[Edmunte1]

Playing with your regular partner you pick as South:

Scoring: IMP

And bidding goes:
4♥-(pass)-?

---

Do you make another move, and if yes, which one?

[jjbrr]

6♥

[jdonn]

I was thinking of 7♥ because this looks like it's often a 5 or 7 hand on a spade or diamond lead. But then again he could have a singleton in the suit they lead meaning it's a 6 or 7 hand, or he could have the spade queen or xxx of clubs or something, any of which might make me wrong.

Anyway I start with keycard, who knows, partner is allowed to have the ace of hearts and king of clubs. If not I'll settle for 6♥.

[kenrexford]

What plausible reason is there to not bid 4NT?

[jjbrr]

kenrexford, on Feb 11 2010, 04:21 PM, said:

What plausible reason is there to not bid 4NT?

To be honest because I missed it as one of the choices, but I didn't see 7♥ as an option either. So by POE 6♥ was automatic!

[Siegmund]

I can't see 4NT doing us all that much good. Either partner will have solid hearts and nothing else, or be missing a heart honor and likely have one other filler. Either way we will have chances for, but no guarantee of, making six.

Six looks like a good gamble here, barely. Take away my ♠J and I would pass. (If I'm playing with my regular partner, he can be trusted to never have more than 6 1/2 tricks for me. A lot of people are scared to bid 4 without a monster for some reason... against people like that, 6 is going to be making almost all the time and I can see thinking about 7.)

[kenrexford]

Siegmund, on Feb 11 2010, 06:31 PM, said:

I can't see 4NT doing us all that much good. Either partner will have solid hearts and nothing else, or be missing a heart honor and likely have one other filler. Either way we will have chances for, but no guarantee of, making six.

Six looks like a good gamble here, barely. Take away my ♠J and I would pass. (If I'm playing with my regular partner, he can be trusted to never have more than 6 1/2 tricks for me. A lot of people are scared to bid 4 without a monster for some reason... against people like that, 6 is going to be making almost all the time and I can see thinking about 7.)

Why can't Opener have ♠xx ♥AQxxxxx ♦xx ♣Kx?

Even ♠xx ♥AQxxxxx ♦xxx ♣K makes for a decent grand (seven hearts, A-K-Q in clubs, two aces, and clubs 4-3 or a squeeze).

[Edmunte1]

Seriously, what is your average expectance for a 4♥ opening bid, green, first seat?

[kenrexford]

Edmunte1, on Feb 12 2010, 09:28 AM, said:

Seriously, what is your average expectance for a 4♥ opening bid, green, first seat?

Probably 6 1/2 to 7 losers.

The hands I suggested fit. Maybe too week even.

[gnasher]

My partners could have Q109xxxxx and nothing else, or AQJxxxx and nothing else. They could be stronger too (though at least one of Ken's examples looks too good).

I'd really like to consult partner about slam, but I can't reliably find out what I want to know, and if I'm going to bid a slam I don't want to help the opponents with the lead.

I'd bid keycard and sign off opposite zero keycards.

[kenrexford]

Just out of curiosity...

Most aggressive people view a white-on-red preempt as being within four (4) tricks of the bid.

♠xx ♥AQxxxxx ♦xx ♣Kx

This hand (presumably the "too strong" hand) has six clear losers. That might be viewed as "too strong."

However, does no one adjust this hand for:

1. Worst shape of 7-2-2-2
2. Unsupported Kx is a bad holding
3. No body in hearts (not AQ10xxxx or AQJxxxx)

Does no one think partner might adjust to a practical 4♥?

[aguahombre]

For us old people who use the "non-Namyats" 4H to show 7 to 7 1/2 tricks, this is an easy 4NT. In that style, the Major is always 6 or seven tricks all by itself, therefore only one outside prime at most. Quaint, but useful.

We think jacking around the opponents is nice, but not jacking partner around is even better. Slightly different considerations when partner has already passed.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Feb 12 2010, 05:27 PM, said:

Just out of curiosity...

Most aggressive people view a white-on-red preempt as being within four (4) tricks of the bid.

♠xx ♥AQxxxxx ♦xx ♣Kx

This hand (presumably the "too strong" hand) has six clear losers. That might be viewed as "too strong."

However, does no one adjust this hand for:

1. Worst shape of 7-2-2-2
2. Unsupported Kx is a bad holding
3. No body in hearts (not AQ10xxxx or AQJxxxx)

Does no one think partner might adjust to a practical 4♥?

Sorry, "too good" wasn't the right phrase. I meant that it had too much defence and too little offence. The three factors you mention would cause me to open this 1♥ rather than 4♥.

[655321]

kenrexford, on Feb 12 2010, 11:27 AM, said:

Most aggressive people view a white-on-red preempt as being within four (4) tricks of the bid.

I thought that was the standard view. I know people who think it shows up to four (4) tricks - on a good day.

Anyway, I think I would take gnasher's approach - keycard and sign off opposite none. That keeps us out of most no play slams as well as some cold slams.

[mike777]

rkc......4s rkc if allowed.

4h fav vul in first seat.

I expect 4h to be alot of hearts and alot of junk