[mikeh]

In my view, double shows ownership of the hand and no unusual shape: no 4 card support in diamonds, fewer than 7 hearts and no club void. Partner should be passing with the majority of hands, taking a call only with a minimum and 3 card heart support (he won't have 3 and extras and he won't have 4 with any hand) or with some extreme shape of his own. So, to me, double, while technically not penalty, will be converted the vast majority of the time.

Roland is quite right to be worried about reaching 5♥ opposite a 2=2=6=3, which is an entirely plausible shape. However, we are not down yet even opposite xx Ax AQJxxx xxx.

And if partner has a useful minimum, slam is not unreachable after we bid but is surely unreachable after double.

I am often a glass half-empty bidder, to my shame, but this is a glass half-full hand even for me. Only a gloomy Dane would think otherwise, no doubt disheartened by the loss of Hans O and the resulting demoralization of the Danes in general.

[bhall]

1. 2♥, absolutely, for all the constructive reasons mikeh and others have mentioned.

2. Smile sweetly and bid 4♠ in tempo. They have gifted you the keys to the kingdom. The 4♣ bidder can no more know how high to sacrifice than you can know how well you fit. So, give him the problem at a higher level.

Opener's next action is likely to be clear-cut, no matter what your LHO does: you have offered to play 4♠ or 5♥ opposite a minimum with no particular fit. Only minor aces and major high cards count as covers. True, you may already be too high, but if opener bids a slam, LHO will be hard-pressed to pass.

[hatchett]

Quote

2. Smile sweetly and bid 4♠ in tempo. They have gifted you the keys to the kingdom. The 4♣ bidder can no more know how high to sacrifice than you can know how well you fit. So, give him the problem at a higher level.

Opener's next action is likely to be clear-cut, no matter what your LHO does: you have offered to play 4♠ or 5♥ opposite a minimum with no particular fit. Only minor aces and major high cards count as covers. True, you may already be too high, but if opener bids a slam, LHO will be hard-pressed to pass.

I strongly suspect the 4♣ bidder has shot his bolt.

[bhall]

hatchett, on Sep 25 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

Quote

2. Smile sweetly and bid 4♠ in tempo. They have gifted you the keys to the kingdom. The 4♣ bidder can no more know how high to sacrifice than you can know how well you fit. So, give him the problem at a higher level.

Opener's next action is likely to be clear-cut, no matter what your LHO does: you have offered to play 4♠ or 5♥ opposite a minimum with no particular fit. Only minor aces and major high cards count as covers. True, you may already be too high, but if opener bids a slam, LHO will be hard-pressed to pass.

I strongly suspect the 4♣ bidder has shot his bolt.

If the preemptor has mis-represented his hand (as Frances suggests), then the overcaller will overrate their offense and underrate their defensive prospects, suspecting a ♣ void in your hand. If his 4♣ bid was honest, the premptor will likely expect to go down about 2 tricks at 5♣, which means that even higher sacrifices will be appealing to him at this vulnerability.

I truly would not consider any other action than 4♠ as justified.

[hatchett]

Quote

If his 4♣ bid was honest, the premptor will likely expect to go down about 2 tricks at 5♣, which means that even higher sacrifices will be appealing to him at this vulnerability.

I was assuming having pre-empted that he would allow his partner to assess his sides defensive/offensive potential, rather than bid his hand twice.

[jdonn]

4♠ is completely clear to me. Roland don't you want to play 4♠ is partner is 3-2 in the majors since that gives you a good chance to eliminate your third round heart loser opposite Hx? In fact, as long as they don't lead trumps I think 4♠ may well be right opposite 2-2 in the majors. Picture Jx Kx. Of course that gives credence to those who bid 2♠ first, but 2♥ first seems fine since it's better for slam exploration and since you want to play hearts if partner's majors are 3-3. This much preemption was a bit unlikely.

I would be much more with you if the suits were more like AQxxx KQxxxx.

[whereagles]

Over 4♣ I'm bidding 4♠. Anything else is too much of a stretch of imagination for me. If this takes me to 5♥, I'm pretty sure I can figure my way out in the card play

[awm]

Out of question, say you had a big 4-6-3-0 hand, something like:

AKxx
AQxxxx
Kxx
-

After the 2♣ overcall you bid 2♥, but now what? It's easy to imagine partner with something like QJx Jx AQJxx Qxx passing any of double, 4♦, 4♥, or 4♠ despite the fact that you have excellent play for any number of slam contracts opposite this hand. It seems like catering to a non-forcing 4♠ bid just so partner can pass when holding 3-1 or 3-2 majors and a very minimum hand is a somewhat small target, compared to the many potential hands where you need to look for slam intelligently holding both majors.

[mikeh]

awm, on Sep 25 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

Out of question, say you had a big 4-6-3-0 hand, something like:

AKxx
AQxxxx
Kxx
-

After the 2♣ overcall you bid 2♥, but now what? It's easy to imagine partner with something like QJx Jx AQJxx Qxx passing any of double, 4♦, 4♥, or 4♠ despite the fact that you have excellent play for any number of slam contracts opposite this hand. It seems like catering to a non-forcing 4♠ bid just so partner can pass when holding 3-1 or 3-2 majors and a very minimum hand is a somewhat small target, compared to the many potential hands where you need to look for slam intelligently holding both majors.

with the example hand, 4=6=3=0 and 16 high, assuming the opps hold most of the points in clubs (I'd bet they own 8-10 hcp in the suit), how can 5♣ be wrong? It may miss spades on the 4-4 but it won't miss hearts on the 6-3 or diamonds on the 5-3 or better.

[awm]

Wow... 5♣ is like the ultimate blame transfer bid. Does this show a club control? A diamond fit? A self-sufficient heart suit? Is it EKCB? Does anyone know? If partner bids 5♦ over it, is that a cue for hearts? A good diamond suit in a minimum hand? A bad hand for slam in diamonds opposite a fit?

Doesn't it seem much easier to bid out the pattern via 4♠ and then diamonds later? Oops, forgot, we need 4♠ in this auction to show exactly 5-6 in the majors with a minimum game force.

[mikeh]

awm, on Sep 25 2007, 09:25 PM, said:

Wow... 5♣ is like the ultimate blame transfer bid. Does this show a club control? A diamond fit? A self-sufficient heart suit? Is it EKCB? Does anyone know? If partner bids 5♦ over it, is that a cue for hearts? A good diamond suit in a minimum hand? A bad hand for slam in diamonds opposite a fit?

Doesn't it seem much easier to bid out the pattern via 4♠ and then diamonds later? Oops, forgot, we need 4♠ in this auction to show exactly 5-6 in the majors with a minimum game force.

Well, by all the rules I know for exclusion a non-jump 5♣ isn't.

And since we haven't agreed a suit, not even implicitly, then by all the rules I know for cue-bidding, this 5♣ isn't, at least not in the traditional sense of a co-operative move in a mutually agreed direction. 5♣ is not a cue in support of any agreed or implied trump suit, since that animal doesn't exist yet.

So what is left?

How about a big hand either with clear direction and the ability to handle any bid you make or a hand with a void (or, less likely on the auction, the Ace) in clubs and uncertainty as to strain?

Opener bids on the basis of the second, and this can never cost when responder holds the first, because of the definition of the first possible meaning: the ability to handle opener's bid.

So here, 5♦ by opener suggest playing in.... drum roll, please.... diamonds! What a concept!

5♥ would show 3 card support and a willingness to play there.

Now, I concede it is not at all clear that responder can or should bid 5♠.. it seems to me that opener will usually be expecting to end up in a red suit, but maybe I am being too narrow-minded.

BTW, there is virtually no likelihood of opener taking us past the 5-level since he made a non-forcing pass over 4♣. If he jumps, it will be into diamonds, not a major.

I know: since Adam feels that 5♣ is 'out there', I'll turn to our resident expert on completely left-field theories. Fresh from co-inventing the Rexford-Lall grand slam rescue transfer method, perhaps Ken could come to my assistance re the meaning of 5♣

Actually, except for the doubt about the spade suit, I wouldn't expect any expert to go far wrong if I pulled the 5♣ call on them. Will further posts reveal me as a misguided optimist...wild-eyed, even?

[han]

I don't think 5♣ can be the ace, must be a void. With the ace of clubs, a strong hand and no clear direction you'd double.

[cherdano]

awm, on Sep 25 2007, 08:25 PM, said:

Wow... 5♣ is like the ultimate blame transfer bid. Does this show a club control? A diamond fit? A self-sufficient heart suit? Is it EKCB? Does anyone know? If partner bids 5♦ over it, is that a cue for hearts? A good diamond suit in a minimum hand? A bad hand for slam in diamonds opposite a fit?

Doesn't it seem much easier to bid out the pattern via 4♠ and then diamonds later? Oops, forgot, we need 4♠ in this auction to show exactly 5-6 in the majors with a minimum game force.

A 5♣ bid this shows a hand with strong slam interest but no clear direction. Of course it's not EKCB, exclusion is only played as a jump for a reason, it comes up rarely and shouldn't take away cheap bids.

If responder bids 5♦ over that, that is a suggestion to play. If he bids 5♥, that is a suggestion to play. There is no space for subtle cuebidding when both strain and level are unclear.

[FrancesHinden]

As Roland started the thread, he should give the denouement, but I'll tell you what I thought at the time.

- I bid 2H on the first round, which I considered to be clearly better than 2S. If I can't show a 6-5, then I'd rather show the hand as a 6-4 than a 5-5. I think hearts is really going to play better than spades pretty much all the time partner has equal length in the majors, as well as some of the time he is 3-2 - spades is only right when the diamonds are good enough to discard hearts on. If I had to guess the best final contract over 2C, I would guess 4H with second choice 3NT.

My second choice on the first round is to double, not bid 2S. Double might work well, but the auction might get murky: say partner rebids 2D, now we can't bid 2H as that's non-forcing, so we have to bid 3H - but now I worried partner would think that was a splinter for diamonds, because surely with a forcing hand with hearts I'd have bid 2H last round.... Playing negative free bids I would have doubled.

- Over 4C I also seriously considered double (hoping my take-out double would be taken out, Justin). If partner _doesn't_ pass this, you can show a 6-4 as Roland explained. In the end I bid 4S, but I wasn't happy about it for two reasons:

i) We might be better in hearts, for all the reasons described above. The odds have changed, because partner doesn't have four hearts and is unlikely to have three (his pass is non-forcing, so he would bid 4H on most sound opening bids with 3-card support) meaning his expected spade length has gone up, but that doesn't mean 4S will be right - if partner gives preference to 5H we're going to have to pray for a favourable layout.

ii) I was certain it's not forcing, but what would we bid on AKxxx AQxxxx x x if not 4S? Partner is sometimes going to bid a slam and it probably won't make. On reflection, this is not the problem I thought it might be, because I can't actually construct a hand where partner is going to bid a slam WITH NO SPADE HONOUR that passed over 4C.

So I was a lot happier about the 2H bid than the 4S bid, which seems to be in contrast to many of the posters here!

[Walddk]

Scoring: XIMP

---

Here is the whole hand. Frances tanked for at least 2 minutes before she bid 4♠, and her partner took even longer before he pulled to 5♥. Down 1.

Yes, I know the hand, but even if I had not, I claim that double is superior. That would also lead us to the best contract, whether opener takes out into 4♦ or 4♥. If he bids 4♦, you pull to 4♥. 10 tricks.

North should perhaps have passed 4♠ which also makes with careful play. My guess is that he feared Frances had 4-6 in the majors.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Sep 26 2007, 12:06 PM, said:

North should perhaps have passed 4♠ which also makes with careful play. My guess is that he feared Frances had 4-6 in the majors.

Roland

I think he should have passed 4S. The play in 4S is interesting (club, club ruffed, heart to the king and ace, club ruffed, ace-king of spades, ace-king-queen of diamonds discarding hearts, queen of hearts, heart and West, being out of diamonds, is helpless). Needs careful timing to cash the 3 diamonds before the second heart.

However, 4H is a much better contract than 4S as it just needs to avoid 3 trump losers which is hugely odds on.

He didn't bid 5H because he was worried about a 4-6 (that would either double or bid 4H), he said he was worried about us making slam (AKxxx AQxxxx xx -) and didn't think the 5-level was likely to be in danger. But he now agrees that was a tad optimistic and he should have passed.

[skjaeran]

mikeh, on Sep 26 2007, 03:58 AM, said:

awm, on Sep 25 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

Out of question, say you had a big 4-6-3-0 hand, something like:

AKxx
AQxxxx
Kxx
-

After the 2♣ overcall you bid 2♥, but now what? It's easy to imagine partner with something like QJx Jx AQJxx Qxx passing any of double, 4♦, 4♥, or 4♠ despite the fact that you have excellent play for any number of slam contracts opposite this hand. It seems like catering to a non-forcing 4♠ bid just so partner can pass when holding 3-1 or 3-2 majors and a very minimum hand is a somewhat small target, compared to the many potential hands where you need to look for slam intelligently holding both majors.

with the example hand, 4=6=3=0 and 16 high, assuming the opps hold most of the points in clubs (I'd bet they own 8-10 hcp in the suit), how can 5♣ be wrong? It may miss spades on the 4-4 but it won't miss hearts on the 6-3 or diamonds on the 5-3 or better.

I totally agree with Mike here. I'd not hesitate to rebid 5♣ here.

As to the original hand, I agree with all those starting with 2♥ and rebidding 4♠.