[mich-b]

awm, on May 25 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

How about:

1♣ - 1♦
2♠(1) - 3♥(2)
4♣(3) - 5♣
Pass

(1) I think this hand is worth a game force with the 6-4 shape. If I rebid 1♠ we probably end there, which is not actually awful on the combined hands.

(2) I play this as 4th suit force, denying a fit or any semblance of heart stop.

(3) Seems reasonable to rebid the six-card suit; 4♦ is also an option and leads to 5♦.

It's not totally clear to me which is the right spot, with both 5♣ and 5♦ having some play but not being great. Perhaps stopping at partial is even the winner.

I like this sequence , especially the 3♥ bid , which I think should be reserved for hands without any other good option , and does not show any extras.

This gives better definition for other bids (3♣ shows 3 , 3♦ shows 6, etc..)

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on May 25 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

After a heart lead against 5♣, it seems better to lead a club towards the jack. With clubs 3-2, both lines need one of two finesses. A low club gains against four of the five 4=1 breaks, whereas Ken's line gains only against singleton queen (and maybe singleton ten). Also, if LHO has a singleton queen, Ken will need ♠A onside, but I won't.

That makes some sense, but my concern was the serious risk of the spade shift. If you play a club to the Jack, you pick up more 4-1 splits. However, you lose half of the time that RHO has stiff Queen or Qx. By playing the Ace first, and only switching to low if the Queen or 10 shows up, you protect the spade King more often.

I'm not sure which wins most often. Probably easy to calculate.

[OleBerg]

mich-b, on May 26 2009, 09:50 AM, said:

awm, on May 25 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

How about:

1♣ - 1♦
2♠(1) - 3♥(2)
4♣(3) - 5♣
Pass

(1) I think this hand is worth a game force with the 6-4 shape. If I rebid 1♠ we probably end there, which is not actually awful on the combined hands.

(2) I play this as 4th suit force, denying a fit or any semblance of heart stop.

(3) Seems reasonable to rebid the six-card suit; 4♦ is also an option and leads to 5♦.

It's not totally clear to me which is the right spot, with both 5♣ and 5♦ having some play but not being great. Perhaps stopping at partial is even the winner.

I like this sequence , especially the 3♥ bid , which I think should be reserved for hands without any other good option , and does not show any extras.

This gives better definition for other bids (3♣ shows 3 , 3♦ shows 6, etc..)

In Denmark it is more or less standard, at least among experts, that when you are forced to game, fourth suit shows you have no good bid. This keeps all other options "pure".

So in the sequence:

1♣ - 1♦
2♠ -

2NT = Promises at least one full stopper.
3♣ = Guarantees three card support.
3♦ = Shows a decent six-card suit.

I like it.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on May 26 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

I'm not sure which wins most often. Probably easy to calculate.

Yes, very easy. In fact, I thought that's what I'd already done.

If clubs are 3-2:

- Playing clubs from the top loses if RHO has three clubs and ♠A is offside.
- Starting with a low club loses if RHO has ♣Q and ♠A is offside.

These two cases are equally likely.

The difference between the lines is when clubs are 4-1. Suppose that ♣10 is never a falsecard, and that you always guess correctly whether it is from Q10 or singleton 10. Your line gains when clubs are 10xxx-Q. My line gains when clubs are Q10xx-x. That's three times as many combinations, and I haven't had to do any guessing.

[rbforster]

In retrospect, I think I'd almost feel better if partner had responded 1♥ instead of 1♦ in terms of the decision to bid the (more obvious) 2♠ rather than a pessimistic 1♠. I spent some time looking at 4M-6m strong hands in the ~19-21 point range and my conclusions (perhaps obvious?) was that these hands are quite strong with a 4-4 major fit, but otherwise playing in the minor was usually best.

Taken together, it seems that 4M or 3N are the likely targets for game assuming partner has some values, and without a spade response, 3N seems a closer target than 5♣. Given our heart shortness, a 1♥ responses, especially in Walsh style, would be a lot more encouraging for a likely stopper/lead-deterrent than 1♦ (which very likely denies length in either major and will indicate the ♥ lead against NT once I rebid spades).

[benlessard]

I dont play 1S as forcing so

1C-----1D
2S-----3D
4D(keyc)----4H
4S (Q ?)-----5C yes but no K
5D----pass

[Cascade]

mich-b, on May 26 2009, 07:50 PM, said:

awm, on May 25 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

How about:

1♣ - 1♦
2♠(1) - 3♥(2)
4♣(3) - 5♣
Pass

(1) I think this hand is worth a game force with the 6-4 shape. If I rebid 1♠ we probably end there, which is not actually awful on the combined hands.

(2) I play this as 4th suit force, denying a fit or any semblance of heart stop.

(3) Seems reasonable to rebid the six-card suit; 4♦ is also an option and leads to 5♦.

It's not totally clear to me which is the right spot, with both 5♣ and 5♦ having some play but not being great. Perhaps stopping at partial is even the winner.

I like this sequence , especially the 3♥ bid , which I think should be reserved for hands without any other good option , and does not show any extras.

This gives better definition for other bids (3♣ shows 3 , 3♦ shows 6, etc..)

I dislike that idea.

We take up nearly a whole level of bidding to tell partner we have nothing to say. That seems terribly inefficient to me. Especially when you consider that partner may well know where he wants to go.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on May 26 2009, 07:17 AM, said:

kenrexford, on May 26 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

I'm not sure which wins most often.  Probably easy to calculate.

Yes, very easy. In fact, I thought that's what I'd already done.

If clubs are 3-2:

- Playing clubs from the top loses if RHO has three clubs and ♠A is offside.
- Starting with a low club loses if RHO has ♣Q and ♠A is offside.

These two cases are equally likely.

The difference between the lines is when clubs are 4-1. Suppose that ♣10 is never a falsecard, and that you always guess correctly whether it is from Q10 or singleton 10. Your line gains when clubs are 10xxx-Q. My line gains when clubs are Q10xx-x. That's three times as many combinations, and I haven't had to do any guessing.

I think you are oversimplifying things.

First, as to the 3-2, you are missing a bit. If clubs are 3-2 with RHO having three and the spade Ace offside, you do not go down by cashing and then changing tacks if you see the 10 when LHO has Q10 tight. So, that was errant. Second, the Ace being offside is more likely when RHO has three cards than when he has 2.5 cards on average in clubs, albeit slightly, such that low works slightly less often than would seem obvious. On the flip-side, my line fails when RHO only has two cards, specifically the Q10, with the spade Ace offside.

So, the two 3-2 scenarios might not actually be equal.

As to the 4-1, you have a point, I think.

I think the odds still favor your line, but I don't think it is as easy to calculate as you suggest.

[Fluffy]

I must be an overbidder, because even when I play 1♠ as forcing I would bid 2♠. I'd follow Adam's (awm) aproach

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on May 26 2009, 10:46 PM, said:

I think you are oversimplifying things.

Yes. My simplification obscured the fact that my line gains on the 3-2s as well.

Playing from the top unless 10 falls gains (assuming no falsecards) against
♠A ♣10xx - ♣Qx

Leading towards J gains against
♠A ♣Qx - ♣10xx

The second layout is obviously more likely.