[runewell]

I know the opponents were vul, don't remember if we were. Partner opens 1C, RHO bids 1D. I'm staring at:
♠ Q8xx
♥ Qx
♦ Axxxx
♣ T9

Evidently what little I can find on the subject says you can bid a 4-cd major here. I don't care for that since I can't show a 5-cd major. 1NT is also an option, but for the moment I pass. My partner reopens with a double and now LHO bids 1H. I proceeded to bid 1S now and partner raised to 4S with

♠ KT9
♥ AKx
♦ xx
♣ AKxxx

in which case 3NT made easily but 4S was down one. I'd be interested in your commentary/critique.

[pbleighton]

If your agreements allow 1S (it's a little unclear), I would bid it. Otherwise, I would bid 1NT. I would never pass with this hand.

In the given auction, 4S makes no sense. Your delayed 1S shows (to my mind) less than 7 hcp and 4 spades.

Blame attaches to both partners here.

Peter

[skjaeran]

Playing standard methods this is an obvious 1♠ response, forcing and showing 4+ ♠'s.

With my regular partner I'd make a 1♥ transfer response, showing 4+♠ and denying 4-4 in the majors. (Double would be 4+ ♥'s and 1♠ shows exactly 4♠'s and 4+ ♥'s.)

[jdonn]

Even if you don't want 1♠ to be allowed with 4, that means you play negative double only promises one major here. It's not playable to make a negative double be 4-4 and a major suit bid be 5+.

[cherdano]

You cannot pass with this hand. I think you should join the crowd and play 1M as 4+, you can still sort out the combined trump length later, e.g. with support doubles if opponents bid on etc.

Your partner's 4♠ bid was out of this world, how can he force to game with no 8-card fit opposite a partner who passed first?

[mikeh]

Consider: 1♣ [P] 1major shows only 4+. So just why are you concerned that it should show 5+ after an overcall? What bidding space have you lost?

And if you incorporate support doubles, even the prospect of a 2♦ raise on your left is no problem.

Yes, a big raise on your left can complicate matters, since most play support doubles only through the 2-level, but that is the same if it went 1♣ [P] 1♠ [3♦].

And, as Josh pointed out, requiring 5 cards for the major bid is unplayable. It is theoretically, and practically, unsound to play that the 1-level negative double can be based on only 1 4 card major, and passing with this hand is very poor: how do you ever catch up?

Of course, it was partner who has the final responsibility for the disaster: there was nothing about his hand that warranted the 4♠ bid.

[jtfanclub]

I think one valid option is to pass the first time, and bid 2♦ the second time.

To me, this means "If you had a minimum balanced hand, I was happy with them playing 1♦. Now that you've shown a stronger hand, any interest in 3NT? I have the diamonds well stopped even as dummy". I mean, seriously, what else can that bid mean? I know that Standard American players hate the concept of a minor suit bid actually showing the suit, but there has to be a limit somewhere.

But...that's more for a hand like

9732
Q8
AQT65
32

where it's an entry-killing hand hog in no-trump, possible instant death in spades (especially if your partner tends to raise with 3 small), and them playing diamonds looks like a good thing. On the hand you actually gave, it doesn't feel quite as defensive, but I don't think trapping would be the worst thing in the world if it was AT9xx.

If you're going to do that, though, you have to bid 2♦ the second time. How else can your partner possibly know you were trapping, or pseudo-trapping?

As far as the spade suit, if you do decide to trap/pseudo-trap, there's no reason to show it. If partner has 4 spades, he'll bid them. The bid is forcing, and space is not a problem.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Jun 22 2007, 10:49 AM, said:

Even if you don't want 1♠ to be allowed with 4, that means you play negative double only promises one major here. It's not playable to make a negative double be 4-4 and a major suit bid be 5+.

There's a subculture that swears by this. Its similar to 1x (1♥) - 1♠ showing 5 (sorry - edited - said 4 the 1st time) (which is standard, but I don't play it).

[kenberg]

pclayton, on Jun 23 2007, 11:33 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 22 2007, 10:49 AM, said:

Even if you don't want 1♠ to be allowed with 4, that means you play negative double only promises one major here. It's not playable to make a negative double be 4-4 and a major suit bid be 5+.

There's a subculture that swears by this. Its similar to 1x (1♥) - 1♠ showing 4 (which is standard, but I don't play it).

Not so similar I think, at least if I understand you. After 1m-(1H) you can sort out spades length using 1S for one length and X for another. I and most folks I know play that 1S shows five, X shows four, and it doesn't present a problem.

But after 1C-(1D) I can't see playing 1M as showing five and this hand shows why. Even if you think passing first round is desirable here (I don't) surely there will be hands where you think a bid is called for over 1D. Given four cards in one major and a diamond stop, I guess you bid 1N. Unless partner can reverse into the major, you lose it.

It just can't be right in any way I can see.