[gordontd]

---

2♠ = artificial Heart raise, limit raise or better
3NT = 13-14 balanced
4♦ = cue-bid (Ace or King, denies ♣ cue-bid)

Your call over the double?

If you pass and partner bids 4♥, what do you do on the next round?

[FrancesHinden]

To clarify: 2♠ shows 4 trumps.
Partner's 4♥ bid denies first round diamond control (which would redouble).

It's an interesting question: what has partner got that she doesn't have the A or K of clubs, doesn't have the ace of diamonds but has a slam try opposite 13-14 balanced?
I want to know more about my system: has partner denied a slam try with a shortage by following this route? Did partner's cue bid specifically show the A or K or could it have been shortage? is something like AQxxx Axxx x xxx possible or would that have splintered?

[mgoetze]

This must be a UI case because it looks like a completely noninteresting pass-and-pass to me.

Of course it might be interesting to discuss, more generally, whether redouble by partner would have shown a first round control or suggested playing there.

[gordontd]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-05, 04:19, said:

Of course it might be interesting to discuss, more generally, whether redouble by partner would have shown a first round control or suggested playing there.

In this case it would have shown first-round control, so 4♥ denies the ♦A, but perhaps you mean it might be interesting to discuss whether that is the only/best treatment.

[Codo]

At first, I would pass -surely denying anthing in diamonds-and ask about his control.

But the hand is not as boring as Michael thinks.

Partner must hold "all" missing major cards to justify a slamtry with so weak minors.
If I had not been forced to bid hearts and NT, we may well find a fit, where he plays and his king of diamonds is protected.
So: If I would be able to cooperate and make him declarer in NT, I would bid 4 ♠ over 4 ♥. Now, I would pass 4 ♥, but this could still be missing a slam opposite f.e. AQxx,AJxx,KQxx,x.

But as Frances pointed out, with such a hand, he may had bid different.

[mgoetze]

gordontd, on 2012-June-05, 04:24, said:

In this case it would have shown first-round control, so 4♥ denies the ♦A, but perhaps you mean it might be interesting to discuss whether that is the only/best treatment.

Yes, and also whether that is the treatment to assume playing with an expert pickup partner.

[Cyberyeti]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-05, 05:02, said:

Yes, and also whether that is the treatment to assume playing with an expert pickup partner.

I thought you redoubled with a first round control yourself and passed with a second, so bidding 4♥ (or something else) shows no control and is what we should do here.

Did partner have a fit jump or a splinter available first time ? Is there a danger they have a diamond suit ?

[mgoetze]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-June-05, 06:11, said:

I thought you redoubled with a first round control yourself and passed with a second, so bidding 4♥ (or something else) shows no control and is what we should do here.

Isn't it kind of sad to not be able to find out whether partner's control is first or second round?

[gszes]

I would pass 4d to see if p can xx or not (never a desire to play
merely to inform of 1st round control or not IMO) If p bids 4h
I am forced to pass since both 6h and 6n have been wrong
sided due to our system (one of the advantages of jacoby 2n
is precisely the kind of flexibility we have lost here).

[Codo]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-05, 06:18, said:

"I thought you redoubled with a first round control yourself and passed with a second, so bidding 4♥ (or something else) shows no control and is what we should do here."

Isn't it kind of sad to not be able to find out whether partner's control is first or second round?

Why? If partner holds Kx, which slam do you want to play? 6 NT or 6 ♥- both from your side, or will you find another one?

I had thought that 4 ♥ denies a club control, after all, partner was searching for one, didn't he?

[mgoetze]

Codo, on 2012-June-05, 07:26, said:

Why? If partner holds Kx, which slam do you want to play? 6 NT or 6 ♥- both from your side, or will you find another one?

I had thought that 4 ♥ denies a club control, after all, partner was searching for one, didn't he?

I'm glad we agree.

[Fluffy]

partner has 2 club losers, partner has 1 diamond inmediate loser, partner didn't bid 1♠ with 5 good ones, so at most we can pitch one of our clubs. How can we possibly avoid losing 1 club and 1 diamond?, there is no way without some form of club finese, therefore passing 4♥ is obvious.

[gnasher]

I seem to be very suitable in the context of what I've shown. Before the double, I was planning to go past 4♥. Should the unexpected developments make me change my mind?

It seems obvious to start with pass, showing the club control, in the expectation that partner will redouble. If he did that, I could then bid 4♠ and leave him to make all the remaining decisions.

When he signs off in 4♥, it looks a bit odd, but I think I should trust him, and pass. I don't think he's denied ♦A - he might just have something like ♦AQx, and have now decided that wth the finesse wrong slam is unlikely to make.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-June-05, 08:47

[mgoetze]

gnasher, on 2012-June-05, 08:30, said:

Should the unexpected developments make me change my mind?

When the opponents give you unexpected extra bidding space, should you simply waste it?

[gnasher]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-05, 08:40, said:

When the opponents give you unexpected extra bidding space, should you simply waste it?

Did I say you should?

[wanoff]

gnasher, on 2012-June-05, 08:30, said:

I seem to be very suitable in the context of what I've shown. Before the double, I was planning to go past 4♥. Should the unexpected developments make me change my mind?

It seems obvious to start with pass, showing the club control, in the expectation that partner will redouble. If he did that, I could then bid 4♠ and leave him to make all the remaining decisions.

When he signs off in 4♥, it looks a bit odd, but I think I should trust him, and pass. I don't think he's denied ♦A - he might just have something like ♦AQx, and have now decided that wth the finesse wrong slam is unlikely to make.

You're still very suitable. Partner knows you have a club control but not that lot. I bid 4♠

[jallerton]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-05, 08:30, said:

partner has 2 club losers, partner has 1 diamond inmediate loser, partner didn't bid 1♠ with 5 good ones, so at most we can pitch one of our clubs. How can we possibly avoid losing 1 club and 1 diamond?, there is no way without some form of club finese, therefore passing 4♥ is obvious.

However, partner has made a slam try opposite 13-14 balanced, despite lacking ♠KJ ♥KQ ♦A and ♣AK. Try writing down some possible hands for partner.

By the way, I don't see why partner can't have 5 good spades. With (say) ♠AKQxx and ♥AJxx I would much prefer to make a bid showing 4-card support than a 1♠ response. After responding 1♠, it's very difficult to persuade partner that you have 4-card heart support.

[phil_20686]

I dont think it's obvious that partner doesn't have the club K. He may instead have a slam try that wants to go past 4Hearts only if you have the club ace. Might partner not bid this way with: AQx Axxx x KQxxx?

Given that you probably would not co-operate without decent trumps to go with the club ace, he now has good five level safety.

I want to make a forward going move. I would pass 4d to see what happens. This will tell partner about the all important club ace. If partner signs off I think that we still have a move, since we have good trumps and the spade K aswell, which are bound to be useful cards.

[JLOGIC]

Pass then pass also

[twoshy]

Passing to start with, showing the club control, seems normal. When partner bids 4♥, I pass. Presumably partner can bid above 4♥ to deny 1st round control but to still show a suitable hand, given the knowledge of our club control. So with Phil's AQx Axxx x KQxxx, partner should definitely bid on.

I think this is the main point of the hand, rather than worrying about ♦Kx with no club control. I just don't see why anyone is playing partner for weak minors. It is much harder to construct hands with ♦Kx than those with ♦KQJx(x), for instance. The former requires weak minors and empty majors, which can't be likely at all. Sure, use the information RHO gives, but don't let it stop you thinking about what partner can actually have.