[Fluffy]

♠KQxx
♥AQx
♦x
♣KJxxx


partner opens 1♦ (precision 2+, limited to 15, 11-13 if balanced)

RHO bids 3NT and describes it as solid minor.

with nothing better to do you double, RHO will escape to 4♦.

Our side is vulnerable and theirs is not if it matter.s

[gnasher]

I make a forcing pass.

[Hanoi5]

I was gonna double again, but if the pass is forcing count me in.

[Fluffy]

partner tries 4♥ over a forcing pass

[gnasher]

 Fluffy, on 2013-July-09, 17:13, said:

partner tries 4♥ over a forcing pass

I'd pass. 4♠ might be better, but it might be worse too. I don't think he'll remove 4♠ to 5♣ with a 3424 shape.

I suppose we might have slam on too, but we haven't even found an eight-card fit yet, and things aren't likely to break well.

[gszes]

I feel pretty safe at the 5 level I would bid 4n which should be for 2 places to play
clubs and a major with 5d being pick a major. Not going to risk playing in a 43 major
suit fit. It is not much of a risk to try the 5 level who knows p may be able to get us
to slam.

[FM75]

 Fluffy, on 2013-July-09, 15:50, said:

♠KQxx
♥AQx
♦x
♣KJxxx


partner opens 1♦ (precision 2+, limited to 15, 11-13 if balanced)

RHO bids 3NT and describes it as solid minor.

with nothing better to do you double, RHO will escape to 4♦.

Our side is vulnerable and theirs is not if it matter.s

Probably we need to know more. For example, does 2♦ deny a 5 card major? Does it deny 5 card clubs and 4 card major? What did my double show? If I make a forcing pass, what are partner's options?

[BillPatch]

 gnasher, on 2013-July-09, 17:26, said:

"I'd pass. 4♠ might be better, but it might be worse too. I don't think he'll remove 4♠ to 5♣ with a 3424 shape...."

I bid 4♠.

I think partner should remove with gnasher's suggested hand. My forcing pass implies two possible suits to play, since we eliminate their suit and partner's four card suit I must have the blacks. Would not have made forcing pass with ♠ one suiter. By the way, under the Bridge World Standard agreements, the forcing pass is on only at this vulnerability(Unfavorable).

[PhilKing]

Pass then remove 4♥ to 4♠ to show the blacks. What am I missing?

[rhm]

 PhilKing, on 2013-July-10, 03:11, said:

Pass then remove 4♥ to 4♠ to show the blacks. What am I missing?

Nothing, except that 4♥ might be your only game.
Not sure that DBL of 3NT is such an obvious first move, but I guess many have no agreements what an immediate 4♣/4♦ should mean in this sequence.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

 rhm, on 2013-July-10, 03:57, said:

Nothing, except that 4♥ might be your only game.
Not sure that DBL of 3NT is such an obvious first move, but I guess many have no agreements what an immediate 4♣/4♦ should mean in this sequence.

Rainer Herrmann

I think the chances that 4♥ is best are low. If partner is 3433, he would double, so I expect a decent hand for play. And with:

♠AJx
♥Kxxx
♦xx
♣AQxx

He would have to be a drooler not to convert to 5♣, and I should arguably raise.

[Cyberyeti]

 PhilKing, on 2013-July-10, 04:36, said:

I think the chances that 4♥ is best are low. If partner is 3433, he would double, so I expect a decent hand for play. And with:

♠AJx
♥Kxxx
♦xx
♣AQxx

He would have to be a drooler not to convert to 5♣, and I should arguably raise.

He can't have that hand, from the OP it looks like he'd have opened 1N with that.

But I agree with your method, of P then remove 4♥ to 4♠.

[gnasher]

 PhilKing, on 2013-July-10, 03:11, said:

Pass then remove 4♥ to 4♠ to show the blacks. What am I missing?

How would you bid KJxxx AQx x KQxx ?

[PhilKing]

 gnasher, on 2013-July-10, 06:24, said:

How would you bid KJxxx AQx x KQxx ?

Double 3NT then bid 4♠ directly. Flexible.

[gnasher]

 PhilKing, on 2013-July-10, 04:36, said:

I think the chances that 4♥ is best are low. If partner is 3433, he would double, so I expect a decent hand for play. And with:

♠AJx
♥Kxxx
♦xx
♣AQxx

He would have to be a drooler not to convert to 5♣, and I should arguably raise.

If he's removing 4♠ to 5♣, wouldn't he bid 4NT with a slam-suitable hand?

[PhilKing]

 gnasher, on 2013-July-10, 06:38, said:

If he's removing 4♠ to 5♣, wouldn't he bid 4NT with a slam-suitable hand?

Yep.