[jdeegan]

Dear Quantumcat,

This is really quite a hand you have presented us. You have only five HCP, yet opposite partner's AKxxxx of hearts and any two aces (15 HCP) you are a 78% favorite to make a 6♥ slam. Of course, if partner has a bunch of kings, queens and jacks, 4♥ may be too high. You have no way of knowing as yet, and maybe never.

My advice is to first bid 4♥. If the opponents bid 4♠, then bid 5♦ on your next turn even if partner doubles 4♠. Partner will play you for 10 red cards and not much defense, which is almost what you have. On hands like this with so much offensive potential and so little defense, you almost never want to defend.
If they now bid 5♠, and partner doubles again, you have to pass. Enough is enough.

[Quantumcat]

Okay, some interesting responses, I chose to do as you said, bid 4♥ then 5♦. My partner corrected to 5♥ and went one down.

What happened was, the defence led a spade then switched to the ace and another diamond and because the hearts didn't split nicely (4-0) my partner couldn't run the diamond suit (he had xx) without letting someone ruff, and he couldn't draw trump because then he couldn't get back to the diamonds. He ended up losing 1 spade, 1 diamond and one diamond ruff. Even if they continue spades, he can't ruff and draw trumps because when he knocks out the ace of diamonds they can cash a spade at him.

However, 5♦ makes easily, losing a spade and the ace of diamonds.

Do you think those who chose 4♦ were just lucky on this hand and that 4♥ is truly correct? or that those who decided to forget hearts and insist on diamonds as trump thought the various play scenarios out carefully?

[han]

Could you post the whole hand?

[jdonn]

Quantumcat, on Sep 29 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

However, 5♦ makes easily, losing a spade and the ace of diamonds.

And a heart ruff or two?

[Quantumcat]

Hey, that's a good point. I might have remembered the hands wrongly ... how dramatically does the right bid change if you have 3 hearts and 8 diamonds? I didn't keep the hand record the hand was in so I'm not sure exactly ...

[han]

With 3 hearts and 8 diamonds that are this good I would just bid 5D. The fourth heart is a dramatic difference (and the 8th diamond also strongly suggests playing in diamonds).

[Quantumcat]

Do you mean 5♦ right away, or after 4♥-4♠? If right away, partner could think it is a splinter or something (or does this not make sense)?

[han]

I meant right away. If you think that partner might take that as a splinter then you could bid 4D (forcing) and then 5D.

[jdeegan]

Quantumcat, on Oct 1 2007, 05:37 PM, said:

Do you mean 5♦ right away, or after 4♥-4♠? If right away, partner could think it is a splinter or something (or does this not make sense)?

Oh dear. the 'recent' (last 10-20 yrs) introduction of splinters (and 'doubles showing cards') is creating some real ambiguities for the next generation of players. Let me try to illuminate with regard to splinters.

1. splinters were also known by their inventors as 'picture' bids', rather narrowly defined - e.g. singleton in the bid suit, four trumps and 10-14 HCP.

2. they were used because they came up much more frequently than their natural alternative.

3. they kept the bidding lower than a simple jump to game in partner's suit

4. they were not used in competition - a restriction that could be relaxed if #1-3 above were fulfilled

Otherwise, the default is that the bid is 'natural' - i.e. has its logical natural meaning. By these standards, an immediate 5♦ over 3♠ would be natural.

[helene_t]

I'm surprised so many say that we're in an FP situation after 4♥-(4♠). I thought this was a crystal clear non-force.

Quantumcat: 5♦ is not a splinter. You don't usually play jumps beyond game as splinters, and you don't usually play splinters in competition (other than maybe a jump in opps' suit). In competition, jumps in unbids suits are usually fit-showing, e.g. showing longish and above all strong diamonds (lead-directing) plus 4-card hearts supprt. But again, you don't usually play it beyond game. So 5♦ is natural. Since 4♦ would already be forcing, 5♦ is a strong statement about diamonds (7+), while 4♦ would typically be based on 6 diamonds and some hearts tollerance and/or clubs length.

In modern methods, 5♦ is weaker than 4♦ followed by 5♦, so 4♦ could also be a 7-card diamonds and too strong for 5♦. I think 5♦ sets up a forcing pass, though, although I'm not 100% sure about that.

[cherdano]

helene_t, on Oct 2 2007, 01:06 AM, said:

I'm surprised so many say that we're in an FP situation after 4♥-(4♠). I thought this was a crystal clear non-force.

There was only one poster who said 4H creates a FP. Yes he posted many times in this thread but that doesn't make him many posters. (Did I miss anyone else.)

[Quantumcat]

And I guess 4♦ then 5♦ also shows some tolerance for hearts, so partner could correct to 5♥ if he had like a 6 card solid suit and void in diamonds?

[helene_t]

Quantumcat, on Oct 2 2007, 12:24 PM, said:

And I guess 4♦ then 5♦ also shows some tolerance for hearts, so partner could correct to 5♥ if he had like a 6 card solid suit and void in diamonds?

Hmmmm ..... not sure about that. There was a problem hand in the IMP Forum (like MSC but in Dutch) with a hand like (loose memory):
AKQJxxx-xxx-AJx-x
and the bidding goes
1♣-(3♥)-?

The panel was divided between 3♠ and 4♠. The 4♠ bidders concented that the hand was too strong for 4♠ but were worried that p would get the impression of a more flexible hand if they started with 3♠. So this is probably something you would need to discuss with p.

[neilkaz]

whereagles, on Sep 29 2007, 02:53 PM, said:

4♥ for now, 5♦ over 4♠.

I agree with your simple and clear cut approach.

I am also pulling a penalty double of 4♠ to 5♦ since I won't likely add a trick on defence and we make make a slam.

.. neilkaz ..