[phil_20686]

---

[Lord Molyb]

Assuming reasonable splits, we need partner to have 2 of ♠AK ♥A ♦AK to make 4♠ and we can sometimes make do with a singleton or void in diamonds, and we need partner to have 3 of those cards to make 5♦.
So I bid 4♠.

[cherdano]

Lord Molyb, on 2014-February-11, 05:29, said:

Assuming reasonable splits, we need partner to have 2 of ♠AK ♥A ♦AK to make 4♠ and we can sometimes make do with a singleton or void in diamonds, and we need partner to have 3 of those cards to make 5♦.
So I bid 4♠.

How exactly are you planning to make 4♠ opposite AKxxx xxx xx xxx?

If I had a dime everytime someone on BBF assumes that x losers = 13-x tricks...

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2014-February-11, 06:24, said:

How exactly are you planning to make 4♠ opposite AKxxx xxx xx xxx?

If I had a dime everytime someone on BBF assumes that x losers = 13-x tricks...

Well he's got at least 4 more points than that for a start, but yes if they can lead a club then make you ruff a club or a heart you have a potential problem, Axxxx, AKx, xx, Jxx is much worse on a club lead.

5♦ runs the obvious risk that you are losing 3 off the top, but if partner only has 5 spades and no high diamond, 4♠ is no cakewalk either.

How many hands does 4♠ make and 5♦ not ? I think not very many where partner only has 5 spades, but AKJ10xx, Kxx, x, xxx or similar is a danger.

Basically it's a straight guess, I'd probably bid 4♠ at the table playing 5M, but 5♦ could easily be better (and if I played 4M opening the major with 4M4m32 I'd bid 5♦).

[PhilKing]

It may seem a bit weird, but I would have responded 3♦ showing an invitational one-suiter, and my second choice is 5♦. These hands almost never play well in a 5-3 spade fit. As bid, I have a problem - if I bid 5♦ and pard has enough useful cards to make it, he will often raise to six, expecting me to have my bid.

Perhaps I should bid it slowly ...

[dake50]

Where's the fit bid? Diamond suit with SQxx?

[gszes]

It is probably the IMP conditioning in me but 5d just seems a ton
safer than 4s on many levels x or no x by the opps. It may appear to
be a complete guess but it is actually not overly easy to imagine
too many openers where 4s will make when 5d has no play. It seems
easy by comparison to imagine a slew of hands where 5d makes and 4s
has no chance even with spades splitting 32. I prefer to "guess"
on the side of caution and will gamble my way out of this mess with
5D.....

[MrAce]

People assume we are in FP auction in a lot of other topics where i believe we are not. Yet we are in % 100 FP (see 2♦ explanation) auction and nobody mentions it nor construct hands for pd consistent with his FP.

[ggwhiz]

MrAce, on 2014-February-14, 15:28, said:

People assume we are in FP auction in a lot of other topics where i believe we are not. Yet we are in % 100 FP (see 2♦ explanation) auction and nobody mentions it nor construct hands for pd consistent with his FP.

Yes and I think most hands with short diamonds over there would have doubled and they don't (likely) have 6 cards of quality in spades. At least that's all I have to go on. 5 diamonds.

[the_clown]

PhilKing, on 2014-February-11, 07:02, said:

It may seem a bit weird, but I would have responded 3♦ showing an invitational one-suiter, and my second choice is 5♦. These hands almost never play well in a 5-3 spade fit. As bid, I have a problem - if I bid 5♦ and pard has enough useful cards to make it, he will often raise to six, expecting me to have my bid.

Perhaps I should bid it slowly ...

If partner raised to 6 I would expect to make. Our hand is huge in context, stiff heart, 8 card suit, an Ace and a useful card in partner's suit.

[Hanoi5]

Very nice option to delete your vote. I first chose 4♠ because it's a trick less and I don't quite consider my hand as GF (would I pass partner's penalty double easily?). I have on a couple of times made the mistake of laying a dummy with an 8-card side suit after some competition in the bidding and it has always been wrong. 5♦ and hopefully partner can support.

[JLOGIC]

4S seems blindingly obvious

[phil_20686]

JLOGIC, on 2014-February-15, 00:03, said:

4S seems blindingly obvious

Partner has

AKxxx KTxx AK xx

I am not sure what pass was supposed to mean compared with x here. I thought pretty much everyone played x for penalties here, and pass was t/o, but that isn't really consistent with their auction. Maybe they play x = minimum or something, no idea really. I defended this hand in 4S. However, a number of strong players told me that this type of hand will usually play better in 5D. Indeed that is the case here, where a heart lead followed by the club switch will usually break 4S if the trumps are 4-1, but 6D cannot be touched. Fortunately trumps were 3-2 so 12 tricks were available in either strain. The consensus also seems to favour playing in the 8 card suit.


Could you expand further on the reasons why you think 4S is obvious?

[FrancesHinden]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-11, 06:53, said:

How many hands does 4♠ make and 5♦ not ? I think not very many where partner only has 5 spades, but AKJ10xx, Kxx, x, xxx or similar is a danger.

Basically it's a straight guess, I'd probably bid 4♠ at the table playing 5M, but 5♦ could easily be better (and if I played 4M opening the major with 4M4m32 I'd bid 5♦).

surely your quoted hand bid 4S over 4H

[Cyberyeti]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-February-19, 15:12, said:

surely your quoted hand bid 4S over 4H

No if partner wants to crack this with x, Ax, Axxxxx, Kxxx we're potentially getting a fortune.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-19, 16:00, said:

No if partner wants to crack this with x, Ax, Axxxxx, Kxxx we're potentially getting a fortune.

Sometimes I want downvotes back We have Kxx in RHO's suit, who preempted 4♥ against a 2/1 auction. He is unlikely to double. Meanwhile, passing may often cause us to miss 4♠.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2014-February-19, 18:50, said:

Sometimes I want downvotes back We have Kxx in RHO's suit, who preempted 4♥ against a 2/1 auction. He is unlikely to double. Meanwhile, passing may often cause us to miss 4♠.

We're in a GF auction, my pass is forcing, if partner has 2 spades, he'll bid 4♠ (presuming he'd have bid something else with 3 initially), he doesn't need a trump stack to double this, just a misfit. And QJ10 to 8 is plenty for me to bid 4♥ how much do you need ?

[rhm]

I tried to simulate this scenario, which I know will be contentious, since the right assumptions about the hidden hands are anything but obvious.
I made the following assumptions about North and East:

North has a minimum of 12 points including distribution on a 321 scale for shortages.
North has 5-6 spades, assuming he would likely have bid 4♠ with seven or more spades.

East has at least seven hearts, and if not eight hearts he will have a void in spades or diamonds or a singleton in each of the bid suits.

I generated 1000 random deals and found the layouts looked reasonable. I did not account for penalty doubles by South, but deals, where South would have a clear double were rare (vulnerability not given).

Result:

5♦ made on 653 deals while 4♠ made on 640 deals. This is so close that we can conclude given the uncertainties that there is little to choose here.
However, slam (including grands) made in diamonds on 252 deals while slam in spades made only on 113 deals.
This is due to the fact that average number of tricks in diamonds was 10.85 while in spades it was 9.95, almost a trick less.

I see also a slight advantage single dummy if North, the hand with more distribution, declares. Often the right defense will be less obvious.

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-20, 03:08, said:

We're in a GF auction, my pass is forcing, if partner has 2 spades, he'll bid 4♠ (presuming he'd have bid something else with 3 initially),

That's a very strange assumption to make. I am not sure I have ever seen a system where 2♦ denies 3 spades. There is also small hint in the OP that this pair wasn't playing such a system.

Quote

he doesn't need a trump stack to double this, just a misfit. And QJ10 to 8 is plenty for me to bid 4♥ how much do you need ?

Sigh. I did not say "impossible", I did say "unlikely". Your construction requires
- both remaining spades with partner (let's be generous and say that's 25%), and
- one of them to be the ace (20% as he has 2 out of the 10 outstanding hearts).
That's 5% odds even if you think a preempt with QJT-8th is exactly as likely as with AQJ-8th.

When someone disagrees with your post, do you actually think about the criticism, or do you just auto-reply defending your previous post?

[cherdano]

rhm, on 2014-February-20, 03:11, said:

Result:

5♦ made on 653 deals while 4♠ made on 640 deals. This is so close that we can conclude given the uncertainties that there is little to choose here.
However, slam (including grands) made in diamonds on 252 deals while slam in spades made only on 113 deals.
This is due to the fact that average number of tricks in diamonds was 10.85 while in spades it was 9.95, almost a trick less.

I see also a slight advantage single dummy if North, the hand with more distribution, declares. Often the right defense will be less obvious.

Very interesting, thanks. I would also argue that 5♦ is easier to declare than 4♠. Imagine dummy getting forced at trick one in 4♠, and you may have to guess the trump or diamond distribution.