[Ant590]

1♥ - (3♠) - 5♥

What sort of hand does the 5♥ bidder typically have?

How would this differ to a hand that bids 4♥ then 5♥?

Does the vulnerability make a difference?

Thanks in advance!

[rogerclee]

Responder is asking partner to bid slam with a stiff spade, 5N with a guarded SK, pass with 2 fast losers in spades, and cuebid with the SA/void. This is a textbook auction for that jump. Responder usually has a hand with 2 spade losers.

[FrancesHinden]

I would say rather than responder is showing a general slam try, too strong for 4H. It's likely not to have a spade control, because 4S was also available to agree hearts, but a spade control should not be the only thing opener looks at.

[OleBerg]

Nobody would expect it to be anything but strong, as it is one of the most widely accepted terms that "you do not preempt against preempts".

But it really should show a weak hand, something like:

♠ -
♥ 8765432
♦ 65432
♣ 2

[H_KARLUK]

I do not think 5H is a "constructive" one since clear cut 3N, 4S cue or 4NT RKCB even 4H were still biddable. I know nothing abt sys or pship agreement or "th style" of that 5H bidder.

As far as my bridge repertoire reminded me it would be a "destructive" one. Sorry yet i do not know "gray". So far it seemed me trying to block a possible 4S of 4th seat player.

[EDIT] Even "double" available

[Codo]

And again there is more between earth and sky then I can imagine.

To me this simply asks for a spade control: Bid 6 with second round, cue with first round and pass else. So I thought that the first answer said it all.

[Simplicity]

rogerclee gave the textbook answer to a textbook situation

[han]

He did. 4S is available as cue (since both clubs and diamonds can be bid in a forcing way 4S is an unambiguous heart raise) so 5H denies a spade cue.

[ArtK78]

Simplicity, on Nov 5 2008, 10:11 AM, said:

rogerclee gave the textbook answer to a textbook situation

I agree with that explanantion.

Still, there is something to what OleBerg said. The utility of a 5♥ bid asking for a spade control is very limited. But the possibility that we have a large heart fit and need to preempt seems very real.

If someone sprung the 5♥ bid on me without discussion, I would assume that it asked for a spade control. But I don't know if that is what it should mean.

[InTime]

rogerclee, on Nov 4 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

Responder is asking partner to bid slam with a stiff spade, 5N with a guarded SK, pass with 2 fast losers in spades, and cuebid with the SA/void. This is a textbook auction for that jump. Responder usually has a hand with 2 spade losers.

I agree with this explanation. In fact, it is discussed in the book "Modern Constructive Bidding by Marshall Miles" on page 204. I can scan and forward you this page if you want by forwarding me your email via your message in this forum.
Regards

[P_Marlowe]

General Slam try.

And the bid is not forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Nov 5 2008, 10:26 AM, said:

Still, there is something to what OleBerg said. The utility of a 5♥ bid asking for a spade control is very limited. But the possibility that we have a large heart fit and need to preempt seems very real.

I think the likelyhood is the exact opposite of what you say. You are quite unlikely to be weak over the preempt, much more likely to be strong.

[Free]

Depending on the vulnerability it can be a slam invite or a pre sacrifice. NV vs V I'd never take it as strong, V vs NV it has to be a slam invite.

[MickyB]

jdonn, on Nov 5 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 5 2008, 10:26 AM, said:

Still, there is something to what OleBerg said.  The utility of a 5♥ bid asking for a spade control is very limited.  But the possibility that we have a large heart fit and need to preempt seems very real.

I think the likelyhood is the exact opposite of what you say. You are quite unlikely to be weak over the preempt, much more likely to be strong.

More to the point, what auction are you preempting against?

1H-3S-4H-4S
P-P-5H-P
P-5S?

It's rare for the preemptor to take another call, so there's no need to stop his partner from showing that he has a hand suitable for bidding 4S.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Nov 5 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 5 2008, 10:26 AM, said:

Still, there is something to what OleBerg said.  The utility of a 5♥ bid asking for a spade control is very limited.  But the possibility that we have a large heart fit and need to preempt seems very real.

I think the likelyhood is the exact opposite of what you say. You are quite unlikely to be weak over the preempt, much more likely to be strong.

Which is why you have more, and lower, bids to show the stronger hands.

[OleBerg]

MickyB, on Nov 5 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 5 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 5 2008, 10:26 AM, said:

Still, there is something to what OleBerg said.  The utility of a 5♥ bid asking for a spade control is very limited.  But the possibility that we have a large heart fit and need to preempt seems very real.

I think the likelyhood is the exact opposite of what you say. You are quite unlikely to be weak over the preempt, much more likely to be strong.

More to the point, what auction are you preempting against?

1H-3S-4H-4S
P-P-5H-P
P-5S?

It's rare for the preemptor to take another call, so there's no need to stop his partner from showing that he has a hand suitable for bidding 4S.

As it always is, the value of preempting is dependent on how well-arranged the opponents methods are.

In this sequence:

1♥ - (3♠) - 4♥ - 4♠
Pass - Pass - 5♥ - ?

What would a double be?

In my partnership it would show a hand that expected 4♠ to make, and is encouraging a 5♠ bid from the preemptor (though only on a quite suitable hand). So against this, you take away an option by bidding 5♥.

If the opponents have nothing but penalty-doubles on their repertoire, the value of a 5♥ call decreases, but doesn't disappear.

Moreover you take away Souths option of making a 5♥ call, or a 4nt call followed by a 5♠ bid.

And the use of the 5♥ bid in its classical meaning, is not very frequent.

[MFA]

I don't like the preemptive idea for these reasons:

1) We'll need a pretty extreme hand to make the bid, or we will fear that they might not compete with 4♠ over a 4♥-call. For all we know, partner might hold four spades. So there goes the frequency argument.

2) The value of bidding a direct 5♥ instead of 4♥->5♥ is very, very marginal in this sequence, if existing at all.

3) Having a natural strong 5♥ available is actually quite nice.

I think that 5♥ should be strong without a spade control.
Whether it should be forcing or not opposite a spade control is not so clear.

[jdonn]

OleBerg, on Nov 5 2008, 03:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 5 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 5 2008, 10:26 AM, said:

Still, there is something to what OleBerg said.  The utility of a 5♥ bid asking for a spade control is very limited.  But the possibility that we have a large heart fit and need to preempt seems very real.

I think the likelyhood is the exact opposite of what you say. You are quite unlikely to be weak over the preempt, much more likely to be strong.

Which is why you have more, and lower, bids to show the stronger hands.

Name one other slam try you can make, a single one, without a spade control.

I see now below you think this bid can be 4♠. I don't know how it's possible to have an intelligent auction if that neither shows nor denies spade control, but what can I say.

[OleBerg]

MFA, on Nov 5 2008, 11:04 PM, said:

I don't like the preemptive idea for these reasons:

Hi there,

Quote

1) We'll need a pretty extreme hand to make the bid, or we will fear that they might not compete with 4♠ over a 4♥-call. For all we know, partner might hold four spades. So there goes the frequency argument.

I have deliberately not fielded the frequency-argument. If I have implied it, it was unintentional. To tell the truth, I wouldn't know what would be most frequent, as I have never seen a hand suitable for any of the two meanings of the bid. (Naturally, if I had the preemptive option, I'd bid it on unsuitable hands, but thats just me.)

Quote

2) The value of bidding a direct 5♥ instead of 4♥->5♥ is very, very marginal in this sequence, if existing at all.

Of course it exists, but I agree that it is not large.

Quote

3) Having a natural strong 5♥ available is actually quite nice.

Agree, but it is also nice to be able to bid with a weak hand with a great fit.

Quote

I think that 5♥ should be strong without a spade control.
Whether it should be forcing or not opposite a spade control is not so clear.

My argument is not, that "5♥-preemptive" is as frequent as "5♥-strong, no spadestopper", but that the "5♥-strong, no spadestopper", can be handled via a 4♠ raise.

[MFA]

Hi Ole

OleBerg, on Nov 5 2008, 04:25 PM, said:

My argument is not, that "5♥-preemptive" is as frequent as "5♥-strong, no spadestopper", but that the "5♥-strong, no spadestopper", can be handled via a 4♠ raise.

How? It's a big problem to investigate the spade control, as I see it.