[Apollo81]

xxxxx x xx xxxxx

all red imps

(1♣)-1♥-(1♠)-p
(2♣)-4♦-(p)-?

[matmat]

4H. it's game and p is likely to be longer in the suit anyway...

[rogerclee]

I'd bid 4♥. Partner could've bid 2NT if he were more serious about diamonds.

[kenrexford]

Weird thoughts here...

Sure looks like a 4♥ call, but what the heck is the difference, in this sequence, between...

1♥...4♥ and
1♥...3NT?

Or, for that matter, what about 3♣ or 3♠?

[andy_h]

4H I guess

[neilkaz]

Partner has announced that he has a really good hand..so I bid 4♥ and ask WTP ?

[Vilgan]

I guess I am a bit confused as to why this isn't a WTP? There are some inferences that can be made from partner bidding 1♥ instead of 2NT, but they don't matter as the bid is 4♥ regardless.

[jdonn]

Wow I disagree, I would pass and pray to go plus. Sorry for asking a silly question, but if partner wanted us to choose hearts when they are shorter than our diamonds, then why did he bid diamonds like that? He also knew he was offering us a choice on the same level. It seems illogical to me to say "I can bid game on the same level anyway, so why not even though I have a singleton" since it was partner's logic to make if he wanted to say "Since I am forcing to the same level as game in another suit, I will insist on that suit if all I need is a singleton." He is certain to have a heart loser so on the black suit lead and later continuation he will have no trumps left after drawing trumps unless hearts are 3-3. The extra trump here is HUUUGE.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Jun 29 2008, 11:42 AM, said:

Wow I disagree, I would pass and pray to go plus. Sorry for asking a silly question, but if partner wanted us to choose hearts when they are shorter than our diamonds, then why did he bid diamonds like that? He also knew he was offering us a choice on the same level. It seems illogical to me to say "I can bid game on the same level anyway, so why not even though I have a singleton" since it was partner's logic to make if he wanted to say "Since I am forcing to the same level as game in another suit, I will insist on that suit if all I need is a singleton." He is certain to have a heart loser so on the black suit lead and later continuation he will have no trumps left after drawing trumps unless hearts are 3-3. The extra trump here is HUUUGE.

Can't disagree with anything said by jdonn.

Game is not an issue. Partner overcalled 1♥ and, last I checked, a 1♥ overcall is not game forcing. So partner should not have a game forcing hand. Now, he does have a lot of red cards (certainly at least 11). But he is not expecting to make game without help. And the only help I have for him (as little as it is) is 2 diamonds and a heart singleton so he can ruff a heart.

In addition, if you do bid 4♥ partner might actually believe that you prefer hearts to diamonds (where would he get that idea?). And the auction may not be over. The last thing that you want to hear is 5♥ over 4♠ or 5♣. If you pass 4♦, the opponents bid again, and partner bids 5♦, at least you didn't do anything to encourage him to do so.

Pass and pray.

[kenrexford]

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that this should be a 6-5 bid.

With 5-5 or 6-6, the right course usually will be 2NT if you are prepared to bid at the 4-level.

With 6-4, I think you should be able to bid 2NT.

Strangely, I think 3♣ and 2♠ are void calls. I'm still not sure, though. Voids and 6-4's. Technically, I think fragment calls indicating the voids are slightly better.

Heck, why not live large. Maybe 3♠ and 4♣ should also be void calls in theory, but 6-5. 3NT for the 7-5's.

[Winstonm]

Partner asked me to chose between hearts and diamonds at the 4-level. If partner is not 6-6 in the reds then he is nutsola. I like diamonds better and I have a piece of doo doo for a hand.

Pass and WTF is the problem?

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Jun 29 2008, 11:42 AM, said:

Wow I disagree, I would pass and pray to go plus. Sorry for asking a silly question, but if partner wanted us to choose hearts when they are shorter than our diamonds, then why did he bid diamonds like that?

Well, if he has 6 hearts and 4 diamonds, and I have 1 heart and 5 diamonds....

I think he's more distributional than 6-4. Maybe 7-5. I'd bid 2NT with 6-5 but not 7-5, unless I was incredibly strong. Just bad luck that the opps are bidding both black suits and yet I don't have a fit for him.

Anyhow, if he's 7-5, I suppose one possibility is that I've got some sort of 5-1-4-3 with decent count that was trapping, so he's leaving open the option of 6♦.

I'm one of those weird freaks who thinks that not only should I bid 4♥, but that 4♦ is forcing. Partner had the option to X 2♣ to show a good hand with the red suits, ♥>♦. If he's willing to force to the 4 level, it had better be for choice of games.

[gwnn]

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

With 6-4, I think you should be able to bid 2NT..

wtf?

[rogerclee]

gwnn, on Jun 30 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

With 6-4, I think you should be able to bid 2NT..

wtf?

I think this idea has considerable merit (and think it has been discussed before).

But obviously not without discussion.

[Fluffy]

I had some discussions about this before, and the conclusions were that hearts were longer on this sequence, not a 7-4, but a 7-5 is possible, 6-5 when hearts are very good.

I'd bid 4♥ not because I expect it to make, but because I expect it to make less undertricks than diamonds.

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Jun 30 2008, 02:15 AM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 30 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

With 6-4, I think you should be able to bid 2NT..

wtf?

I think this idea has considerable merit (and think it has been discussed before).

But obviously not without discussion.

I mean 1♥ and then 2NT.

[gwnn]

kenrexford, on Jun 30 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

I mean 1♥ and then 2NT.

ok sorry Ken, I obviously should have got it the first time. it shows that I have evil preconceptions about your conventions and that I am a mean sexist.

I hope I didn't offend you!

[kenrexford]

gwnn, on Jun 30 2008, 09:00 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 30 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

I mean 1♥ and then 2NT.

ok sorry Ken, I obviously should have got it the first time. it shows that I have evil preconceptions about your conventions and that I am a mean sexist.

I hope I didn't offend you!

What the Shucks?

[pclayton]

rogerclee, on Jun 29 2008, 11:15 PM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 30 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

With 6-4, I think you should be able to bid 2NT..

wtf?

I think this idea has considerable merit (and think it has been discussed before).

But obviously not without discussion.

Merit? This is what 2N shows.

I think pard has a really good 6-5, and the suits aren't that disparate. With a 5-5 or a 5-6.

Please nobody bring up the whole one-bid, two-bid business here.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Jun 30 2008, 10:37 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Jun 29 2008, 11:15 PM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 30 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 29 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

With 6-4, I think you should be able to bid 2NT..

wtf?

I think this idea has considerable merit (and think it has been discussed before).

But obviously not without discussion.

Merit? This is what 2N shows.

I think pard has a really good 6-5, and the suits aren't that disparate. With a 5-5 or a 5-6.

Please nobody bring up the whole one-bid, two-bid business here.

I mean, that's playable, but that's not the classic definition of a delayed 2NT. The classic definition is clearly longer in the first suit, and 6-4 expected. At least, that's how I remember it is my 1960-something Encyclopedia of Bridge.