[Blue Uriah]

---

Teams of Eight, IMPs

Anybody disagree with the first pass?

What now?

[655321]

I am bidding for sure, the only question is do we bid the scientific 4NT or the simpler 5♥?

I will go with 4NT because if we have a 9 card fit it seems much better to play there rather than in an eight card fit. Just bidding 5♥ should work well whenever partner has four hearts, but could be dangerous otherwise.

[Fluffy]

4NT seems routine to me.

[paulg]

Fluffy, on 2010-October-28, 06:05, said:

4NT seems routine to me.

Ditto. Passing on the first round seems routine too when vulnerable. I would bid non-vulnerable with my regular partner, especially as I can show specific suits.

[wyman]

Fluffy, on 2010-October-28, 06:05, said:

4NT seems routine to me.

.

[Phil]

5♥.

I don't like 4N, since the only reason I would attempt that call is to try to get partner to declare diamonds, since I would like to avoid ♦, [d], ruff on the go. Also, I'm giving the defense a road map to defend 5♥ (and tapping me in clubs). They can use this same map to play 5♠, and hook partner out of low club honors.

[pooltuna]

abstain I would already have bitten the dust with a michaels call

[mtvesuvius]

YUCK at Michaels on this hand!

4N now.

[NickRW]

Doesn't anybody else find the lack of specification of vuln. a little disconcerting?

[Phil]

NickRW, on 2010-October-28, 13:10, said:

Doesn't anybody else find the lack of specification of vuln. a little disconcerting?

Unless I'm reading the bidding diagram wrong, it is all vulnerable.

[NickRW]

Phil, on 2010-October-28, 13:12, said:

Unless I'm reading the bidding diagram wrong, it is all vulnerable.

How do you know that? Where does it say anyone is vul?

[Phil]

NickRW, on 2010-October-28, 13:23, said:

How do you know that? Where does it say anyone is vul?

---

Everyone is vul - look at the red bars.

---

NS are vul.

---

No one is vul.

[NickRW]

Thanks. I have to say, dork though I may be, it wasn't obvious to me. Red doesn't stand out anymore with this new forum.

Anyway, I wouldn't have bit the bullet with Michaels r/r and either 4N or 5H might work now. Pass isn't terrible, though is odds on to be wrong I think.

Nick

[mikeh]

Phil, on 2010-October-28, 10:39, said:

5♥.

I don't like 4N, since the only reason I would attempt that call is to try to get partner to declare diamonds, since I would like to avoid ♦, [d], ruff on the go. Also, I'm giving the defense a road map to defend 5♥ (and tapping me in clubs). They can use this same map to play 5♠, and hook partner out of low club honors.

There is a principle that suggests that when a partnership has two fits of equal length, it is better (usually but not always) to play in the weaker suit. One reason is that it is difficult to score ruffs in the trump suit....and another is that when worried about losing control, one often seeks to establish the side suit before pulling trumps...when the side suit is the weaker, this costs a lot of tempo. Here, we can avoid diamond ruffs, opposite say x AQxx KQJx Kxxx by playing in diamonds.

As for the roadmap in 5♠ they have one anyway...if I bid 5♥, they won't likely play me to be 5332, and they will likely play partner for length and strength in clubs.

The fear of being tapped in clubs may have merit, but if partner is playing the hand, it is probable that his club holding will buy us some time...whereas that club holding may well be vulnerable if LHO can lead a high spade and switch.

Meanwhile, there has to be some slight chance that partner owns only 3 hearts, in which case declaring hearts is unlikely to be our best spot. So 4N.

[Phil]

Quote

There is a principle that suggests that when a partnership has two fits of equal length, it is better (usually but not always) to play in the weaker suit. One reason is that it is difficult to score ruffs in the trump suit....and another is that when worried about losing control, one often seeks to establish the side suit before pulling trumps...when the side suit is the weaker, this costs a lot of tempo. Here, we can avoid diamond ruffs, opposite say x AQxx KQJx Kxxx by playing in diamonds.

"The Vondracek Principle" for the trivia nuts, (and to help indexing!)

Good thoughts. Change me to 4N.

[mikestar13]

The vulnerability should be white vs. red or there is no question of whether to bid. Put me down for 4NT, but I really prefer Michaels initially at this vul.

[Blue Uriah]

mikestar13, on 2010-October-28, 18:28, said:

The vulnerability should be white vs. red or there is no question of whether to bid. Put me down for 4NT, but I really prefer Michaels initially at this vul.

I'm sorry, are you saying you're more likely to bid Michaels at red vs red than at white vs red?

Anyway, I'm a little surprised - but heartened - that the response was so unanimous. I actually bid a direct 5♥ (it wasn't the sort of partnership to try out an undiscussed 4NT) but both routes get you there. The full hand was something like:

---

So that was -500 with 4♠ going off on a club lead.

[mfa1010]

Blue Uriah, on 2010-October-29, 03:09, said:

Anyway, I'm a little surprised - but heartened - that the response was so unanimous.

Sometimes when the first two or three posters have agreed to something this happens even when it is a close problem. Not that I accuse anyone of not stating their true opinion, but perhaps people who agreed were quick to post and peopled who disagreed didn't care to challenge the unanimity.

I think it's far from clear to bid. ♠Qx is very dreadful in many ways. There are losers all over and there is a singleton to lead against 4♠. If we catch partner with 'stuff' in clubs there will typically not be enough total tricks to warrant a bid. It also matters if partner is a believer in OBARs.

But it's easy to say all this when the full layout has been posted, of course.

I'm at least an ace short of bidding Michaels on the first round. I really think it is an enormously losing strategy to bid Michaels with such a hand, but folks can have their styles in peace for themselves and I'll stick to my own.