[Hanoi5]

Teams, all red:

♠J9x
♥x
♦AQxxx
♣AJxx

1♦-Pa-1♥-3♠
Pa-4♠-X-Pa
???

1. Do you agree with the first Pass?
2. What would you do now?
3.

Spoiler

What would you do over 4NT instead of X?

4. How would your answer change in other vulnerabilities?

[karlson]

Seems clear to me to pass at any colors and form of scoring.

[gwnn]

i pass. I could pull this only with (65) or (6 diamonds and 4 hearts) or 7 diamonds, or something along these lines.

[Fluffy]

I think 5♣ stands out, its not so hard to construct slam hands.

[rogerclee]

Pulling with a stiff heart and nothing interesting about my hand is more than a little bit silly.

[aguahombre]

If this hand should pull the double, then partner should have not doubled. Pass on the second round was clear. Pass now is clear. Hidden answer to 3.

Spoiler

4NT would have gotten me to bid 5C, but partner didn't do that.

At other vunerablilities, same answers.

[mikeh]

pass: if not now, when?

[jjbrr]

i'ma lead my stiff ♥ i reckon

[the hog]

I would pass originally and pass again now. I really have an unexceptional hand.

[Fluffy]

BTW if opponents weren't vulnerable, chances of partner havig spade void would be much less and then I think I'd pass.

[cloa513]

If partner had ♣ K10xxxx and ♥ Axxxx and doubleton diamonds and spades void, should he have bid 5♣ .

[bluecalm]

Quote

1. Do you agree with the first Pass?
2. What would you do now?
3. What would you do over 4NT instead of X?
4. How would your answer change in other vulnerabilities?

1. Yes, what else ?
2. Pass
3. Bid 5♣
4. Always pass

[Free]

I'm with Fluffy on this one, I'd pull to 5♣ since I expect partner to have a ♠ void. NV I'd probably pass.

If partner bids 4NT, it seems extremely obvious to just bid my 2nd suit, so 5♣.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I'm with Fluffy on this one, I'd pull to 5♣ since I expect partner to have a ♠ void. NV I'd probably pass.

Yeah, after constructing some sample hands for partner it really looks like pulling works very often.
While my initial instinct was very strong (Pass !) I am now reconsidering.

[gwnn]

cloa513, on May 21 2010, 07:00 AM, said:

If partner had ♣ K10xxxx and ♥ Axxxx and doubleton diamonds and spades void, should he have bid 5♣ .

YES

[Hanoi5]

I don't know when people are being sarcastic so...

Partner had:

♠---
♥QTxxx
♦Kxx
♣KQxxx

He actually passed 4♠ as did I. In a later discussion I said I'd pass a double from partner but suggested he should probably bid 4NT (instead of doubling). Now I think 5♣ is another possibility, what would you consider best?

[MFA]

Hanoi5, on May 21 2010, 11:15 AM, said:

I don't know when people are being sarcastic so...

Partner had:

♠---
♥QTxxx
♦Kxx
♣KQxxx

He actually passed 4♠ as did I. In a later discussion I said I'd pass a double from partner but suggested he should probably bid 4NT (instead of doubling). Now I think 5♣ is another possibility, what would you consider best?

I think he should have bid 4NT. In fact I think it's a model hand for that bid, 0-5-3-5 with strong minors, what would fit better for that bid?

A void in their suit is so huge in these competitive sequences. So it's definitely wrong to double. Even more so when the points are not in the bid suit (here: ♥) so that partner will misevaluate a shortness there with length in the minors.

The actual opening hand should pass 4♠X. He shouldn't speculate that partner might be void in spades, since with a void it is usually wrong to double 4♠ in the first place.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I think he should have bid 4NT. In fact I think it's a model hand for that bid, 0-5-3-5 with strong minors, what would fit better for that bid?

I think it's reasonable to play 4NT as showing 6♥-4m here.

[MFA]

bluecalm, on May 21 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

Quote

I think he should have bid 4NT. In fact I think it's a model hand for that bid, 0-5-3-5 with strong minors, what would fit better for that bid?

I think it's reasonable to play 4NT as showing 6♥-4m here.

I think that's too specific. I think 4NT should cover all take-outs which for some reason don't like to double or bid a suit. Sometimes we only have the reds, for instance, and pull 5♣ to 5♦. Sometimes we can play in all three strains like here.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I think that's too specific. I think 4NT should cover all take-outs which for some reason don't like to double or bid a suit. Sometimes we only have the reds, for instance, and pull 5♣ to 5♦. Sometimes we can play in all three strains like here.

Yeah for sure there are other reasonable treatments. Playing it as 6♥-4m has an advantage of being able to find 6-2♥ contract.
I don't like playing it as "anything". How is partner supposed to react with say 3-2-5-3 if we can have either 0-5-4-4 or 1-5-2-5 or even 1-6-2-4 ?
I see merits in playing it as "general t/o" so he just bids his distribution (5♣ with 4+♣, 5♦ with 5 of them) but then we can't bid it with 2 suiter (which I think isn't much of a loss). Actual hand would fit perfectly for such treatment.