[paulg]

Scoring: IMP

(Pass) 1♦ (3♠) Dbl
(Pass) ?

---

Expert partner, junior opps.

Your call and plan?

[rogerclee]

Nothing is really great, and I feel stupid just bidding 6♣. I guess I will start with 4♠, which as far as I know, does not agree hearts.

[effervesce]

Partner should have decent values for a X of a 3 lvl bid. Good chances of slam, however the problem with 4S is that if partner bids 5C, you may have wrong-sided the contract. Also, you cant blackwood after a 4S bid. Start with 4NT, asking aces, partner showing 1 most likely, then bid 6C. If two, then ask kings, etc....

[jdonn]

removed by moi

[skjaeran]

4NT should definitely be natural here IMO.

I'm just too strong for that and will try 6♣.

[Cascade]

4♠ for me - general force.

6♣ sounds too much like a five-five hand.

4♠ doesn't agree hearts as the double does not even promise hearts. There are lots of hands responder can have without four hearts that need to act.

[jdonn]

FWIW I think 4♠ absolutely agrees hearts, if responder felt the need to double without them that's his problem. This is especially important given the general consensus that 4NT should be natural, we need to be able to move strongly in the one suit partner has shown.

[foo]

6♣ by me.

Best I can do given the hand and the space crunch.

Agree that 4S! is a cue in support of ♥'s and 4N is natural.

[pclayton]

6♣.

5N (too likely pard rebids 6♥), 4♠ (too likely we wrong side the contract) and 4N (too wimpy) are inferior IMO.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Mar 22 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

Any merit to just playing 4m as forcing after the neg X thus solving all slam bidding problems?

Yes. Is this done?

[Cascade]

Jlall, on Mar 23 2008, 11:16 AM, said:

pclayton, on Mar 22 2008, 05:06 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 22 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

Any merit to just playing 4m as forcing after the neg X thus solving all slam bidding problems?

Yes. Is this done?

I dunno. The other side of the coin obviously is that you can make a neg X at the 3 level pretty light if you have shortness, so you don't really want to be forced to 5 of a minor.

If you make light negative doubles you will hate it when partner bids 3NT as he will be forced to often with balanced 12 and 13 counts.

We pretty much play a negative double at the three-level is a game force - it primarily asks partner to bid 3NT with a stopper. As a consequence we play most new suits as forcing.

This is necessary when partner introduces the other major below game as the negative double has not guaranteed that major so we cannot afford to jump to game. Since we play four-card majors it is also necessary on auctions like 1Maj (3x) X (Pass); 4m since the negative double will frequently have three-card support for the major.

1♦ (3Maj) Dbl (Pass); 4♣ is a little different since we also have a meta-agreement that after we try for 3NT we can get out in 4minor.

I will have to check with partner but I think 4minor (new suit) would be forcing for us on all auctions after a negative double at the three-level.

[han]

Arend and I recently discussed that we play a negative double of 1X-3Y as GF if Y is above X. We didn't explicitly discuss if this means that 4C here is forcing, I would think so.

[paulg]

I was concerned that 6♣ sounded too much like a 5-5 hand, so went for the simple 6NT.

Partner held ♠A ♥KJxxx ♦xxxx ♣Qxx. The hearts were offside so all slams failed.

[Fluffy]

I know that Martens teaches that since opener will bid 3NT with minimum hands with good stopper in overcaller's suit (even if it was clubs), you should play this sequence as Game Forcing.

Wit no such agreements I think 6♣ is the best bid avaible. I am not a fan of 5NT, but maybe does some good here to avoid a 4-3 fit (maybe this is nonsense)

[Cascade]

cardsharp, on Mar 23 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

I was concerned that 6♣ sounded too much like a 5-5 hand, so went for the simple 6NT.

Partner held ♠A ♥KJxxx ♦xxxx ♣Qxx. The hearts were offside so all slams failed.

6NT might be ok but it seems to me that there is a reasonable chance that a suit slam is better and we have all of this room between 3♠ and the six-level to investigate.

We ought to be able to do better than an unscientific leap to 6NT.

[jdonn]

cardsharp, on Mar 23 2008, 05:25 AM, said:

I was concerned that 6♣ sounded too much like a 5-5 hand

I think it is and "technically" 5-4 should bid 5NT. But I think 6♣ is still a reasonable bid because the clubs are good and we have Kx of spades so rightsiding is too important.

[paulg]

Cascade, on Mar 23 2008, 06:57 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Mar 23 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

I was concerned that 6♣ sounded too much like a 5-5 hand, so went for the simple 6NT.

Partner held ♠A ♥KJxxx ♦xxxx ♣Qxx. The hearts were offside so all slams failed.

6NT might be ok but it seems to me that there is a reasonable chance that a suit slam is better and we have all of this room between 3♠ and the six-level to investigate.

We ought to be able to do better than an unscientific leap to 6NT.

I agree, which is why I posted the problem.

In a pickup (albeit expert) partnership I was happy to sacrifice excellence for pragmatism (as have most posters, reluctantly, albeit with a different selection), and my concern about 4♠ was how much it would really help.