[petergreat]

Scoring: IMP

---

You are South.

1♥ (2♦) X -


Now what?

[gwnn]

S is either a 4♦ or a 4♥ bid. If you bid 4♦ you'll find slam, if not, then no. I think 4♦ should show more than 1 card outside hearts so I'd miss slam.

edit: I was being influenced by the hand I saw, of course 4♦ should be for spades. Sorry

[whereagles]

Since I know all hands, I bid 7♥, of course

Without knowing, bid 4♦ I guess.

[gnasher]

Does 4♦ really agree hearts rather than spades?

[whereagles]

gnasher, on Apr 15 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

Does 4♦ really agree hearts rather than spades?

How can it agree spades if they haven't been bid yet?

Still, I have that figured out. If pard pulls to spades, I'll pull back to hearts. The hand's strong enough for that.

[Gerben42]

I'm sure you'll find some who like to open 5♥ on this one. Hopefully, partner is on the same line

[petergreat]

1♥ (2♦) X --
4NT - 5♦ X
7♥!! All pass

Of course I made it.
Now is there a more foolproof way of getting to 7♥? And of course at least don't miss 6♥!

And, it didn't get top board. For some reason a lucky South got to play 6♥xx+1.

[P_Marlowe]

petergreat, on Apr 15 2009, 08:24 AM, said:

1♥ (2♦) X --
4NT - 5♦ X
7♥!! All pass

Of course I made it.
Now is there a more foolproof way of getting to 7♥? And of course at least don't miss 6♥!

And, it didn't get top board. For some reason a lucky South got to play 6♥xx+1.

Why do you need a better way, being lucky is more
important than bidding brilliantly and after a long
seq. reaching a doomed contract.

Put another way, I think the 7H bid is just ..., but it
worked fine, so as your partner / teammates I would not
inquire to deeply ihow you came up with the bid.

To answer your question, I am pretty sure, I would not
reach 6H let alone 7H.
I guess your best chance for reaching a slam would be,
if you happen to play Acol 2s, it should be possible to
construct a reasonable seq. to 6H.

It may also be possible to construct a reasonable seq.,
if you happen to play Namyats, but this seq. would most
likely require, that one of the players stretches, since
it is not clear, that the hand with xxx in diamonds faces a
void, and it is not clear, if they will enter the auction after
a 4C opening.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

4♦ absolutely agrees spades. As south I would bid 3♦, and presuming partner bids 3♥ I would bid 4♦. No prediction as to how it would go from there and no particular confidence I would get to 7, but that start seems quite obvious to me.

[barryallen]

playing precision this looks a walk in the park, but we should get to 7♥ here?

I would expect something like this

1♥ - 2♦ - X - P
4♦ - ? - 4♠ - P
5♣ - P - 6♣ - P
6♦ - P - 7♥

Why, because partner should place you with at least 7♥ headed by the AKQ, the ♣A and a ♦ void. If opener has only 7♥ you would also expect the ♠K, more than likely you would be looking at 8-9 ♥. If you do not play the 4♦ bid as determining ♥ then you have to find another method, but 7♥ will be simple for partner once you show the ♥ strength, ♦ void and ♣A.

Just a quick point regarding the 4♦ bid agreeing ♠, what sort of hand will this be that cannot be bettered by finding partners strength? and equally be able to show ♠ at a later point? Not saying which is right or wrong, just the logic behind the process and what is the best use of 4♦.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Apr 15 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

4♦ absolutely agrees spades.

Because you say so? Well news flash sherlock: it shows whatever you agreed with pard.

[mikeh]

whereagles, on Apr 15 2009, 12:59 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 15 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

4♦ absolutely agrees spades.

Because you say so? Well news flash sherlock: it shows whatever you agreed with pard.

Well, Watson, most of us play that partner has bid spades via the negative double, hence the splinter supports his suit.

As it is, this is a hand that is biddable to the grand, intelligently... a description that does not apply to the actual auction... only if we see all the cards... I mean, seriously... we can find the KQJx holding in clubs??????

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Apr 15 2009, 12:59 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 15 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

4♦ absolutely agrees spades.

Because you say so? Well news flash sherlock: it shows whatever you agreed with pard.

It's not true because I say so but it's true anyway. News flash sherlock, no one cares if you either agree something nonstandard or don't know what standard is. The negative double shows 4 spades and is treated like a spade bid.

[nick_s]

gnasher, on Apr 15 2009, 07:52 AM, said:

Does 4♦ really agree hearts rather than spades?

Good question.

In my current partnership 4♦ agrees spades because the X shows spades.

In a previous partnership, that wasn't the case. We played negative free bids, so you had to double with many hand that wanted to force. In that partnership 4♦ would agree hearts.

[JLOL]

this is LOL

[mtvesuvius]

3♦ first... Maybe this should have been presented as a single hand problem. It's much easier to get unbiased responses without giving both hands if it's a bidding problem.

[Apollo81]

4♦ absolutely agrees spades. You have to bid as Josh stated with this one.

[skjaeran]

It's pretty standard that 4♦ absolutely agrees spades.

Exception being for pairs where double denies 4-card spades, then it's obvious that 4♦ is a self splinter for hearts.

[Phil]

4♦ agrees spades. This isn't open for debate. Saying you can agree anything with your partner is meaningless.

3♦ OTOH does not agree spades and thats what I would bid.

[whereagles]

Phil, on Apr 16 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

4♦ agrees spades. This isn't open for debate.

I find this dogmatic attitude is rather saddening. This goes for all that share such a view of how to say things.