[Dinarius]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-26, 02:52, said:

What happens if partner "corrects" to 5♠ instead? I do not understand why you want to play the 4-3 fit here - it seems to me to be the third choice action.

That's my point, isn't it?

I no longer feel that correcting partner's 4 Spades (after my Dbl) to 5 Clubs is the right move - though I might well have done this in the heat of the moment, as I indicated above.

I either Dbl, and pass his 4 Spades, or I Pass and hope he protects.

D.

[gnasher]

With AQ98xx xx xxx Jx, partner will bid 4♠ and then pass 5♣. Opposite that hand, 4♠ is better than 5♣, but there's no particular reason to expect partner to have six spades.

[WesleyC]

Dinarius, on 2015-March-26, 01:58, said:

So, if I double, and I hear 4 Spades from P, then pulling to 5 Clubs (to show my "two-suiter", as I wrote above) would look stupid with a partner hand such as:

S: A,Q,9,8,x,x
H:x,x,
D:x,x,x
C:J,x

Partner now "corrects" to 5 Diamonds, which may not have a prayer, while 4 Spades is probably laydown.

Hey Dinarius,

Firstly, I think you're misunderstanding what double followed by 5C shows. A distributional 2 suiter with both minors would bid 4NT the first time. A flexible hand with both minors and a preference for diamonds would double and then bid 4NT. Which leaves double then 5C as specifically showing a strong flexible hand with long clubs.

Your choice to double and then pass 4S isn't crazy. This is especially true if you're playing against opponents that will often double aggressively with a trump stack.

However, it could also work poorly if your partner has bid 4S on a 4 card suit, perhaps even when holding a longer minor or significant extra values. Now 4S might be going down while 5m or even 6m is making. To offer a couple of my own example hands, I would bid 4S on both [QTxx xxx AQxxx x] and [AQ98xx xx Axx Jx]. After I continued 5C, holding the first hand partner will correct to 5D. Holding the second hand, partner will advance with 5NT offering choice of slam (ending up in 6C).

Wes

[wbartley]

Dinarius mentioned the possibility of partner protecting in fourth seat. The fact that partner will protect on some portion of the layouts where we make game, pass may be more attractive than it seems. In other words, in my original analysis I ruled out passing because I felt the possibility that either side is making a NV game is too high. But you have to subtract those hands where partner protects. I still think a computer analysis would be invaluable here, especially if we could somehow quantify what a fourth seat balancer's hand contains.