[kenberg]

Your view on the bids is pretty much mine, bid em. I thnk the issue of damage is a bit subtle though. After the 4H peempt, pairs did get to 6D off one. Tank, then correct 5C to 5D, is a good way to say: Pard, let's go 5 but that's the limit.

I am not suggesting that was the intent, only the effect.

I'm over it now, but this 5D bid ticked me off. Usually I stay cool.

[EricK]

bid_em_up, on Sep 18 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

In this case, it should be fairly clear that opener has UI. But is pass really a logical alternative? I dont think so. How many would actually pass on this hand, if partner passed in tempo?

Had opener bid anything but 5D, I would be willing to agree with it. But come on, 5D? Holding AKQx ♣ and a crappy diamond suit??!!

Double I could accept; 4N I could accept; 5C I could accept. Any of these bids are logical (although double is a bad one) alternatives. While pass is certainly an alternative, how logical it is, is an entirely different question. Since any of the other bids should result in partner (now known as "Tank" throughout the world) bidding 5D, I would reluctantly have to agree that no damage has occured.

Why is double bad?

If you were going to bid eg 5♣ then doubling and correcting 4♠ to 5♣ is just as effective but allows for the possibility of playing in 4♥X.

[bid_em_up]

Because 4H x'd is quite likely making and partner may not pull every time he needs to, and our values are too concentrated in our two suits.