[655321]

Always at w/r, never at r/w. Possibly at equal but I do feel that having an Ace would be nice, especially when vulnerable, so would probably pass.

[cherdanno]

I think I would bid at equal against a standard system and pass against precision. I don't understand passing at w/r. Bidding at r/w seems always wrong.

[655321]

bucky, on Sep 20 2010, 05:17 PM, said:

No one seems to have mentioned this yet: one of the possible dangers of bidding 5♦ is that, whatever you can make, partner may take it seriously and bid to one or two levels higher.

I don't think this is a big concern. Partner knows we were under pressure, and he did hear the opponents open the bidding, so I wouldn't expect him to raise to slam just because he has a few high cards. Something like a void, a big fit, and some useful high cards perhaps.

[jdonn]

I agree that worry of partner raising 5♦ is not a good reason to pass. He could wrongly raise (xxx - Axxx Axxxxx) but it's very unlikely at all that he will raise.

[whereagles]

mmm mmm mmm mmm...? lol.. that reminds me of a gf I had ahah

anyway, certainly 5♦ at 'green'. Not at the other vulnerabilities because pard might take me too seriously ahah.

[gwnn]

why isn't everyone swearing at me for forgetting to mention MP scoring? isn't bidding (at equal and at favourable) much more attractive at MP?

[aguahombre]

gwnn, on Sep 21 2010, 04:49 AM, said:

why isn't everyone swearing at me for forgetting to mention MP scoring? isn't bidding (at equal and at favourable) much more attractive at MP?

Just fewer people to apologize to at MP.

[jdonn]

gwnn, on Sep 21 2010, 05:49 AM, said:

why isn't everyone swearing at me for forgetting to mention MP scoring? isn't bidding (at equal and at favourable) much more attractive at MP?

Probably but not always. For example going for 800 if they were making is a whole lot worse at mps than at imps!

[mikegill]

Yes, I think it's a lot better to bid at MPs, at least against nonexpert opponents who seem to bid 5/5 way too much. A big win for bidding 5♦ that no one seems to be mentioning is that they bid over you when it's wrong and you go +. At IMPs they are much more likely to just double you and take whatever they can get, but here they have to worry about getting 500/300 against 650/450.

I would def bid at fav and maybe bid at equal depending on who my opponents were. At IMPs I would probably just be passing at equal unless I really didn't respect my opponents' bidding.

[bucky]

655321, on Sep 20 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

I don't think this is a big concern. Partner knows we were under pressure, and he did hear the opponents open the bidding, so I wouldn't expect him to raise to slam just because he has a few high cards. Something like a void, a big fit, and some useful high cards perhaps.

I think vulnerability has a huge role to play. When w/r, I agree with your assessment; not only should partner give me more leeway, but the opponents are also more likely bidding on value, which makes it less likely that partner has enough to even consider raising me in first place, so you have relative safety. When r/w, partner will take me much more seriously, as I am supposed to bid to make, not to sacrifice. Under unfavorable vulnerability I definitely want partner to raise me to slam with 2 aces and a side Q (and he will). So it is pretty crazy to bid with this hand r/w; you either go for a number, or even when it is the right contract partner will be entitled to raise you, making it a lose-lose situation.

In short, I believe it is right to bid w/r, just as it is wrong to bid r/w. When we are at equal vulnerabilities, it is unclear. But since I don't want to take speculative actions at 5-level when it is unclear ("FIVE-level belongs to the opponents"), I'd pass with equal vulnerabilities as well.

[655321]

bucky, on Sep 21 2010, 08:56 PM, said:

In short, I believe it is right to bid w/r, just as it is wrong to bid r/w. When we are at equal vulnerabilities, it is unclear. But since I don't want to take speculative actions at 5-level when it is unclear ("FIVE-level belongs to the opponents"), I'd pass with equal vulnerabilities as well.

Well we pretty much agree on what to bid anyway, I also find the equal vul case unclear.

My concerns about bidding at equal vulnerability are a combination of taking a phantom, and this Aceless hand going too many down when they are making. Nothing to do with a fear that partner will raise when we are making exactly 11 tricks.

"FIVE-level belongs to the opponents" to me means 'when they are at the 5 level, leave them there', rather than 'when they are at the 4 level, don't bid a 5 level contract over them'.

[pirate22]

on the opening of 1 spade-------what is wrong with 3d/4d 3d non-non 4d non-vuln
and leave it up to partner to make decision.

apols got the sequence wrong norths hand with diamonds.
East opens 1sp--p--4sp--- I would bid 5d to push em..........