[dellache]

Scoring: IMP

3♦ _P _P DBL
_P 3♥ _P 3♠
_P 4♦?!

---

(EDIT: this is **IMP**)

[gwnn]

4♦ choice of games. We don't know if we want to play hearts and spades so we ask partner. Nice agreement. Otherwise who knows what we should do. This assumes that x then 3♠ promises a good hand with 5+ spades ("flexible"). Well yes it's a bit optimistic because partner is in 4th.

[P_Marlowe]

Well you can either choose "Obvious expert bid" or "Unthinkable".

Did I say, that I would have passed 3S?
If you dont want to pass 3S, ok - go ahead, bid 4S, p will certainly
have 6 spades, but are you really wanting to make a bid that could
be easily be constructed as a slam try with the hand you hold?


With kind regards
Marlowe

[Jlall]

Obviously the person who made this 4D bid meant it as choice of games, seems like an ok auction to play that.

Just bidding 4H with 2-5 is not perfect since you could also be something like 1-6 and want to get to the right game opposite both 6-2 and 5-3 type shapes for partner.

[dake50]

What would partner's 4C,4H,4S, esp 4D mean instead of 3S? Ie what's left for 3S?

[dellache]

Thanks for your opinion. South's Hand was indeed AQJxx AQ x KJ10xx, East doubled the 4♦cue, and South passed. The lightspeed 4♦ bid was alerted as "Pick a game" on BBO. When the DBL came back to North he... Redoubled(!? ) and alerted again "Please just pick a f*****g game !". South finally bid 4♥ and North duly made it.

I found this treatment quite interesting, and the situation funny. I tought that 4♦ certainly SHOULD be a game-picking bid, slam being remote when 3♠ is NF, and 3♥ limited by essence. I haven't checked with regular pards how they would interpret this, and admit I would not have been 100% confident in the North's place.

[jdonn]

I think north should bid 4♥ when the double came back. If south doesn't pick spades himself then they won't be right opposite xx.

[dellache]

Yes indeed, North (a very strong young expert) actually said "Hmmm I don't know" at the end.

[gwnn]

hey dellache, if you are going to use chess notations I think 4♦ is a !? and xx is a ?!. 4♦ would be a ! but not if it was undiscussed.

[nigel_k]

I like the agreement that a cue is choice of games, not a slam try, when both are plausible. Without that agreement I would probably still bid 4♦ but would be a little nervous.

[dellache]

gwnn, on Nov 1 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

hey dellache, if you are going to use chess notations I think 4♦ is a !? and xx is a ?!. 4♦ would be a ! but not if it was undiscussed.

Nice remark.
You've won the right to multiply yourself by 2.Pi, and remove the ugly bar in your own avatar notation

[pooltuna]

dellache, on Nov 1 2009, 03:21 PM, said:

gwnn, on Nov 1 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

hey dellache, if you are going to use chess notations I think 4♦ is a !? and xx is a ?!. 4♦ would be a ! but not if it was undiscussed.

Nice remark.
You've won the right to multiply yourself by 2.Pi, and remove the ugly bar in your own avatar notation

and I thought that was Blanc's constant

[Phil]

I see the need for calls like this more and more.

I think the original idea was suggested by the late Ed Manfield over 20 years ago.