[kenrexford]

♠J9xxx ♥-- ♦AK10x ♣AKxx

P-P-P-1♠-
P-4♠-P-?

[rogerclee]

I think 5♠ should ask about trumps, but I'm not sure, so I'm just going to bid 6♠.

[655321]

Pass.

Yes, we might miss a slam.

[andy_h]

Pass. Assuming partner had many many types of raises at his arsenal when we opened in 4th seat.

[Apollo81]

♠Axxxx ♥xxxx (etc) is a pretty good slam. I would bid RKC then 6 as long as pard has a keycard (hopefully it's in spades)

[Sambolino]

playing 3nt as a constructive transfer to 4s helps. cherdano condemned 4-th level bids after that as exclusion, but i would us'em with pleasure here.

playing no special methods, pass

[nige1]

kenrexford, on Jun 19 2008, 11:13 PM, said:

♠J9xxx ♥-- ♦AK10x ♣AKxx
P-P-P-1♠-
P-4♠-P-?

IMO 5♠ = 10, 6♠ = 7, _P = 5
The five level belongs to ME

[pclayton]

Bidding on is terrible.

By bidding you are betting pard has ♠Axxxx, a minor stiff, and a fitting Queen. Even this collection borders on a limit raise for me.

No thanks.

[kenrexford]

Partner's hand turned out to be:

♠K10x ♦98x ♣Qx ♥AQJxx

Obviously, very strange bidding. I would have expected a 1♥ opening, but this partner said his openings are VERY sound (an understatement???). Plus, Drury comes to mind. As you can see, 6♠ would have turned on the finesse (which fails) even after the fortuitous heart lead that you receive (at least at 4♠).

I was curious, though, whether anyone would move after a real sequence 4♠ call.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I was curious, though, whether anyone would move after a real sequence 4♠ call.

Only the eternally optimistic.

[jdonn]

EASY pass. Very easy.

[nige1]

Another deal ripe for a simulation. Suggested conditions:

• Neither opponent has values for an opening bid (for example, neither has 6+ hearts).
  
• LHO does not even have values for a passed hand overcall or double.
  
• Partner has at least 4 spades and fewer than 8 losers.

[Codo]

I would def. bid on, he is not preempting, he has some points and shape.
I try 5 Spade, asking for good spades.

Even opposite xxxxx,KQJxx,xx,xx I am not down yet. And this hand is against the odds already.

[jtfanclub]

I would think this would be a good question if partner was an unpassed hand.

It seems to me, if partner had a good 4♠ pre-empt, he could always Splinter or bid 2NT. I mean, what's the fear here, exactly? Opps both passed and are going to come in at the 4 level?

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Jun 23 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

I would think this would be a good question if partner was an unpassed hand.

It seems to me, if partner had a good 4♠ pre-empt, he could always Splinter or bid 2NT. I mean, what's the fear here, exactly? Opps both passed and are going to come in at the 4 level?

But, that seems counter-intuitive, unless I am not following. Doesn't this reasoning suggest that 4M by a passed hand should show a slightly better hand than a 4M call by an unpassed hand? Should this not be particularly so considering the prevalence of LIA and four-card suits in third seat, and sometimes fourth seat?

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Jun 23 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jun 23 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

I would think this would be a good question if partner was an unpassed hand.

It seems to me, if partner had a good 4♠ pre-empt, he could always Splinter or bid 2NT.  I mean, what's the fear here, exactly?  Opps both passed and are going to come in at the 4 level?

But, that seems counter-intuitive, unless I am not following. Doesn't this reasoning suggest that 4M by a passed hand should show a slightly better hand than a 4M call by an unpassed hand?

No, just the opposite. Let's say I'm playing with mini and maxi Splinters. So...

Unpassed hand, 5 spades, singleton club.

1♠-2NT= 4+ spades, numerous hands but includes 16+ with club shortness.
1♠-4♣=12-15, 4+ spades, short in clubs.
1♠-3♣=8-12, 4+ spades, short in clubs.
1♠-4♠=6-8, 5+ spades, unknown shortness.

Passed hand, 5 spades, singleton club
1♠-4♣=9-11, 4+ spades, short in clubs.
1♠-3♣=7-9, 4+ spades, short in clubs
1♠-4♠=5-7, 4+ spades, unknown shortness.

or something similar. The point is, I have 3 bids to show the same shape and 5-15 hcp for an unpassed hand, and 5-11 hcp with a passed hand. So I can make the ranges lower and tighter for 4♠ with a passed hand.

If playing Bergen or the like, same rules apply. Splinters go down in strength, so everything else cascades down.

[kenrexford]

jtfanclub, on Jun 23 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 23 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jun 23 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

I would think this would be a good question if partner was an unpassed hand.

It seems to me, if partner had a good 4♠ pre-empt, he could always Splinter or bid 2NT.  I mean, what's the fear here, exactly?  Opps both passed and are going to come in at the 4 level?

But, that seems counter-intuitive, unless I am not following. Doesn't this reasoning suggest that 4M by a passed hand should show a slightly better hand than a 4M call by an unpassed hand?

No, just the opposite. Let's say I'm playing with mini and maxi Splinters. So...

Unpassed hand, 5 spades, singleton club.

1♠-2NT= 4+ spades, numerous hands but includes 16+ with club shortness.
1♠-4♣=12-15, 4+ spades, short in clubs.
1♠-3♣=8-12, 4+ spades, short in clubs.
1♠-4♠=6-8, 5+ spades, unknown shortness.

Passed hand, 5 spades, singleton club
1♠-4♣=9-11, 4+ spades, short in clubs.
1♠-3♣=7-9, 4+ spades, short in clubs
1♠-4♠=5-7, 4+ spades, unknown shortness.

or something similar. The point is, I have 3 bids to show the same shape and 5-15 hcp for an unpassed hand, and 5-11 hcp with a passed hand. So I can make the ranges lower and tighter for 4♠ with a passed hand.

If playing Bergen or the like, same rules apply. Splinters go down in strength, so everything else cascades down.

I understand that you have more space to define things. That said, do you really want to bid 4♠, for example, with four-card support, a stiff, and 5 HCP? What, KQxx-x-xxxx-xxxx? That's utter garbage, contextually. If you catch partner with some typical BS third-seat opening, or a tactical four-seat opening with only four spades, the two-level is in jeopardy.

I would have guessed, instead, that a 4♠ leap, if you did this, was based on some flawed mess of a hand. With the hand I was actually looking at, it seems that some mess like ♠Axxxx ♥xxxxx ♦Qx ♣Q might be more likely. Not right for a splinter or a fit jump or any other normal option. Not right to open.

Now, admittedly this actual proposal is the "wow" possibility. Contra that might be something like ♠xxxxx ♥AKJxx ♦xx ♣x, where the fit-jump is wrong because the spade honor situation sucks.