[Fluffy]

---

[VM1973]

I'll bid 4♠. Who knows? Maybe he's 6-1-5-1.

[cherdano]

This is your own problem, Fluffy. The rest of the world (other than Robinson) opens 1♦ with longer diamonds and a hand strong enough for the given auction.

[Fluffy]

and then have an entertaining decision after 1♦-1NT-pass-3NT or 1♦-2♣-pass-3♣ I know it.

BTW I was playing with a client who partners 5 different pros. And I had never discussed 5-6 openings with him.

[Endymion77]

Spades, not only because partner should have more or equal spades but also because it's more dignified to go down in a game contract.

[billw55]

Endymion77, on 2013-August-30, 03:20, said:

Spades, not only because partner should have more or equal spades but also because it's more dignified to go down in a game contract.

Well, with the double, 4♦ is game too

But in general, I will not assume a canape sequence without a really good reason. For example, an agreement.

[Codo]

Fluffy, on 2013-August-30, 03:19, said:

and then have an entertaining decision after 1♦-1NT-pass-3NT or 1♦-2♣-pass-3♣ I know it.

SO I look at say KQJxx,x,KQxxxx,x and hear this auction.
Do I really think that 4 ♠ can be wrong?

[cargobeep]

Is this poll a joke?

[ggwhiz]

cargobeep, on 2013-August-30, 08:22, said:

Is this poll a joke?

No, I'm passing. Pards suits are at least equal and my spots are better

Besides, west has spades stopped, one last chance to get cold feet and I might provide an entry in diamonds for a spade hook.

[cherdano]

Fluffy, on 2013-August-30, 03:19, said:

and then have an entertaining decision after 1♦-1NT-pass-3NT or 1♦-2♣-pass-3♣ I know it.

Quiz: I hold 5=1=6=1 with good opening strength. What is more likely once the auction gets back to me:

• I will have a decision over 3NT by the opponents
  
• I will have a decision over 4♥ by the opponents

Please justify your answer carefully. No partial credit given.

[mikeh]

I can't imagine bidding this way with less than 6-6 even at favourable. Someone posted KQJxx x KQxxxx x, and I think that is insane, on an auction where -5 is a very, very real possibility. -1100 or the somewhat more common -800 is not a good score just because the opps were vulnerable.

However, given that it was Fluffy who posted, and given his peculiar tastes in terms of bidding 5=6 hands, which have no significant rebid issues if one opens the long suit, I assume there is some chance that partner has perpetrated a 5=6 auction.

Fluffy: ask yourself this: is his auction consistent with both 5=6 and 6=5?

If the answer is 'yes', may I suggest we have identified another basic problem with your style? Or does it come with a crystal ball so you can tell which suit to prefer as trump?

The rest of us have the easiest 4♠ in the world

[jdeegan]

4♠ for me. Lets see. The vulnerability is 'unknown'. The spade cards are onside. The diamond cards are almost certainly offside. Partner, unless he is crazy, has as many or more spades than diamonds. RHO doubled 4♦ based, in part, on diamond tricks he was looking at (boo!). 4♠ has not yet been doubled (although odds are it will be). If LHO can't double your 4♠ bid, you will actually end up putting pressure on RHO. Therefore, 4♠, WTP?

[fromageGB]

I pass and vote diamonds to make this not unanimous. The argument is that opener may have initially mis-sorted his hand, and really does have longer diamonds. Why else would he bid this way? I don't like the idea of playing in spades and starting with diamond ruffs.

[gszes]

the minority report----------------

hugely outvoted once again I hereby try to make my case for

PASS

It is very difficult for me to imagine hands where p felt 2d was correct and yet
they were willing to bid 4d. There is a hand type however that is consistent
with the bidding and that is a hand similar to

AQJxx A xxxxxxx void

Would you really want to open 1d with this hand???? I mean I know there are
extra diamonds but a 1s opener has some really huge benefits over a 1d
opening bid. Lead direction 4 level contract vs 5. The downside of 1s is the
obvious case where we have to bid over say 4h or even 3h the extreme
length of our dia suit will rarely be apparent to our p. (but maybe it should be).

What kind of hand (say 6151) would p bid 1s 2d 4d with. I have done a ton of
hands and just can't seem to fathom why p would feel compelled to show dia
if their spade suit is anywhere good enough to play at the 4 level. Surely they
would prefer to just bid 4s rather than take a chance on being passed out in a
53 fit????

There is also the case where if we play in spades we never have a chance to finesse
lho out of any spade honors whereas in 4d we might have an entry and can take
what should be an obvious finesse.

ANyway that's my case it now rests in the hands of the jury

[jdeegan]

gszes, on 2013-August-30, 12:53, said:

the minority report----------------

hugely outvoted once again I hereby try to make my case for

PASS

It is very difficult for me to imagine hands where p felt 2d was correct and yet
they were willing to bid 4d. There is a hand type however that is consistent
with the bidding and that is a hand similar to

AQJxx A xxxxxxx void

Would you really want to open 1d with this hand???? I mean I know there are
extra diamonds but a 1s opener has some really huge benefits over a 1d
opening bid. Lead direction 4 level contract vs 5. The downside of 1s is the
obvious case where we have to bid over say 4h or even 3h the extreme
length of our dia suit will rarely be apparent to our p. (but maybe it should be).

What kind of hand (say 6151) would p bid 1s 2d 4d with. I have done a ton of
hands and just can't seem to fathom why p would feel compelled to show dia
if their spade suit is anywhere good enough to play at the 4 level. Surely they
would prefer to just bid 4s rather than take a chance on being passed out in a
53 fit????

There is also the case where if we play in spades we never have a chance to finesse
lho out of any spade honors whereas in 4d we might have an entry and can take
what should be an obvious finesse.

ANyway that's my case it now rests in the hands of the jury

I do admire your ingenuity in coming up with a hand where passing 4♦ is right. Bravo! Awesome! Reluctant as I am to in any way disparage your impressive mental acuity, I must point out that your example hand leaves the opponents with eleven clubs between them, and after several rounds of bidding, that suit has not yet been mentioned.

[Fluffy]

ok, nobody took the problem seriously, so I might just as well give up.

4♠ was better as it scores better than 4♦X, partner had ♠A10xxxx ♥A ♦KQJ10xx ♣-

[ggwhiz]

Because both contracts make? I never run from a doubled partscore to get doubled and improve my score

[Winstonm]

I would think this auction is consistent with a weakish 5-7 so I am playing in diamonds.

[fromageGB]

Fluffy, on 2013-August-30, 15:06, said:

4♠ was better as it scores better than 4♦X, partner had ♠A10xxxx ♥A ♦KQJ10xx ♣-

Why did 4♠ score better than 4♦X ?

[Fluffy]

fromageGB, on 2013-August-31, 04:31, said:

Why did 4♠ score better than 4♦X ?

Because the 1NT bidder couldn't stand it with ♠KQx after partner stole their 3NT