[ahydra]

IMPs. NS are vul.

At one table:

---

At the other table: 3C-p-4H-4S; all pass

4S went one down while 4H made 5, so we lost 8 IMPs.

Is South a wimp for passing rather than 4S, or should one of EW competed further? (Yes, both tables should have opened 4C, but the auction proceeds pretty much the same from then on.)

ahydra

[KingCovert]

Not sure what more South wants to bid spades... You're not going to get a much better hand in this sequence. Pretty automatic.

[TylerE]

KingCovert, on 2019-October-18, 18:27, said:

Not sure what more South wants to bid spades... You're not going to get a much better hand in this sequence. Pretty automatic.

Strongly disagree. Red vs White means 4S can be very wrong, especially with a dodgy suit that isn't going to play well opposite shortness.

[FelicityR]

4♠ is very chancy. This time it worked out well. East has a better idea of what is happening at the table than South. East could be far stronger than he/she is. South was lucky in my opinion.

[HeavyDluxe]

I think 4♠ is too much, especially unfavorable opposite a hand that couldn't move over the preempt and with a RHO who's taking somewhat unilateral, strong action.

As to whether EW should continue, I don't know where W could possibly bid on and I don't think E can know when 5♥ is right. I think expecting them to push to the 5-level is a little unreasonable.

[Tramticket]

I'm surprised that both Easts thought this worth a jump to a pretty marginal 4H. East got lucky that partner's pre-empt included QX heart support and the diamond king on side.

South's 4S was ridiculous. Was he intending to make opposite a partner who had not bid over 3C? Or as a save against 4H? A vulnerable save against this non-vulnerable game is just daft. South got extremely lucky finding partner with five-card support.

[cherdano]

I am surprised by the replies so far. It's not unlikely that North has spade length and club shortness, so why wouldn't South bid 4S? He can hope to make opposite xxxx xxxx Axxx x.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2019-October-20, 06:29, said:

I am surprised by the replies so far. It's not unlikely that North has spade length and club shortness, so why wouldn't South bid 4S? He can hope to make opposite xxxx xxxx Axxx x.

The problem is that he's just as likely to have 9, Qxxx, Qxxxx, xxx which will play disastrously in spades with declarer with AJxx, AKJ10xxx, A, x having a completely dead dummy and going off in 4♥. It's a very dangerous bid, and not one I'd find at that vul.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-October-20, 06:48, said:

The problem is that he's just as likely to have 9, Qxxx, Qxxxx, xxx

No he isn't. To start with, East more likely has the strength for 4♥ with some club length instead of a club singleton. Second, equalish length in the pointed suits is more likely than 1-5.
Obviously 4441 is the most beneficial shape for 4♠, but is partner really so unlikely to be 3352, with a useful card or two? If so, where do you want to play?

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2019-October-20, 08:04, said:

No he isn't. To start with, East more likely has the strength for 4♥ with some club length instead of a club singleton. Second, equalish length in the pointed suits is more likely than 1-5.
Obviously 4441 is the most beneficial shape for 4♠, but is partner really so unlikely to be 3352, with a useful card or two? If so, where do you want to play?

I disagree, I think 4♥ says most often that I'm not interested in clubs in the slightest.

[KingCovert]

Honestly, I think a lot of the criticism of a 4♠ bid here is rather unreasonable. Partner doesn't need to hold 5 spades, 3 will suffice. Your spades are sitting behind the A♠ or opposite the A♠ 90% of the time, possibly more if your opponents religiously don't preempt with an Ace. And, in fact, you just make 4♠ opposite KQ♦ and a singleton club when your partner holds a few spades and the A♠ is onside.

Contrary to some of the cherry-picking in this thread, I don't think that hand would bid over 3♣, and yet it still makes. Our singleton heart is valuable, and JTXX of diamonds is an asset on this auction. The A♣ is most likely going to earn us control of the hand at Trick 1, and if a heart lead comes at Trick 1, that's pretty good too!

The real concern with bidding 4♠ here, even though I advocate for it, is the singleton diamond lead that will come more often than we'd like. Small diamond to the A♦ and a ruff is breaking our back here a lot. That being said, down 1 is a good save, as long as partner does have a hand that can keep it to down 1.

Partner figures for some amount of spade and diamond length, and probably a doubleton club. We can count at least 8 hearts, and 9 (turns out it's 10) clubs between our hand and the bidding of EW. And, there's no reason to suppose that either of EW have a void in their partner's suit. Partner really just figures for a pointy suit holding here, but, if they're holding 6 diamonds and 2 spades? That diamond ruff looks pretty likely now. That being said, the odds of holding 5 points in spades also go down dramatically, leaving increased odds of the A♦ being in partner's hand.

Lastly, if you had X, AKQXXXX, AX, XXX, you would totally prefer 4♥ over 5♣ as a contract. So, I disagree with you on that one Cyber, I don't think it shows club shortness. But, I do think the hand that bids 4♥ will often have club shortness. I don't think this bid definitively promises nor denies clubs, it just says, I have good hearts and this contract is better.

[Cyberyeti]

KingCovert, on 2019-October-20, 10:29, said:

Honestly, I think a lot of the criticism of a 4♠ bid here is rather unreasonable. Partner doesn't need to hold 5 spades, 3 will suffice. Your spades are sitting behind the A♠ or opposite the A♠ 90% of the time, possibly more if your opponents religiously don't preempt with an Ace. And, in fact, you just make 4♠ opposite KQ♦ and a singleton club when your partner holds a few spades and the A♠ is onside.

Contrary to some of the cherry-picking in this thread, I don't think that hand would bid over 3♣, and yet it still makes. Our singleton heart is valuable, and JTXX of diamonds is an asset on this auction. The A♣ is most likely going to earn us control of the hand at Trick 1, and if a heart lead comes at Trick 1, that's pretty good too!

The real concern with bidding 4♠ here, even though I advocate for it, is the singleton diamond lead that will come more often than we'd like. Small diamond to the A♦ and a ruff is breaking our back here a lot. That being said, down 1 is a good save, as long as partner does have a hand that can keep it to down 1.

Partner figures for some amount of spade and diamond length, and probably a doubleton club. We can count at least 8 hearts, and 9 (turns out it's 10) clubs between our hand and the bidding of EW. And, there's no reason to suppose that either of EW have a void in their partner's suit. Partner really just figures for a pointy suit holding here, but, if they're holding 6 diamonds and 2 spades? That diamond ruff looks pretty likely now. That being said, the odds of holding 5 points in spades also go down dramatically, leaving increased odds of the A♦ being in partner's hand.

Lastly, if you had X, AKQXXXX, AX, XXX, you would totally prefer 4♥ over 5♣ as a contract. So, I disagree with you on that one Cyber, I don't think it shows club shortness. But, I do think the hand that bids 4♥ will often have club shortness. I don't think this bid definitively promises nor denies clubs, it just says, I have good hearts and this contract is better.

I don't think it guarantees shortness, but a lot of the hands where there is not shortness bid a forcing 3♥

[ahydra]

FWIW I suggest you don't assume the relevant players involved have agreements as to whether 3H is forcing...

ahydra

[eagles123]

4s seems completely routine vul at imp

[pescetom]

We should be bidding game vul with 42% or something close to that? Looks about where we are to me.

As an aside, 4♥ would not have made the overtrick against a trump lead, might even go down if declarer was rash.