[Antrax]

1♥-(1♠)-3♥-(4♠)
5♣-(X)-?

5♣ shows opener's second suit to help responder judge what to do over 5♠ (right). So, what should responder's bids mean here? Is pass stronger than 5♥? What is redouble?

Second question, let's say it continues pass to opener, 5♥-(p)-p-(5♠). Is opener's pass forcing in your partnership?

[Mbodell]

By general principles 5♥ is your weakest action, XX should be to play and demanding penalties over 5♠ I think. I guess if you wanted detailed agreements you might want to use the 4 bids available (counting 5♦) to express some idea about the number of defensive tricks against spades to help with a penalty or sac decision.

[ahydra]

Antrax, on 2012-July-21, 20:52, said:

1♥-(1♠)-3♥-(4♠)
5♣-(X)-?

5♣ shows opener's second suit to help responder judge what to do over 5♠ (right). So, what should responder's bids mean here? Is pass stronger than 5♥? What is redouble?

Second question, let's say it continues pass to opener, 5♥-(p)-p-(5♠). Is opener's pass forcing in your partnership?

I would play 5D = cue, slam try, 5H = just returning to hearts, no interest in slam. I'm not sure about pass and redouble - using one of them as "to play" and the other as "a little extra, unsure what to do next" seems sensible.

In the second auction, pass would be forcing for me. Opener is clearly strong, he might still have slam interest.

ahydra

[Quantumcat]

Whenever the bidding is forcing to some contract, bidding it immediately is the weakest bid. Here you are forcing to 5♥, so that's the weakest bid - you have no particular interest in slam nor defending. I would say pass shows mild interest in defending, (I will if you will), redouble says I am really quite interested in defending (probably based on singleton/void club, ace rather than queen of hearts, that sort of thing - and/or a nice 3 or 4 card spade suit that will be wasted on offence - mostly to discourage partner from hoping you have a perfect hand for him and bidding a non-making slam), 5♦ is some kind of slam interest, whether cue-bid or side suit, however you will have a club fit (or you wouldn't have slam interest).

[Phil]

5♣ is better played as a lead director en route to 5♥. I think handing over captaincy to a preemptive raise is a bad idea.

Xx sets up a force over 5♠ but that's an unusual call. So are 5♦ and pass.

A direct 5♥ is the weakest possible action per meta agreements. I would expect that call most of the time.

[Antrax]

Phil, isn't it important to find out whether we have a double fit? We know we have a nine-card heart fit and the opponents probably have a ten-card spade fit. Won't the secondary fits dictate whether this is a hand to defend or not?

[Phil]

Antrax, on 2012-July-24, 06:52, said:

Phil, isn't it important to find out whether we have a double fit? We know we have a nine-card heart fit and the opponents probably have a ten-card spade fit. Won't the secondary fits dictate whether this is a hand to defend or not?

The chances of a double fit are slim, and even then, its not a lock that bidding on or defending is the right thing to do. Furthermore when we have a double fit, so do the opponents, so do you really want to be tipping your hand? It will also help your LHO play 5♠, since you've given a nice description of your hand.

I can't remember ever wanting to consult partner in an auction like this, but I can remember plenty of times where I have wanted to make a lead director. There was a similar discussion on Bridgewinners a few months ago except the difference was that partner had made a single raise of your major, and while it wasn't a majority, a lot of good players thought that a new suit at the 5 level was better used as a lead director.

In addition, it is rarely right to bid 6 over 5 in a case like this. Partner has made a preemptive raise, LHO has made a simple overcall, and RHO has made a firm declaration that the hand belongs in 4♠.

I mean, its really not that big of a deal either way, and I do not even know if I've discussed this in any of my partnerships. Presumably if we have a lot of extra shape we can bid 5/4, so its not like my lead director is getting made on a 5332 and AQJ in my lead directing suit, so a lot of hands where you want the lead of a side suit have length in the suit anyway.

The main difference to me is when you have a hand like xx AQJxxx void KQxxx. Do you think its more likely that we need partner's input to compete to 6 over 5 with this hand (by bidding 5♣? I would much rather stick in my lead director (which tends to confuse the opponents anyway when they are both looking at diamond length, which might allow us to play and make 5♥) and hope we can go diamond ruff, heart back, diamond ruff if they do bid 5♠. If you say that a double of 5♠ is now suddenly Lightner, I'm not sure I would buy that.

Fit bids are much more useful at the four level. I have had this sequence (or its cousins) a lot:

1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♣;
4♦

Because the opponents are bidding 4♠ so often over 4♥ that its important to get partner's pulse on your side suit and make an intelligent bid/defend decision.

[Zelandakh]

Just to reiterate what Phil wrote here, there was a hand recently reported in the German bridge magazine with a very similar auction to the above. Most of the players in Opener's position chose 5♥ because they had no interest in competing over 5♠. They all made 11 tricks. The one player who chose to bid 5♣ went one down in 5♥ when the defender on opening lead was able to diagnose the position and give their partner a club ruff.

[SteveMoe]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-25, 01:49, said:

Just to reiterate what Phil wrote here, there was a hand recently reported in the German bridge magazine with a very similar auction to the above. Most of the players in Opener's position chose 5♥ because they had no interest in competing over 5♠. They all made 11 tricks. The one player who chose to bid 5♣ went one down in 5♥ when the defender on opening lead was able to diagnose the position and give their partner a club ruff.

Well said. Seems the old way of bidding the VOID for an opening lead ruff would still hold some magic. Lead director please!

[Antrax]

Fine, but you guys bummed me out I was very proud of having an intelligent bid of describing my hand

[Phil]

Antrax, on 2012-July-25, 23:57, said:

Fine, but you guys bummed me out I was very proud of having an intelligent bid of describing my hand