the hesitation. Sometimes it really isn't possible to tell what choice partner might be deciding, and what the implications for the success of different LAs might be. Too often, in my view, there is a temptation for TDs or ACs to say "I don't know what the implications of the hesitation might be, but I bet the person at the table does."

[Caitlynne]

This is a far easier problem at Matchpoints than at IMPs. At IMPs, I want to maximize the expectation of my actual score; at Matchpoints, I want to maximize the number of pairs I outscore.

So, at MPs, my bid is 3C. Why? To get partner off to the right lead if we end up defending a spade contract. If we defend - and if other pairs are defending (a reasonable assumption) - we can beat a lot of other defending pairs by getting off the best lead. Given my hand, I have good reason to believe a club will be best.

Yes, I do plan to bid hearts later if I get the chance. At the moment, I suspect I may compete to the 5 level on Law of Total Trick considerations. The opponents appear to have 10 spades and we appear to have 9 hearts and likely have a double fit (in clubs) as well. So, if they can make 4S, we are off at most 2 in 5H; alternately, if they can't make 4S, we are making 5H.

I don't know if I will be bidding 5H right now, however. I will see how the auction unfolds and whether it suggests my initial analysis of the total trumps seems to be supported. It might not - it is possible that partner has a very strong balanced hand with a spade stopper, and then the opponents are likely to stop bidding and partner will rebid 3NT (and then I can bid 4H).

[GrahamJson]

With hands like this I usually consider doing something clever, such as bidding 3H, but always end up making the obvious bid, in this case 4H. It usually turns out to be the winning tactic, or at least the one that doesn't lose.

I note that when hands like this come up in bidding competitions, in which your bid is compared with a panel of experts, the straightforward bid usually gets the most support, and 10/10.

[miamijd]

The opponents surely have a 10 fit in spades. You have a nine fit somewhere and probably only two short suit losers

That suggests that the opponents will surely bid 4s over 4h and that you should then bid 5c. And indeed that's one way to do it

Another approach -- and one that makes it tougher for the opponents -- is to bid 4nt over 2s with the idea of correcting 5d to 5h. Partner rates to have better d than h and if you get dropped in 5c that may not be bad at all. I like this approach better in IMPs than in MPs though.

If you bid 4h and partner hitches over 4s I think you have to pass. Partner can't seriously have been considering a double because 4h shows good offense but minimal defense. With more HCP you would bid 3s. So he was considering 5h. I think pass is reasonable, because it's quite possible that both 4s and 5h are -1.

[cartruck]

I would bid 3♠ asking my partner to bid his best of his 2 suits. If he bids ♦ I pull it to ♥. Then we would go from there accordingly.

I guarantee I have the other major covered at game level with that 3 spade bid.

[Phil]

miamijd, on 2017-March-30, 20:29, said:

Another approach -- and one that makes it tougher for the opponents -- is to bid 4nt over 2s with the idea of correcting 5d to 5h. Partner rates to have better d than h and if you get dropped in 5c that may not be bad at all. I like this approach better in IMPs than in MPs though.

I like this approach too. If you are willing to bet the 1:10 horse (I am) that you are not buying this hand in 4♥, you might as well apply direct pressure to LHO. I also do not mind a direct 5♣, but if partner is a little offshape like 2=4=5=2, this could turn out very silly.

[WellSpyder]

(1♠) X (4♠) 4NT is clearly two places to play.

Is the same true of (1♠) X (2♠) 4NT?

[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on 2017-June-26, 10:29, said:

(1♠) X (4♠) 4NT is clearly two places to play.

Is the same true of (1♠) X (2♠) 4NT?

For us, the answer should be "Yes, but two specific places."

4c=hearts and clubs
4d=hearts and diamonds
4nt=minors.

but, I think I am repeating myself..although it does seem a bit silly to show hearts and something else ABOVE the 4-heart level.