[rfedrick]

Like almost everyone here (kudos to Phil and the other doubters) I bid 4NT and thought it ws automatic.

Partner had K AKQ10x AKQx Qxx and felt that he had far too many extras to bid only 5♦. The opponents gratefully cashed their two bullets and we were -100.

Partner gently suggested that Pass/4NT described my values rather well; I gently suggested that there were far too many hands that which he wouldn't be able to reopen, but that we should still be bidding 5m, to make Pass sensible.

We both agreed the other had a fair point, and moved on without really achieving a resolution.

Comments?

[Codo]

To bid now catters for the possibility, that partner has a "normal" take out and no second bid when we pass now.

So I guess that it is mandatory to have the ability to show our hand now. This will win on so many hands that the occaisional lost to the one slam hand won't matter.

[gnasher]

rfedrick, on May 15 2009, 07:49 AM, said:

Partner had K AKQ10x AKQx Qxx and felt that he had far too many extras to bid only 5♦.

I'd have bid 4NT on your hand and driven slam on your partner's. There's nothing wrong with that: over 4♠ the odds favoured bidding 4NT rather than passing, and opposite your 4NT the odds favoured bidding slam. It just happened not to work.

[655321]

Phil, on May 15 2009, 01:19 AM, said:

655321, on May 15 2009, 12:07 AM, said:

But how is this similar to the hand in this thread?  I know I will bid 4NT on the actual auction much more often than I would bid 5♠ on your auction.  Partner knows we have a number of possible motives for bidding 5/4.  To bid 5/5 on the other hand we should be expecting to make our contract - I believe that to bid 5/5 on these auctions as a sacrifice is bad bridge.  There is a big difference between bidding 5m over 4♠ and bidding 5♠ over 5m.

It is similar because the 5♠ bidder had a hand of the same genre. ♠Q-7th and some shape.

Then I didn't make my point very well, because I was trying to say that a weak hand with Q-7th and some shape is exactly the sort of hand that:

[a] should not bid 5♠ over 5♣, but
[b] would bid 5♣ over 4♠.

So the the doubler in [a] should not expect a weak hand, but the doubler in [b] knows a weak hand opposite is possible, therefore the two situations are not similar.

But from your answers in this thread, it appears you do bid 5/5 with weak distributional hands, but don't bid 5/4 with weak distributional hands. This seems the wrong way around to me.

[hanp]

I think Arend said it well. By bidding 4NT here with a wide range we will miss some decent slams and sometimes we will go down in a hopeless slam. Much more often though there will be a good sac, a making game or a double game swing or we will push them to 5S.

Sure, if we knew that partner was going to double 4S then we could pass first but we really don't know.

[Phil]

hanp, on May 15 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

Sure, if we knew that partner was going to double 4S then we could pass first but we really don't know.

To me, this is the crux of the matter.

You can come up with constructions both ways, but (in my experience anyway), its negligible that we have a game if pard cannot reopen with a double.

I think the strongest argument for bidding is that you'll find a good sac. The strongest argument for passing is that you might be beating 4♠. How bad can a singleton heart be on defense when partner has shown some length?

I'd like to look at this one on a sim.

[jdonn]

Phil, on May 15 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

hanp, on May 15 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

Sure, if we knew that partner was going to double 4S then we could pass first but we really don't know.

To me, this is the crux of the matter.

You can come up with constructions both ways, but (in my experience anyway), its negligible that we have a game if pard cannot reopen with a double.

I think the strongest argument for bidding is that you'll find a good sac. The strongest argument for passing is that you might be beating 4♠. How bad can a singleton heart be on defense when partner has shown some length?

I'd like to look at this one on a sim.

You seem to be not factoring in that they may make the wrong decision. For example, if an absolutely perfect sim could show that bidding is 'right' 40% and 'wrong' 60%, I would think it's clear to bid.

[skjaeran]

Obvious 4NT to me.

Two days ago I held x xx KJxxx Jxxxx facing the same scenario. I bid 4NT, and got to 5♣, which was a good save; -500 vs 620.

However, the big upside was that the bidding continued (over 4NT):
p 5♣ 5♠ p
p x
and we went +200.

[Phil]

jdonn, on May 15 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

Phil, on May 15 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

hanp, on May 15 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

Sure, if we knew that partner was going to double 4S then we could pass first but we really don't know.

To me, this is the crux of the matter.

You can come up with constructions both ways, but (in my experience anyway), its negligible that we have a game if pard cannot reopen with a double.

I think the strongest argument for bidding is that you'll find a good sac. The strongest argument for passing is that you might be beating 4♠. How bad can a singleton heart be on defense when partner has shown some length?

I'd like to look at this one on a sim.

You seem to be not factoring in that they may make the wrong decision. For example, if an absolutely perfect sim could show that bidding is 'right' 40% and 'wrong' 60%, I would think it's clear to bid.

Agree the opponents may misjudge, however, partner isn't barred over 5♠ either. After all in these auctions, 'bidding one more' is often the right strategy.

Bear in mind this is something of a blind auction for partner. From his standpoint, he does not have a clue what the relative strength is between my hand and the 4♠ bidder. The 4♠ bidder might be bidding to make, or be a pure preempt, or something in-between. Similarly, our hand could be bidding to sac or make when we bid an immediate 4N as many are suggesting.

I think one of the strongest arguments for passing is letting partner in on our hand type. Partner will have a much better clue about how to proceed after a start of:

2♠ - dbl - 4♠ - pass
pass - dbl - pass - 4N
pass - 5x - 5♠ - pass
pass - ?

than:

2♠ - dbl - 4♠ - 4N
pass - 5x - 5♠ - pass
pass - ?

[Phil]

skaeran, on May 15 2009, 11:14 AM, said:

Obvious 4NT to me.

Two days ago I held x xx KJxxx Jxxxx facing the same scenario. I bid 4NT, and got to 5♣, which was a good save; -500 vs 620.

However, the big upside was that the bidding continued (over 4NT):
p 5♣ 5♠ p
p x
and we went +200.

Harald, I don't think -500 vs -620 at IMPS is a 'good save'. Was this a pairs event?

[hanp]

Sorry teammates, only would have won 3 IMPs if the opponents had judged correctly.