[hrothgar]

Hmmm

From the sounds of things, partner should have 5 Spades and 4 Diamonds...

(He can't have a 6+ card suit or he would have preempted and he must have some reason for bidding 4♠)

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that he is sitting on a 5=0=4=4 hand, maybe a 5=0=5=3. 5=1=4=3 is certainly possible, but I suspect that many of these holding would consider a negative double rather that 4♠. Something like

♠ AKxxx
♥ void
♦ Kxxx
♣ xxxx

is probably the best hand that I could hope for so I can give up on looking for slam.
I think that 5m is probably a better contract than 4♠. Ruffing Hearts in the long hand is gonna cause me a world of hurt.

I'm going to bid 5♦ and hope that I'm right

[inquiry]

This reminds me of the auction in the tough call post where I was out on a limb by myself after parnter responded 2♥ then 3♥ after passing in first seat... see

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=164601

Here the same logic applies. Since partner can not have a hand with just spades, he must have spades and a diamond fit. So partner rates to be 5-5 in spades and diamonds, and is offering us a choice. I am not going to choose spades (i am to assume double of 4♥ shows 4♠), 1-because bad splits are likely on this auction and 2-partner will be forced quickly with heart ruffs. I am not going to guess 6♦ either, since partner passed, I think slam puts all the eggs in one very narrow basket.

My only concern is could partner have spades and clubs? If I blindly bid 5♦ I might miss the best spot. So while I am not really trying for slam, I will bid 5♣, I plan on passing 5♦, but i worry that partner might take 5♣ as a slam try. Nothing would make me happier than hearing 5♣-pass, or 5♣-5♦. It would be nice if i could be CERTAIN 4♠ showed ♠-♦, rather than ♠ - ♣

BTW, no one seemed to agree with my analysis on the tough call hand, I think more will be thinking this 4♠ bid shows a side minor (and the majority will think the minor is surely diamonds)

[kenrexford]

inquiry, on Dec 14 2006, 07:16 PM, said:

This reminds me of the auction in the tough call post where I was out on a limb by myself after parnter responded 2♥ then 3♥ after passing in first seat... see

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=164601

...


BTW, no one seemed to agree with my analysis on the tough call hand...

Actually, Inquiry, if you look at page one of that post, I preemptively agreed with you on that post, as I do here also.

[Halo]

While I see the problems of being forced, I don't feel comfortable committing to eleven tricks. Even with a 44 diamond fit there is no guarantee that 5D is better than 4S.

I'll pass and gamble that partner has bid the last making contract or the cheapest non-making.

[whereagles]

Halo, on Dec 15 2006, 11:52 AM, said:

Even with a 44 diamond fit there is no guarantee that 5D is better than 4S.

huh? How about the fact that 4♠ is bound to be a 5-2 fit, whereas diamonds should be at least on the 44 fit, with a good chance for 54?

Anyway.. pard should have a weak freak, of the non-65 variant. I don't like my chances in 4♠ so I'll keep bidding what I have: 5♣, congratulating me (justin, actually.. lol) on the brilliant 1♦ opening.

[mikeh]

I am not sure why everyone is so sure that partner has 4♦s. Would he weak two with 5=1=2=5, for example? I am assuming the answer is no, since the patterns he can show are all based on a 6 card major. Would he 'negative double' with that shape? Or with 5=1=3=4? That is far from clear, since these doubles tend more to be transferable values than pure takeout, and why should he expect opener to pull to 4♠ on a 3=3=4=3 hand?

While he may indeed have the 5=0=4=4 etc type hand, I am not sufficiently sure of that to make my decision based on that assumption.

I am going to pass. If he has chunky ♠ texture, he can maybe pitch a minor loser (or 2) on the first rounds of ♥s... aiming to lose 1 trump and 2 tricks outside.

Put another way, I think that there are more hands where 4♠ has a fighting chance than there are hands on which the correct spot is 5 of a minor AND we can reach it. After all, maybe our minor suit game is in ♣s, and just how are we going to reach that spot? Don't anyone tell me that 5♣ here shows 2=3=4=4 shape And 4N, pick a minor, is permissible only when playing adjective bridge: in real bridge it is keycard....Kxxx x AKQxxx Ax or the like.

BTW, I'd like to be able to ask Rosenberg what he'd do since the methods sound a lot like what he plays with Zia and I know Justin recently played with Z.

[inquiry]

mikeh, on Dec 15 2006, 10:55 AM, said:

I am not sure why everyone is so sure that partner has 4♦s. Would he weak two with 5=1=2=5, for example?

Well, not everyone assumed it had to be spades and diamonds. I said (and ken agreed and whereagle bid 5♣ so he must have same thoughts)....

Quote

My only concern is could partner have spades and clubs? If I blindly bid 5♦ I might miss the best spot. So while I am not really trying for slam, I will bid 5♣,

Like you, I considered passing 4♠, it is matchpoints after all. However, I worried about a force in hearts on partner's hand and bad suit splits due to the bidding. After all, if partner has "chunky hearts" we have a trick (or two) in the minors. He could easily lose control in 4♠ I fear, and that was my logic for 5♣.

[kenrexford]

More and more, I am convinced on this deal, with this partner, that he has only four spades, with five diamonds. If you are playing September or something similar, because of his tendencies, then 5-4's look good also, I'm sure. I cannot imagine forcing this level opposite a third-seat opener without just cause, meaning diamond support. That's not enough -- I'll expect 5431 pattern, with a stiff heart. So, which more likely yields a pass first seat? 5♠/4♦ or 5♦/4♠? Should be the latter. Maybe AJxx-x-KQxxx-xxx?

Change it to AJxxx-x-KQxx-xxx, and I bet he'd open 2♠, right? Surely he'd open AKxxx-x-Kxxx-xxx...

This, and the fact that forcing a 4♠/5♦ decision with only four diamonds seems too wild.

Interesting if he holds AKxx-x-KJxxx-xxx or AKJx-x-Kxxxx-xxx. There are a number of times where the 4-2 spade fit comes home for 10 tricks.

[inquiry]

I will say this about this problem... bidding 5♦ runs the risk of partner having clubs and getting too high. Bidding 5♣ runs the risk of partner with diamonds thinking you are making a slam try and bidding 6♦ (he might be thinking, isn't 4♠ clearly spades and diamonds as many in this thread believe). So in favor of passing 4♠ is the concept of the best result available versus the best possible result (thinking 6 gets doubled down one, while 4♠ maybe down one but not doubled). That is, bidding at the five level could lead to a six level contract even when 5 level is the limit. Thus passing has considerable merit. Still I stick with 5♣ and hope we land on our feet....

So, Justin, what is the answer here?

[Halo]

and so?

[hrothgar]

I'm a bit confused by the your partner's bidding

First, it seems if this should have been a 2S opening from the get go. Personally, I'd try to get some clarification regarding why this didn't qualify for an immediate 2♠ or some other preempt. Yes, the hand has flaws... Preempting with a void isn't attractive, nor is a second playable suit. However, from the sounds of things your partner frequently opens 2M with two suited patterns. What was special about this ahnd.

Second, I'm not sure if I like backing in with 4♠ holding a two suiter with Spades and either minor. Without getting more information about the preemptive its hard to calculate percentages, however, I'd be worried that allowing the Spades/Club hand patterns is catering to a very infrequent hand pattern. I suspect that restricting the 4♠ bid to Spade/Diamond will permit partner to evaluate pass/pull decisions a lot more accurately...

[mr1303]

Hmm, I think I'd just open your partner's hand 4S and be done with it. No confusion in that case, and partner isn't going to be forced to guess what's going on. True, it may lead to some missed slams, but having confused auctions like this causes problems.