[mtvesuvius]

Partner is a (real) expert... What's your call here?

---

[inquiry]

4♠

[Yogeshdg]

inquiry, on 2011-January-23, 20:49, said:

4♠

Ditto

Inquiry please change your profile to world class. This is the 3rd time I have seen you give a good answer.

By the way what are your thoughts on 3♠ instead of 3♦ inquiry?

[MrAce]

4♠

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

pass is out, so 4S is the weakes bid we have av., besides 5D, but we
have already shown a (reasonable) 6 card suit.

The question is, if we have enough to be make a stronger bid, e.g. 5S.

I am not sure, I would have given it a lot of though on the table, but
5S is certainly a reaonsble call.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mfa1010]

Clearly a different style than what I'm used to, since I find 4♠ out of the question.
4♥ is for me a strong support of diamonds (high level cuebids are almost always 'I like your suit' - choice of games hands could double), and since 3♦ was NF, I do indeed have a magical hand. I would bid 4NT RCK for diamonds. 4♠ would be a suggestion to play with a doubleton, but I don't want to play 4♠ - I want to play a diamond slam.

[the_dude]

mfa1010, on 2011-January-24, 07:19, said:

Clearly a different style than what I'm used to, since I find 4♠ out of the question.
4♥ is for me a strong support of diamonds (high level cuebids are almost always 'I like your suit' - choice of games hands could double), and since 3♦ was NF, I do indeed have a magical hand. I would bid 4NT RCK for diamonds. 4♠ would be a suggestion to play with a doubleton, but I don't want to play 4♠ - I want to play a diamond slam.

I thought 4♠ was a cue bid on the way to a D slam, I did not take it as choice of games as he could have doubled with a more ambiguous hand.

4NT is possible here too but it worries me because if partner is void in Hearts then it might be tough to untangle whether we have the tricks for 7. Telling partner that we have the K of spades (and by inference agreeing on a Diamond slam) could be vital info for him.

[whereagles]

If I'm sure 4♥ shows diamond fit, 4NT (got an excellent hand for slam).

If I'm not that sure, then 4♠.

[mtvesuvius]

We hadn't discussed the meaning of 4♥, but I think it should be a somewhat ambiguous slam try, assumed to be for diamonds, however partner could also have a very strong hand with spades.

I'm not really sure what's standard here, I was playing with a partner who I hadn't played with before, so we didn't have any detailed (meta)-agreements.

[Phil]

I can't see why 4♥ can't be COG. Would 3♠ really be forcing? Would 4♦?

[olien]

I have a GREAT hand for slam, Kx of ♠, nothing wasted in ♥, and a ♣ control. However, I agree that 4♥ shows atleast some degree of ♦ support, so I'll also show my ♠ honour on the way. If partner has a good (3+) ♦ fit, he can bid over 4♠ and then I can drive to slam. This hand is a good advertisement for playing 3♠ over 2♥ as a semi-solid or better 6+ suit and game forcing values. This way 4♥ would not be ambiguous as to being single suited or with support.

[Fluffy]

4♠ sounds to me like a sing off, I'd rather bid 5♣ now

[ceeb]

4♠. I sympathize with the worry that this might undercook for ♠ purposes, but other than that I don't understand the reservations.

With a million hands like AQJxx,xx,xxx,AQJ, what choice has partner but to make (practically -- except for 4♣) the only forcing bid?

If slam-going with diamonds, partner will be happy to hear of the double fit and will not pass. Even if partner might pass 4♠ on a few hands where 6♦ is best it is hard to imagine that failure to indicate the ♠ feature will lead to more accurate slam judgment on average over those marginal deals.

[karlson]

ceeb, on 2011-January-24, 12:54, said:

With a million hands like AQJxx,xx,xxx,AQJ, what choice has partner but to make (practically -- except for 4♣) the only forcing bid?

Double?

[kayin801]

I would bid 4♠ to show the double "fit" and wait for partner to clarify his hand. Couldn't partner have AQJ10xxx, Ax, Q, xxx or Axxxx, x, QJxx, AKx at this point?

[mfa1010]

Phil, on 2011-January-24, 10:11, said:

I can't see why 4♥ can't be COG. Would 3♠ really be forcing? Would 4♦?

No, 3♠ and 4♦ would not be forcing. If 4♦ would be forcing, then there would be little need for 4♥ as a good diamond raise.

Make your choice. I think COG tends to be inferior. It comes up less frequently and is less valuable. For partner and me a cuebid such as this one is always a good raise in partner's suit.

[han]

Agree with MFA: With a choice of games partner can double, and 4S suggests playing there.

[ceeb]

han, on 2011-January-26, 09:36, said:

Agree with MFA: With a choice of games partner can double, ...

What does partner do to punish West -- who incidentally is begging for trouble -- for being out of line? (I'm presuming that your agreement with MFA extends to agreeing that pass would not be forcing.) Partner is unlimited and could have a huge hand with a slew of hearts. Does West have a license to steal?

[han]

I probably play takeout doubles in many situations where you play penalty doubles. This will cause me to miss an occasional big penalty in exchange for greater flexibility and clarity on a (far?) larger number of hands. It mostly is a matter of partnership agreement.

I don't find your simplistic Does West have a license to steal? very convincing, are you related to pooltuna? The question of how to use a bid or double optimally often does not have simple answer.

[MrAce]

Phil, on 2011-January-24, 10:11, said:

I can't see why 4♥ can't be COG. Would 3♠ really be forcing? Would 4♦?

Does it matter ? Whether COG or big hand with ♠ or big hand with ♦, our response is 4♠