[manudude03]

---

You might have thought about bidding 2S on the previous round, but assume you had agreed to play a raise here as showing full values (6-9 or so). Anyway, what do you think partner has, and what do you call?

[kenrexford]

Spades and diamonds, with a five loser hand.

[whereagles]

Why do I have to think here? I got a shapeless subpar hand. Pass.

Besides, if all partner needed was my hand, he should have bid 4 himself.

[gnasher]

I'm inclined to say that partner's sequence doesn't exist. He knows I have either a poor hand or only a doubleton spade, and he couldn't bid 2♠, 3♦ or double on the previous round. Hence a game-try with spades as trumps is impossible.

Might he have overcalled 1♠ on a 4135 shape, and now be running from what might be a 4-2 fit to what he hopes is a better strain?

[Fluffy]

IMO he's got 4 spades only and is afraid of playing a 4-2 fit, so is trying for another one.

But looking at my own hand he is void in hearts, hence he has 5 spades, so he is making a game try. I don't understand why he didn't bid 3♦ the round before, but I have ♦K and can't have much better hand so game it is.

[Endymion77]

You have the best possible hand for the sequence so you have to bid 4♠ but it's a real mystery why partner passed 2♥

[rhm]

Opinions are divided when to overcall on a four card suit.
But there is no merit overcalling on them and then running when partner supports you.
It seems to me obvious that partner must have a strong hand to bid like that, maybe ♠AKxxx ♥- ♦AQTx ♣Axxx

Rainer Herrmann

[gszes]

The opps have quietly decided to play 2h so let us assume
they are maxxed out around 22. That leaves p with at least 15.
This means RHM hand concept seems reasonable. IMHO with RHM example
I would have tried 3h instead of 3d so there must be some special
reason why p bid 3d. I am thinking their hand might look something
like Axxxx void Axxxxx AK and p is worried that you might be backing
into the bidding with a doubleton (trying to improve the contract
as suggested by others). Another possibility is decent spades and
a legitimate HSGT say AJxxxx void AQxx Axx where we have great play
for 4s

If the spades break badly we might be able to make 5d if the diamonds
break badly we probably cannot make anything. This hand actually has
a fair chance of making 5d in more circumstances than 4s makes (though
at MP 4s will score better so it might be the place to play anyway).

4d

I realize it seems anti bridge with 3 card support for the MAJOR to consider
playing in a minor but imagine how the play will go : heart lead ruffed by p
a small spade heart return ruffed by p spade A (leaving 1 trump out) dia A
diamond toward K) if dia do no break we lose control of the hand and down 3
is a totally realistic possibility (worse than 2h making 3) If the situation
is the same in 4d we still make the contract or go down 1 at worst in 5d.
The advantage of the 4d bid is p can still go back to 4s if they were
making a game try rather than trying to improve the contract.

Pass here seems too unilateral and is probably right only if we make 3d exactly
since we feel the opps (even with heart breaking 50) should have decent play for
making 2h. If p was indeed making a legitimate game try we have left them in the
cold on a double fit hand that is worthy of a game raise since we cannot be too
much better than we are and not have bid earlier with spade support.

[PhilKing]

gszes, on 2014-May-13, 06:00, said:

I am thinking their hand might look something
like Axxxx void Axxxxx AK

Yep, partner is clearly not worth bidding diamonds at either previous turn, since he needs a perfecto for slam (♠x♥xxxxx♦T9xx♣xxx), and how can he expect us have as much as that?

[kenrexford]

I don't understand this.

If I have ♠xx ♥xxxxx ♦Qxx ♦Axx, I won't raise to 2♠ initially.

If partner has ♠AKJ10x ♥x ♦AJ10xx ♣xx, he probably won't rebid 3♦ on his own.

[mikeh]

Partner should be shot. Repeatedly.

However, we can't shoot him until after the hand, since even if we have a kibitzer available to be declarer, she may be reluctant to sit in after we have shot our initial partner.

While I upvoted Andy, I don't in fact think that he has a 4 card spade suit and longer diamonds. He clearly has values since the opps made no gametry, and he has short hearts, so I think he would be overcalling in diamonds, intending to back in with spades later if he held 4 spades and longer diamonds.

He can't have 6 good spades, since he passed 2♥ with values.

I therefore infer that he has a good but not great 5-5. He hopes for game opposite some hand such as Qx xxxxx Kxxx xx, with which we might well bid as we did. AKJxx void AQxxx xxx is an example altho I have played with partners who would act over 2♥ with that. Otoh, I really don't think he can have a hand with 5=0=4=4 shape and make a try.....not only is he being tapped early, but he doesn't have a surrogate trump suit to play back at them and has all kinds of club losers to boot.

I have to take the preference back to spades. We should be fine for 9 tricks, and might make 10 but he needs either magic cards or more luck than we have a right to expect. Plus, if we bid game and it is wrong, a double might be very costly and RHO will be well positioned to make the call on the auction.

[whereagles]

boy, I'm glad we have gun regulations where I live

[gszes]

PhilKing, on 2014-May-13, 08:18, said:

Yep, partner is clearly not worth bidding diamonds at either previous turn, since he needs a perfecto for slam (♠x♥xxxxx♦T9xx♣xxx), and how can he expect us have as much as that?

I think I understand why you hate my bidding so much--you are
a full blooded optimist while over the eons I have moved much
closer to the pessimist side of the force-------

Even if p had this perfecto to make 6 unless you have some kind
of mechanism handy for bidding this slam it is really not worthy
of consideration ---just a thought--which means part of what you
might consider reward is really nonexistent which means more risk
for bidding such empty suits-----that's why we play this game we
all have opinions and seek partners that view things similarly.