[Fluffy]

♠A1042
♥A52
♦K
♣QJ754


Dealer North, vul N-S, IMPs

W - N - E - S
. - 1♣-1♥-1♠
3♥-ps-ps-4♥
ps-4♠-ps-??

what would you bid now?

[andy_h]

Assuming no other agreements (like bidding 4♣ over 3♥ is GF) then I would have doubled 3♥ for takeout - if partner bids 3♠ over that I will bid 4♣ which should obviously be game forcing, if 4♣ then I'll bid 4♥ and if 4♦ I'll bid 5♣.
Given the cirumstances it has left me in a pickle. Partner's 4♥ suggests the most likely pattern they have is 3145 so I'm going to bid 5♣. Let's hope it won't be construed as a club cue for spades.

[pooltuna]

Fluffy, on Sep 26 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

♠A1042
♥A52
♦K
♣QJ754


Dealer North, vul N-S, IMPs

W - N - E - S
. - 1♣-1♥-1♠
3♥-ps-ps-4♥
ps-4♠-ps-??

what would you bid now?

How do you play negative doubles over 1♥?

You buried yourself with your 4♥ cue bid when you should try either 3NT or 4♣

As my last call I would rather play a 55 ♣ fit than a 43 ♠ fit even if it is one level higher.

[655321]

I thought this was posted to see if we bid the normal 5♣, or if we play partner for one of the perfect minimum hands that make 12 tricks cold. Partner won't have 4 spades.

5♣ for me, and not worried about partner mistaking this for a cue bid.

pooltuna, on Sep 26 2009, 10:06 AM, said:

You buried yourself with your 4♥ cue bid when you should try either 3NT or 4♣

4♣ would be NF for me, also not sure why you want to play 3NT instead of 5♣ opposite a singleton heart.

[ONEferBRID]

I have to ask the same question as pooltuna about the 1♠ Response.
Normally, that shows at least 5 cards whereas a Neg-DBL would show 4.

I can see the problem with the Neg-DBL in that most rebids are non-forcing if partner doesn't have Spades. The surefire forcing rebid is pooltuna's description -- the "burying cuebid" ( Hts )-- and partner still won't know you have Cl support.

I think you can make a "high card raise" of 2NT! showing 4+ trumps, limit or better for Clubs.... unless you feel it denies 4 cards Sp.

W - N - E - S
. - 1♣-1♥- 2NT!
3♥-ps-ps-3♠ ( and now partner knows your hand, 4♠/4+♣ )
p - ?? (and he can make a more informative decision).

If that ♦K were in with a 5 cd Sp suit, say 5 2 1 5 you could have initially made a 2♠! fit-showing-jump ! ...
...or even ♠A Q J x,  ♥A x x, ♦x, ♣Q J x x x would qualify.

[aguahombre]

655321, on Sep 26 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

  Partner won't have 4 spades.

If 1S only showed 4+ (assumed from the 1S bid)
and therefore opener could not bid 3S as a LAW bid without showing extra values:

then why can't opener have 4 spades? Am not sure it matters since you must bid 5C now anyway.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on Sep 26 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

If 1S only showed 4+ (assumed from the 1S bid)
and therefore opener could not bid 3S as a LAW bid without showing extra values:

With four-card support and a singleton, opener should just bid 3♠ and not worry too much about the values. If you need the support of the "Law" of Total Tricks for this action, just assume that the opponents have nine hearts.

[Fluffy]

My opponent bid 6♣ after partner hesitated before bidding 4♠.

partner held:

♠QJ9x
♥x
♦Jxx
♣AKxxx


And finese was onside. I called director when I saw the dummy but whoever I asked about this hand, they said that 6♣ was the most reasonable bid. I wondered if they were biased by knowing the full hand.

[whereagles]

I would bid 6♣ on grounds that pard, who is likely to have a singleton heart, probably has some 3145, in which case 6 should have some play for. (with 4135 I expect him to bid 3♠ regardless of having a min)

On a bad day, I'd go with a cautious 5♣, but pass is definitely out of the question.

[gnasher]

I don't think that a hesitation demonstrably suggests bidding 6♣. He might have been thinking about bidding more, but he might also have been thinking about which suit to bid, or even just wondering what 4♥ meant.

[Codo]

Are you sure Andy?

In both cases- when he was thinking of bidding more and when he was thinking about another strain, bidding on is better then passing.

Besides this: Without the hesitation the votes for 6 club had been quite limited in this thread.