[kenberg]

1H-(1S)-2S-(4S)
5D

2S was a limit raise or better (possibly on three cards) in hearts.
Possible complication: Opponents are vul, we are not. Imps

My intention with 5D: I have six hearts and a decent hand, 6H seemed possible if partner has the "or better".
My partner's thinking: Partner appears to be sacking over their vulnerable 4S, I have four diamonds and three hearts, I pass.

I haven't carefully analyzed the hands but I believe 4S would be down 1, 5H would make, 6H needs a (possible, in fact likely) defensive error to make, and we needn't discuss the fate of 5D. Anyway, my issue is the meaning, not the wisdom, of my 5D call.

I realize this is pretty elementary stuff, embarrassing really, but we got it wrong.

[P_Marlowe]

5D is a lead director,
values or shortage, but values
is more likely in the given seq..

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

P_Marlowe, on May 12 2007, 08:04 AM, said:

5D is a lead director,
values or shortage, but values
is more likely in the given seq..

With kind regards
Marlowe

A diamond lead against 5S X would be fine, but it is unlikely they will offer this to me. Are you saying that it is only for lead purposes and does NOT invite 6H?

[pbleighton]

I would take 5D as a first round control in diamonds (could be a void), and slam invitational.

Peter

[mike777]

kenberg, on May 12 2007, 08:00 AM, said:

1H-(1S)-2S-(4S)
5D

2S was a limit raise or better (possibly on three cards) in hearts.
Possible complication: Opponents are vul, we are not. Imps

My intention with 5D: I have six hearts and a decent hand, 6H seemed possible if partner has the "or better".
My partner's thinking: Partner appears to be sacking over their vulnerable 4S, I have four diamonds and three hearts, I pass.

I haven't carefully analyzed the hands but I believe 4S would be down 1, 5H would make, 6H needs a (possible, in fact likely) defensive error to make, and we needn't discuss the fate of 5D. Anyway, my issue is the meaning, not the wisdom, of my 5D call.

I realize this is pretty elementary stuff, embarrassing really, but we got it wrong.

Clear slam try, you need club control.

[Winstonm]

The meaning of 5D depends on whether or not you consider this a forcing pass sequence.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on May 12 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

The meaning of 5D depends on whether or not you consider this a forcing pass sequence.

This crossed my mind. It would seem to me that this is a place where vulnerability is relevant. Presumably a red versus white jump to 4S is made in the expectation of making, which to me means that a pass would not be forcing. So passing, then pulling a double to suggest a slam try is not available. If I am jumping to conclusions about your thinking I apologize.

Added: If the vulnerability were reversed I would expect most partners to treat a pass over 4S as forcing. I am unsure about equal vulnerability, both unsure of what it should be and unsure of how partner would treat it. Suggestions on this issue are welcome.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on May 12 2007, 12:19 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 12 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

The meaning of 5D depends on whether or not you consider this a forcing pass sequence.

This crossed my mind. It would seem to me that this is a place where vulnerability is relevant. Presumably a red versus white jump to 4S is made in the expectation of making, which to me means that a pass would not be forcing. So passing, then pulling a double to suggest a slam try is not available. If I am jumping to conclusions about your thinking I apologize.

Added: If the vulnerability were reversed I would expect most partners to treat a pass over 4S as forcing. I am unsure about equal vulnerability, both unsure of what it should be and unsure of how partner would treat it. Suggestions on this issue are welcome.

I'm not so sure even at this vulnerability that the opponents' game bid means an expectation of a make rather than an expectation of not going down too much but not really expecting a make - a subtle but distinct difference.

That type of hand where one might judge if partner has 2 aces with his overcall we might make, but most likely we fail by 1 trick.

Sometimes one has to make reasonable assumptions bases on expectations - giving partner an average hand of 12 HCP and reponder an average limit raise of 10 opponents are left with 18 to make game - so it seems obvious the game bid is based on distributional values and quick tricks are paramount to whether or not they will make.

On this basis I would still consider the pass is best played as semi-forcing, meaning a pass shows no values above expectations while double shows extras.
Competing in our suit at 5 shows no extras, but a new suit should probably indicate an attempt at a higher contract.

This would allow no real pass and pull sequence, as pass is not 100% forcing - only forcing if responder has above expected values.

And there may even be merit in using 4N as a relay bid of some sort in this sequence.

But all the above are debatable points.

[cherdano]

There are at least 4 possible meanings for 5D:
1. Purely lead-directing (could be made on a void)
2. Natural, second suit, to help partner judge whether to compete if they bid 5S.
3. Natural slam try.
4. Cue bid, slam try.
I think 3. is most useful, but all of them are played by otherwise sensible bridge players.

In any case, passing 5♦ with 3=4 in the reds is a big proposition.

[pclayton]

In a crowded auction like this; 5♦ shows values in diamonds and the ability to bid 5 over 5, but could be slammish as well.

I don't play pass here as forcing.

Passing 5♦ isn't an option on the partnership.

[mikeh]

I would not worry, at this vul., about needing to make a value-showing 5♦ to help partner decide what to do over 5♠. No-one is bidding 5♠ here (unless it is partner ). We have shown at least a slight majority of the hcp and neither opp has sufficiently described their holdings to allow either to make a red v white 5 level save...and save it will be.. not a make.

So the question really is whether 5♦ could be a red two-suiter intending to save in the best fit over their 4♠, or a slam move of some kind.

Partner (and we, to a lesser degree) is unlimited: this is critical to our analysis of the best use of the 5♦ call. RHO may have bid 4♠ on some 6=5 hand without much hcp... we could easily hold an opening hand wanting to bid at least 5♥ and still interested in slam.

And the pass cannot be forcing (well, 'cannot' is an overbid.. any partnership could define this as forcing if they chose) because 2♠ created a force only to 3♥. It is a standard, and useful, agreement that we consider the level to which we have previously forced ourselves.. and we have not forced ourselves.. we could have heard 3♠ P P P.

So, if we have a slam try, we have to make it now by bidding...

Therefore, since we have NO way of slamming other than by bidding, and we can have a myriad of hands with which keycard is useless, 5♦ has to be a cue-bid.

If we want to save, we bid 5♥. If we are 5-5 or so and 5♦ would have been better: too bad. A save at 5♥ may be best, may be break-even or may be worse.. we pays our money and we takes our chances... but if we need 5♦ as a slam try.. we have NO other option.

[mike777]

"....My partner's thinking: Partner appears to be sacking over their vulnerable 4S, I have four diamonds and three hearts, I pass. ..."

I was surprised this was even a problem but...
Was this a first time partnership?

A sad commentary on what seems to be current thinking. Destructive, obstructive bidding before constructive bidding.

[pbleighton]

Quote

A sad commentary on what seems to be current thinking. Destructive, obstructive bidding before constructive bidding

Mike, I can do destructive, obstructive bidding with the worst of them, but I can't understand taking 5D as showing a weak hand, it has to be forward going when spades have been agreed, else just bid 5S.

Peter

[kenberg]

mike777, on May 12 2007, 04:00 PM, said:

"....My partner's thinking: Partner appears to be sacking over their vulnerable 4S, I have four diamonds and three hearts, I pass. ..."

I was surprised this was even a problem but...
Was this a first time partnership?

A sad commentary on what seems to be current thinking. Destructive, obstructive bidding before constructive bidding. 

No, neither a first time partnership not a last time partnership.

Partnerships come in degrees of seriousness. This is more than a pick-up, but less than a seriously developed partnership. It's perhaps surprising how seldom this creates a problem. I have a general sense of partner's thinking about most matters and it usually carries us through. It helps that the defense you encounter on acbl tourneys is sometimes of a generous sort.
I was surprised by the pass but later started thinking that maybe 5D as a slam try was not as clearcut as I thought it to be. There appears to be general agreement that at the very least it is not passable.

Thanks for the advice.
Ken