[jonottawa]

I like double. It's close, though (the t's are the tiebreaker imo) and I can live with your initial pass.

4♠ is nuts at any other colors. Here it's hyper-aggressive but I grudgingly admire it.

Bidding 5 over 5 without a void or a known MONSTER fit or double fit ... Shrug. It's not like 7 IMPs (+200 vs -100) is particularly cheap 'insurance.' While I'd probably bid 5♠ I wouldn't consider it 'clear'. I'd more hope to get lucky (and find it easier to justify in the post-mortem if it's wrong than never showing support with this hand.)

[PFormaini]

jon:

I admire your logic - but that damn 10 of clubs is SO alluring!

[hanp]

I gave the hand just because I know that some people are always interested in it. I don't mind my partner's 4S bid but if you are dying to find the identity of the 4S bidder you may be able to find out. I thought my hand was interesting, I appreciate the comments.

[Phil]

PFormaini, on May 20 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

jon:

I admire your logic - but that damn 10 of clubs is SO alluring!

Indeed it is:

Without 10

With 10

[ArtK78]

hanp, on May 19 2009, 01:00 AM, said:

Q10xx
x
Jxx
AK10xx

White against red, LHO deals. IMPs.

(2H) - p - (4H) - 4S
(p) - p - (5H) - p
(p) - ??

You may not agree with the earlier passes, comments are very welcome. If you can stand my bidding this far, what would you do now?

The original pass over 2♥ was not the point of this thread, but so many of you said that you would have doubled 2♥ that I have to go back to it.

It would never have occurred to me to double 2♥. IMO, a direct seat action over a preempt has to show solid values - an above-average opening bid or a pure takeout double. This hand is either not even an opening bid or just barely an opening bid. Yet most of the posters say they would have acted in direct seat over 2♥.

Have the standards for direct actions over preempts fallen so dramatically (just like the standards for opening the bidding)? Or are the posters just hyperactive?

[As for fourth-seat's 4♠ bid, grudging admiration is not the term I would use to describe it]

I would have passed over 2♥ and my partner would have passed over 4♥. We would have collected 100 and gone onto the next hand without any problem. Admittedly, we might have missed a good sac in 4♠, but life is tough sometimes.

[Winstonm]

A lot of people would double the first time, and there is some merit in my mind about the hand with shortness attempting to act, and I understand that the modern style is to act with less hand - still, I think it is losing bridge to do so - and not simply because I am old fashioned.

By acting with such weak hands, you increase the element of uncertainty that surrounds such auctions in the first place - partner really has no way to judge the auction without some idea of a range of hands doubler might hold. It would be similar to an initial T.O. double double of 1H with Jxxx, x, Axxx, Qxxx. There is no way partner can successfully judge the auction with such a huge range of possible hands.

The 4S bid was not justified in my opinion because there was no reason to believe 4H was anything but strong - bidding 4S over 4H is a good idea when there is a preemptive opening of 4H, but loses its attractiveness in other situations.

[PFormaini]

Phil, on May 21 2009, 09:24 AM, said:

PFormaini, on May 20 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

jon:

I admire your logic - but that damn 10 of clubs is SO alluring!

Indeed it is:

Without 10

With 10

Phil:

Thanks for those links! I did not know that the Kaplan/Rubens Hand Evaluator was available online! I always admired Edgar Kaplan and his hand evaluation theories so very much - and I obviously recall his position on suits bolstered by lower 'fillers'.

Good to see his lesson took.

From the continued posts, I think we can conclude that the eventual 4♠ bid was an overbid, since even it would have been a 'sacrifice'.

[mikeh]

Am I the only one who read the post as having LHO as dealer, and hence, unless the rules of bidding progression have changed, we are in 4th seat and thus, according to the original post, I was the 4♠ bidder? Which I thought a bit odd, but I chalked it up to the line that 4♥ is a transfer to 4♠. Then the auction went pass, pass, 5♥ and I was to bid again?

I was relieved to find that it was partner who bid 4♠.

[Quantumcat]

What about the rule about not bidding 5/5? Do you have a slam try? The result would suggest not... ?

[hanp]

mikeh, on May 21 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

Am I the only one who read the post as having LHO as dealer, and hence, unless the rules of bidding progression have changed, we are in 4th seat and thus, according to the original post, I was the 4♠ bidder?

Obviously, my initial post contains a contradiction. So as so often in bridge you have to guess what is going on. Either Han wrote LHO when he meant RHO, or he posted the auction incorrectly and bid idiotically. Your guess, having read some of Han's posting history might help.

[hanp]

Quantumcat, on May 21 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

What about the rule about not bidding 5/5? Do you have a slam try? The result would suggest not... ?

It seems that most here do not always follow this rule. I think a big factor here is that we really good support for partner and we haven't shown it yet.