[MickyB]

Scoring: IMP

RHO opens 4♥

---

[iggygork]

Given that I am going to bid something, I'd rather start with 4NT and convert the likely 5♣ response to 5♦. I can't bring myself to pass 4♥ or double.

[mike777]

Jlall, on Dec 11 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

5D. I'm all for 4S over 4H but this one is a little much.

Well spoken as usual.

[pclayton]

MPs I might try 4♠, but 5♦ at IMPs looks fine.

Another ploy is to try 4♠ and run like hell to 5♦ if it gets hit. But partner may not be in on the joke.

[Codo]

4 NT followed by 5 ♦ shows this hand!
4 NT followed by 5 ♦ shows this hand?

Anyway, I will try it and hope to hit the jackpot.

[whereagles]

Codo, on Dec 12 2006, 07:32 AM, said:

4 NT followed by 5 ♦ shows this hand!
4 NT followed by 5 ♦ shows this hand?

How can you aspire to such precision even unopposed, let alone after a 4♥ opening...?

[MickyB]

Interesting - My instinct is to bid 5♦, based mainly on the often-repeated advice that these hands play best in their long suit. However, when I asked a few good players at the local club (one of the strongest clubs in the UK) there were maybe 6 votes for 4♠, 2 votes for 4NT, and none for 5♦. One of the 4♠ voters put it thus - "If partner doesn't have spades, you aren't making 5♦", which only seems to fall down when partner has rather more than his fair share of diamonds!

So, any theories as to why one group of players leaned so heavily towards playing in 4♠ and the other to playing at the 5 level? I wonder if a player who discusses hands in a group will feel that a bid is right partly because they know that the rest of their group would make the same bid! This has some benefits (e.g. none of the players I asked considered that partner would return to 5♠ if you ran from 4♠ X to 5♦, maybe because they expect partner to place you with a 5-7), but it still seems a bit weird. Any thoughts? Anyone want to try giving this hand to other groups of players?

[david_c]

MickyB, on Dec 13 2006, 03:05 PM, said:

So, any theories as to why one group of players leaned so heavily towards playing in 4♠ and the other to playing at the 5 level?

Maybe they knew you would bid 5♦, and deduced from the fact you were asking that that must be the wrong answer.

[whereagles]

4♠ is the Zia bid against a trigger-happy LHO. Zia bids 4♠, LHO doubles, Zia pulls to 5♦, LHO is in the doubling mood and doubles again, only to find out it makes

[bid_em_up]

MickyB, on Dec 13 2006, 09:05 AM, said:

One of the 4♠ voters put it thus - "If partner doesn't have spades, you aren't making 5♦"

And you believed them?

---

isnt an unreasonable hand for partner to hold.

Neither is:

---

Which plays better, 4♠ or 6♦ on either of these holdings?

MickyB, on Dec 13 2006, 09:05 AM, said:

So, any theories as to why one group of players leaned so heavily towards playing in 4♠ and the other to playing at the 5 level?

Yea. But none that I can share without offending somebody in the 4♠ bidding group.

[sathyab]

Hands like this are rarley more than a guess. Aren't they best settled by simulation ?

[Cascade]

sathyab, on Dec 14 2006, 07:38 AM, said:

Hands like this are rarley more than a guess. Aren't they best settled by simulation ?

Simulations can help but they have problems of their own ...

1. What does a 4H opening look like? How many hearts? How many points? Is it allowed four spades? Is it allowed five of a minor (or even spades)?

2. When will the opponents double 4S*?

3. Will we always run when they double 4S*?

4. What happens when we bid 4S or 4NT and the opponent raises to 5H (or higher)?

5. If we bid 4NT then 5D does this show much longer diamonds like we have or could it just be a much stronger 5/5 hand?

6. And then what does partner bid without a fit for either of our suits (1-1, 2-1, 2-0 etc)?

7. How many tricks will we make in any final contract? Double dummy tricks are easy to calculate but especially on these distributional hands can be wildly inaccurate when often the contract swings on the lead or a two-way guess.

I am sure there are even more questions to consider ...

Nevertheless I have used these simulations at times for several years but one must consider any results as a guide only expecially if the simulation suggests it is close between two actions.

[Codo]

I can accept, that it is usefull to bid just 5 ♦, if you believe, that opps will bid 5 ♥, but I doubt that it is useful to use 4 NT followed by 5 ♦ as a stronger two suiter.
I agree, that this is a nice idea, but I doubt that there is any sense to have agreements for this special area beyond "4 NT is a two suiter" and taking pds suit out shows that he choose the wrong one. I doubt, that it is usefull to have different agreements for (4♥) 4 NT and (4♠) 4 NT.
It would be nice to have it, but it will never happen, so I doubt that it makes sense to memorize this.

[cherdano]

Codo, on Dec 14 2006, 12:45 PM, said:

I can accept, that it is usefull to bid just 5 ♦, if you believe, that opps will bid 5 ♥, but I doubt that it is useful to use 4 NT followed by 5 ♦ as a stronger two suiter.
I agree, that this is a nice idea, but I doubt that there is any sense to have agreements for this special area beyond "4 NT is a two suiter" and taking pds suit out shows that he choose the wrong one. I doubt, that it is usefull to have different agreements for (4♥) 4 NT and (4♠) 4 NT.
It would be nice to have it, but it will never happen, so I doubt that it makes sense to memorize this.

This isn't about special agreements that you have to memorize, just about bridge logic.

1. If you bid 4N over 4H, then 98% of the time you will have both minors, as with 5-5 and spades, you will always bid 4♠ unless you have slam interest.

2. 4N-then-5D must show a pretty good hand. If you are inviting partner to play 5♠ when you could have played 4♠, I think it's pretty logical that you think you can make that.