[Fluffy]

Scoring: IMP

S - W - N - E
ps-ps-1♠-3♦*
4♣-5♥-ps-ps
??

---

3♦=♦+♥

[Robert]

Hi everyone

What was 4Cs? If it was fit showing, it lacks a great deal of texture and at least one more black card.

A 3S bid would have 'shown' this hand and partner could make an 'informed decision' about the 5 level 'knowing about trump support for his suit.'

Partner did make a forcing pass to suggest bidding higher, however, the problem remains that you do not have the values for your first bid(4Cs)

You fixed yourself with that 4C bid, so double now and you will often be correct.
Next time support partner with the values to bid to that level(a 3S raise)

The five level 'belongs' to the other pair.

If your pair should have bid to the 5 level on this hand, your earlier 3S bid would have allowed partner to bid it.

Regards,
Robert

[Fluffy]

I disagree with you robert, 4♣ might be a slight overbid, but 3♠ does't show more than 6 HCP. 3♥ would had been invitational, but I would notwant to leave partner with an almost blind decision at the 5 level. Bidding 4♣ he had a much more accurate sight of our hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

assuming, partner took 4C as fit showing with clubs,
what else, since I am a passed hand, his Pass is forcing,
having 2 defensive tricks, and being semi balanced, I double.

Marlowe

[Kalvan14]

4♣ was certainly fit-showing, and, being a passed hand, it is not an overbid.
Now I double over the forcing pass of pard.

[pclayton]

If 4♣ is fitted, I like it. If its not fitted, I much prefer a 3♥ cue.

Pard's pass should be forcing. As I have dub-dub in their suits and two aces, I think double is pretty obvious.

[mike777]

prefer 3h and now x.

[Robert]

Hi Fluffy

I happen to also disagree with you on several points.

4C is indeed an slight overbid, we agree on that. I think that it is also a serious

overbid holding "eight losers." The Queen of diamonds is normally waste paper so

you are left with 9HCP, no spot cards and two doubletons.

A 3S raise on 6HCP is not standard bidding. 8-9 points maybe, they still have Red

cards in some bidding boxes.

You saw a possible problem at the five level and so you decided that "overbidding"

was the answer. How often do you hold 11HCP, you hear partner open and you

now envision a five level problem that the answer will not normally be to double.

You are still looking at an "eight loser" hand.

Hi Kalvan14

Why I would not expect you to bid a forcing 4C bid with an eight loser hand? The

Diamond Queen is often waste paper so you are looking at 9HCP and two

doubletons with "eight losers."

Was it the wealth of spot cards in the two black suits that suggested forcing to

game? A pair of sevens is not very good hand even in a poker game.

Looking at 11HCP opposite an opening bid suggested to you that the other

pair would bid to the five level and that a double would not normally suggest

defensive values?

If you play 3H here as a limit raise, why not show trump support and a 'almost' a

limit raise? Or perhaps bid 3Ss to suggest a solid single raise?

You forced to game to show AJxxx of clubs and an "eight loser" hand?

The losing trick count suggests inviting game with seven losers opposite an

opening bid. You have "eight losers" and no spot cards. None. Zero. Nada!

Your highest spot cards is that lovely pair of sevens.

Passed hands do not have to make ten tricks when they force partner to the four

level in what version of bridge?

Regards,
Robert

[han]

I agree that 4C is only sensible if we have agreed that this is a fitted bid. Presumably we also have an agreement about whether pass by partner is forcing. If it is, I double (I cannot have a more defensive hand then this), if it isn't, I pass (I cannot have a weaker hand than this).

If it is not our agreement to play 4C as fitted then I would of course never bid it. 3H seems about right, 3S is a gross underbid. 4S is also possible.

[inquiry]

4♣ is fine (i would have opened 1♣). 4♣ just has to be fitted, regardless of your agreements prior to this. Double is clear here. I half expect partner to pull the double to 5♠ inviting slam, and with two black aces but no diamond stopper i will have a problem, next round, but not this round.

[mikeh]

I probably would have chosen 3♥ only because I would be uncertain that 4♣ showed primary ♠ support, rather than, say, Axx xx xx KQJxxx.

If it were fit-showing, it would be perfect because it inferentially shows 4=2=2=5: with any red singleton and sufficient strength to force to game, one would splinter, so that 4♣ has to be 4=2=2=5 if fit-showing.

BTW, I vehemently disagree with the notion that this is a 3♠ bid. I think that the idea is absurd. Had I picked up this hand in 3rd seat and heard partner open 1♠, there is zero probability that I would stay out of game, red at imps. Yes, partner opened in 3rd seat and so may be a little light, but when you are jammed, you should tend to overbid with fits, not underbid.

This is basic bridge. Let's say that you hold a very good 2♠ raise. Can you seriously argue that you should pass 3♦? Not in the last twenty years or so!

So the lower limit for 3♠ is reduced by their preempt. You cannot also increase the upper limit, without destroying the utility of the bid entirely. So the vast majority of good bridge players will tend to overbid with heavy invitational hands, such as this one. This sounds inconsistent with one of my strong beliefs: heavy invites and light acceptances, but the inconsistency is more apparent than real. The heavy invite approach has to yield to the impact of their preemption.

As for the current dilemma, there is some basis for playing the pass as non-forcing: after all, you have (I think) described your hand very well, and partner passed. However, my forcing pass agreements do not allow me to pass this hand.

Many partnerships do not have detailed agreements, and pick up partnerships, even amongst experts familiar with each other, will usually lack any time to discuss this area. My guess is that most experts would treat this as forcing, but I am prepared to learn that I am wrong

So for me, double, with no second choice. If partner now bids 5♠, I have a tough call. I would pass, needing Axxx xx xx AQxxx to move:playing partner for KQJxxx x Axx Kxx or equivalent.

[whereagles]

Double. Regardless of 4♣ being fitbid or not. I have no offensive values, so it's an easy call here. Just because opps bid 5♥, it doesn't mean I should stop showing my hand.

(Comment: I wouldn't make a 4♣ fitbid on such a broken suit Prefer a straight 4♠ or the 3♥ cue.)

[Blofeld]

mikeh, on Dec 19 2005, 01:03 AM, said:

<snip>
If it were fit-showing, it would be perfect because it inferentially shows 4=2=2=5: with any red singleton and sufficient strength to force to game, one would splinter, so that 4♣ has to be 4=2=2=5 if fit-showing.
<snip>

I agree that 4♣ has to be fit-showing here, and seems the best bid to let partner know what's going on (although the suit texture isn't perfect). But I disagree that one would always splinter with a singleton. Given a 4135 shape my decision to splinter or bid 4♣ would be based on honour location. If I have something in ♦s, the splinter will appeal. But give me three little diamonds and ♣KJTxx and suddenly the fit-showing 4♣ seems to let partner make a much more informed decision.

On the actual hand, I double. I can hardly have a more defensive hand.

[Gerben42]

Double. What does partner NOT yet know about my hand? Right, I have defensive values (aces).

[Al_U_Card]

How are pard's 3rd seat openers? If he opens notoriously light then perhaps 4S might have been an interesting bid but 3H seems to be the most sensible as the 9 hcp mess can bid 3S and let them go as they please........4C must be, de facto, showing a healthy "tolerance" for spades (this comes up a lot, especially by a passed hand that bid new suits at "impossible" levels).

I think that pard's inactivity over your passed hand bid takes the "forcing pass" out of your arsenal (When did the partnership show game values?) as he can bid with a known fit and playing strength and double with defence. Just pass and leave them to the 5 level where they belong cause when you double, pard may well be obliged to pull to 5S which goes for your life when they are on a mis-fit.....

[mikeh]

Al_U_Card, on Dec 19 2005, 01:33 PM, said:

I think that pard's inactivity over your passed hand bid takes the "forcing pass" out of your arsenal (When did the partnership show game values?) as he can bid with a known fit and playing strength and double with defence.  .

We showed game values when we bid 4♣

And partner may have an in-between hand: one on which a pure holding in your hand warrants slam while defending is best if you have stretched or have an imperfect hand.

I gave the example for him of KQJxxx x Axx Kxx: slam makes if ♣ are 3-2. while that is less than 68.5% given the bidding, I'd still like to be in slam, and make it K10x, and I'd love to be in slam, if partner held Axxx xx xx AQxxx, but not opposite the actual hand.

That is why the forcing pass has a place in this auction. Whether that place is enough to offset the slight risk (from opener's point of view) that 5♥ is making is a partnership issue. Personally, I rarely worry about paying -650 to 5♥ doubled. The benefit of the forcing pass is worth that price to me.

[han]

I think a case can be made for pass to be forcing or pass to be not forcing. Of course a forcing pass gives partner more options and we were willing to go to 4S. On the other hand, we are a passed hand and have described our hand very well, so maybe partner should be allowed to pass out 5H.

A clear agreement would be best, no matter how you play it.

[Fluffy]

I seem to disagree with most people here, aces are not defensive values, but both defensive and offensive. Honnors on their suits are defensive.

[Al_U_Card]

As much as I respect Mikeh's points, I could never hang my pard with "Why did you pass? (ie Why did you bid in 3rd seat?) 3rd seat is an 'all bets are off' until he confirms full strength to allow the forcing pass to rear its useful head.

[Blofeld]

Fluffy, on Dec 19 2005, 03:02 PM, said:

I seem to disagree with most people here, aces are not defensive values, but both defensive and offensive. Honnors on their suits are defensive.

But we've already suggested that our values are in our suits rather than theirs. In this context, aces are very defensive.